View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:24 am



Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
ISD Mass - Wait, what just happened? 
Author Message
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
So I was on Reddit and someone mentioned the mass of a Star Destroyer as 40,000,000 metric tons.

"Huh," I think, and go looking for the reference the guy linked to: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial ... _Destroyer

The figure seems to have come from a new-canon Marvel comic book. So I look to see what I had for it exactly and, lo and behold, we have this line from a 2010 blog post, which happens to be the top entry for "star destroyer mass" on Google: "If one wants a specific estimate, I'd guess a density of 750kg/m³ and an ISD mass of 40,000,000 tonnes."

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2010/01/star- ... nsity.html

Now bear in mind, back when I started saying the thing massed in the double-digit millions of tonnes I was the low-baller. This 2009 Spacebattles thread suggests that few felt that way, with hundreds of millions and many (even hundreds of) billions being tossed casually: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... er.148134/

Huh. Funny.

So am I now sorta-Disney-canon? And by the old ASVS rule of canon unless contradicted . . .

;-)


Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:18 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Spacebattles, Feb 2016 - "He's just guessing!"

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... er.377256/

Spacebattles, Nov 2016 - "The ICS is dumb!"

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... er.464536/

Pardon my amusement.


Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:25 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
I've noticed that a good number of people working on the shows and other material who've been turned off by the Saxonite and Warsie talifans have quietly been sneaking in material into the canon that could only have come from your website or perusal of other websites of a similar bent. It's either that or incredible coincidence.
-Mike


Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:10 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Heh . . . found SDN folks talking about ship masses in 2003. Ender claimed "~1.3 trillion tons" for the Acclamator, which would put the ISD in the ten trillion range.

Edit: We have the winner: "Trillions. Maybe even Quadrillions or Quintillions of tons. Neutronium Armour isn't your friend.". That was 2005 at SDN.

Maximum amusement now obtained.


Last edited by 2046 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:15 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
I've noticed that a good number of people working on the shows and other material who've been turned off by the Saxonite and Warsie talifans have quietly been sneaking in material into the canon that could only have come from your website or perusal of other websites of a similar bent. It's either that or incredible coincidence.
-Mike


I rather doubt it goes much further than mass and volumes in my case . . . I'm one of the few to publish on the topic outside of forums and such, making it easy to find. Indeed, I rather doubt there's even any concerted effort or 'sneaking'. There was a book where the authors lobbied hard for the 120km Death Star, for instance, countermanding Saxton . . . but that's probably because Saxton's figure was absurd. (Note: there is still no super-trench in Rogue One.)

Even if they pick a number from the air that sounds right, it'll probably land closer to those of a "fusion and steel" bent rather than a "tachyonic imaginary supermassive hypermatter" bent.


Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:26 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
Yeah, maybe, but it seems just a bit coincidental that the nerfing of SW firepower just happened to occur right about the time that the taifan attacks hit their peak... 2008, and has continued ever since then despite Wong and Wayne's "retirement". Also interesting I find is that Saxton has pretty much disappeared all together from the sci-fi tech scene and his website hasn't been updated in many, many years, which is surprising given the immense new body of tech information we've been given in the canon of TCW, Rebels, TFW, and more. But then again, that tech doesn't conform to his vision, so maybe that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

I think it's testament to your well-thought work that someone would pick those numbers as a lot of your assumptions hold up in the absence of any other information provided in the canon. And I did find it funny that Connor MacLeod was actually defending your volumetrics and mass.

As for Rogue One, the Star Destroyers in formation next to the Death Star while the superlaser dish is being installed pretty much caps the size of the battlestation at or around 120 km, so someone must be really working hard to ensure a certain continuity is being maintained, at least where tech matters is concerned.
-Mike


Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:56 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
I am actually confused on the Death Star, because I saw someone tweet that an ISD docks in the trench and, by eyeball, the scale matched mine, more or less… perhaps smaller. However, the R1 book supposedly says 160km again instead of 120.

Image

I have a note that the Avenger type from TESB should have a dagger 200m tall, and by my eyeball that trench is about five daggers tall, or 1km. The trench as measured from my Falcon scaling came out to 1.2km, and that meant the Death Star would be 120km. So, either the trench in the new CG doesn't match the old model (doubtful), or the 160 number doesn't match the film (more likely), or the Devastator type has a much different dagger height (dunno yet).


Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:18 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
From what I know, the height from the keel to the domes on the conning tower superstructure for all ISD types is about 400 meters. So, taking the image above and going with that, the trench is at least twice the height of the ISD docking at the bay and thus the trench is no less than 800 meters and no higher than 1,000 meters.

I don't know what is in the R1 book, but the first Death Star is most definitely not 160 km in diameter, more like 96 to 120 km.
-Mike


Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:21 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
We know from the image below (basically confirmed via other means as well at my site) that the Death Star height is about 94.3 times that of the trench. So, if the DS is supposed to be 160km, then the trench would've been a hair under 1.7km, meaning ISDs could've docked longitudinally upright instead of nose-down.

Say what you will, but that trench ain't 1.7km.

Image


Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:39 pm
Profile WWW
Security Officer

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 646
Reply with quote
Huh... Well.. howboudah.



The mass figure has been one I've long disputed just from seeing some of these ships not collapse under their own weight when in atmosphere, I'm glad to hear the wankitude of it all has been significantly obliterated.


Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:04 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Howboudah indeed.

One other notable detail is that the 40,000,000 figure is old, from a time when I had a kess accurate ISD model to get the volume from. So, that figure is actually on the low end of my current 500-1000kg/m³ range of 34,767,000 to 69,534,000 tonnes. Asked today for a ballpark in the 750kg/m³ range and I'd have marked it as about fifty instead of forty.

At forty, the density of an ISD is a "mere" 600kg/m³ or so. Voyager's nearly twice as dense, and the Constitution Class almost seven times more dense.


Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:06 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
Based on 600kg/m^3, and with all class-specific caveats remaining as per my Starship Volumetrics page . . .


Code:
Vessel/Class         Length (m)   Volume (m3)            Mass (Tonnes)
Death Star I            120000      904,700,000,000,000     520,434,249,371,000
Death Star II           160000      2,144,000,000,000,000   1,233,349,210,403,000
SSD (Executor)          17600       12,645,900,000          7,274,632,000
Mon Cal Home One        3200        338,638,000             194,804,000
Trade Fed Droid Control 3170        2,027,750,000           1,166,476,000
Imperial SD             1609        69,534,240              40,000,000
Jedi Cruiser (Venator)  1137        15,838,619              9,111,000
Invisible Hand          1088        11,203,412              6,445,000
Separatist Munificent   825         2,238,022               1,287,000
Acclamator              752         8,140,243               4,683,000
Medical Frigate (Neb-B) 300         184,972                 106,400
Republic Lt Cruiser     160         63,114                  36,300
Galactic Cruiser (T-4)  150         64,752                  37,200
Rebel Transport         120         23,942                  13,800
Consular                115         19,220                  11,060
Refugee Ship            110         60,722                  34,930
Falcon                  35          1,716                   990
Twilight                34.1        4,604                   2,650
AT-AT                   22.5        615                     350
Imperial Shuttle        19          477                     270
X-Wing (flight)         12.5        27                      15.5
TIE Fighter             6           7.8                     4.4


Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:24 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
That's funny and neat. My money is on the number having been pulled from your site directly or indirectly by the author and then passing the smell test by the editor. Probably indirectly, but still, it's neat.


Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:43 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Iscander and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.