"Death Star" moon...

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-01-14 06:57pm

There's a moon somewhere in our solar system that has a crater so huge that it looks like the Death Star...can anyone tell me what the name of the moon is, and which planet it orbits?

p.s., mods, feel free to move this thread if you think it's not suitable for this forum...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-01-14 07:04pm

kheegan wrote:There's a moon somewhere in our solar system that has a crater so huge that it looks like the Death Star...can anyone tell me what the name of the moon is, and which planet it orbits?

p.s., mods, feel free to move this thread if you think it's not suitable for this forum...

IIRC, it's Minas, and Neptune.

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2003-01-14 07:49pm

Mimas, a moon of Saturn

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mimas.htm

The resemblance is striking

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-01-14 09:32pm

A little too striking.

What did the US really mean by Star War's Program?

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 09:58pm

What did the US really mean by Star War's Program?

Probably to drill out the entire interior of Minas and install troop housings, engines, and one uber-housing for the laser to fry large areas of the Earth's surface as see fit.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-14 10:47pm

When you first saw Mimas, if you said "That's no space station, it's a moon", you are probably a Warsie.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-01-15 01:14am

Crayz9000 wrote:
kheegan wrote:There's a moon somewhere in our solar system that has a crater so huge that it looks like the Death Star...can anyone tell me what the name of the moon is, and which planet it orbits?

p.s., mods, feel free to move this thread if you think it's not suitable for this forum...
IIRC, it's Minas, and Neptune.

Mimas, which orbits Saturn, actually.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-01-15 05:41am

I thought that GL got the idea of the appearance of the DS from Mimas...but then I noticed that the crater pics were taken by Voyager 1 in 1980. Another case of real life imitating art.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-15 05:58am

Mimas is 242 miles in diameter; just in case anybody cares.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-15 06:04am

Hmm- double the size of the Death Star 1 (120km) but only a fraction of the size of the Death Star 2 (800km+)

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-15 06:22am

Where do you get the DS2 being 800km+ ?
The book i have says it's 160km

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-15 06:34am

That's the scale they built the model to and in the novel it says 'over twice as large as the first' IIRC so wherever you got thr 160km number from it's badly wrong either way.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-15 06:44am

Depends what the novel means by twice the size. If it meant twice the dimensions then it would be 240km. If it meant twice the volume then it would be 152km.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-15 06:48am

But they're both overriden by on screen anyway and the model was built to 900km scale. I think the quote is on SDnet somewhere.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-15 06:58am

CINEFEX statement

The July 1983 issue of CINEFEX contains an interview with Richard Edlund of Industrial Light & Magic, regarding the effects of Return of the Jedi. In this interview, on pp.7-8 he says:

" The Deathstar, I think, will be a lot more interesting than the one in the first Star Wars --- mainly because it is under construction ... Plus, it will be MUCH bigger. In Star Wars, it was really difficult to establish the scale. It was supposed to be miles in diameter, but with a full sphere it was hard to tell. The NEW one is SUPPOSED TO BE MORE like FIVE HUNDRED MILES in diameter, but since we're not dealing with a sphere all the time, we'll be able to establish landmarks and get a better sense of scale. "

This is in excellent accord with the above physically-grounded estimate of the Death Star diameter, which is equivalent to somewhere between 530 miles and 590 miles. CINEFEX flatly contradicts the 100-mile diameter estimate given by the second-generation sources such as The Death Star Technical Companion. As well as being more physically plausible, the larger figure takes precedence because it reflects the final published intention of the artists who made the film, which is the primary reference.

There ya go courtesy of SWTC.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » 2003-01-15 07:08am

I certainly don't agree with the 900km size. For one thing, that would make it at least 420 times the volume of the first death star. Onscreen doesn't appear to overrule the 160-240km size anyway.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-01-15 07:14am

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds.html#cinefex

Just read that page. Using on screen evidence he scales the size to roughly 900km.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-15 07:58am

astrophysical considerations [DS2]
More useful size comparisons can be made between the Endor Moon and the Death Star in its orbit. Measurements of the Mon Calamari tactical holographic displays of the system and actual photographs of the two globes consistently give a diameter for the moon which is 11.5±0.1 times that of the Death Star. The absolute size of the moon remains to be determined.

The Endor Moon must be of a size which is approximately equal to that of the Earth (which has a radius of 6400km). If it were very much smaller then it would not have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere thick enough for human comfort, let alone thick enough to allow Ewok glider craft to fly. The fact that the cumbersome-looking gliders do work at least as well as a parachute whilst having only a fraction of the surface area suggests that the gravity at the moon's surface should be somewhat lower than on a standard human world, or else the surface air pressure could be exceptionally high (which would probably require a world larger than Earth). In order to establish a lower limit on the moon's size, I assume a surface gravitational field strength of roughly two thirds Earth's. I take estimates of the bulk density of the moon which are consistent with the composition of terrestrial planets in our solar system. My value is between four and five grams per cubic centimetre, lower than more massive bodies like Earth and Venus (which experience a greater degree of compression under self-gravity) and greater than that of small Mars (which is less self-compressed). This yields a radius for the Endor Moon of approximately 80% that of Earth, or roughly 5200km. This is a very approximate value and might vary by hundreds of kilometres depending on the various assumptions. The radius could not conceivably be less than about four-thousand kilometres although it could be a greater value if the density of the moon were unusually low due to a hypothetical over-abundance of ligther elements and poverty of metals. Much higher densities are unattainable, because the cosmic abundance of chemical elements does not allow a bulk composition much beyond iron. If there is nothing abnormal about the moon's compostion then the diameter of the Death Star II is approximately:

D = 900±60 km .
This is very much greater than the simple estimates given by various products from West End Games. The Death Star Technical Companion and The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook claim that the original Death Star was a mere 120km in diameter and the second only 160km. If the Death Star were this tiny then the sanctuary moon would scale down to be barely larger than half the diameter Earth's moon and it then could not possibly keep a life-sustaining atmosphere.

In view of the constraints of planetary physics a larger value for the size of the Endor Moon is preferable. Hence the known relative dimensions of the two bodies require a larger Death Star as well. Therefore the diameter of the second Death Star is greater than roughly 900km. The diameter of the original Death Star is probably half or a quarter of this figure, or more if the Return of the Jedi reference is speaking of the factor of two in volume rather than linear scale.

As you can see, it is impossible for the Death Star 2 to be 160km.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-01-15 08:38am

Let's see Iraq and N.Korea bitch now.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-01-15 01:52pm

Aya wrote:Let's see Iraq and N.Korea bitch now.

Eh??? What does Iraq and NK have to do with this?

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-01-15 02:08pm

Well, if they bitch, they get alittle taste of the DS.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » 2003-01-15 02:18pm

Aya wrote:Well, if they bitch, they get alittle taste of the DS.

Courtesy of the US Star Wars program!

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-01-15 02:20pm

Wong bless America!

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-15 09:14pm

But he's part of the Annexed Territory of Greater Montana....

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-15 09:53pm

Galaxy wrote:I certainly don't agree with the 900km size. For one thing, that would make it at least 420 times the volume of the first death star. Onscreen doesn't appear to overrule the 160-240km size anyway.

Your opinion doesnt matter. All evidence save one very poorly researched book who's writers contradict observation of the moives a number of times , support a 800-900 kilometer Death Star.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Death Star" moon...

"Death Star" moon...

Re: "Death Star" moon...

Re: "Death Star" moon...