Books Death Star Owner's Technical Manual: Imperial DS-1 Orbital Battle Station

Why should someone use volume?

Who is "they"? Why didn't anyone tell Dr David West Reynolds the same thing?

 

Because it is a giant ball?

LFL.

Write him and ask.

 

That's not a particularly compelling reason - volume is not the exclusive province of balls, giant or otherwise.

Who says?

That was a rhetorical question, pointing out the value of invesitgating matters yourself. It was David W Reynolds, not Dr Saxton, mind, who derived the 160km measurement for the first DS.

 

As said volume

WEG

I don't care enough one way or another, as far as I am concerned it is the size of a small moon.

 

If it really matters to people that much- publicise it, do a Red Letter Media and trash it for two hours on Youtube- organize 10,000+ person marches in which everyone throws their copy in the local city rubbish tip, and so forth.

 

http://www.facebook.com/notes/star-...f-the-size-of-the-death-stars/641724579210986

The History of the Size of the Death Star, written by me and ExarXan of these boards

Opinions?

 

Is there an echo in here? I distinctly remembered this from last page:

Again, where did WEG come up with the numbers? It's really not that hard a question.

You care enough to post on these threads every time they happen.

 

I like it. It's interesting to see that there's some pre-WEG support for the 160km DS2 figure.

I think it was the first Star Wars Encyclopedia that gave WEG the idea that the Executor was 8 km in length - could it have given them the 120km and 160km Death Star figures as well?

And a pre WEG number has been mentioned- at least for the DS2:

ROTJ Sketchbook (June 1983):
DS2: diameter 100 miles (ca. 160km) as noted on a production sketch

Given that the DS1 model was 4 ft in diameter, not 3 ft, the Bantha Tracks statement:

"an incredible 1:180,000 for the Death Star (making the full size Death Star 102+ miles in diameter)"

is a bit iffy- it seems to be operating from an assumption of a 90cm in diameter model.

 

Thx for your opinion. The production sketch in question as of 1983 ROTJ Sketchbook




And yes the first Encyclopedia by Sansweet featured already the 120 and 160 km figures but was published in 1998. So WEG preceded the encyclopedia

 

I was thinking of the first Guide to the Star Wars Universe - from way back in 1984:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A_Guide_to_the_Star_Wars_Universe_(First_Edition)

 

interesting.. checked my copy: It features 160km for the DS2 but no number for DS1!

 

That's interesting to know.

Maybe WEG, already knowing what they were going to use for the DS2, guesstimated the DS1's size based on the assumption that for the DS2 "nearly twice as big, yet only half-complete" meant "when complete, it will be twice the volume".

 

added this source into the article now. thx for pointing me towards it. this was one of the first SW books I ever owned

 

No problem. Can't remember if I read it, but Gorefiend cited it as evidence that the 8km Executor predates WEG- and also, mentioned that Saxton acknowledged it once, but in other references to the Executor, blames WEG for "propagating the myth".

Concerning the size of the Forest Moon, in another thread, LelalMekha said:

​

I'd like to know how much the Forest Moon's size has bounced around. I know Wookieepedia cites the Empire at War Official Game Guide as the source for the 4900km diameter figure, and I'm guessing that's where The Essential Atlas got it- but did the Game Guide get it from anywhere?

 

Can someone with the first edition clarify if the numbers are in it too? got only the second edition of 1994!

 

it did bounce but just like you said it I guess. have not found any clues of other numbers than the rpg one and the game guide and atlas one.

 

'Fraid I don't have it. Also- I believe one of the first reference books to use the 160km DS1 figure was David West Reynolds' Incredible Cross Sections book, back in 1998.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Incredible_Cross-Sections

At least, that was what was being argued earlier:

 

still it was kept at 120km in all subsequent sources till many years later. but interesting, adding it too thx

 

Finally. So that makes a production sketch. Which can be changed later in production. See the Invisible Hand in ROTS animatics vs the Invisible Hand in the finished film, both done by ILM. Or the Calamari Cruiser, which in the concept art of the same book was 1 mile long, but ended up as 0,7+ miles in ROTJ.

For the Death Star II, we have this concept art and a statement from the July 1983 CINEFEX issue (after the film premiered):

"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." - Richard Edlund of Industrial Light & Magic

"Much bigger" doesn't sound like a change from 120 to 160 km to me:



More like:

 

Oddly, the Millennium Falcon length was, as far as I can tell, given as 26m in that, and kept there in both books incorporating that content (Complete Cross-Sections and Complete Vehicles) - despite that being not very compatible with the ESB Star Destroyer Tower scene.

(Even if you take into account the possibility that due to model differences between Episode IV and Episode V, the ESB sensor domes were overestimated in size- being 31m wide not 43m, a 26m Falcon is still too small).

Millennium Falcon Owners Workshop Manual seems to be the source that fixes this, giving us a 35m Falcon - though it did come out before Complete Vehicles.

 

Or a broken record as for some reason no matter how often it comes up it goes the same way.

*points up were the question is answered once again*

I should really just keep linking back yep.

 

sure a sketch can be changed but we do not know IF it was changed to the smaller or the larger figure. the CINEFEX interview is noncanon, the ROTJ Sketchbook is a published source but since just a sketch also not canon (especially since canon did not exist back then). so with precedence for both numbers and no clear proof which ultimately was the picked one for ROTJ, it is a free for all. Only when the movies got specific timeline placements in relation to each other inuniverse construction history has to be factored in and supports the smaller figure in a more believable way. but it also is supported by screenshot calculations. But then again there are screenshot analysis that supports either number and others.

 

And "nearly twice as big" doesn't seem like "almost 6 times the diameter" to me.

Ultimately, I figure that there is at least good reason to believe that, as CeiranHarmony says:
First and foremost, the reversion has not been an error as both Ryder Windham and Leland Chee have confirmed. It was a deliberate decision based on presented evidence.

it was "presented evidence" - not pressure alone, that convinced Chee.

 

Funny enough they also support a 0 metes long Executor

 

Neither is non-canon when dealing with a film's production. Either one or the other was what the filmmakers went with for the finished production and that is the canon of the film.

Wait, so in order to prove what ILM shot for their film, you use second-hand info from in-universe lore books written long after real-life film production ended?

Especially difficult since one of the factors in determining some shots, changes sizes as well, in publishing (the Forest Moon of Endor).