Timeline for How big is the Death Star compared to the Executor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2023 at 13:14 | comment | added | iRaS | my sources suggest that the first death star had a radius of 160km (diameter = 320km) and the second death star was arguably bigger. the latest suggestion is 400km diameter (radius 200km) but long time it was told that it had 900km radius. but you are right: even with 900km that picture is off scale | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 16:38 | answer | added | Matt Zed | timeline score: -1 | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | DevSolar | Hmmm... follow-up question: How does the 160km number for DS2 hold up when looking at the pictures of DS2 orbiting Endor (e.g. during the Rebel briefing)? Are there canonical numbers for the size of Endor? | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 21:46 | comment | added | Stewbob | @Yakk, I've done the math on that. Depending on measuring error, it's either 22,600km in diameter, based on a perceived 1 pixel curvature, (twice as big as earth) or infinite. Infinite is the proper answer since this scene was shot using a flat model for the death star and any curvature is an artifact of image resizing or lens imperfections. | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 21:43 | comment | added | Yakk | A different question is "given the above picture, how big is the death star"? | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 21:16 | comment | added | Nick2253 | @HarryJohnston If you don't count off-screen sources, then there's nothing to refute your statement about multiple, different sized but otherwise identical looking ships. The 160km figure for the Death Star is completely from off screen sources. You can trace screen-shots from human to Tantive IV escape pod, to Devastator bay, to Devastator, (extrapolate to generic Star Destroyer) to Executor to get the 19km size. Given that, we know a lower bound on the DS2 diameter, from the movies alone, must be about 450,000x human size (about 900km) | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Harry Johnston | @Nick2253: off-screen doesn't count, IMO. As for on-screen, I'd have to see specific screenshots to decide whether they were convincing or not. It seems unlikely; for example, how do you know that (in-Universe) there aren't two types of spaceship that look the same except that one is bigger than the other? | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 16:09 | comment | added | Nick2253 | @HarryJohnston The 19km figure comes from comparing the ILM models (both on screen and off) of the Executor and the other star destroyers. Which is why the 160km figure of DS2 is ridiculous (and it's inconsistent with the ILM's spec docs for DS2 as well). | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 15:39 | vote | accept | Stewbob | ||
| Mar 4, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | Doctor Doom | On which grounds are you saying it's way off scale? Maybe, that's the answer. | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 9:40 | comment | added | PlasmaHH | Duh, this is all the correct scale and just lens distortion from a sithn hand shops crappy webcam. | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 21:36 | comment | added | JdeBP | This question is no doubt inspired by the commentary at scifi.stackexchange.com/a/82759/21871 , q.v.. ☺ | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 21:26 | comment | added | Justin C | oh lord, not another edit for Lucas to make | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 19:16 | comment | added | Harry Johnston | Where did the 19km figure come from, though? I'd argue that the movie is the more canonical source, so it is whoever decided that Executors are 19km long that made the mistake. | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 19:16 | answer | added | Dronz | timeline score: 80 | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 18:00 | comment | added | Jason Hutchinson | The surface of the Death Star was a flat model which is why it appears to be flat (and out of scale). At the time, computer animation wasn't quite able to make a realistic surface to crash the Executor into. Here is a picture that shows one of the (huge) models they had to build. screenused.com/images/starwars/STAR_WARS_BONUS_DISC-7.jpg Note: this may not be the actual Death Star model, but it was very similar. | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 17:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSciFi/status/572818305695809537 | ||
| Mar 3, 2015 at 17:50 | comment | added | Himarm | they didnt want to break their actual death star. | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | TARS | @zipquincy More likely they just didn't want to bother with using a curved surface. Afterall this whole Death Star surface looks like a flat plane without any perceivable surface structure at all in this picture. That's probably just way easier to do, I guess. | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 16:57 | comment | added | zipquincy | it is interesting they chose to show it at the wrong scale here. the point of what's happening in this Act is that the empire is gonna loose. if the correct scale was shown, it would have emphasized the damage more... // more likely it was just an unimportant detail to them | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 16:45 | answer | added | user8719 | timeline score: 76 | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Himarm | added the actual picture replacing the link, since your whole question is based off the picture. :D | |
| Mar 3, 2015 at 16:43 | history | edited | Himarm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2015 at 16:35 | history | asked | Stewbob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
