dimension dillema : death star I vs death star II

arctic_series · Post by **arctic_series** » 2003-06-10 09:52am

www.starwars.com lists DSI's diameter as 120km, while DSII's diameter is listed as 160km.

hmm ?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-10 10:04am

The DS1 is 160 km and the DS2 is around 800 km

Starwars.com is loaded with obvious junk and has no status. Meanwhile the canon ICS lists the DS1 as 160 km, and the model makers said the DS2 was around 800 km while comparisons to Endor give around 800-900.

I assume you didn’t know that, but ignoring it all I cant see what you saw as the “dilemma”

arctic_series · Post by **arctic_series** » 2003-06-10 10:20am

yer knew that and everything, i do have the ICS's and all.

just that of all places, the official site gets it wrong

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-10 10:41am

Considering the Executor length and AT-AT height error, does that surprise you

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-06-10 01:45pm

This should be a good size comparrison:

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-10 02:08pm

The Enterprise-D dot is far too big.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-06-10 02:28pm

That's the problem. Smaller than one pixle is not possible. So we must live with a small size error. (A REALLY small one!)

thecreech · Post by **thecreech** » 2003-06-10 03:48pm

Tribun wrote:That's the problem. Smaller than one pixle is not possible. So we must live with a small size error. (A REALLY small one!)

LOL... or if you want the Scale in the DS2 ALOT and that dot might be correct

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-10 03:57pm

I believe Dalton has the image of the giant(and I mean GIANT) black ball as the DS2 and how the other things compare.

It's damn silly but goes to show of difference in size of the DS2 to many things.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-10 05:45pm

Tribun wrote:That's the problem. Smaller than one pixle is not possible. So we must live with a small size error. (A REALLY small one!)

You could make it dimmer to simulate smaller than a pixel.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-10 07:45pm

Here's my take:

SW.com has Rebel Alliance/New Republic propaganda. The NR wants people to think that they killed less people on the 1st and 2nd Death Stars, so they shrunk the sizes.

Imperial figures are the same as actually figures. Very little propaganda.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-06-11 03:02am

Star Wars Trilogy Paperback
Return of the Jedi Novelisation p329

"These Stars marked the moments of the universe. There were aging orange embers, blue dwarfs, twin yellow giants. There were collapsing neutron stars, and angry supernovea that hissed into the icy emptiness. There were borning stars, breating stars, pulsing stars, and dying stars. There was the Death Star.
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 armored battle station, nearly TWICE as big as it's 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."

Whew. I have always thought that the DS I size was off somehow. If the DS II is 900kms, then the statement 'nearly twice as big' means the DS I had to be larger than 450kms. I'm not the greatest matmatician or speeler in the world, but that would seem to go together. However, 'it was only half complete' makes me wonder if it's supposed to be bigger, or just that it's going to be more powerful. Either way, DS I vs DS II is a clear victory going to the partialy completed station. Seeing how it was MORE than TWICE as POWERFUL.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-11 03:09am

-is reminded of a xim episode-

we should not have fused him! it made him twice as powerful! twice as deadly!!!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-06-11 04:50am

Cal Wright wrote:Whew. I have always thought that the DS I size was off somehow. If the DS II is 900kms, then the statement 'nearly twice as big' means the DS I had to be larger than 450kms. I'm not the greatest matmatician or speeler in the world, but that would seem to go together. However, 'it was only half complete' makes me wonder if it's supposed to be bigger, or just that it's going to be more powerful. Either way, DS I vs DS II is a clear victory going to the partialy completed station. Seeing how it was MORE than TWICE as POWERFUL.

Well if it was only half as big because it only half completed, then it could be around 640km if we use the 160km figure for the DS1, if we go back from the 900km figure then the DS1 is 225km in diameter.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-06-11 08:47am

SW.com has Rebel Alliance/New Republic propaganda. The NR wants people to think that they killed less people on the 1st and 2nd Death Stars, so they shrunk the sizes.

Have I already explained my distaste for the Rebels/New Republic?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-06-11 12:35pm

Where did the 160km figure for the diameter of the original Death Star come from? That seems to be a bit small for Han to have confused it with a moon (how big does a space rock have to be before its gravity pulls it into a spherical shape, anyway?) It also seems illogical that Han would think that the Empire was incapable of building space stations the size of the DS1 when another station many times bigger could be nearly completed in secret in six months.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-11 01:21pm

Not very big, if it was molten or if it was formed by a shitload of dust.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-11 02:35pm

Howedar wrote:
Tribun wrote:That's the problem. Smaller than one pixle is not possible. So we must live with a small size error. (A REALLY small one!)
You could make it dimmer to simulate smaller than a pixel.

Or increase points-per-inch.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-06-11 02:39pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Starwars.com is loaded with obvious junk and has no status.

Incorrect (all-or-nothing thinking). The official website is quite obviously official. And like any other official source, starwars.com contains both valid and invalid information. The only things that need to be thrown out are those that have contradicted a canon source without the possibility of a rationalization.

YT300000 wrote:Here's my take:

SW.com has Rebel Alliance/New Republic propaganda. The NR wants people to think that they killed less people on the 1st and 2nd Death Stars, so they shrunk the sizes.

Imperial figures are the same as actually figures. Very little propaganda.

*snigger*... The Empire? "Very little propaganda"? Yeah, I'm sure the Rebel terrorists cruely attacked (and outnumbed the Imperial defense ships) the Palpatine's new "Imperial Planetary Ore Extractor" in an attempt to steal it, but the very nice (not to mention young and handsome) Emperor pleaded with the terrorists, offering "his forgiveness and a hand in friendship." And then, when they refused, he sacrificed himself to prevent the mining station from being used on innocent worlds (Wedge's Gamble, p136).

Logically, there'd be propaganda on both sides. Besides, we don't have any real "Imperial figures." But they'd hardly be free from propaganda.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-06-11 02:50pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:Where did the 160km figure for the diameter of the original Death Star come from? That seems to be a bit small for Han to have confused it with a moon (how big does a space rock have to be before its gravity pulls it into a spherical shape, anyway?)

He obviously didn't bother to look at his sensors, or he would've immediately seen that it wasn't natural. Since he didn't, and there's no backdrop except for stars, there would be no way for him to know how big the station is, or how far away he is from it. I mean, here on earth, the sun and moon both appear roughly the same size.

It also seems illogical that Han would think that the Empire was incapable of building space stations the size of the DS1 when another station many times bigger could be nearly completed in secret in six months.

He didn't say they were incapable of it. He simply said it was "too big to be a space station." After all, why would anyone need to build a space station 160 kilometers in diameter? Han apparently didn't think that "to destroy a planet" was a logical answer, because then he'd have to figure out why anyone would need to destroy a planet.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-06-12 10:16pm

His Divine Shadow wrote: Well if it was only half as big because it only half completed, then it could be around 640km if we use the 160km figure for the DS1, if we go back from the 900km figure then the DS1 is 225km in diameter.

It should also be noted that half complete my also include the fact that it's not just the outside but the inside.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2003-06-13 02:47pm

It's the typical imperial solution to problems. Does it work? Leave it. It doesn't work? Build a larger one.