Talk:Death Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Star Wars
 Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] Population of the Death Star

  • Under the description heading the first Death Star is said to hold: "27,048 officers, 774,576 crew including troopers, pilots and officials, 400,000 support workers and over 25,000 Imperial stormtroopers." Perhaps someone could justify this statement or explain from where this information was taken. For some reason it just doesn't seem correct to me. Thanks. Mordecai121 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This figure seems to me to be very small considering the size of the death star. Assuming that the smaller figure for the death star is correct and it is 120km in diameter, then the average volume per person (assuming 2 million people living there) corresponds to a cube with a side of 767m. Alternative if we assume that each of the 2 million people have a combining living and working volume of 1000 metres cubed then they would occupy about one millionth of the volume of the death star. If the death star is 900 km in diameter then this number is goes down to about 10-9. Either way the death star is very sparsely populated and so is either most empty space or filled with massive engines and weapon systems.

[edit] 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)
      • The "Movie Trilogy Sourcebook" for the old d6 Star Wars Roleplaying Game (which originally introduced the concept of Hyperdrive classes, with low being good), lists the Hyperdrive factor on the Death Star as x4 (p. 47), the second Death Star was to have a x3 Hyperdrive (p. 135). --Wingsandsword 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seinar

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

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

         Yeah, it's a typo.

[edit] Telstar

The Death Star bears an uncanny resemblance both in name and appearance to Telstar, especially in [this picture]. 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)
That's no moon! 82.40.183.118 09:27, 16 March 2007 (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] 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)

[edit] Size of the Return of the Jedi Death Star

Accoring to starwars.com, the second Death Star was to be 160 kilometers in diameter. 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 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, starwars.com: Deathstar 2 160 km, and fan-generated argument for 160/900 figures 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. The 900km figure is indicated here. 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:
http://img206.exs.cx/img206/3997/dsiisize3qx.jpg
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)

[edit] 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:

  • 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

  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, with mention of Curtis Saxon figures:

  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] 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, 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 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)

Sphere of 120 km diameter has volume of ~900000 km^3, 900 km - nearly 400000000 km^3. With ~1 million of crew that gives ~1 man per 1 cubic kilometre and 1 man per 400 cubic kilometres of volume, respectively. Ain't that ridiculous? However, just an idea of anyone wanting to build such a useless thing as a Death Star is ridiculous as well...

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

[edit] 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, 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 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)
Its not so much POV as it is unnecessary use of weasel words. Still a problem though... 86.132.221.94 18:29, 8 April 2006 (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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Manufacturer?

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

I read somewhere that the Geonosians help in the manufacture of the Death Star --PlatinumTracks 01:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In the pc Game Empire at War the Geonosians are forcefully recruited to provide labour and materials. DarthTanner

[edit] 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 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)

Howstuffworks states that what we see at the end of ROTS is "the CIS's recently captured 'Great Weapon.'" This seems plausible, as it would have been advantageous to Palpatine to have the CIS build the weapon as opposed to having Republic resources secretly build it. The construct that we see also strongly resembles the so-called Death Star Prototype from the expanded universe- it's entirely possible with minor retconning to state that the DS Prototype is indeed the "Great Weapon" constructed by the CIS. It seems entirely unlikely that we are glimpsing the construction of the first Death Star at the end of ROTS due to the required relative difference in time taken to build the first DS compared to that taken to build the second.

M412k 07:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth: Note the different manners in which the Death Star II and the object seen at the end of ROTS were built - the object (whaterver it was) seemed to be a complete framework, which, had construction continued, would have presumably been 'filled in'. The DS2, on the other hand, has a half that was nearly complete and a half that didn't even have a framwork! It seems odd that the Galactic Empire would so radically change the building process, although it may have something to do with Moff Tarkin being killed. - An Imperial Fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.204.103 (talk • contribs).

Actually, it makes sense (to me, at least). Part of the plan with the second Death Star was to get it up and running as quickly as possible, so that it was a danger even though it wasn't fully built. Having just the skeleton constructed wouldn't have helped with that (and it could have been a bit more apparent that the weapons system was actually working; if all you've got is a giant skeleton and a huge energy reactor for everyone to see, that'll be a bit obvious...). Besides, the Empire may have had totally different ways of building things than the CIS did, making the "radical change" fairly plausible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, but Palpatine was in ultimately in command of both projects, including the CIS' operations. Bevel Lemisk also worked on both Death Stars, but NOT the CIS' 'ultimate weapon'. The logistics and worker movement must have been nightmares. Also, if Palpatine was worried about the DS2 being vulnerable he could have had the it built over Couruscant (sp?), Byss, or some other spot the Rebellion wouldn't dare attack. Instead, he chose to use it a bait for the Rebellion - hardly a good course of action if security was a prime concern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.204.103 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

Couldn't it simply have been like this: The Geonosians came up with the concept and overall design, while Lemelisk and the other Maw Installation scientists developed the actual workings of it and took care of practical matters? This could also explain the time it took to build the first Star; it was not really developed in the prequel films, but only much later (in the film, it is never stated WHEN the scene where the Dark Lords inspect the construction takes place; the Imperial-style uniform and ship design implies that it was some time after the events in the film, since neither were ever used by the Republic, and Palpatine cannot reasonably have changed the entire military in a matter of days). Custodes

[edit] 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)


Incidentally, the Expanded Universe (the majority of which points to a 160 kilometer diameter for the Death Star II) is also canon. There are various levels of Star Wars canon, and unfortunately this quote doesn't say what level of canon DK's books have. So there still may be some room for reasonable disagreement because of the contradictions. Originally I thought to exclude mention of this canon thing, but that was probably a mistake. I’ve consequently exposed the conflict in an edit of the Wikipedia entry.
Anonymous User 8/9/2005


[edit] Birthplace of a Death Trap

the essential guide to vehicles and vessles says that the death star was constructed over the planet despayre not in the maw. It was then used to destroy the planet. --70.105.68.30 00:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The real Death Star was constructed over the penal planet, yes. The prototype was constructed at the maw. --Maru (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

[edit] Controversial Designer

Both the Essential guide to vehicles and vessels and the incredible cross sections state that the death star was conceived by moff tarkin. I know this seemingly contradicts the movie and would gladly accept an explanation. 70.105.68.30 00:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

to be frank, the problem is that George Lucas doesn't bother checking the expanded universe before he inserts new origins for a place or person in the Star Wars Galaxy. Sad but true. Oh well, our continuity is still better than Trek's. Tmorrisey 06:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "Our continuity is still better than Trek's"....oh, massively impressive. So in six movies and a few dozen novels Star Wars has managed to contain less inconsitencies then Star Trek's ten movies and over 300 episodes? Be proud.
A few dozen novels? How ignorant. When I stopped collecting novels back in '99, I was past 80 novels and other books, and my collection even then was nowhere near compelete. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Geonosians got the idea from Tarkin? He certainly seems to have been old enough to have been around at that time (Isn't the figure accompanying Vader and Palpatine right in the end of Episode III supposed to be Tarkin?). Or perhaps it was a cover-up to attribute the weapon to Tarkin instead of "inferior" aliens? Unlikely, I know, but with a little creative thinking, most inconsistencies can be dealt with. I do agree with earlier speakers, though; Lucas knows little of the universe that he originally created. So it's up to others to rectify the errors as far as possible. Custodes

[edit] Citation of stardestroyer.net as credible source

  • Why is Wong's rabid fan creation used as an authority on this? Look over the whole of his website and honestly say that he seems knowledgeable and disinterested enough to be used in an authoritative discourse on anything from Star Wars.
Why should whether or not it seems like an authority have any bearing on whether or not it actually is? Neocapitalist 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As a huge SW fan I can say that Wong is a jerk who thinks being a SW fan is all about hating ST and making SW ships and technology look better and stronger. I believe SW is a beautiful epic saga about the classic battle of good vs. evil, NOT a source for his fanboy wank. I mean, I don't really like ST, but I don't hate it either. Wong, on the other hand, has a website devoted to proving that the militaristic Galactic Empire would crush the pacifist Federation of ST. He even goes so far as to claim that the Federation is a communist society thus showing his ignorance of philosophy and sociology and making a McCarthy-wannabe ass of himself. He makes us all look bad. Besides, his mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific crap has been refuted on a number of ocassions. If there were any real Star Wars fans out here, this crap would never even appear in the article in the first place.
How does what you personally think about Mike Wong's attitude alter the fact that destroying an Earth-sized planet takes 1032 Joules minimum, and that what was seen in the film requires 1038 Joules? --DaveJB 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Besides, the Federation is Communist. Wong's no McCarthy. :p Rogue 9 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
DaveJB, that's a matter of heated debate in fandom. Tentatively, I've added the alternate POV as a link, but I have no problem with neither being linked to. Balancer 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pacifists never win any wars. Can't we all agree on that? Myself, I couldn't be less interested in debating a war between SW and ST, but that's a fact. Custodes

[edit] Let's Talk About Links

Why is a link to http://www.st-v-sw.net/olde/STSWdeathstar.html included on the main page? There is no alternate case presented in the article, and, to be frank, the page linked has no real theory or case to include in the article. Neocapitalist 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. Reading through the site, it has some interesting points, and certainly its pet theory that the Death Star beam worked not through a direct application of destructive force but rather through using the energy of the target against itself is interesting; seems to explain the anomalies fairly well in a believable way. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree; while the manner in which that website presents the theory is believable, upon a second reading, I realized all the page was saying was, "Rings formed; therefore, the Death Star is not a massive superlaser, and therefore it did not blow up Alderaan", and it didn't present any credible alternative theory. --Neocapitalist 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, not just the rings, but also the uneven distribution of debris in both Death Star's destruction and that of Alderaan. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Uneven distribution is to be expected because heat transfer isn't instantaneous; my issue with including that as a link is it doesn't propose any alternative theory. I mean, all the rings say is there is something going on we don't know about; it doesn't invalidate the fact the Death Star mounts a big superlaser which blows up planets. Neocapitalist 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the link back in. Please note that SDN and STVSW are both highly biased sources on this topic, and each controversial in their own ways. The STVSW page ("Death Star research project") includes nearly as much material as the SWTC page on the topic. Balancer 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed it again. There's no official reason to believe the Death Star's weapon didn't blow up the planet by itself: the Episode IV crawler states the Death Star is 'an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.' Poorly supported fan arguments don't warrant inclusion, particularly ad-hoc non-theories like the one in the link, which doesn't even provide an alternate explaination, simply pointing out that 'because there's a planar ring from the Alderaan explosion in the special edition and this quote says 'artificial sun' which could mean fusion [nevermind it could mean other things too]...um...The Death Star isn't as powerful as people say' and then mumbles something about a 'chain reaction.' That, against a statement at the beginning of one of the film that the thing has 'enough power to destroy an entire planet' is just perverse, and doesn't warrant inclusion here.

ST-V-SW isn't being removed because it's 'controversial,' it's being removed because it doesn't offer any coherent alternate explaination to the mainstream one and therefore adds nothing to the article. Anderson doesn't describe how his 'chain reaction' would work, or even attempt to show how it better fits the facts than the regular explaination that the Death Star operates by simple direct energy transfer. His sole argument is the planar ring that his non-theory doesn't explain either, and assuming that if something says 'artificial sun' it really means 'hydrogen fusion reactor.' His entire explaination is 'The most obvious theory is that the superlaser weapon used some sort of peculiar physics effect' but he doesn't even begin to describe what this might be, so his 'theory' is no better in practical terms than saying the Death Star destroyed Alderaan with magic.Hrimfaxi 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actual discussion of the "superlaser effect" - which I may note is considered by many to be a coherent explanation - is only one of five sections of the "death star research project" linked to, which - as I noted earlier - contains similar amounts of information, analysis, and fan speculation as the SWTC section on the matter. The SLE section alone is certainly as worth bringing up in a regular article as the analysis as the analysis on stardestroyer.net (linked to in this article and every bit as much speculation as st-v-sw.net's SLE article), and no more controversial than the assorted Death Star scalings found on the SWTC.
You may think it highly offensive and think the argument set forth not worthy of inclusion. I will, however, quote yourself at you from the Talk:Star Trek Versus Star Wars page: NPOV requires both sides be presented. The simple fact is that the Saxtonian model of the Death Star is not the only side here.If you believe this article is no place for fan speculation, we shall have to remove a great deal more links than the one to st-v-sw.net - which is clearly considered reasonably notable on the 'net as a reference to the Death Star. If you doubt my claims as to the DSRP pages' notabiliy, make a few quick searches for things like "superlaser theory death star," "effect of the death star," "death star mechanism," etc. Balancer 20:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is there is no second 'side' here to present. Anderson doesn't present any coherent theory on the linked page, he simply quotes two passages which can be interpreted to vaguely imply that the traditional DET model might not be correct, and triumphantly claims a chain reaction he doesn't describe must be responsible instead. He doesn't explain what this chain reaction is [other that it's 'some sort of peculiar physics effect'], how it's a better theory, how it explains the events better than the traditional theory, or deal with any of its shortcomings. As I said above, he might as well have claimed the Death Star operates by magic, so sparse is his explaination of this 'chain reaction.'
The other links start from the intro crawler and work outwards in a methodical and logical fashion; the intro crawler states the Death Star has enough power to destroy an entire planet, therefore they calculate the power necessary to destroy an entire planet and assume this to be a usable figure for the power of the Death Star. It is impossible to carry out such a process using the Mysterious Chain Reaction, because it has no known mechanism, the power requirements are impossible to quantify [they might even be higher than the requirements for DET, since there's no reason to believe this 'peculiar physics effect' that can blow up a planet with a tiny energy input exists in the Star Wars universe] and it's impossible to predict what its effect should look like because there's nothing there to work with.
Trying to power down the Death Star is a staple of Star Wars Versus Star Trek debating, but Anderson's theory is probably the worst one that could be cited; at least the theories about the Death Star fissioning Alderaan's core use describable mechanisms, even if they are completely unworkable. Please cite a valid source in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability for Anderson's theory if you want to justify its inclusion, noting that in line with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence Anderson's invention of mysterious undescribed 'peculiar physics effects' that violate Conservation of Energy would require validation by someone with a relevant qualification in physics. The DET estimates are provided by a professional engineer and a guy with a PhD in Astrophysics, so I'd expect similar support to justify inclusion of the link to Anderson's page.Hrimfaxi 07:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


The explanations are no less detailed than Saxton or Wong's explanations. "Maybe it's some sort of laser. We're not sure..." The fan speculations in question are no better backed up on either site.
However, you do have a point, in that Wikipedia:Verifiability states clearly that One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. However, the W:V policy refers to article content, not the external links section. You may wish to review Wikipedia:External_links which states that "any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" is to be normally avoided. I would note that while st-v-sw.net falls under this heading, so does stardestroyer.net and the SWTC, both of which are chock full of unverified original research, by Wikipedia's standards.
I will note that rigorous application of this standard involves removing all but three of the many links found on this article, unless you pay attention to the details of "what should be linked to." This includes notably Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews. This is the only possible justification for linking to the SWTC, stardestroyer.net, or st-v-sw.net from any article.
The external links section also makes it perfectly clear that, when presenting controversial POV material - such as the SWTC - the multiple POVs must be included, and descriptive headings should be included to warn readers.
That you feel it worth including stardestroyer.net's parodies of st-v-sw.net, but not st-v-sw.net's DSRP, in the links section, tells me you are only at work in this article to advance a particular POV and keep another particular POV out.
In what I suggest to be in at least loose accordance with Wikipedia policy as practiced, I will be re-adding the link, screening out all the in-article links (which are largely gratuitous), re-adding any such not already included in the external links section, and adding "warning" descriptors for readers, noting that the only possible other interpretation of Wikipedia policy on this article is the removal of all the SDN, ST-v-SW.net, and SWTC links from the article. Which I suspect would be better, but I do not feel it wise to make such a drastic revision without awaiting output from other editors.
EDIT: Yes, that was me, I somehow got logged out. Balancer 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, while I'm asking for everybody's attention to come focusing down on what began as a relatively trivial discussion of whether or not NPOV dictated including a link to the main "rival" site to stardestroyer.net alongside it, or would be better served by the absence of both highly controversial sites (a situation that is preferable in this case, as for almost any article not dealing specifically with the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate, per the policy suggesting that we link only to neutral, accurate, and unbiased sites whenever possible), I would like to ask... just how strictly is the "no unverified sources" and "no original research" policy to be applied to articles such as this one?
I ask, because it occurred to me while reorging (most) of the external links from this article, that some of the more interesting content seems like it qualifies either as original research or a citation of something that doesn't precisely fall under WP:V, usually some fan or personal website the WP:EL policy suggests we should not normally link to - and it's those sorts of details that have always made articles on things like SF vehicles interesting reads. Balancer 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
To reiterate:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence Anderson's invention of mysterious undescribed 'peculiar physics effects' that violate Conservation of Energy would require validation by someone with a relevant qualification in physics.
The external links section points out that those with relevant qualifcations [like astrophysicists and engineers] are allowable. There is no validation by anyone with related expertise on Anderson's non-theory, and you have repeatedly ignored my demands for a statement of his theory. This is because you cannot make one, because he does not, and cannot describe the mechanism he claims the Death Star operates by. He has no mechanism, ergo, for all the reams of nonesense spun around it, he has nothing to say. Hrimfaxi 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also:

'That you feel it worth including stardestroyer.net's parodies of st-v-sw.net, but not st-v-sw.net's DSRP, in the links section, tells me you are only at work in this article to advance a particular POV and keep another particular POV out.'

I recommend you read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. The fact that I linked an article critical of less accepted theories [the ones that are actually coherent theories which propose actual mechanisms as opposed to hand-waving about exotic physics] is in line with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. You are confusing NPOV with giving equal validity to less accepted theories.

In the case of Anderson's site, we are not talking about an alternative POV, we are talking about a nonexistent and incoherent POV. You have only managed to claim 'many people say it's coherent' without naming any of them, citing their credentials or even being able to coherently re-state the theory yourself. If Anderson's theory is coherent, put your money where you mouth is and explain how its mechanism operates, what its power requirements are and how it represents a valid explaination of the observations rather than a random series of statements with no describable mechanism that obeys no known physical laws. Hrimfaxi 12:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Many do accept some sort of SLE as operating in the Death Star[3]. (See the wide variety of comments on that post.) And the question of whether assuming some "magic" mechanism, or some "magic" method of generating power is more scientific is an open question, but not a compelling one in motivating inclusion or disinclusion in the article. And st-v-sw.net isn't verifiable per wikipedia policy, which is why its materials should not be included within the article proper.
The problem is that neither is SDN or, for that matter, the vast bulk of the SWTC, with the exception of certain items in the SWTC that have been canonized via publication (e.g., the famous Death Star scaling controversy.) Thus, they are not suitable for citation as sources.
Review Wikipedia:External links as I asked you to; this, not the WP:V policy, is the standard for the inclusion or disinclusion of external links. First among these is citation of sources, but per WP:V, none of these sites can qualify as appropriate sources to cite, with a few particular exceptions (in this article, the Death Star scaling, again, which has been verified by official literature). Under "What Should be Linked to," I refer you to items 4 and 6. Item four indicates clearly that, should the article link to highly controversial websites, such as st-v-sw.net, stardestroyer.net, or the SWTC, the common alternative POVs must be represented, and above all else, we must take care that The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. A detailed explanation is also required beside POV links. Item six gives a possible other justification for linking to these three websites: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews. Their content is meaningful and (possibly) relevant, but not clearly not suitable for inclusion in the article. Item 3 on "Occasionally acceptable links" notes that On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. Two or three is therefore stretching it as far as Wikipedia's policies on external links to include - at best.
However, it is when we review "Links to normally avoid" that we see the real problems. st-v-sw.net, stardestroyer.net, and the SWTC all qualify under item 1, unless we consider the three sites notable proponents in an article discussing multiple points of view. It is thus highly difficult to include these sites (which include original research, are unverified (per Wikipedia's verifiability policy,) and are all broadly considered factually inaccurate by a substantial portion of the fan base). It is outright impossible to link to only one POV out of those sites and follow Wikipedia policy. Balancer 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
When I said "suitable" in my edit, I meant to say "not suitable." Per above. Per the spirit of the 3RR, I will refrain from editing the article further for another day or three (if not more) while others weigh in, and suggest that Hrimfaxi consider likewise while we wait for the rest of the Wikipedia community to wake up and examine what has been said. Balancer 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Again: Curtis Saxton has a PhD in astrophysics and has written official literature for the Star Wars universe. His calculation thus gains respectibility because of his professional standing and because his work has been published in an official source [his Acclaimator firepower figures are based on the same numbers as his Death Star figure]. Anderson's theory has not been published in any official sources, and has no validation by anyone with a relevant qualification in a related field. It is thus no more worthy of inclusion than any other fan theory of Death Star operation, and you are giving it undue emphasis by inserting a link to it. Either link to every other scientifically invalid theory of Death Star operation, or your argument collapses since you are emphasising one above all the others and contradicting your own demands for showing all points of view.
You should also note that, on Saxton's and Michael Wong's sites, calculations are present for energy requirements. Anderson's site includes no such calculation because Anderson's theory has no defined mechanism; you cannot say whether the Mysterious Chain Reaction requires 1038 joules as well, half as much, more, or even if it requires energy. All you can say is 'The Death Star fired a beam, some other stuff happened and then Alderaan went bang.' It's just like the classic Lame Villian Plot:
1. Eat breakfast
2. Something
3. Something
4. Rule the world
So we have a theory by a fan with no known scientific credentials, published by no official source that can't give a useful estimate of the Death Star's power or describe how it works. Placing a direct link to this theory is thus completely undue emphasis on it. The article requires a section noting that in Wars-Trek debates many outlandish theories regarding alternative modes of operation for the Death Star have been suggested, and possibly a list of some of them along with the reasons they're not as valid as the principle theory [largely because they're based on false assumptions, defy Conservation of Energy or invent mechanisms out of thin air], but keeping a link to Anderson's site at the bottom of the page even though alternative theories of operation are never once mentioned in the article is undue emphasis on a minority theory, and thus incorrect. Further, your claims that the link isn't subject to the same rules as the article are frankly bizarre; if there's nothing relating to the link in the article [so that WP:V can't be applied to it] it doesn't belong as a link to the article anyway, because it has nothing to do with it. Hrimfaxi 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Further note:
'And the question of whether assuming some "magic" mechanism, or some "magic" method of generating power is more scientific is an open question'
No, it's actually not. A theory with a known mechanism can generate a figure and say 'we know that under this known mechanism it would require this much energy to destroy this object, therefore this is the lower limit for power transferred to this object, therefore the minimum power of the reactor powering this weapon must be this' and have a usable figure. We may not know how the reactor works, but we at least have something out of the exercise. If the mechanism is unknown we can't even start; we don't know how much power it requires, if it requires power [under Anderson's theory the superlaser bolt could actually be a visible return of energy going to the Death Star and it wouldn't change a thing] or anything useful about it at all. This is why Anderson's only power figure is 'lower;' since his mechanism is mysterious, it can do whatever he likes [including incorporating any evidence, regardless of what it is; if Lucas produces a new Special Edition where the Death Star's laser turns Alderaan into a startled cat instead of blowing it up, it can even incorporate that!] except that it can't generate usable figures or tell us anything about what's going on above 'something.' Hrimfaxi 07:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that there is actually a minimum energy input required, aside from ad-hoc. The proper method would be to analyze a few frames after the detonation, to analyse the average space between particles, then compress the apparent matter into a sphere, increase by a factor to be calculated based on a standard deviation in particle size (or eyeball it), and see how much of Alderaan's mass remains. Then, since the Death Star's distance from Alderaan is roughly known (and therefore the distance of the camera shot), \left\langle K \right\rangle can be calculated, and, adding the \left\langle U \right\rangle (average grav. potential), you can calculate how much energy had to be imparted just to overcome those two potentials. If there is an excess size discrepancy after this from the re-compacted planet, then it is a SLE; if not, then it's raw power. Its a lot of work, but its something one can do. (I'd need to think a wee bit more about it, being a tad late when I'm writing this... but I'm working on an Astrophysics degree, if it makes you feel better) Tigerhawkvok 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There's some analysis of the debris cloud on Saxton's website [here], though it might not be exactly what you're talking about. Late here too =^_^=. However, until we know something about the Mysterious Chain Reaction, it still doesn't become a better theory [or a theory at all] because we still have no means of predicting what an MCR planetary explosion would look like, as we have no mechanism to determine our predictions based on.
That said, wouldn't the analysis you suggest be rather flawed as we wouldn't be able to judge how close to the camera a given particle was and therefore couldn't tell the difference between a large, distant particle and a small, close one? That plus the camera shot of Alderaan blowing up doesn't include the Death Star, IIRC, so our figure for the distance from the camera to Alderaan would be mostly guesswork. That plus we have to decide which explosion of Alderaan to use [the special edition one has vastly more debris visible, compare [4] to [5], with the later one having a large number of massive fragments that aren't much different in colour to the background just to make things even more complicated. All told, a hell of a thing to work out, and with quite a lot of guesswork and rough figures involved from your statement...And would compressing the matter into a sphere provide a useful figure? A planet isn't a sphere of even density.Hrimfaxi 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


I feel like I'm talking past you here. This isn't really the place the be arguing the respective merits of SLE vs DET for the Death Star; we could do that all year without getting anywhere. I will leave the specific arguing for the moment with the clarification here: And the question of whether assuming some "magic" mechanism, or some "magic" method of generating power is more scientific is an open question.
Recall that whatever mysterious power generation reaction is fueling the Death Star under the Saxtonian model (i.e., hypermatter reactor) could just as readily be placed within the planet. There are also explicit power figures on the DSRP pages, based also on analysis of the visuals - in terms of visible initial effects of the SL; you probably weren't aware of that, they're buried deep within a very extensive page. And there are an assortment of objections and arguments on both sides placing it in the planet - as the SLE article within the Death Star Research Project that I earlier linked to in the article is essentially a compilation of one side of. But the validity of either model is indeterminate per WP:V, barring actual explicit canonization of one or the other. The DSRP also includes scalings from the movie claiming to confirm the [also official] WEG scalings of the Death Stars, accelerations, and other discussion of Death Star behavior.
The 1.2e39 joules Saxton estimates for the Death Star destroying Alderaan has not, to my knowledge, been canonized. The 2e23 watt peak power output published in the AOTC:ICS does represent a verification of his Star Destroyer firepower figures, but the 1.2e39J figure has yet to be published by reputable publishers, as WP:V states, as the personal website of Dr. Curtis Saxton is - as is noted on the Star Wars Technical Commentaries artilce - controversial and often disputed. While it is entirely appropriate to reference in terms of (for example) the 900 km scaling, canonized in the ITW books, as the original source, most of the SWTC pages' original research has not been verified (i.e., canonized.)
This controversy is what leads back to what I've been talking about for the past few days that you seem to have been ignoring completely. WP:EL states that we should normally avoid linking in EL lists to sites containing unverified original research or factually inaccurate material - which are present in spades on all three sites, along with a small amount of "verified" research, such as the scalings on both the DSRP and SWTC that have been confirmed by the assorted official literature placing a variety of sizes on the Death Stars - unless they are there to represent multiple POVs in an article dealing with such. These are not neutral websites, which is what Wikipedia wants us to link to. These are fansites, which we are generally discouraged (although not outright prohibited by general policy) from linking to. If you read up, after you led me to examine the WP:V and WP:EL policies, I have reached the conclusion that none of these sites are the sort that should be listed in listings of external links... but that it's impossible to justify linking to SDN and the SWTC without also linking to STVSW on NPOV considerations.
The SWTC, due to their prominence and the particular cases in which parts of them have become canonized, are worth occasionally citing or referencing. (Per item 2 on WP:EL's "should link" section, this gives perfectly good reasons for footnoting/linking specific articles within the SWTC). SDN? STVSW? Only useful in exploring POVs. Balancer 17:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There is also the issue of the article/link reformat, which - as I understand WP:EL - is how we are suppposed to do things. If you should insist that the SWTC and SDN be linked to and keep reverting accordingly, I would like to ask that you restore the reformat and also the wikiarticle link to the SWTC article be restored, which you also deleted in your hasty rv. I ask this as I did say I would refrain from editing the article again for a while. Balancer 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
>>>'but that it's impossible to justify linking to SDN and the SWTC without also linking to STVSW on NPOV considerations.'
As I have pointed out [and you have failed to address], linking to only one fan theory of alternate function when that theory explains nothing and no mention of theories of alternate function is made in the article is impossible to justify on NPOV grounds. The link is simply irrelevant to the current article.
Bear in mind, this is an article about the Death Star, not about the Death Star in versus debates; it would require a subsection noting the DET theory is the prevailing one and explaining the [numerous] shortcomings of alternative theories to justify including any material on alternate theories whatsoever, let alone a specific link to a single minority-held theory and no others. The first power figure by Saxton is used by Saxton to extrapolate the second; the first is published by an official source, the second comes from the same person using the same calculations, therefore the second figure is respectable as a link. Further, the link is useful because it explains the justification for the first and second figures.
The ST-v-SW link on the other hand explains nothing. It's held together by double standards [an artificial sun must be fusion, but a superlaser doesn't have to be a laser] and contradicts the article's text repeatedly. It uses a very specific and uncommon definition of 'canon' that isn't shared by the majority either, in order to disregard points against it such as mentions of the Death Star using a hypermatter reactor in two sources and various others describing the primary weapon as a compound turbolaser [Anderson doesn't know what the weapon is, but for some reason he's damn sure it isn't that].
>>>'There are also explicit power figures on the DSRP pages, based also on analysis of the visuals - in terms of visible initial effects of the SL; you probably weren't aware of that, they're buried deep within a very extensive page.'
I don't see any such figures, other than guesswork about mass conversion figures based on nothing in particular, unless you mean the 23.5 gigaton figure which is based on pure guesswork and canonicy arguments. Anderson proposes the beam is made of magical 'superlaser particles' that he can't name, created in a fashion he can't describe with a power requirement for creation and acceleration he doesn't calculate, behave in a manner no known particle does, initiate a chain reaction the power figures of which he can only guess at, create a planar ring for reasons he can't explain any better than anyone else, and generally act in a totally arbitary manner. As said, at least theories involving antimatter or ignorance about gravitational potential energy have some scientific basis, Anderson's is no better than the theory that Alderaan just decided to violently explode by itself and the Death Star's firing was a pure coincidence.
I will say this once again: Anderson's theory is not sufficiently valuable or sufficiently prevalant to be included above every other fan theory, and has no place whatsoever in a article that doesn't discuss fan theories of Death Star operation that differ from the widely-held one by people who don't take part in versus debates that the Death Star fired a big laser beam and it blew up Alderaan.
I suggest you adjust your definition of NPOV slightly; 'includes a link to ST-v-SW' is not the sole criteria for balance in an article about the Star Wars universe. Anderson is part of a very small minority; of all Star Wars fans, only a few are versus debaters, only a few of them share Mr. Anderson's definition of Star Wars canon, and only a few of them accept his theory. You're obviously used to the versus community, but you're talking a theory with a minority of a minority of a minority of acceptance versus what every casual viewer assumes to be true when they watch the film, that the Death Star is powerful enough to destroy a planet with it's layz0r.
There are some significant problems with the physics of the Death Star as it is with the prevailing theory, most notably the incredible power transfer efficiency requirements to stop it vapourising itself with waste heat, and the ridiculously tight focus the beam is shown to have [since people can stand inside the firing shaft without being incinerated]. Those are worthy of mention [the point about the asteroid in the current article, on the other hand, isn't really relevant; we know very well the Death Star's size is inefficient because we know the Empire was also capable of building the Suncrusher] as is the point, in a sub-heading, that the primary model is disputed and cannot explain the more bizarre properties of the explosions in the films [something the stardestroyer.net link states quite categorically]; however, it must be acknowledged that all other views are much less prevalant, limited largely to the pro-Trek versus community, and in line with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 we must also point out they are of poorer scientific quality or rely on unknowns to produce lower figures not supported by accepted physics principles.
In Anderson's case, the noted flaws are his somewhat extreme views on canon ruling out what others judge to be key evidence, that his central mechanism relies on particles with unknown properties operating in an unknown manner to produce a known result [whereas DET relies on a known process operating in a known manner from an unknown powersource], and that by his own admission the only way you can arrive at his theory at all is to watch the explosion repeatedly a frame at a time, something the vast majority of fans have never done and most likely would not do. Hrimfaxi 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The first power figure by Saxton is used by Saxton to extrapolate the second; the first is published by an official source, the second comes from the same person using the same calculations, therefore the second figure is respectable as a link. This statement is, as I told you before, wholly incorrect. The Death Star energy figures are not published by an official source, nor used by Saxton in his derivations of ship firepower "verified" (in at least some acceptable sense of the word) in the AOTC:ICS.
As you do not seem to be in any fashion reading WP:EL, or paying attention to what I am saying unless it is argument about the qualitative merits of SLE vs DET (which has no place here and could be argued all year long without getting anywhere), or claiming that Saxton is noncontroversial among the general Star Wars fanbase (in clear contradiction of what even a cursory examination of the sensitive topics on SW.com or TF.N forums are), I will be RVing again. Balancer 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And you have completely ignored my statements regarding the validity of Saxton's testimony given by his professional standing, the unfair emphasis you are placing on a single alternative theory, the nonexistence of references to alternative theories in the article making a link to Anderson's site completely out of place, or the fact you are placing excessive emphasis on the versus debate. Saxton's figures are accurate regarding known and quantifiable estimates of [a] the gravitational binding energy of an earth-like planet and [b] the energy taken to destroy an earth-like planet in the space of time seen in the movies. He is an astrophysicist with a verifiable qualification, he presents his figures and the reasoning behind them, and since Lucasfilm trusts him enough to write official literature, we should regard his figures as trustworthy evidence for the primary theory.
Moreover, since the exact same figures are used in the 'physics' section of the article, removal of the link is impossible to justfiy as it is necessary to demonstrate how they have been derived and to note that they are calculated by someone with verifiable qualifications in a related field.
The Stardestroyer.net link is valid because it explains several other methods of deriving the figure, goes into more detail about the math used and includes some notes about the shortcomings of the primary theory in explaining the stranger behaviours of the Alderaan explosion, and the linked article on Alderaan also has notes about the fire ring having no known cause in physics. It is slightly less useful because of some issues of bias that could be levelled at Michael Wong [though it's one of the least objectionable pages on his site], and its inclusion is not as necessary.
I will attempt to re-write the entire article to address your contentions more effectively tonight [GMT], as well as tidy it up, since it's not particularly readable or informative at present. Please do not revert the article further until that time and wait to see if you agree with the alterations. Hrimfaxi 08:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I will wait and see. However, I will note that the citation of SWTC is, per WP:EL, a different issue that the linking to in an external links list. Concerns about verifiability do apply to material included in the article (and therefore cited), meaning that material should be verifiable. The Death Star providing 1e38-1e39 joules of energy isn't verifiable through official literature; all of the concerns listed about the difficulties of quantifying the amount of rubble (above) as well as questions about the interpretation of visual effects of the film stand in between conclusion and evidence, making the matter fan speculation. The notion that the Death Star itself provided 1e38-1e39J is hotly disputed... and most of the serious objections can be found in the DSRP, such as the question of the Death Star having enough fuel on board etc etc.
The point that ~1e32J is the gravitational binding energy of a planet is quite verifiable, yes.
An opinion that you may find helpful was presented in Wikipedia talk:External links by Steve Block when I presented our quandary - highly useful material existing on fan sites more comprehensive than any official source, yet only on controversial fansites. He said this:
To my mind it would be best to hive all information sourced from fansites into a fan speculation section, or if included in the main body, cite it appropriately as fan speculation. It should not be presented as fact, and if it is disputed then cite the opinion which disputes it too.
This (to me) suggests a fairly clear inclusive direction for the revision of the article, including the three disputed links (SWTC, SDN, and ST-v-SW articles on the Death Star) under citations for a fan speculation section labeled as such and including all fan speculation (i.e., anything sourced from the websites in question, rather than directly from official publications).
This does involve a substantial rewrite; if your revision meets these standards in an accurate and NPOV fashion, I will be happy with it. Balancer 10:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
>>>'The Death Star providing 1e38-1e39 joules of energy isn't verifiable through official literature; all of the concerns listed about the difficulties of quantifying the amount of rubble (above) as well as questions about the interpretation of visual effects of the film stand in between conclusion and evidence, making the matter fan speculation.'
IIRC, Saxton's calculation is based in the speed of expansion of the debris cloud assuming Alderaan to be roughly the size of the Earth; hence, the amount of rubble isn't important, only where its outer edge is at any given time. He calculates that, therefore, 1e38 joules must be applied to Alderaan somehow in order to blow it up, and takes the prevailing view that this is entirely applied by the Death Star. For what they are, his figures are virtually impossible to dispute, since they're accurate for what he's calculating.
Noting under a 'fan controversy' section [or more likely 'the death star as a subject in versus debating'] that it's not universally agreed that the Death Star supplied all this energy itself would work, I'd think. Not sourcing the calculation is rather silly, and sourcing it to an astrophysicist is about as good a verification as you'll get for a figure relating to this matter.
Also, check this out for an interesting comparison of the signal-to-noise-ratio on the MCR, since you mentioned googling it a while back. Hrimfaxi 10:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Say it correctly - that Saxton calculates 1.2e39 Joules. It is based on a number of bits, such as apparent speed of debris, what he estimates the size of Alderaan to be, and the momentum imparted by a beam of light. It is Wong who cites 1e38J, based on apparent kinetic energy of the debris. The methodologies are actually noticably different between the two pages, as are the results. As I told you before, the details can be argued (justifiably) all day. Take a look at the quote I provided; the standard suggested is that if you're citing a fan website as a source, it's clearly fan speculation, and should be labeled as such. If you read nothing else I wrote, re-read what I quoted Steve Block as saying. Carefully.
If you want to get a good idea on the relative number of citations of the three websites on the matter, googlefight "death star"+stardestroyer.net, "death star"+st-v-sw.net, and "death star"+SWTC. The hits are all in the hundreds; st-v-sw.net is a minority of citations, but not overwhelmingly so (about 40% as many as stardestroyer.net). About half the difference is due to people saying they come from stardestroyer.net forums on various sci-fi forums and the Death Star being mentioned on the same page, and a fair fraction of the rest come out of various mirror/cache pages of this article and similar in versions including SDN as a source, but not ST-v-SW.
There are, of course, a number of other figures on Saxton's page on the matter - you may note, for example, that he initially calculates the reactor at 1e27 watts, based on the ability of the original Death Star to charge to an Earth-destroying shot once per day. As usual, though, only the largest number gets most attention paid do it. Balancer 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, might not have time to do this tonight [I've got tomorrow night to do it, tho, so don't think I'm just trying to keep it this way by lying to you] but here's the plan:
[1]Add an infobox to put the stats of the Death Star in to get all those numbers out of the description section.
[2]Divide the description into 'Death Star 1' and 'Death Star 2' categories to make it a little less confusing.
[3]Re-word the physics section to note the cited expert is an expert, and that he is an advocate of the primary theory. Note the primary theory.
[4]Add 'contradictions in official literature' section, with subsections for 'powerplant' [fusion or hypermatter], 'weapon' [superlaser or compound turbolaser] and scale.
[5]Add 'The Death Star in Versus Debating' section noting that the primary theory isn't universally accepted, especially among versus debaters where it's hotly disputed [this seems the best way of wording it] and noting alternative theories, possibily including Anderson's theory if I can figure out a way to summarise it.
You might also note that "Death Star"+1e38 gets about five times more hits than "Death Star"+"Superlaser effect". And I'd say you should ask Steve Block how it applies if the fan is a noted astrophysicist talking about a matter of astrophysics.Hrimfaxi 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I get 318 vs 119 when I run that search... and if I use the similar search "Death Star"+"1e38 joules" it goes down to 108. We can talk about searches and rankings all day, but we won't uncover anything past the fact that (a) not that many people care about the topic, (b) DET is at least as popular or accepted as SLE among those who do, although not by more than a factor of 3:1 or so at the most.
I really like [1], [2], and [4] - the assorted conflicting official evidence about the Death Stars deserves a whole section of its own, and some of the material is out of date. For example, now that ROTS has come out, there's more in the way of official materials in dispute about when the Death Star was started and its relationship to prototype projects. When Lucas jokes about "union contracting disputes" delaying the completion of the original Death Star for twenty years, you know that questions about the Death Star's origins have reached the mainstream. He's not too chatty. Fusion vs hypermatter - or fusion and antimatter engines in some EU descriptions, or what-have-you - 900 or 160 km, 120 or 160 km...
3 and 5 I would say belong together. The simple fact that there are fans who have particular objections to the model Wong sets forth (that the energy to destroy Alderaan comes necessarily from the Death Star's reactor) isn't worth a whole section, more like 1-2 lines within a fan speculation section. The current physics section includes a little bit of "feasibility objection," which having some SLE would readily explain away. "Dr. Curtis Saxton, in his Star Wars Technical Commentaries fansite [footnote marker linking to references sections] blah-blah-blah. Other fans dispute that the Death Star's reactor necessarily produced this energy, pointing to blah-blah-etc. [link to footnote that links to DSRP]." Etc. It's probably worth noting that "this view is particularly prevalent in the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate," particularly given the nature of the sources being referenced. Balancer 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are all completely berserk. Ethan Mitchell 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


There is a host of official evidence that disputes the st-v-sw.net theory. In fact, all of it does. There's not a single source that supports that page's undefined chain reaction theory:
Death Star I- from the original trilogy incredible cross sections:
the Death Star is built around a hypermatter reactor which can generate enough power destroy an entire planet.
Eight tributary beams unite to form the superlaser primary beam. These tributary beams are arranged around the invisible central focusing field, firing in alternate sequence to build the power necessary to destroy a planet
SW Databank entries:
The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds. That energy began deep inside the gargantuan station, and was eventually channeled into an array of eight tributary laser cannons. The beams from these cannons culminated into a central blast directed from the eye-shaped concavity in the Death Star's upper hemisphere. Teams of highly skilled Imperial gunners manned advanced control stations, managing the titanic weapon.
Finally, someone said: The 1.2e39 joules Saxton estimates for the Death Star destroying Alderaan has not, to my knowledge, been canonized. Not specifically, however:
Original Trilogy, Inside the Worlds:
In order to deliver a spectacular, planet-destroying burst, the station's hypermatter reactor would have to have been able to generate power equivalent to hundreds of super-giant stars.Beryoza 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary Shield

"Planetary shields, seen in the Expanded Universe and surrounding the Forest Moon of Endor in Return of the Jedi"

The shield on Endor didn't encompass the planet, and was not a planetary shield. It was a specially built Death Star Shield. You can build them in the Star Wars Game... umm... don't remember. That newer big galaxy-wide RTS

The 'newer big galaxy-wide RTS' mentioned in the previous post is Star Wars: Empire at War. However, it is NOT possible to build planetary shield generators in the game; smaller shield generators(capable of covering a small base) do appear, but their projection towers and dishes are significantly different from the massive tower seen in ROTJ. Oddly enough, towers similar to the DS2's generator do appear as 'shutter cloak' electronic jamming towers.
From the ROTJ novelization (which has the same canon level as the film itself):
"At the center of the briefing room was a large, circular light-table, projected above which a holographic image of the unfinished Imperial Death Star hovered beside the Moon of Endor, whose scintillating protective deflector shield encompassed them both."
The shield did encompass the moon as well, which the film hinted at when Piett told Han & Co. that he was dropping the shield to let them land on it. --DaveJB 09:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course it was a planetary shield. Why would they need an Imperial shuttle and stolen command codes to lower the shield if it didn't cover the whole planet? Hrimfaxi 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

"Iapetus, the third largest moon of Saturn, also somewhat resembles the death star with its unusual two tone color and an equatorial ridge"

Since the Death Star neither has "unusual two tone color" nor an equatorial ridge (it has an equatorial trench, which is something different), what points of resemblance are left? RandomCritic 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

have you seen the picture of the moon? -Rebent

[edit] WMD

The term "weapon of mass destruction" is not defined, nor commonly used, within the Star Wars universe. As such, it's inappropriate to use it in this article, and I've removed it from the lead. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The In-Universe writing.

Just add a message saying that it uses fictional terms and information, and that anything in there could be false or completely un-doable in the real world. CompuHacker 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mass=energy

The energy to destroy a planet can come from the mass of the planet and all a death star need do is cause enough of the mass of the planet to convert to energy (as happens in stars, hence the name death star) which not only creates all the energy needed but also lowers the mass that is to be blown up as well as avoiding the death star needing to carry around the mass that will be converted to energu and avoids heating up the death star and avoids transfer of momemtum problems. - a passerby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WAS 4.250 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

That might solve the problems, but it violates Occam's Razor. The usual theory (generate a whole lot of energy and throw it at the planet) does depend on all the Death Star's systems having incredibly high efficiency, but it's not totally impossible. On the other hand, no mechanism for converting a large portion of mass into pure energy/antimatter has ever been observed. Admittedly, the whole debate is probably a bit silly, given that we're never going to know the exact answer (unless one of the Star Wars novelists puts it into a book), but we might as well follow the rules of logic while we're at it, and like I said, Occam's Razor says that the "Death Star supplies all the energy" theory is the best one. --DaveJB 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/Talk%7EDeath_Star_fc95.html"