Talk:Death Star

Contents

1 Speed of the Death Star 2 Seinar 3 Telstar 4 Size of the Return of the Jedi Death Star 5 Poll: Size of the death star 6 Poll: Wording of the size of the death star 7 ISBN of a book 8 Manufacturer? 9 What we see in ROTS 10 Bevel Lemelisk 11 Where does Lucasfilm say DK is canon?

Speed of the Death Star

Can anyone tell me how fast the Death star can go???

• Pretty darn fast. Let's see, we know it can travel through hyperspace, but I don't know more than that. www.stardestroyer.net has that info somewhere, I seem to recall.

- The Death Star has a class 3 hyperdrive, from memory. This makes it much slower than ships such as the Millenium Falcon (class 0.5), X-wings (class ~1, I think) or even capital ships (class 1-2)

• • I couldn't find class 3 in my Essential guide, but I'll take your word for it. Class 3 is slow, but not really slow. I think lot's of bulk transports, like the Rebel Transport, have class 4. So did Darth's TIE, as it wasn't a hyperdrive-oriented starship. Sublight speed is minimal, I think. We only ever see the Death Star orbiting planets. -LtNOWIS 21:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seinar

Under Expanded Universe it says "At the same time, Seinar was designing..."

Is that a typo? It might mean Sienar Fleet Systems.

Telstar

The Death Star bears an uncanny resemblance both in name and appearance to Telstar, especially in [this picture (http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/caleidoscoop/jaren%2060/techniek/Copy_of_tech.telstar.jpg)]. You can also see the beginnings of R2/D2 (top half). This is not surprising since Telstar made a huge public impact in 1962 and was well entrenched in the public awareness by the time Star Wars was designed. 194.47.144.5 00:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What, it's spherical and has holes in the middle? Doesn't seem that similar to me. ··gracefool |☺ 03:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's also the equatorial trench and the name similarity. I actually remember seeing a picture of Telstar somewhere where the similarity is even more striking, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the net. 194.47.144.5 00:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "holes in the middle". And the name is almost certainly coincidence - "Death Moon" or "Death Sphere" just doesn't have the same ring to it ;) ··gracefool |☺ 07:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, 'Star Wars: Behind the Magic' doesn't have much information about the making of the Death Star model. The early prototype was 34cm in diameter and resembled a Sputnik-like sphere with warts, although it had a trench along the middle and some towers around the 'arctic circle', which appear in some of Ralph McQuarrie's paintnigs; the biggest of the eventual models was 120cm in diameter (the Death Star II model was, however, 137cm in diameter). The 'remote' which Yoda uses to teach Luke how to swing his lightsabre resembles Telstar even more closely. [1] (http://www.oohyeahzone.com/collection/cb/lightsaber-display-remote-2.jpg) The 'Death Star' name might have been adapted - the 'Death Star' isn't actually a star at all, although alternatively it might be a reference to the powerful superlaser blast, or to the fact that it's an evil counterpart of a star. It's all moot until a canonical interview with ILM's chief designer comes along, and he'll probably just say it was supposed to be a big ball with a gun on it. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Size of the Return of the Jedi Death Star

Accoring to starwars.com, the second Death Star was to be 160 kilometers in diameter (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/?id=eu). The exact quote is "The second Death Star's size ballooned to 160 kilometers in diameter". This is mind, I'm revising the article. Samboy 11:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found the a source (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/) that gives the 160km/900km figures that this entry has before. I know this is controversial, but I feel that figures on starwars.com are more reliable than the figures on a fan web page. Samboy 07:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous IP tried to put the 160/900 kilometers figures back in the article. I reverted that change, for the reasons stated above (starwars.com says 120/160 kilometers; other figures are fan-derived figures). Again, starwar.com: ANH death star 120 kilometers (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/?id=eu), starwars.com: Deathstar 2 160 km (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/?id=eu), and fan-generated argument for 160/900 figures (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/) Samboy 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So Curtis Saxton, despite his authorship of the episode 2 and 3 incredible cross sections books, and the inside the worlds books, is merely a fan? Also, he didn't pull the figures out of his ass like (for all we know) sw.com did - he also debunks the 12.8 km Executor length claimed by the official site.

Who is Curtis Saxton? I think you should write an article about him. Basically, I feel that we need pretty stong evidence to go against Lucas' starwars.com figures; I want evidence that Curtis Saxton is someone with a notable opinion. Samboy 20:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curtis Saxton is the editor of the Star Wars Technical Commentaries (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/). The 900km figure is indicated here (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/#physical). If George Lucas says something and puts another in his movies, which should we believe: the statement, or the image? I'm changing it back to 900 km.147.226.206.145 18:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in)

OK, so Curtis Saxon is just some guy who wrote a web site. His figure, IMHO, does not override George Lucas' website. Samboy 01:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, so George Lucas, in the movie, decided DSII should be 900 km in diameter. Now he's changed his mind on paper. What should we believe: the movie, or the word of the author? I refer you to suspension of disbelief for details.

However, I would accept the compromise listed below.147.226.200.62 18:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalst, too lazy to sign in.)

George Lucas doesn´t run the Official Site, nor does he check up on it´s accuracy (or the accuracy of fact books in general). Generally he leaves continuity-checkups to others, who, until recently, did a poor job in certain issues. Now that the DK set of books are coming out to cover issues in the films, we finally have facts and specs that match up with the visual information from the films themselves:

The above is scanned from Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy and matches the scale of the DS II in the film. Now I´ll remove the faulty text and if anyone disagrees, they can take it up with me. Or Lucas Licensing.

Regarding Saxton, he is an astrophysicist and a SW-fan. Lucasfilm sought him out, because they wanted a writer with more experience in the technical department. This has led to him writing Incredible Cross-sections of AOTC and ROTS and being a technical advisor on Inside the Worlds of AOTC and the OT. He´ll most likely be asked to advice on issues in any upcoming ITW: ROTS, as well. VT-16 23:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Size of the death star

Please go further down this page to see the current editing dispute

There are three options for the size of the Death Stars; place your vote. Do so by placing # ~~~~ after the vote you agree on.

120 kilometers and 160 kilometers, as per starwars.com (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/?id=eu):

• This is official; other figures are fan-derived Samboy 01:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (bullet instead of number to change vote)

120 kilometers and 900 kilometers, as per Curtis Saxon (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/#physical)

1. This is more plausible, also, sw.com less than likely get their figures directly from George Lucas anyway. --TVPR 18:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Since Saxton´s work is taken from the films and their production crews, and is now published in a fact-book designed to cover issues in the films, I support this option. The other option is flawed, because it is based on values made up by people not involved with the films. They didn´t check to see if it matched what was presented in the film-production, either. Not surprisingly, Pablo Hidalgo on the Official Site was one of those people, working at the time for West End Games, and helping to make their SW RPG books. He now spends his time managing the OS and ridiculing those who work with technical issues in SW (something he himself used to do). Funny how a person can flip-flop from "Discussing technical issues in fantasy is pointless!" to "We must keep these exact numbers!", like he does. Well, if it´s all "pointless", why does he object when we want to exchange one "pointless" number for another? Since it supposedly doesn´t matter to him? VT-16 14:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

120 kilometers and 160 kilometers, as per starwars.com (http://www.starwars.com), with mention of Curtis Saxon figures (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/#physical):

1. Chris 73 Talk 07:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - I like this compromise.
2. I would side with Curtis Saxon on this; I'm familiar with his 'Star Wars Technical Commentaries', and they're generally well-written and well-argued, to a higher standard even than the canonical media (the article on the varying, erroneous designs of the Imperial Shuttle [2] (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/lambdashape.html) is instructive in this regard; the mock-up which we see in the Death Star II's hangar, from which the Emperor descends, was noticeably different to the ILM model we see flying about). Also, the wildly differing sizes of the Executor super-stardestroyer given in different official media dents my faith in the power of the George. However, this option seems the best compromise - I would word it along the lines of "Canonical media list the sizes of the Death Stars as X and Y, although fans (link) have argued, using photogrammetry, that the true sizes are A and B, whilst the special effects models scale to N and M". -Ashley Pomeroy 19:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Unless Lucas states something to contrary, I'm inclined to believe starwars.com. However, mentioning Curtis Saxon's figures would only add to the article. Carrp | Talk 20:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. On second thoguht, I'm changing my vote to mention both figures so we can reach consensus. Samboy 02:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. I approve. And I am the one who posted above (if there were any questioners). Neocapitalist 18:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_Star&diff=11526155&oldid=11492917), it looks like someone wanted to support their own POV as to the size of the death star instead of bowing to consensus. I have revised the paragraph in question to more accurately reflect the consensus reached above. Samboy 01:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like User:Vermilion is reverting the page without discussion on the talk page. I'll win this edit war; we can both do three reverts and he'll have to get banned for 24 hours to win the revert war. Samboy 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Starwars.com (http://www.starwars.com/) is not canon. The sizes shown in the movies are higher canon than poorly researched game stats. -Vermilion 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Add your vote below. I've already added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment so this edit dispute may be resolved by other parties. Samboy 04:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand the content of these disputes; the unupdated Databank and WEG information PREDATES the canonical DK nonfiction sources; Leland Chee (keeper of the internal LFL canon "Holocron" database) states that these sources have retconned antiquated Databank and WEG sources. The Death Star I is now 160 km, and the Death Star II is now 900 kilometers. Illuminatus Primus 01:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

Please get a picture of just the Death Star.- B-101 22:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Wording of the size of the death star

This poll is very simple. Which wording concerning the size of the Death Star has less POV?

1. According to the Expanded Universe sources and starwars.com (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/?id=eu), the smaller death star was 120 kilometers in diameter and the second one was 160 kilometers in diameter. According to the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections fact book, however, the first Death Star was 160 kilometers in diameter. According to the Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy fact book, detailed scaling of the station in the movie indicated that the second Death Star was 900 kilometers in diameter.

1. According to the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections fact book, the first Death Star was 160 kilometers in diameter. According to the Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy fact book and detailed scaling of the station in the movie, the second Death Star was 900 kilometers in diameter. While some Expanded Universe sources and starwars.com (http://www.starwars.com) state much smaller figures—120 kilometers for the first Death Star and 160 kilometers for the second—most of the evidence argues for the larger sizes.

Please sign your vote with ~~~~

Wording number one

1. "Most of the evidence argues for the larger sizes" is very POV phrasing; as is the 'While some sources' wording. Samboy 04:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Wording number two

1. I don't see how it's POV to point out that the commonly referenced WEG stats are incorrect when they are in fact incorrect. Wording number one also has very poor grammar. -Vermilion 05:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Having reread the relevant articles on NPOV, I conceed that it was POV by Wikipedia's definition. I have reworded the paragraph in the article. -Vermilion 06:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm disapointed no one else has added their input. Samboy 20:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just spent sone time on the paragraph we got in an edit war over. If this doesn't seem like a fair wording to you, use the "Edit this page" link. The only I ask is that you don't do a wholescale revert. Samboy 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That wording looks ok to me. -Vermilion 00:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

ISBN of a book

Does anyone know the ISBN for Inside The Worlds Of Star Wars Trilogy by James Luceno (Consultant - Curtis Saxton). I would like to add this to the paragraph about the size of the Death Star; it makes the 900km figure a lot stronger if we can get an actual published book referenced. Samboy 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

ISBN: 0-7566-0307-2 -Vermilion 00:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Manufacturer?

The Republic had no plans of building the Death Star. -- John-V Ed Telerionus 21:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What we see in ROTS

I do not think the battlestation we see in ROTS is the Death Star in ANH; the timing seems off (19 years to build the first one and only one year to build the second one) and third part sources (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/) state that is isn't the Death Star. That said, I do think Lucas wanted to give the impression to casual Star Wars fans (people who have only seen the six movies and maybe read the Zhan trilogy) that what we are looking at is, in fact the Death Star. How should we word the description of what is seen in ROTS? Samboy 00:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not have a section "ROTS Death Star?" and list several theories with pros and cons. There's not much else to do since there's not yet any definitive answer from published canon. Illuminatus Primus 01:03, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, Primus. Of course, the new novels coming out will probably explain it.-LtNOWIS 00:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Bevel Lemelisk

I am concerned about the status of Bevel Lemelisk. The Death Star entry of the Star Wars databank (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/?id=eu) indicates that Lemelisk and his colleagues were instrumental in designing DS technology. That which comes from LucasFilm is in general regarded as one of the higher forms of Canon. I can also not find citations indicating that the Geonosians created the Death Star plans, but merely that Poggle the Lesser (the Geonosian leader) was in posession of the plans. (See http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/pogglethelesser/index.html). In any case, how can we resolve this? -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a some disagreement amoung hard-core Star Wars fans over the level of Canon that starwars.com has. Personally, I think disagreeing with starwars.com is silly, but I have gotten in to no less than two disagreements over the size of the Death Star. Basically, a lot of strong Star Wars fans do not consider starwars.com well-maintinaed, and consider other sources (such as the DK books) more authoritative than the web site. Read the paragraph on this size of the Death Star to get a picture of what is going on here. Samboy 07:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where does Lucasfilm say DK is canon?

If Lucasfilm considers DK canon, please provide a reference for it. Until then, I have commented out this paragraph:

DK nonfiction is considered canon by Lucasfilm Limited, and the starwars.com Databank lacks frequent or comprehensive updating, which explains the discrepancy [in the size of the death star]

Star Wars Insider #68, page 23: "These books would represent the most thorough research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's formal imprimatur as canon. These volumes would henceforth be sent out to licensees as reference guides and would become useful manuals for Industrial Light & Magic, where some of the artwork influenced details in Episodes I and II."

Illuminatus Primus 18:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)