Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Syd Barrett

    What about Babylon 5?

    • Rick

      Uh, NO.

      Babylon-1 = too small
      Babylon 2 = sabotaged
      Babylon 3 = sabotaged, destroyed
      Babylon 4 = lost in a time rift
      Babylon 5 = Blown up because it was a navigational hazard

  • Andrew Bill

    Space Balls!!!!!

  • John

    We should build real-life Transformers instead. (But not the rubbish Michael Bay makes) I mean, look at Transformers the movie, when Optimus Prime blasts all the Decepticons with ease. Just look at how long it took NATO to defeat Gaddafi. Optimus Prime would have done it in 5 minutes. And a real life Devastator or Bruticus would be the Military Industrial Complex dream, and instead of Spy Drones, we could use Laserbeak or Ravage to hunt down al-Qaeda. I`m for it.

  • While this concept makes for great sci-fi fantasy, it is totally outside the world’s ability to afford it and the resources and capabilities required to build it.

    Considering how long it took to build the international space station, by the time they completed building the Battlestar, the technology applied to the equipment in it, would have evolved to the next level, making the just completed Battlestar incompatible with its Earth bound facilities. And, while there would be temporary employment and economic boom from building such a Battlestar, the national debt it would take would consume all the available credit for needed infrastructure here on Earth. Then there is the time lag between the completed Battlestar and the time we receive any financial benefit from such a venture. It could easily take two decades before we see any benefit from such a venture. Then we need to factor in the inflation such a venture would create. The cost per ton of mining in space has to be many times more costly than here on Earth.

    • Your assumption of the cost per unit of mining resources in space versus Earth is actually incorrect even now. Discoveries about asteroids in the past decade have supported the idea that mining colonies could not only survive on their surface but would be completely self-sufficient. Also, there is no need to return materials back to Earth as they can be processed and utilized in construction 100% in space. The barrier is the cost per unit to push resources needed for the first such colonies into space to get started.

    • mark

      Well if all the major earth,russia,europe rechanneled their defense spending budgets on a battlestar it could be done quite easialy the space station is chump change compared too the us defense budget let alone the other major world powers combined i bet it could probably done for the price of a few of our aircraft carriers …. just a thought..

  • 5minutes

    Biggest reason: cost. A Battlestar is much cheaper than a Death Star.

    • Rick

      As long as the computers are not networked and vulnerable to chinese…I mean cylon viruses.

  • Dr. Matthew D. Zarzeczny, FINS

    So now that we have articles on building a Death Star and a Battlestar, who is going to take a stab at a list on building a Starship a la Star Trek to complete the trilogy? 🙂

  • Dave

    Dictatorships are more efficient than democracies..

  • Ok, I thought for sure someone would have thrown the geek flag by now but I guess I’ll have to be the one. The premise was good but I think the comparisons to contemporary (not to mention real-life and historical) socio-political topics were stretched WAY too thin. The Galactic Empire was not a political “empire” it was a theocracy. Clearly there were officers – some of rather high rank – who were more satisfied with their position/power than interested in the ways of the Force, but the machinations that birthed the Empire and its subsequent efforts at suppression ultimately served the purposes of the Sith. It could be argued, too, that the BSG reboot revealed more ideological vs. practical/humanitarian motives at the highest levels of Colonial government than was apparent from the start. As to diversity and/or dissenting opinions on the Death Star, you do know the vast majority of the military force utilized by the Empire was clones, right? Even though that was less true by Ep 4, by necessity, clones would rule out both diversity and dissent. Finally, the Empire had Star Destroyers. Not just a few…a LOT. They, not the Death Stars, provided the effective long arm of the Empire and would be the closer analogy to BSG’s Battlestars.

  • Dmorrisn

    I’ve always wondered how the Empire gets it funding to build 2 star destroyers and a super star destroyer on top of the hundreds of star destroyers, tie fighters, at-at’s,at-st’s, etc. The Empire wouldn’t be able to simply pull that funding out of thin air. Unless, of course, the Empire is monopolizing from the planet systems it has control over. Then, depending upon the economical advancement of that planet system, would the Empire be able to fund their evil ambitions.

    As far as which spacecraft would be better, I think a battle star would ultimately be much more cost effective and way more practical than a death star.

  • Michael Giaimo

    I agree that the Death Star was weak because of one area that blew up the whole thing. I mean the Emperor and Darth Vader could have used their “powerful” mind’s to create something more powerful than that. Sure that thing could take out planets but that whole thing could be taken out with one mini fighter ship. “Dictators never invent their own opportunities”. The Empire spent way to much time trying to seize total power that they were outsmarted by those they underestimated. Represents a lot of real life history …

    • Dave

      George Lucas based the Emperor on Hitler..

    • The Emperor and Vader didn’t build the Death Star. And, again, they did not maintain a dictatorship but a theocracy (where power came solely from a metaphysical source rather than a deity, per se, but that is still a theocracy). A better analogy from history would be the extended periods when the Roman Catholic Church wielded as much political/societal power as it did religious. That also justifies, from the Empire’s perspective, their endless efforts to quash all dissent anywhere in the galaxy. It wasn’t about power but survival as those who did not accept that the Force vested power in the Empire could not be controlled and, therefore, could not be ignored lest their “blasphemous” ideas could spread widely enough to bring down the regime…which is exactly what happened.

  • Gene Claridge

    Why not have both? It appeals to both audiences, and both are badass. I still would pick the Death Star over a Battlestar due to my strong childhood interest in the Star Wars movies. I did find this is to be rather funny…

    • Dr. Matthew D. Zarzeczny, FINS

      Imagine how unstoppable someone would be if they had a Death Star, a Battlestar, a Base Star, and a Starship (not the Jefferson kind, but the Enterprise kind!). 🙂

  • Pratik Wagle

    While the reasons as to why we should build a battle star and not a death star are surely compelling…The possibility of having an opportunity to hang out with Darth Vader in the Death Star is too good to pass. I would love to hear Vader give his speeches with his awesome voice, the man is just a total badass.. I mean really who survives a lava spill, replaces his whole body with robotics and continues to be a sith lord chocking people for taking smack by using the force.. Darth Vader is so cool he deserves a death star… besides this could totally be the theme song of the planet if we had a death star!!

  • Pratik Wagle

    While the reasons we should build a battlestar and not a Death Star sure are compelling, Darth Vader is such a bad ass. Being able to chill with Darth Vader in the death star would be way cool, unless he used the force to choke me or something, besides if Vader was our emperor and we had the death star this could be the theme song of our planet!! thats just too good to pass!!

  • Dani Dolezal

    I can definitely say that reading this has been informative, to say the least. As incredible as it sounds, I’ve never seen any of the movies mentioned in this article. From the sounds of it, I would go for the Battlestar. I am all for democracy over dictatorship, and I obviously am in favor of the one that includes women and all types of diversity.

  • NatalieWetzel

    From reading this article, I now feel like I watched star wars, despite never actually seeing the film. With the idea that a battlestar allows for diversity and democracy over dictatorship, I am in full favor of the battlestar being constructed. WE should be represented as strong and good willed! We pride ourselves in fighting for the good of others.

    • Dr. Matthew D. Zarzeczny, FINS

      Dear Natalie,

      I strongly encourage you to see Star Wars. Even if it is not the kind of movie that interests you, it is referenced so regularly in popular culture that is worthy of being familiar with just for all the times someone makes an allusion to it so that you get the reference. There are a certain number of books everyone really should read, songs everyone should hear, and movies everyone should see just because of their incredible influence on our culture.



  • Angela Franks

    I bet Napoleon would build both… just saying. In my opinion, I would go for the battlestar, it would be built for safety and destroy stuff. There’s a reason Vader went down.
    Live long and prosper 🙂

  • Clifford Vickery

    In my opinion we should probably cut nasa budgets. Build no death star or batlle star ,maybe we should stark think about what were to save our asses on the planet we already have.

  • Ryan Kidd

    I agree with you on this topic, with the Death Star basically being a symbol of dictatorship. A Battestar would not only be more maneuverable but less costly more cost efficient by having no design flaw. Lastly by having more than just one use of a giant green ray, the Battlestar has multiple defenses and utilities.

    • Dr. Matthew D. Zarzeczny, FINS

      Dear Ryan,

      Thanks! I do wonder, though, if we will even land a man or woman on Mars in my lifetime (I am 33). In reality, it just does not seem like interstellar travel is likely in my lifetime at least. Just think of such films as 2001 and how off earlier predictions of where we would be with space travel have been.



  • Yevgeniy

    Interesting top 10, definitely enjoyed as if it could be a possibility. But I do not think it would happen soon since we can not send people on the moon again I have heard. If it does happen though “great power comes great responsibility”

  • Mark Jackson

    If we were to build a Death Star countries such as North Korea might not lat much longer as we might blow them off of the face of the world. This would however make Denis Rodman mad since he is the unofficial liaison to North Korea. Interesting idea though. However, we would probably build a moon base first.

  • William R. York

    An interesting idea. Although it is a desirable goal, and assuming some form of workable World democracy has safeguards to make sure it is not turned against Earth, as the SEATHSTAR was, the main drawback is the depressing lack of technology it would take to build and make it workable.
    To begin with, one technology definitely needed would be some form of artificial gravity. Power, most probably in the form of large fusion reactors, both for the immense energy needed for generating artificial gravity, and of course directed high energy weapons, or a rail-gun point defense system, and of course some sort of defensive force field deflector grid, etc… All would be rather useful in such a defensive base.
    Personally, I think something like the BASESTAR in BSGTOS would make a more practical platform then the BATTLESTAR. Its design would allow the generation of artificial gravity by simply turning the centerline axis by 90 degrees. Rotation would generate centrifugal force and gravity within the hulls in the same way the rotating Space Station-V did in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The greater gravity would be at the bottom of the two “Discus” shaped sections, and near zero gravity at the central hub, (probably where the fighter/picket craft would be hangered). Although, this would be a more practical arrangement, I admit the more traditional battleship/ aircraft carrier design is by far a cooler one.