Death Star II scalings... a few notes.

[Kane Starkiller]

Even being "slightly bigger than 900 km" would not suffice to make the horizon so flat. The station would need to be absurdingly large, much larger than our Moon as a matter of fact.
Fortunately, the jpeg I produced still has the markers I used years ago. It was, therefore, relatively quick and easy to draw circles being twice, thrice or four times bigger than the 900 km one, and see that even the largest one (4 x 900 km) wouldn't provide a sufficiently flat looking horizon.

Simply put, your battle station would need to be as big as a planet to have such a flat horizon. Endor would be orbiting the Death Star II.

It'd be faster to claim that the Executor crashed into a giant Borg cube.

How so? The red circles overlap the yellow line for something like 60% of the image and the resolution in the image is of course limited. How do you figure that even 2 times bigger Death Star wouldn't explain it? Can you provide any evidence?

They represent shapes which fit with the "real life" structures seen in the film. Need I say more?
Are you going to ask me on what basis I dare to assume that the red sphere is supposed to represent the Death Star or what?
Isn't the drawing not enough?

What "real life" structures? How do you know that those yellow lines are actually that shaft opening we saw above the dome? With the display of the Death Star we see a spherical shape with chunks missing just like the real thing, the trench and the superlaser dish so we can be certain it does in fact represent Death Star. You, on the other hand, choose some yellow lines and declare that they correspond to specific parts of the reactor. How do you know? There is no detailing on those yellow lines.

That is absurd. We're trying to obtain figures within an error margin of a few tens of kilometers, and you tell me that difference of hundreds of kilometers is fine?

Don't be ridiculous. The errors are a result of the evidence we have to work with. The Executor crash or Endor approach don't allow a precise scaling but THEY DO prove that Death Star is much bigger than 160km. Besides ten kilometers error for 160km Death Star is 6.25%. For ~1000km Death Star 6.25% is 62.5 km is it not?

The Executor crash does certainly not support your view. That's already a so called source off the table.

You don't have the right to declare various footage invalid. The evidence is there and it shows that 160km Death Star is impossible.

The holy saint hologram is also discarded.

By you declaring some yellow lines to correspond to what exact parts of the reactor? Right.

The ensemble of hyperspace-exit shots are outnumbered by the much more time separated and closer shots of the DSII.

So what? The hyperspace exit shots are not the only evidence pointing to a larger DS2.

The question, now, is not if the 900 km figure is supported by the canon or not, but if it has actually more support than the 160 km figure.

As proven, it does not. The 160 km figure has more sources to back it up, ranging from all sides of the spectrum, from the absolute canon, to completely out of universe sources.

You have proven no such thing. You arbitrarily declare evidence you don't like invalid. Executor crash doesn't "fit" as opposed to simply pointing to a larger DS2, display is wrong because the yellow lines you choose don't correspond to dimensions of the real reactor, long range Endor/DS2 shots are invalid because of the "hyperspace exit effect" whatever that is. Never mind that hyperspace exit is long done and there are actually two independent shots: from Falcon and Home One.

Given what you just said, you're hardly one to complain about picking and choosing. Please refrain from taking my quotes out of context in the future.

By all means explain the context then. How can you use 270km number to declare the multiple trench Death Star too big when you previously stated 270km Death Star is wrong.

The only commentary I have at this time concerning the second pic of the trench silhouetted by Endor is that it just shows us once again that there is no "Trench-within-a-trench" nonsense.

Really you can make that out with a few pixels width of the trench?
But more importantly who ever said that the "trench within a trench" must extend throughout the entire circumference of the outer trench?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Even being "slightly bigger than 900 km" would not suffice to make the horizon so flat. The station would need to be absurdingly large, much larger than our Moon as a matter of fact.
Fortunately, the jpeg I produced still has the markers I used years ago. It was, therefore, relatively quick and easy to draw circles being twice, thrice or four times bigger than the 900 km one, and see that even the largest one (4 x 900 km) wouldn't provide a sufficiently flat looking horizon.

Simply put, your battle station would need to be as big as a planet to have such a flat horizon. Endor would be orbiting the Death Star II.

It'd be faster to claim that the Executor crashed into a giant Borg cube.

How so? The red circles overlap the yellow line for something like 60% of the image and the resolution in the image is of course limited. How do you figure that even 2 times bigger Death Star wouldn't explain it? Can you provide any evidence?

Oh please... are you doing it on purpose, or are you just some kind of bot project, sent by those who believe in the 900 km wide DSII, just to test a few stupid arguments and see how far it can go?

1. The yellow line is the one that overlaps a red one, not the reverse. Dude, if you can't even get that right...

2. The resolution is fine enough to understand the point I'm making. A lower resolution would still be plenty enough as well, as a matter of fact.

3. I know what I claimed because it had me creating images of thousands of pixels wide to be able to draw circles which would correspond to absurdly planet sized battle stations.
Simply drawing so huge elipses of selection had the computer calculate it with a loading bar up to roughly 10 seconds!
Even a circle of 1800 km, of course, wasn't big enough for the upper hemisphere border to appear flat enough. Actually, it barely appeared flatter than the red line (which corresponded to a 900 km wide DS2).
I won't post a new image, because it's a waste of time. The change is minimal, and I have not the possibility to upload images which are nearly 10,000 pixels high (and this only covers only one radius and a half of a 1800 km wide circle).

4. The upper red line represent what you'd expect for a battle station of 900 km. Adding a few tens of kilometers to this figure doesn't make a big difference on the schematic.
The inferior red line... is an oddity. I made that pic a while ago, and I don't even know what this lower red line is supposed to mean, safe that it's a duplicate of the other one, so it's possibly to get a better view, independantly of the yellow horizontal one, for comparative purposes.

5. If you can't understand this, I'm afraid I'll have to be very patient with you. But I won't. The case is extremely simple. You should not be arguing on it.

They represent shapes which fit with the "real life" structures seen in the film. Need I say more?
Are you going to ask me on what basis I dare to assume that the red sphere is supposed to represent the Death Star or what?
Isn't the drawing not enough?

What "real life" structures? How do you know that those yellow lines are actually that shaft opening we saw above the dome? With the display of the Death Star we see a spherical shape with chunks missing just like the real thing, the trench and the superlaser dish so we can be certain it does in fact represent Death Star. You, on the other hand, choose some yellow lines and declare that they correspond to specific parts of the reactor. How do you know? There is no detailing on those yellow lines.

What the hell? Are you incapable of seeing the uncanny similarity between those two structures:



...and...



Let's make it clear. It is a schematic view. The yellow room has tunnels leading straight into it. In the film, we see that the tunnel leads straight into the vast room that contains the reactor.
My point is that nothing on that damn holo is properly scaled, precisely because the point was not to be realistic, but to be clear to understand for the people sitting on the farthest raws in that holoroom.
So anyone who uses that holo to argue for the 900 km wide DS2 is a fool, and is only concerned by a very limited and biased analysis of the visuals, as long as it fits with personnal beliefs.

And hell, it's been two freaking decades since people understood that the yellow circular room on the holo was supposed to represent the core room in the DS2.
What kind of spin are you going to use now to even refute that?

That is absurd. We're trying to obtain figures within an error margin of a few tens of kilometers, and you tell me that difference of hundreds of kilometers is fine?

Don't be ridiculous. The errors are a result of the evidence we have to work with. The Executor crash or Endor approach don't allow a precise scaling but THEY DO prove that Death Star is much bigger than 160km. Besides ten kilometers error for 160km Death Star is 6.25%. For ~1000km Death Star 6.25% is 62.5 km is it not?

Firstly, I didn't talk about percentages. I talked about the 200 km difference between the 900 km claim, and your even greater figure of 1100 km. 200 km of a difference is unacceptable.
Secondly, I have proved that the Executor crash sequence is wrong in all means if you plan to use it as proof of the battle station's size.

The Executor crash does certainly not support your view. That's already a so called source off the table.

You don't have the right to declare various footage invalid. The evidence is there and it shows that 160km Death Star is impossible.

I have the right to claim it unacceptable - and not invalid - when some people want to use it for scaling, for the very precise reasons I gave.

The holy saint hologram is also discarded.

By you declaring some yellow lines to correspond to what exact parts of the reactor? Right.

Sure, and how do you prove that what looks like a dish superlaser, and the missing superstructure's portion, are precisely and respectively the dish superlaser and the missing superstructure's portion?

I guess that's because it looks like them close enough, huh!

But I suppose that since everything must be near correct, Endor's shores are all perfect lines, which form geometric primitive patterns when seen from space!
Yes! The holo is accurate enough for you to claim to find support for your 900-1100 km wide space station, but not enough for all the rest, of course!

The ensemble of hyperspace-exit shots are outnumbered by the much more time separated and closer shots of the DSII.

So what? The hyperspace exit shots are not the only evidence pointing to a larger DS2.

In the light of my arguments, they pretty much are.

The question, now, is not if the 900 km figure is supported by the canon or not, but if it has actually more support than the 160 km figure.

As proven, it does not. The 160 km figure has more sources to back it up, ranging from all sides of the spectrum, from the absolute canon, to completely out of universe sources.

You have proven no such thing. You arbitrarily declare evidence you don't like invalid.

No, I use my brain and simple geometrics to do so. I'm sorry you can't handle that.

Executor crash doesn't "fit" as opposed to simply pointing to a larger DS2

Ah, yes, larger. Larger as super planet sized space station.
But that doesn't even stop you from claiming that supports your claim. Nevermind if the scene itself would point to a super planet sized battle station to start making sense. And of course, Endor is of the size of a gas supergiant.
That, of course, for any sane mind, should be enough to know that it does, in no way, support the 900 km sized battle station, nor stations four times bigger.

Are you going to continue, or admit being clutched to wrong beliefs?
I think we all know the answer, unfortunately.

... display is wrong because the yellow lines you choose don't correspond to dimensions of the real reactor

The core is the target. The holo presents a structure in the core that looks very similar to the DS2 real core.
But I suppose it's not the core, and there's an imperial agent onboard the Moncal cruiser who poisoned the well!

long range Endor/DS2 shots are invalid because of the "hyperspace exit effect" whatever that is.

You don't get it, do you?
It is called rationalization. In the light of a majority of evidence pointing to a 160 km large DSII, the critically less numerous shots will either be dismissed, or rationalized.

Never mind that hyperspace exit is long done and there are actually two independent shots: from Falcon and Home One.

I recently saw that the theory doesn't specify what the range of this distorsion effect is supposed to be.
I never said I was warm to that theory.

[SailorSaturn13]

ALL long-Distance shot were shot less than a minute after Hyperjump end. All close shots point to a SMALL DS2.


About crash: an image having a 10000 km DS2 doesn't support 900 km in any way...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Bumping this thread, because I forgot something important.

You know how the people at SDN can lie through their teeth and pretend that the DSII is 900 km wide, or at least +800 km wide, based on CANON (capslock necessary)?

Of course, we've already shown that even the canon, under all of its forms, and particularly the highest one, largely supports the much smaller figure.

But there's more, straight from the higher canon.

At the feathered edge of the galaxy, the Death Star floated in stationary orbit above the green moon Endor — a moon whose mother planet had long since died of unknown cataclysm and disappeared into unknown realms. The Death Star was the Empire's armoured battle station, nearly twice as big as its predecessor, which Rebel forces had destroyed so many years before — nearly twice as big, but more than twice as powerful. Yet it was only half complete.

The exquisite irony of all that is that it's a quote provided by Wayne Poe, when citing the ROTJ novelization. Of course, the fact that he either ignores this, or completely misses it, is not surprising.


See:

Diameter: 120 km

Code: Select all

Circumference:   3.7699 e5 m
Disc area:       1.1310 e10 m²
Surface area:    4.5239 e10 m²
Volume:          9.0478 e14 m³

Diameter: 160 km

Code: Select all

Circumference:   5.0265 e5 m
Disc area:       2.0106 e10 m²
Surface area:    8.0425 e10 m²
Volume:          2.1447 e15 m³

--- [Wank] ---

Diameter: 800 km

Code: Select all

Circumference:   2.5133 e6 m
Disc area:       5.0265 e11 m²
Surface area:    2.0106 e12 m²
Volume:          2.6808 e17 m³

Diameter: 900 km

Code: Select all

Circumference:   2.8274 e6 m
Disc area:       6.3617 e11 m²
Surface area:    2.5447 e12 m²
Volume:          3.8170 e17 m³

--- [/wank] ---

Let's, for example, play with the 160 km and 800 km figures.

For each dimension type, divide the highest figure by the lowest.

Code: Select all

Circumference ratio:   5
Area ratio:            25
Surface area ratio:    25
Volume ratio:          125

It's actually simple. The ratio we're looking for, according to high canon (above all EU sources), has a value inferior to 2, but not too far from 2 either.

As we can see, never mind the dimension types we're talking about (circumference, area, etc.), all provide ratios superior to 2. The lowest one, which is about the circumference, is 5.
The highest ratio, corresponding to volume, is 125.

Now, let's look at the various ratios between the 120 km wide DS1, and the 160 km wide DS2:

Code: Select all

Circumference ratio:   1.333
Area ratio:            1.777
Surface area ratio:    1.777
Volume ratio:          2.370

All ratios fall under 2, with the two middle ones closer to 2 than to 1 (1.777).
The volume one is above 2, but still way closer to 2 than the ratios obtained from the other comparisons: between 160 km for the DS1 and 800 km for the DS2 - not even 900 km for the DS2, which is the actual claimed canonical figure by SDN!

Need I say more?

EDIT: updated for clarity.

[Jedi Master Spock]

It's quite well known; the theory offered to support a 800+ km DS2 is that the visuals override the written materials.

Of course, I find that the visuals are actually in conflict, and aren't particularly explicit to start with, unlike the "nearly twice" figure, which is why I prefer DS2 figures that are a bit smaller than 800 km.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It's quite well known; the theory offered to support a 800+ km DS2 is that the visuals override the written materials.

Of course, I find that the visuals are actually in conflict, and aren't particularly explicit to start with, unlike the "nearly twice" figure, which is why I prefer DS2 figures that are a bit smaller than 800 km.

A bit? :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Besides, according to Lucas, the DS2, unfinished, was as big as the finished DS1.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Besides, according to Lucas, the DS2, unfinished, was as big as the finished DS1.

When did he say that?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Besides, according to Lucas, the DS2, unfinished, was as big as the finished DS1.

When did he say that?

Sorry, mixed up things. This was aboud ROTS and ANH.

[Mr. Oragahn]

OK, the same source which has never been able to give a consistent size for the Executor type of ships (for a total of four figures seen in the EU, as 8 12 17.6 and 19 km) has now presented the 900 km wide Death Star.

Here we go again. So this coupled to the novelization, we get a DSI size of what?

Well, since the DSII was almost twice as big as the first DS, if we think in terms of volume, then the DSII would have a volume of 3.8170 e17 m³ and the DSI would have a volume of 1.9085 m³.

The radius of the first Death Star would be 357,164.143 meters, or a diameter of 714 km.

If it's about the diameter, then the DSI would be 450 km wide.

Good luck trying to make these figures with any estimation from the movie, or any figure seen in the EU thus far, 120 or 160 km.

[Praeothmin]

Well, if you look at the DS1's entry, it still says 160km...

[Mr. Oragahn]

So the universe explodes, and we must show our gratitude towards Saxton for his irresponsible wank. ;)

[Mike DiCenso]

Interestingly enough, the Geonosian plans for the first Death Star shows very similar proportions for the reactor chamber to the rest of the battlestation as the Rebel diagram does for the DS2.

The only thing that could be worse would be if the reactor itself were shown in the Geonosian plans.
-Mike

[2046]

Pardoning the thread necro, but I happened upon the thread while searching for something else and it was quite useful, as it was old and I'm senile and had forgotten how much awesome was herein contained, and wanted to toss Oragahn a thumbs-up.

Further, in case anyone else should chance upon the thread as I did and think the mention of 900km being reported on SW.com was still the case, it isn't.

http://starwars.com/explore/encyclopedi ... deathstar/

They've noted it merely as the size of a small moon. Why the change? Well, it turns out that last year there was an official un-retcon back to the 120km DS1 and 160km DS2 in the EU:

http://twitter.com/jcgoble3/status/398925595515441153

Quoting for those without Twitter access:

Jonathan Goble ‏@jcgoble3
@HolocronKeeper It seems that the Death Star manual uses the original 120/160 km diameters instead of 160/900. Is this an error or a retcon?
3:30 PM - 8 Nov 2013


Leland Chee ‏@HolocronKeeper Nov 9
@jcgoble3 The book creators lobbied relentlessly and after careful deliberation we decided to reinstate the old stats. Call it an unretcon.

Jonathan Goble ‏@jcgoble3 Nov 9
@HolocronKeeper OK, thanks!

Shady_bat ‏@Shady_biz_bat Nov 9
@HolocronKeeper @jcgoble3 When's the "unretcon" back to ILM's 164 km for the Death Star and 800 km for the Death Star II happening?

Shady_bat ‏@Shady_biz_bat Nov 9
@HolocronKeeper @jcgoble3 I mean, it's only fair since 120 km and 160 km are themselves retcons from people who didn't read ILM's notes...

Leland Chee ‏@HolocronKeeper Nov 9
@Shady_biz_bat @jcgoble3 I really don't see it happening. We regard the Death Star Owner's Technical Manual as authoritative.

Shady_bat ‏@Shady_biz_bat Nov 10
@HolocronKeeper @jcgoble3 Oh, so it's like the Inside the Worlds... books, authoritative until the next big book comes along. ;)

Dozza ‏@Dozza82432180 Nov 13
@HolocronKeeper @jcgoble3 I for one am disappointed. The old sizes were themselves the subject of careful research by other authors.

Firmus Piett ‏@LordFirmus Apr 11
@HolocronKeeper @jcgoble3 The Executor crash scene shows us that the DSII must be at least 900Km...

The opinion of the EU is not relevant, of course, and never has been, but it is amusing all the same to note that the erroneous inflationist claims were swept away.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Thanks for the nice words. :)
Almost a perfect necro, just a few maggots left.

Back in 2010, I posted the following thread: SWTC : Death Star II size, taking a very close look at the EU and behind the scenes information Saxton favoured or simply ignored, with a single objective in mind: come up with the most absurd size number ever.

Now, my style being messy and never polished, I'm sorry if my arguments don't always come out as clear as I wish they had been. Notably in this thread, regarding my odd "spinning rim" contraption. The idea is that by looking at McQuarrie's painting, the upper and lower ledges should extend over the same distance, since supposedly there's only one equatorial rim and no sub-trenches, or "steps".
The thing is, either McQuarrie screwed up with the lines of perspective (so the horizontal panels that constitue the ledges don't exactly "shoot out" radially from the center of the station like the petals of a sunflower, much more like the bent teeth of a stylized saw disc), or he lower ledge is definitely shorter than the upper one.