FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Death Star II."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

  • It says that the Death Star was only mentioned it flashbacks in Darth Vader #1, but it was actually seen in flashbacks when Vader was remembering his duel with Obi-Wan. Should this be fixed?
    • The Death Star II was only mentioned in Darth Vader 1. Cevan (talk) 13:08, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about the size of the second Death Star? I had the novelization of Return of the Jedi/Record album. They said that the second Death Star was smaller than the original Death Star, but more powerful.

900 KM Diameter of the Second death star 160 KM Diameter of Original

Are you sure you didn't get those reversed?

138.163.0.42 23:12, August 13, 2015 (UTC)Jesse Sanchez23:12, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

The second death star was closer to 900 meters in diameter and indeed the kind of visual dictionary used as a source often contain incorrect stats for various things that due to lack of sufficient research into the matter.

Radavvadra

SizeEdit

The book Complete Locations was rereleased for the newcanon, with Force Awakens content, and various changes to bring it into line with newcanon material - one of which was a DS2 size of "over 160km in diameter". It also had 4900km diameter Forest Moon - which a 900 km DS2 is incompatible visually with.

As such - the DS2 size doesn't need changing - at least, not unless a later newcanon source specifically states that it's a lot larger than 160km. --213.120.234.154 15:53, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

The Rogue One Visual Dictionary now states that the first Death Star is 160 km, the same size of the Death Star II. Shouldn't the size of the latter be changed now, since it's clearly much larger than the first? Flux 345 (talk) 22:41, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Also 3% the size of Endor makes no sense. The forest moon of Endor is 4,900km and 3% of that is only 147km...much smaller than the first Death Star. So the DS2 is at least 180km.Flux 345 (talk) 04:08, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

It would have to have a diameter of more than 195 km to reach 4%. They're not going to be that specific and put a decimal point, hence the word approximately. But it's strange wording nonetheless since a sphere 3% the size (aka volume) of Endor would have a diameter of 1524 km, which is ludicrously big. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 05:16, December 28, 2016 (UTC)


Death Star II orbit Edit

I know it's quoting a source that is considered canon, but this paragraph makes no sense:

Owing to the station's stationary and not synchronous orbit, it required a tremendous force to counter Endor's gravity. Utilizing the repulsorlift field created by the shield generator on Endor to maintain its position, the Death Star II created earthquakes, tidal imbalances, and other geological disturbances on the surface below.[4]

We know from the movie that the Death Star was indeed stationary relatively to Endor surface in order to stay above the shield site on the planet. As such, it could not be in asynchronous orbit as the article says. If some object has to appear suspended above a given point on a planet surface, it has to rotate with the same angular speed as the planet, which is a very definition of synchronous orbit.

By the way the Empire engineers would have to be totally incompetent to place the Death Star in such orbiting altitude that it would require a devastatingly powerful repulsorlift field just to keep it from crashing into Endor. When planning for something to maintain stationary orbit, all you have to do is take the planet rotation speed (we know that Endor rotates, because it has day/night cycles) and gravitational constant to calculate an altitude where centripedal force exactly counters the gravitational pull and place it there. Basically as long as something doesn't slow it down, it will remain there forever with no additional force needed to keep it suspended above the planet. Of course in reality it would need a little nudge here and there to correct for small orbiting height changes which cannot be completely eliminated, but no huge forces would be needed for that, definitely not something to cause earthquakes and tidal imbalances. I'm pretty sure that engineers who can manage a space station construction of this scale would know these satellite orbiting basics.

chaserUnsigned comment by 185.15.252.40 (talk • contribs).

You're completely correct with your first point, that's just a word usage mistake. Regarding your second point however, there's not really anything we can do about that I'm afraid. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 08:34, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Newcanon Ryder Windham junior novelization of ROTJ (2017) provides size for DS2: Edit

Old version (2004)

And like its predecessor, the station had a superlaser focus lens positioned in its upper hemisphere and a trench that ringed the equator. However, it had none of the former Death Star's design flaws. The redesigned superlaser would require mere minutes - not hours - to be recharged, and could be focused more finely, allowing it to fire at moving targets, such as capital ships. With a projected diameter of 160 kilometers and a substantial increase in firepower, the new Death Star would be not only larger than the original but also much more lethal.

New version (2017)

And like its predecessor, the station had a superlaser focus lens positioned in its upper hemisphere and a trench that ringed the equator. However, it had none of the former Death Star's design flaws. The redesigned superlaser would require mere minutes - not hours - to be recharged, and could be focused more finely, allowing it to fire at moving targets, such as capital ships. With a projected diameter of 200 kilometres and a substantial increase in firepower, the new Death Star would be not only larger than the original but also much more lethal.

This is just under 1/3 more than the diameter of the DS1 - so the main page won't need much changing. It's also close to 3% (it's roughly 4%) of the diameter of the Forest Moon.--109.151.132.200 06:08, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

  • Awesome, now we've got a specific number! You also gave me a reference for the superlaser charging in minutes rather than hours, so thank you very much! -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 07:25, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically as powerful as Starkiller Base Edit

Despite being roughly the size of Death Star I, looking very similar to it, and being armed with a laser rather than a Hyperspace weapon, Death Star II was theoretically just as powerful as Starkiller Base a full generation later. Now hear me out.

In the Opening Crawl to Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Death Star II is specifically described as "a new armored space station even more powerful than the first dreaded Death Star."

What is more powerful than the ability to destroy and entire planet (a capability Death Star I already had)? The ability to destroy not a single planet but a whole star system, that's what! Quod erat demonstrandum.

This deserves a paragraph somewhere in the Article, but in what Section? Where would be the best place in the article to write this, based on the above-quoted line from the Opening Crawl? Man Who Sees the Truth (talk) 04:29, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure that "more powerful" was simply referring to its ability to recharge the laser faster than the first Death Star. - Cwedin(talk) 04:31, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
Recharging faster is energy efficiency, not power. Those are 2 very different aspects of technology. Man Who Sees the Truth (talk) 05:12, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what definition you're using, but being able to fire its superlaser at a faster rate definitely means it's more powerful. Regardless, the Death Star II is acknowledged as being more powerful than the first Death Star in the article, that information comes from canon sources. What you are proposing is not mentioned in any source and so is complete conjecture, thus it is not permitted in the article. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 05:26, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.