Starfleet Jedi

I've heard that the usual set of evidence for the 900 km figure relies on both the 1983 CINEFEX's interview of Richard Edlundw (ILM), and the tactical schematic hologram images during the rebel briefing.

Not only is it a formidable form of cherry picking, literally opting for the less conservative and overblown figure, but precisely the less supported one.
As a whole, all of those who defend the 900 km claim are EU-philes.
Most interesting, they rarely dismiss the non official and sibgle interview which supports the 900 km figure.

Based on this, we look at the amount of sources which originally supported the 160 km figure:

Movie Trilogy Sourcebook, Special Edition Movie Trilogy Sourcebook, Death Star Technical Companion, StarWars.com Databank (1).
Includes ROTJ Sketchbook's 100 miles large DSII.

On this alone, the sheer amount defending the more moderate size estimation literally outweighs the sources which argue for a 900 km wide DSII.

But that shouldn't be considered enough for a reasonable and reliable estimation of the size.

That said, looking at Saxton's site, we read the following line:

"Most second-generation merchandise (including RPG references, STAR WARS Screen Entertainment software, etc.) claims that the two operational battle stations were only 120km and 160km in diameter, but they cite no empirical evidence and these numbers could well have been arbitrarily plucked out of vacuum. Proof in the canon is required."

Don't you find it funny that it comes from the same person who couldn't back up his ICS numbers?
But I derail.

Returning to the elements of evidence...

It is still impressive, today, to see the number of vocal people who simply get it wrong when it comes to the holographic rendition of the system Endor-DS2.

Some claim that it must be correct, since when the rebel fleet exits hyperspace, we see a big gray moon in front of Endor, one that takes a significant portion of the sanctuary moon.

Non HD picture.
This phenomenom is often dismissed as an hyperspace distorsion effect.

It could have been possible to claim that it was Endor's moon, since the novelisation mentions it.

However, a zoom on the image could reveal details which would be reminescent of the DSII's shape.
Only a zoom on a HD screencap would suffice to know if we can see such details or not.

That said, this single view is balanced by several other shots of the DS, when the fleet approaches the battle station.
Those, largely argue in favour of the 160 km wide DSII, and as a rather perfect example of Saxton's objectivity, his site doesn't even bother to show them.
Instead of using canon (you know, the same canon he supposedly uses), he prefers to rely on a geometrically inaccurate hologram and very very obscure drawings which argue for a DS that would be so huge, really, that the horizon is almost flat on one of the two following pictures.
Nevermind if during production, things actually change you know.
Above all, both of them show Endor being far away from the battle station, which largely disagrees with the hologram's evidence. This itself would tend to support the obvious evidence that plans were indeed altered, that various visions existed.


At one point, Saxton brings the theory of the multi notched trench.
Probably indirectly fueled by that "glitch":



Obviously, on set of horizontal panels, either the superior one or the inferior one, or maybe both, is not pointing outwards in a strict radial way from the DS' center. There's a sort of "rim spin".

It was used in favour of a subnotch argument, but Anderson adresses it perfectly on his page.




That said, let's return to the rebel tactical schematic hologram.

Saxton uses it such as a very strong element of evidence, up to the point where he provides no less than 16 pictures of this hologram!

So, let's assume that he is right. All proportions in this hologram are sufficiently accurate.

Just for the fun, I present you the most accurate DSII measurement:

First of all the "hyperspace distortion effect" doesn't hold water since there are scenes showing the same Endor/Death Star size relation even after we see the external shot of the Rebel fleet (or more precisely Falcon and Home One) exiting hyperspace.
The sequence in question:
Sequence
As you can see, while the first showing of Endor and Death Star might be considered a "hyperspace distortion" the second two (one from Falcon's and one from Home One's bridge) most certainly cannot since we already witnessed the fleet slow down from hyperdrive as proven by external shots.

Secondly looking at this image the "moon" in front of Endor is clearly grey and the right side is clearly not spherical but rather chiped away just like Death Star so the "this is actually a moon" doesn't hold water either. I'm certain that HD screencaps will only further corroborate this.


Furthermore while going over various evidence a pretty significant one is left out:

Even assuming 8km length for the Executor the width of the visible patch of DS2 is no less than 25km and there is no sign of curvature. You won't get that with anything close to 160km DS2.

As for your holographic display scaling how do you know that those yellow lines correspond to the dome?

Finally Darkstar argues that there is no super trench because for it to be out of view it would have to be "4 times or more" taller than the trench we do see. Of course as he himself states 4 times bigger trench results in ~1000km Death Star which corresponds perfectly with Endor scaling and the Executor crash so I don't see how it can be dismissed based on those grounds alone.

Kane Starkiller wrote:First of all the "hyperspace distortion effect" doesn't hold water since there are scenes showing the same Endor/Death Star size relation even after we see the external shot of the Rebel fleet (or more precisely Falcon and Home One) exiting hyperspace.
The sequence in question:
Sequence
As you can see, while the first showing of Endor and Death Star might be considered a "hyperspace distortion" the second two (one from Falcon's and one from Home One's bridge) most certainly cannot since we already witnessed the fleet slow down from hyperdrive as proven by external shots.

Secondly looking at this image the "moon" in front of Endor is clearly grey and the right side is clearly not spherical but rather chiped away just like Death Star so the "this is actually a moon" doesn't hold water either. I'm certain that HD screencaps will only further corroborate this.

I agree on the credibility of the hyperspace distorsion argument. I'm not a fan of that theory at all. I find it fishy.
I largely favour the one about a natural moon, but as we also agree on, there are very strong chances that a HD would make it bogus, and reinforce what we already suspect to be true.
If ultimately, this moon of a moon were to be false, and honestly, even a poor quality cap poitns to DS-like details on this grey ball, then in light of more numerous real life shots of the DSII throughout the film, we'll have to dismiss it as an inconsistency, pure and simple.

Furthermore while going over various evidence a pretty significant one is left out:

Even assuming 8km length for the Executor the width of the visible patch of DS2 is no less than 25km and there is no sign of curvature. You won't get that with anything close to 160km DS2.

That one is easy to debunk. The piece of model they used for that was flat.
So is the horizon in that shot. See with the picture below that it doesn't even support a 900 km wide station in the slightest:

As for your holographic display scaling how do you know that those yellow lines correspond to the dome?

Duh. Because that's what the hologram shows. It shows the upper and lower shafts, the reactor room and even the upside down superior demi-globe.
Claiming this is not supposed to be the reactor room is absurd, especially since it's the main target, painted as sitting in the middle of the battle station, with four tunnels leading to it.

Finally Darkstar argues that there is no super trench because for it to be out of view it would have to be "4 times or more" taller than the trench we do see. Of course as he himself states 4 times bigger trench results in ~1000km Death Star which corresponds perfectly with Endor scaling and the Executor crash so I don't see how it can be dismissed based on those grounds alone.

Corresponds perfectly? You're an enthusiast.
He estimated a value around 1100 km, not 1000 km. That's basically 200 km beyond the actual high end. Even a difference of 100 km would be an unacceptable error.

http://st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/ ... ench02.jpg
This picture would probably need a HD revision.

However, there is no visual support of a super trench. Simply put, if you were to prove its existence by finding support from the film, you'd find none.
Saxton went the wrong way round, first assuming a width of 900 km from a non-canon source, and thus attempted to shoe-horn that theory into the film's evidence, and all he finds is indirect "evidence":

The long range view of Endor and that grey ball, and a hologram of very dubious proportions.

Then, when you mix that bundle with the number of EU and out-of-canon sources which support the 160 km figure, cited earlier on, you see that the support for the 900 km figure is largely outmatched by the one for the much more reasonable figure.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:That one is easy to debunk. The piece of model they used for that was flat.

It was also a few meters long and made of plastic. And Endor is a flat painting. So what?

Mr. Oragahn wrote:So is the horizon in that shot. See with the picture below that it doesn't even support a 900 km wide station in the slightest:

It appears to be flat. Let's make a distinction between the special effects model and the actual in universe ship it is meant to represent.
Secondly as your own red curves show it just about fits. The solution is obvious in any case: the Death Star is slightly bigger than 900km.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Duh. Because that's what the hologram shows. It shows the upper and lower shafts, the reactor room and even the upside down superior demi-globe.
Claiming this is not supposed to be the reactor room is absurd, especially since it's the main target, painted as sitting in the middle of the battle station, with four tunnels leading to it.

No no I'm sure this is in fact the reactor room just wondering how you know what exact parts those yellow shapes represent.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Corresponds perfectly? You're an enthusiast.
He estimated a value around 1100 km, not 1000 km. That's basically 200 km beyond the actual high end. Even a difference of 100 km would be an unacceptable error.

http://st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/ ... ench02.jpg
This picture would probably need a HD revision.

However, there is no visual support of a super trench. Simply put, if you were to prove its existence by finding support from the film, you'd find none.
Saxton went the wrong way round, first assuming a width of 900 km from a non-canon source, and thus attempted to shoe-horn that theory into the film's evidence, and all he finds is indirect "evidence":

Really now. I said "~1000km" obviously putting it in that ballpark. It could be 1100km and Darkstar certainly never performed detailed calculations or measurements as to just how tall the inferred outer trench should be.
1100 km is still close to 900km and to what is obtained from Executor crash. 160km is nowhere near close.

One other curious thing I noticed about Darkstar's article you linked to. He states that:
"The trench we can see and measure produces a 270km Death Star . . . a "super-trench" no less than four times that big (in keeping with the canon visuals above) would require a Death Star of almost 1100 kilometers diameter."
Interesting, so he claims that the trench "we can [] measure" produces a 270km Death Star so 4 times bigger would require 1100km Death Star. However in page one he, after scaling that same trench, comes to the conclusion that Death Star 2 is actually 160km and declares the 270km figure to be wrong. And yet he uses that very same, supposedly wrong, number to say that 4 times bigger trench would result in Death Star being too big.
This certainly seems self contradictory picking and choosing what evidence is valid based on what you wish to prove.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The long range view of Endor and that grey ball, and a hologram of very dubious proportions.

Then, when you mix that bundle with the number of EU and out-of-canon sources which support the 160 km figure, cited earlier on, you see that the support for the 900 km figure is largely outmatched by the one for the much more reasonable figure.

AND the Executor crash. And it is pretty easy to spot that the "moon" on front of Endor is chipped away to the right so it really is Death Star. We don't even need the hologram.
That's two versus the closeup of Endor and Death Star. What is certain is that the claim that ~1000km Death Star is unsupported in canon films is clearly false.

It was also a few meters long and made of plastic. And Endor is a flat painting. So what?

We're speaking of curvature, and I talk about how the model was flat.
The point should be rather obvious, don't you think?

It appears to be flat. Let's make a distinction between the special effects model and the actual in universe ship it is meant to represent.
Secondly as your own red curves show it just about fits. The solution is obvious in any case: the Death Star is slightly bigger than 900km.

This is the proof that you didn't pay much attention to the picture I provided. The horizon is flat. Or it appears to be so, to please you. However, I also drawed the curvature, as we'd have observed it if the sequence really tried to realistically depict the DSII's surface, with a battle station being 900 km wide.

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.

No no I'm sure this is in fact the reactor room just wondering how you know what exact parts those yellow shapes represent.

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?

Really now. I said "~1000km" obviously putting it in that ballpark. It could be 1100km and Darkstar certainly never performed detailed calculations or measurements as to just how tall the inferred outer trench should be.
1100 km is still close to 900km and to what is obtained from Executor crash. 160km is nowhere near close.

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?

AND the Executor crash. And it is pretty easy to spot that the "moon" on front of Endor is chipped away to the right so it really is Death Star. We don't even need the hologram.
That's two versus the closeup of Endor and Death Star. What is certain is that the claim that ~1000km Death Star is unsupported in canon films is clearly false.

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

The holy saint hologram is also discarded.

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

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.

Kane Starkiller wrote:Interesting, so he claims that the trench "we can [] measure" produces a 270km Death Star so 4 times bigger would require 1100km Death Star. However in page one he, after scaling that same trench, comes to the conclusion that Death Star 2 is actually 160km and declares the 270km figure to be wrong. And yet he uses that very same, supposedly wrong, number to say that 4 times bigger trench would result in Death Star being too big.
This certainly seems self contradictory picking and choosing what evidence is valid based on what you wish to prove.

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.

HD cap requests:

Just quickly scaling the Death Star 2 from that first pic RSA provides of the Death Star as seen from Admiral Ackbar's point-of-view, I find that the DS2 is approximately 32 pixels wide, while Endor comes in at around 339 pixels for a ratio of 10.59 to 1. So for an upper limit, which also assumes the DS2 is brushing surface-to-surface with the forest moon at zero altitude, and that Endor is 12,800 km wide.

Thus, 12,800 divided by 10.59 = 1,208 km. If we were to assume the DS2 orbits at around 5,000-7,500 km, then a 10-15% reduction in size is not entirely unreasonable here. So a DS2 size of 1,000 km is not too far out of line.

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.
-Mike

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Obviously, on set of horizontal panels, either the superior one or the inferior one, or maybe both, is not pointing outwards in a strict radial way from the DS' center. There's a sort of "rim spin".

Incidentally, I'm still not sure what's being referred to here in regards to "rim spin". Though, in looking at the picture, I'd wager that one could roughly estimate the size of the Death Star just based on the observable curvature, scaled roughly to the landing bays.

As for the hyperspace distortion idea, there are certainly viable counterarguments, especially in regards to the continuing oddness of the shot in the scene right after hyperspace exit, when one might expect any distortion to be over. I don't think I remembered how long it lasted in the original composition of the page.

But in any event, the DS2+Endor pics represent the far-outlier in regards to DS2 size estimation. We're thus forced to either rationalize them or discard them altogether.

Mike DiCenso wrote:I find that the DS2 is approximately 32 pixels wide, while Endor comes in at around 339 pixels for a ratio of 10.59 to 1.

That reminded me of something, and in going back to check I found what I was thinking of. Saxton and I had both gotten figures above 11 to 1 for the ratio in the hyperspace exit shot.

Intrigued, I checked against the HD version. In the first frame of it I get 10 to 1 (250 or 251 to 25), and in the last frame 10.3ish to 1 (289 to 28).




The ratio holds whether things are measured horizontally or vertically, as is also true of the pic you measured, which comes later but gives an even larger ratio of almost 10.6 to 1.

Not only did I not expect the ratio to change in the first and last frames (expecting that they simply did it as one element in the opticals), but also that result was actually exactly opposite of what I would've expected. It would've made more sense had the ratio declined over time, I would think, since a declining ratio would be consistent with a Death Star at a distance in front of the planet.

i.e. as you get closer to the planet you're getting closer still to the Death Star, thus the Death Star appears comparatively larger . . . and thus the ratio smaller . . . as you approach. If it's 11 times smaller at XX,000 kilometers from the planet, for example, then when you're just X,000 kilometers from the planet it ought to fill your view 'cause you're right up on it, and thus look maybe 5 times smaller or whatever.

But if the Death Star gets comparatively larger in that scene, then something's definitely going horribly awry with the shots.

Just a wild, random thought: is it possible that DS2 has changed its distance from the planet? We know that it has to remain over specific point of the planet (within reasonable margin of error, at least), but is it possible that it can tighten or loosen orit diameter?

Kazeite wrote:Just a wild, random thought: is it possible that DS2 has changed its distance from the planet? We know that it has to remain over specific point of the planet (within reasonable margin of error, at least), but is it possible that it can tighten or loosen orit diameter?

Sure, if you want a strict tangible explanation, it can only be that, really. The DS2 got closer to Endor as the fleet approached.

But now, good luck making sense out of that. ;)

DS2: "Waah! Big bad Rebel fleet is coming here!"
Endor: "Aw, come closer, you big sissy." :D

Kazeite wrote:DS2: "Waah! Big bad Rebel fleet is coming here!"
Endor: "Aw, come closer, you big sissy." :D

Perfect! :)
That battle station was a bit naked.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Kazeite wrote:Just a wild, random thought: is it possible that DS2 has changed its distance from the planet? We know that it has to remain over specific point of the planet (within reasonable margin of error, at least), but is it possible that it can tighten or loosen orit diameter?

Sure, if you want a strict tangible explanation, it can only be that, really. The DS2 got closer to Endor as the fleet approached.

But now, good luck making sense out of that. ;)

The hyperspace theory DOES offer an explanation: when BIG ships exit hyperspace, they create a standing hyper/realspace intermix wave, which dissipates slowly, within minutes. It distorted the ratio from 1:80 to 1:10 and as it began to dissipte, the ration slowly returns to normal.

SailorSaturn13 wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Kazeite wrote:Just a wild, random thought: is it possible that DS2 has changed its distance from the planet? We know that it has to remain over specific point of the planet (within reasonable margin of error, at least), but is it possible that it can tighten or loosen orit diameter?

Sure, if you want a strict tangible explanation, it can only be that, really. The DS2 got closer to Endor as the fleet approached.

But now, good luck making sense out of that. ;)

The hyperspace theory DOES offer an explanation: when BIG ships exit hyperspace, they create a standing hyper/realspace intermix wave, which dissipates slowly, within minutes. It distorted the ratio from 1:80 to 1:10 and as it began to dissipte, the ration slowly returns to normal.

It seems someone has pointed out, here, that there are shots from inside cockpits/bridges were starships are significantly closer to the DSII, still approaching at ful throttle, and the distorsion is still in place.

What the range of that intermix wave should be so that visual distances are completely fuckz0red?