Quantcast Talk:Death Star I - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki
Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Entertainment
 
Star Wars
Star Trek
Transformers
 Muppet Wiki
Digimon Wiki
Marvel Database
See more...

Talk:Death Star I

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Jump to: navigation, search
Project Ambition

Death Star I is within the scope of WookieeProject Ambition, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles relating to the Galactic Empire.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Just a thought. The official site puts the first Death Star's diameter at 120km, and the second Death Star's diameter at 160km: [1] [2] --Beeurd 20:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This is one of those scaling things that cause so much conflict between various groups of fans (try walking into a SW message board of some sort and ask the length of the Executor sometime ;-) ). I say cite both numbers and their sources/rationale and leave it to the reader to make up their mind. JSarek 22:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking we should mention at the bottom of the article about the confusion. It seems silly to put a figure different to every official source without explaining why. But that's just me. And yeah, I do know about the Executor's length (I support the 17.5km length) but somehow I hadn't realised the discrepancy with the size of the Death Stars. --22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • JSarek, the canonical diameters of the Death Star and Death Star II are 160 km and >800 km, respectively. This is proven by the films, which are the highest canon. The Death Star I's diameter was also stated to be 160 km in the original Incredible Cross Sections book, which has been said to represent the best research of the films. The issue concerning the size of the Death Stars is not open to debate to anyone who knows these things. The EU diameters of 120 km and 160 km must be pointed out to be incorrect, and probably in a separate "Behind the Scenes" section of the article.
        • The Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy factbook which came out last Autumn, uses the filmatic evidence and says 900 km for the DS II. So that´s it, really. But I agree on having the '160 km' reference in a separate "behind the scenes" note. VT-16 17:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Guys, I really think we need more pictures of the inside of the Death Star. It seems to be all pictures of the outside from far away.

Contents

[edit] Imperials Aboard

Besides Motti, Tagge, Yularen, Bast, Tarkin and Vader, who were the other imperials at the Death Star conference table?

  • They probably don't have names, or their names are on a Wizards of the Coast trading card. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:43, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • One of the officers seemed bald and slightly old. He partially resembles the description of the mysterious Romodi.Qui-Renx Jinn 10:37, 08 Dec 2005
      • And what does that have to do with anything? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:49, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Wasn't General Cass also present? Or am I mistaken?--jerry 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prototype

It was confirmed in Kevin J. Anderson's books that this was the prototype. And besides, I'm sure Lucas would accept that, seeing as he himself was trying to come up for an excuse in the commentary for why it would have taken 20 years. Adamwankenobi 13:02, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it was confirmed that it was the first Death Star in Episode III on the DVD. So, you're wrong. Official sources come before other books. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:05, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • He said that as an offhand comment. Anderson's idea makes MUCH more sense than Lucas' excuse. He would gladly accept it, I'm sure, if only he knew about it. One of the main reasons he through it in in the first place was to attemot to please all the fanboys. The explanation given by Anderson would be much more logical. Adamwankenobi 13:08, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't care what Anderson said. He did not make Star Wars, he only wrote books. I have respect for Anderson because he has written many good books, but if George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, says that it was the Death Star I, then it is the Death Star I. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:10, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • He doesn't know about Anderson's books, apparently. What Lucas said completely doesn't make sense. Just accept it. Lucas' opinion is not written down. Anderson's is. Adamwankenobi 13:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it to reflect the different sources on the subject. Let's leave it at that. It's a compromise. Adamwankenobi 13:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Deal. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:19, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Good. Adamwankenobi 13:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Good peaceful solution after all :-) I think it's actually the best thing to either reflect both sources, or to mention in the 'Behind the Scenes' section that there are conflicting sources. I think that Lucas' statement on the ROTS-commentary does open up for some kind of retcon maneuver, KEJ 13:24, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll get it into the "Behind the Scenes" section now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:25, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You know, actually, Lucas' comments could very well combine with those ideas in Kevin Anderson's books for a satisfying explanation. Anderson's books could explain the whole prototype issue, while Lucas' could be taken as referring to the death star, after the prototype, and once the actual Death Star is actually beginning to be built. Adamwankenobi 15:07, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, in The New Essential Chronology, it says that the original design done by the Geonosians had a few design flaws, which is why they built the prototype Death Star in the first place. But this was not in 19 BBY. Therefore, the Death Star seen in Episode III is the first Death Star, considering the prototype Death Star wasn't built until a few years later. There. If you have the book, Adamwankenobi, you can see for yourself that what I'm saying is true. Therefore, that last part of the "Behind the Scenes" section could be removed, as well as the little sentence in the "Appearances" section. That solves the dispute. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:11, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • The upcoming book on the destruction of the Death Star may keep in line with Anderson's books, however, so we should keep the disputes section. Adamwankenobi 16:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it may also stay with what it says in The New Essential Chronology. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:36, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I know. :( Adamwankenobi 18:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Hey, we only want to get the facts here, no matter what the good source is. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:58, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hammertong?

Why does this page redirect from "Hammertong"? Anyone know what that is, if anything actually Star Wars related?--Knightfall 23:40, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe Hammertong was not the death star per se, it was the main weapon of the Death Star. Geekmasterflash 23:49, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Here we go: "501st were there to collect an experimental Mygeetan power source needed to power a top-secret tributary laser-stream project known only as "Hammertong." Geekmasterflash 23:53, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet it does not say that it was for the Death Star's superlaser. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:55, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct, however there is a book entiled Hammertong, and this could enlighten us if anyone has it. Geekmasterflash 23:57, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc.asp?search=10891 CooperTFN 00:00, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I would say Hammertong either should get its own entry or a section on this entry after reading that. Geekmasterflash 00:02, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Well then, somebody remove the redirect, if possible.--Knightfall 00:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, the information on that link is very poorly written, and, if anything, "Hammertong" should get its own page. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I agree. I linked to that because they didn't seem to know what the name meant. Don't know what the quality of the writing has to do with anything either way. CooperTFN 00:19, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, for a source, quality of writing is very important. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:21, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • Quality of writing matters for plagiarism. Accuracy matters for a source, and everything on that page is accurate. A Hammertong article would need to be rewritten and greatly expanded no matter what CUSWE had. CooperTFN 00:27, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Quality, accuracy, and credibility of an article all count for being a good source. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:29, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • So go write a more eloquent version. CooperTFN 00:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • Oh, and credibility's still spelled wrong. =p CooperTFN 00:34, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                        • CooperTFN, shut up. Sources are supposed to be in good quality, no matter what. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                          • I do not believe quality is necessarily a prerequisite as a source; there are those who would use that prerequisite to argue that The Phantom Menace could therefore not be used as a source. Quality is a subjective, and therefore nonfactual.67.101.248.246 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative lead quotation

I rather like, "Dangerous to your Starfleet, General Tagge; not to my battle station." --SparqMan 09:16, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor's Tower

The article says the first Death Star had a tower for Palpatine, similar to the one on Death Star 2. Is this accurate? Did the emperor have plans to go the Death Star?CptKenobi 03:12, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wookies

Isn't the sentences about the wookies being enslaved to build the death star relevant?--Xilentshadow900 01:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Name

Did the Death Star have a military designation like most ships and space stations? If it has shouldnt that be the name of the article with death star just redirecting to it? --Razzy1319 07:59, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding? That wouldn't make any sense, and "Death Star" is the most common name anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • That was very stupid. The most common term, and the only one, is "Death Star". Admiral J. Nebulax 13:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Vulture droids arent under the title Vulture droids, Star destroyer titles are under their class names, droids are under their series names. Encyclopedic names doesnt title their articles under the most common term, the articles are titled according to factual information. Anyways, was just asking if their was such a name. --Razzy1319 17:02, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, there isn't. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • The Death Star was known as the "Expeditionary Battle Planetoid Development Initiative", until the Ministry of Propaganda coined the name "Death Star". Ajrand (Signal) 01:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It's referred to as the "Deep-Space Mobile Imperial Battle Station" in A Death Star Is Born. --Andrew Nagy 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
            • That story isn't canon, though. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
            • In Star Wars Blueprints, they call it a Mk. I Deep Space Mobile something something. Someone should check it.

[edit] Genesis and stolen plans: a list?

Given the rather convoluted history of both the genesis of the Death Star project and the numerous stolen plans that seem to crop up in every EU source, should/could we have a more listlike section for of each of these for more clarity? Cutch 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I really don't think a list is needed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that you think the article is clear—even the section detailing the origins of the project? I certainly disagree. Cutch 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • With an expansion of the current info, it would become clear. A list is unneccessary when a well-written article can provide so much more information - Kwenn 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, then: consider it a call for expansion, specifically focusing on its creation. Cutch 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of plans

I'd like to clean up this part of the article, but have no idea where to begin, and am looking for help. Okay, so... how many plans were lost? First, Leia rescues a solider on Ralltiir who tells her about a new superweapon belonging to the Empire; then, according to Empire at War, Han Solo was hired to plant an EMP Grenade on a crate bound for one of Tarkin's research stations. Once detonated above Corulag, Raymus Antilles managed to acquire new intel regarding Tarkin's project, including its name.

In terms of stolen plans, I count : the set taken to Polis Massa, the set stolen in the Battle of Danuta by Kyle Katarn, and the vast majority of the set stolen in the Battle of Toprawa. Finally, there was the non-existant set on Kalakar VI. Simultaneously, the Rebel Alliance base on AX-235 learns of the Death Star. This base was attacked, while the main set from Toprawa, along with the other two sets, were beamed to Tantive IV by Bria Tharen via Operation Skyhook.

Is this right? If so, the section on it in the article is far from comprehensive. What I'm worried about is where all the EaW stuff fits in. Cutch 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I say we should disregard the EaW stuff. It has gone against canon already (for example: Wayland being discovered a lot earlier). Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I know you don't like games in the canon, Neb, but it has to be accepted. The NEC accepted the abduction of X-Wings from Fresia, after all. Cutch 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but when it was mentioned in The New Essential Chronology, it definitely became canon. I have no problem with that. The fact is, gameplay has gone against canon in numerous games at numerous spots. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, the Solo mission and Corulag raid don't really conflict... and, if I know Licensing, they'll do everything they can to reconcile EaW with the canon. That being said... anyone know of any addendums to the above? If not, I'll probably add this as an in-depth section in the History part. Cutch 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Let's just leave the EaW stuff out for the time being. Judging by the rest of canon, I don't think Solo had anything to do with the Alliance until he met Skywalker and Kenobi. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Technically, he did have something to do with the Alliance before A New Hope: see Bria Tharen's raid on Ylesia. Cutch 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I forgot that. However, I still doubt the whole "Solo-planting-an-EMP-grenade-on-a-crate-headed-for-the-first-Death-Star" deal. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Okay. The reason I'm so gung-ho about all this is that, while I'm sure it will clear up the complexities in the construction of the Death Star, I don't think the forthcoming novel will be as likely to address the missing plans. So, discounting the EaW stuff for now, does anyone else have any other info? Cutch 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Another one might be the datacards Garm bel Iblis and Moranda Savich come across in Interlude at Darkknell, though I think those weren't plans so much as proof that a superweapon existed. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you know what exactly was on the datacards? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • A Rebel agent named Aach says they are "inside information" about the location of "Tarkin's project", stolen by an Imperial defector. Ysanne Isard is told that they came from the Despayre system. They are heavily encrypted, so none of the characters find out precisely what's on them until the datacards are sent to the Alliance after the story is over. It appears that after getting the data, the Rebels learn for the first time exactly what Tarkin's project is supposed to do. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoping to find some time to clean this up pretty soon... Cutch 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New pics

Now that I've expanded so much of the article, methinks its time for more pics. Let the games begin!!! Cutch 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering

I suggest putting the specifications after the histroy section. Having those stats at the start doesn't seem as interesting as the actual story of it all. --Eyrezer 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote...

We should put:
"The abilty to destroy a planet is insignificant, next to the power of The Force"."
―Darth Vader


It's an extremly good qoute that seems to have been forgotten. It should be used. I put it on earlier, but someone got rid of it. I'm sorry that I don't fully understand the rules of the Wiki, but I think that was a bad call in getting rid of the qoute. It fits the Death Star 1 & 2 perfectly!

  • It is an extremely good quote, but do you really want the Death Star article to begin with a quote saying that the Death Star's power is insignificant? The current one fits better. -BaronGrackle 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but may I suggest that we add it to the article anyhow? Just add a part saying that's what Vader said. In the middle area, I'd say? And the full quote is: "Do not be so proud of this technilogical terror you've constructed..." and you have the rest right.- Lord vader1414 05:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effective construction time

The Star Wars Technical Journal provides a nice quote for the effective construction time used for the DS I:

"“...and the Emperor, pleased with the concept, ordered construction to begin. An unoccupied and isolated sector of space was chosen as the construction site. For nearly two years, every resource of the Empire was directed toward the completion of the project.”"
―p.100.

Since it really just mentions how the battlestation was completed, this could be added to the overall 19 years spent on the project without much difficulty. I've personally experienced design and construction work that's stalled and been delayed many times over, so this is actually realistic. Palps begins his pet project at the close of the CW, 17 years of bureaucratic and logistical stumbling go by. Finally, he funnels funds and resources from every available sector to get it finished. ;P VT-16 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orbiting Yavin

When the Death Star was orbiting Yavin, why didn't it just destroy Yavin instead of wasting half an hour orbiting the planet and exposing itself to Rebel ships? Surely the moons would have been caught in the blast of a multi-gigaton explosion?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, and so would the Death Star. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Its got shields, hasn't it?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't forget, the DS has to recharge between firings. The Alliance could easily have evacuated in the time it took for the superlaser to recharge after destroying Yavin, or would have had more time to launch their assault - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to add something to this, SORRY!! for restarting disscussion but i just have to tell anyone. I don´t know if any of you plays EaW but when you use the DS in a space battle it takes abit of time (about 1 min) till you can fire the superlaser.The in-game explanation for this is that the DS has to circle the planet but why does it need to? In ANH circling Yavin is neccesary because the planet is between the DS and Yavin 4 but in EaW you mostly build your base on the planet itself not on the moon so the DS should be in range immediately. What do you think? Commander Rob 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Most likely answer is gameplay. On the other hand, the weapon probably needs to charge first. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you´re right :gameplay is the answer. The superlaser could be recharged before or during hyperspace flight.Or the game designers thought that the DS should always circle the planet before destroying it(hehe). Also I have something to say about "Why didn´t they blow up the planet Yavin?": the superlaser of the first DS took 24 hours to recharge so the Rebels would be able to flee. A friend of mine suggested flying or firing through Yavin but I think that´s impossible due to the presence of a molten core. Commander Rob 13:10 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, flying through Yavin would be impossible due to a core, yes, but I don't think that's the reason why it couldn't fire on Yavin. There's a different reason for that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superlaser moved up further toward the station's north pole.

What's the source for this? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You mean that paragraph in the BtS section? Concept art from ANH, I believe - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the caption for the RotS Death Star I image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Speculation based on the appearances of the proto-DS and the finished model, I assume. It does look like this dish is too close to the trench, and also appears much smaller than the finished dish - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It's definitely smaller, but I still think it's in the same position. Maybe the size caused this speculation about the superlaser being moved up. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It's unbelievable but I think Nebulax is right here. The position of the superlaser seems to be the same. The diameter of the superlaser dish also seems to be smaller. On the one hand this could be simply an error in the movie, or on the other hand what we see on the picture is not the external structure of the superlaser dish but some kind of smaller internal support construction. But at all I don't think that the empire expanded the superlaser dish during construction, this would have been very expensive, because the superlasers seem to go back all way to the reactor core. They would have to change the complete internal structure of the DS depending on the state of progress of the project. But we should remove the line from the picture. Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The superlaser position doesn't correspond to the one seen in ANH, but I've found an alternate explanation, and that is it's being moved into place, rather than be installed already. It's such a large area, it would be hard to see if it's moving in those few seconds. VT-16 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting point. But this would mean the superlaser dish was build as one piece and installed afterwards. Wouldn't this be rather complicated? I think it would be far easier and more stable to build it at the DS directly. If the DSI has a diameter of 160 km, the dish should have at least a diameter of 30 oder 40 km. Would be a very large object to move. This means it would be expansive. And where would they have build it? You can't really transport it. Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's space, where moving things is easier anyway, and the Empire has incredible sources of energy for moving things. If they can push a 160km sphere through hyperspace, they can move a 30-40km dish into position from a construction site elsewhere at the same location. jSarek 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. And we also see other parts being pushed towards it in the scene. VT-16 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Problem is, it appears the surface of the Death Star around the superlaser (especially above) is complete. For each option, it would involve the removal of some of the Death Star's surface. Therefore, it's hard to say. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Then again, the Ultimate Weapon plans from Episode II shows the correct-sized superlaser dish in the correct location. Therefore, VT could be right. That would explain the need for a Death Star prototype as well—the superlaser dish was too small, so they needed to test the correct-sized one on a prototype. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Also, let's assume the Death Star started taking shape before Episode II, and the original plans called for a smaller superlaser dish. The Geonosians working on the plans could have decided to go with a larger dish. Palpatine gets the plans, but then the Clone Wars breaks out, and construction has to be halt indefinitely. Then, the Clone Wars ends and the Geonosians' plans are used in the construction. Therefore, the superlaser dish in Episode III could actually be in the process of being removed to make room for a larger one. Remember, this is all assumptions. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planets of Construction

Do we know on which planets the workers/slaves constructed the pieces of Death Star I? Wookiee Jedi 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's in the article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Where? I see the Geonosians had the plans, Mygeeto was used for laser plans, and Kashyyyk was raided, but I don't see it written anywhere that the actual construction took place on any given planet. Wookiee Jedi 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projectile artillery

In ANH, you can clearly hear over the intercom, a person saying "Stations 5, 7 and 9, release charges" and then *bang bang bang bang*. Is this a weapons test with projectiles being fired from the station? Is it even mentioned anywhere in books? VT-16 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait, during the Battle of Yavin? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, when Vader inspects the Falcon after it landed. Among the intercom messages is that order. Maybe the DS is shooting projectiles at incoming Alderaanian debris? VT-16 13:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size: Behind the scenes section

The Behind the scenes section contains this passage: [S]tatements by Grant McCune, Chief Model Maker for the movie [1], show that the first Death Star was actually 160 kilometers in diameter. That is based on the Death Star model being three feet (91.4 centimeters) in diameter as Dr. Saxton suggests (the Bantha Tracks only mention the scale, not the size of the actual filming model). However, that is mistake. According to various behind the scenes sources (such as the Behind the Magic CD-ROM), the filming model was actually 120 centimeters in diameter making the Death Star 216 kilometers in diameter (at the scale being used, 1:180,000). I thought I'd clarify that. Northerner 18:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diameter Problem

Although the second DS was completely spherical, this is not, ( measure the length and height from the movie if you want evidence) and is elliptical. Since the diameter( which is measured at the equator) is 160 km, then obviously the height is not. Please allow me to change the "height/depth" to "<160 km" rather than "160 km"

  • While you may be right, I have to disagree with your suggestion, since these are your own calculations. It seems that the first Death Star was intended to be completely spherical. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Blueprints

Does this page note that there are 4 emergency tributary beam shafts? I don't remember seeing it, but I want to be sure. It says so in this source.

[edit] Force unleashed screenshots

I don't know why they didn't puit up superlaser generator pics from battlefront II, but put the pics from the force unleahsed game here.

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Death_Star_I"