PDA

View Full Version : Starship size comparisons



Kizarvexis
2003-Jun-01, 02:34 AM
No really. This is related to astronomy. Just be patient. :)

Jeff Russel has put together a very nice site called Starship Dimensions (http://www.merzo.net/index.html). It is a heavy graphics site, setup for IE, where you can click and drag pictures of various spaceships around to compare them to other spaceships. It covers ships as small as fighters to enormous battlestations. It has 5 different scale pages (1 scale is on two pages), from 10 pixels per meter to 2 kilometers per pixel. The background grid on each page is divided up into squares 10 pixels on a side, so the grid scales go as follows;

1 meter per box (10x page)
10 meters per box (1x & -2x pages)
100 meters per box (-10x page)
1000 meters per box (-100x page)
20 km per box (-2000x page)

Where is the relation to astronomy ask? Why on the -2000x page (20 km per box) the background also consists of a pic of the Moon. V'Ger, Death Stars I & II etc, all looked huge on the screen, but are tiny when compared to the size of the Moon. Even Phobos, the well known moon of Mars (which I thought was pretty big being a moon and all) is really tiny.

Now I do have a few complaints about the size of the Whitestar from Babylon 5 on Jeff's page. He has it at 450 meters (the 'official' Tim Earls size) and I know Jeff has been informed that another page, Fabio's Craft Comparison's (http://www.meshweaver.com/Craft_Comparisons/Craft_Comparisons_1.htm), has a better size for the Whitestar at 268 meters in length, but that is a small nit on an otherwise great site.

Kizarvexis

Wingnut Ninja
2003-Jun-01, 05:13 AM
That is very, very cool.

I like being able to compare the Enterprise D to Godzilla. :)

Glom
2003-Jun-01, 11:55 AM
Where are the Goa'uld Ha'taks or the Baliskner? I think Stargate SG-1 is an oppressed minority. They obviously feel threatened by it.

Firefox
2003-Jun-01, 04:00 PM
My only gripe was they got the size of the DSII wrong. She was a bit larger than 160 km when compared to the Endor moon.


Adam

[EDIT] I forgot, they got the Millennium Falcon's size wrong, too.
[EDIT^2] And the Executor. :/

Avatar28
2003-Jun-01, 06:05 PM
My only gripe was they got the size of the DSII wrong. She was a bit larger than 160 km when compared to the Endor moon.


Adam

[EDIT] I forgot, they got the Millennium Falcon's size wrong, too.
[EDIT^2] And the Executor. :/

Bah, who cares. It's just Star Wars. :P

Shadowhawk
2003-Jun-01, 08:32 PM
My only gripe was they got the size of the DSII wrong. She was a bit larger than 160 km when compared to the Endor moon.


Adam

[EDIT] I forgot, they got the Millennium Falcon's size wrong, too.
[EDIT^2] And the Executor. :/

He actually had the DS2 and Executor's sizes correct (~800km & 17.6km, respectively), but he apparently got overwhelmed with the mass of emails from ignorant fanboys saying they're only 160km and 8/12km, so he changed it (yet still says he agrees with Saxton's 800km and 17.6km calcs).

wedgebert
2003-Jun-01, 08:39 PM
It depends on what sources you use.

Official Star Wars canon has the sizes at 160 km for th Death Star II and 12.8 km for the SSD.

Other measurements come from trying to do scientific analysis on the apparent sizes as seen in the movies.

However Star Wars canon takes priority over visual misrepresentations.

Firefox
2003-Jun-01, 09:13 PM
However Star Wars canon takes priority over visual misrepresentations.

Not necessarily. Visual, onscreen evidence overrides the written official material. If the Executor appears to be 11 miles long, and the Death Star II to be 500 miles, then that's canon.


Adam

wedgebert
2003-Jun-01, 10:47 PM
Nope, Canon has the size at exactly 11 km actually, just found a link about it.

Check out this site http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#rationalisations for a quick description of the Executor's size. Scroll up for various measurements taken by analzying the movie.

Also look at http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html for explainions on what Canon is and is not. Technical glitches are not considered canon. One example they give is that in RotJ, a costuming error gave all imperial officers the same rank bar. That doesn't mean that everyone in the movie was a Captain or Commander.

Firefox
2003-Jun-02, 02:52 AM
Nope, Canon has the size at exactly 11 km actually, just found a link about it.

Yep, I used the same site as my resource. Size is 17.6 km (11 miles) according to Curtis Saxton. He's also behind the argument concerning the 900 km size for the DSII. As for the rank badges, that's a problem I've been familiar with since I read SWTC. Pretty annoying, actually.

wedgebert
2003-Jun-02, 03:01 AM
Whoops, wrong units :) I put 11km when it said 11 miles. My bad...

But as to the 900 km DSII, while he does have a very good arugment(s), he understands that the DSII is really 160 km across because that's what the Canon says it is.

Many people think that you can disprove Canon, but since it's all science fiction, the author has the final say.

Wingnut Ninja
2003-Jun-02, 05:34 AM
Freespace 2 was also very under-represented. I liked the Sathanas representation, though.

David Hall
2003-Jun-02, 10:18 AM
If it were my site, I wouldn't bow to the pressure of fanboys just because they complain about it. I would put up my sources, maybe justify my choice bit over other possible explanations (canon overrides everything else, IMO*), and leave it at that. All arguments against will subsequently be politely denied.

However, if the fans bring up very good evidence that I'm wrong, then I would have no qualms about changing it and admiting the error. And I would still keep a source and justification paragraph up.

That's one thing that I wish he had more of on the site, the sources. I can't help but feel that the SDF-1 looks too small (Is it really smaller than a star destroyer?). I'd like to be able to check it out.

[edit] *I just read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=95394#95394) post by Wedgebert, and I must admit that Star Trek canon does not apply here, it's too internally inconsistant. :-)

Iain Lambert
2003-Jun-02, 11:32 AM
Actually, I think possibly the coolest thing on the site is the comparison between teeny little Phobos and our Moon. We officially Kick Ar*e when it comes to moon size.

Moose
2003-Jun-02, 02:42 PM
That, and I didn't expect the Aggamemnon (Bab-5) cruisers to be that large. It's actually longer (a bit) than a Star Destroyer.

And the Romulan warship too. That's freaking huge!

tracer
2003-Jun-02, 08:07 PM
Official Star Wars canon has the sizes at 160 km for th Death Star II and 12.8 km for the SSD.
Ah, but the July 1983 issue of CINEFEX contains an interview with Richard Edlund of Industrial Light & Magic, regarding the visual effects in Return of the Jedi. In this interview, on pp.7-8 he says:

"The Deathstar, I think, will be a lot more interesting than the one in the first Star Wars --- mainly because it is under construction ... Plus, it will be MUCH bigger. In Star Wars, it was really difficult to establish the scale. It was supposed to be miles in diameter, but with a full sphere it was hard to tell. The NEW one is SUPPOSED TO BE MORE like FIVE HUNDRED MILES in diameter, but since we're not dealing with a sphere all the time, we'll be able to establish landmarks and get a better sense of scale."

So that's at least one canonical sounce which says that Death Star II was 500 miles across, which is closer to 800 km.

wedgebert
2003-Jun-02, 09:23 PM
Well it turns out I was mistaken a little. True canon has never actually defined the size of either Death Star, so I guess only Lucas knows how large they really are.

I will say that I doubt it's anywhere near 800 km in diameter. Most of the measurements at SWTC give numbers about 1/2 that, or less. The only measurement that large is by comparing the DSII to the size of Endor.

However we don't know the size of Endor (or Endor's moon, whatever it is). The author uses assumptions like "it has to be near as massive as Earth to support a thick enough atmosphere for an Ewok glider to fly in".

However look at the moon Titan, it's much smaller than Earth but has a dense atmosphere (60% higher than Earth's)

BigJim
2003-Jun-02, 09:30 PM
WOW! GREAT SITE!!!!!!!!!!

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Firefox
2003-Jun-03, 03:04 AM
However look at the moon Titan, it's much smaller than Earth but has a dense atmosphere (60% higher than Earth's)

Gravity's still a consideration, so the Endor moon is likely closer to Earth's size, maybe Venus. This (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/diagram/endorsys1.jpg) picture gives a good size comparison.


Adam

wedgebert
2003-Jun-03, 03:14 AM
Ahh, but it could be denser and thus have a higher gravity :)

Or it could less dense and thus be huge...

Kizarvexis
2003-Jun-03, 03:20 AM
However look at the moon Titan, it's much smaller than Earth but has a dense atmosphere (60% higher than Earth's)

Gravity's still a consideration, so the Endor moon is likely closer to Earth's size, maybe Venus. This (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/diagram/endorsys1.jpg) picture gives a good size comparison.


Adam

Also the picture doesn't convey location. If the DS is just to the left of the planet, then it could be pretty big. But if it is to the front left of the planet, then it would be smaller as it would be closer to the viewer. That's is the problem with space pics as it is hard to determine how far away something is.

Kizarvexis

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jun-03, 03:22 AM
We could just e-mail George Lucas and settle this whole thing right now! :wink:

Firefox
2003-Jun-03, 04:00 AM
Also the picture doesn't convey location. If the DS is just to the left of the planet, then it could be pretty big. But if it is to the front left of the planet, then it would be smaller as it would be closer to the viewer. That's is the problem with space pics as it is hard to determine how far away something is.

I would imagine Saxton simply compares diameters in the image, but yes, the fact that they're spherical can make it a problem. It seems correct, though, compared to the holographic we see in Return of the Jedi.


Adam

Avatar28
2003-Jun-03, 01:03 PM
We could just e-mail George Lucas and settle this whole thing right now! :wink:

Or do the next best thing and check the databank at starwars.com. Being the official site, I'm pretty sure it can be accepted as canon and what Lucas would answer.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/index.html

In short, the DSII is 160km in diameter.

Firefox
2003-Jun-03, 08:07 PM
Or do the next best thing and check the databank at starwars.com. Being the official site, I'm pretty sure it can be accepted as canon and what Lucas would answer.

Except that it is contradicted by visual evidence. The 160 km estimate was first published by West End Games, which is notorious for giving erroneous information on various Star Wars ships. They're also the ones who say the Executor is only five miles long, when it's eleven times longer than the mile-long Star Destroyers.

Other lines of evidence supporting a size greater than 160 km for the DSII include the size of the equatorial trench compared to the Imperial shuttle, and the Executor crash scene. The station was no smaller than 320 km by the shuttle measurements, and no larger than 900 km by the Endor moon measurement.


Adam

wedgebert
2003-Jun-03, 09:24 PM
Except that it is contradicted by visual evidence. The 160 km estimate was first published by West End Games, which is notorious for giving erroneous information on various Star Wars ships. They're also the ones who say the Executor is only five miles long, when it's eleven times longer than the mile-long Star Destroyers.

Other lines of evidence supporting a size greater than 160 km for the DSII include the size of the equatorial trench compared to the Imperial shuttle, and the Executor crash scene. The station was no smaller than 320 km by the shuttle measurements, and no larger than 900 km by the Endor moon measurement.


However, the official statement by Lucas is that techincal errors (i.e. models that are not the correct scale) are not sources of Canon. It seems that Lucas never explictly stated the size of either Death Star, so that means that only he knows their true size.

Firefox
2003-Jun-03, 09:46 PM
However, the official statement by Lucas is that techincal errors (i.e. models that are not the correct scale) are not sources of Canon. It seems that Lucas never explictly stated the size of either Death Star, so that means that only he knows their true size.


There are still the model requirements given to the modelers. In the book, From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, it is stated that the bridge tower of the Executor is the same size as those on the Star Destroyers. Since there's no contest as to their size, the bridge tower was used as a yardstick to determine its correct size.

As for the Death Star, I believe they were told to make it five times the diameter of the original, which was apparently the 160 km model. At any rate, I trust the visual evidence and the testimony of the modelers over WEG. Like I said, they aren't well known for accuracy to the movies.

I suppose this debate could be worse. We could be discussing the function of the globes on top of the bridge towers...that's too much of a headache for me nowadays.


Adam

wedgebert
2003-Jun-03, 10:11 PM
WEG isn't Canon though, I don't really trust them either.

tracer
2003-Jun-04, 07:16 PM
As for the Death Star, I believe they were told to make it five times the diameter of the original, which was apparently the 160 km model.
I thought the original Death Star in Episode IV was only 120 km in diameter. (Of course, that figure may have come from West End Games, too.)

Avatar28
2003-Jun-06, 02:20 PM
As for the Death Star, I believe they were told to make it five times the diameter of the original, which was apparently the 160 km model.
I thought the original Death Star in Episode IV was only 120 km in diameter. (Of course, that figure may have come from West End Games, too.)

According to StarWars.com, it is.

Firefox
2003-Jun-06, 03:29 PM
According to StarWars.com, it is.

And StarWars.com likely took it from WEG, too.

wedgebert
2003-Jun-07, 03:43 AM
And StarWars.com likely took it from WEG, too.

Ahhh, WEG, where accuracy doesn't matter as long as it sells.

Wouldn't be suprised if they had figures saying the Death Star II was as large as Jupiter.

sideways
2003-Oct-04, 04:40 PM
They made the Eagle too big! Its actual size (in the Space:1999 universe anyway) is around 31 meters, NOT 68 meters! Here's a link that explains why that's the case: http://www.space1999.net/~eagle/making_down.html#2
But other than that, I must say that Starship Dimensions is one the best web sites I've ever seen!!

wedgebert
2003-Oct-05, 01:32 AM
Wow, talk about dragging dead threads back from the grave :)

Zamboni
2003-Oct-05, 04:23 AM
Eh, they all dwarf next to say, Earth... The tiny third planet from the Sun, which dwarfs next to a red giant say Beetlejuice (dunno the sp), which dwarfs next to a nebula say Crab, which dwarfs next to a galaxy say, the Andromeda, which dwarfs next to my penis, Dick...

:lol:

wedgebert
2003-Oct-05, 05:35 AM
Eh, they all dwarf next to say, Earth... The tiny third planet from the Sun, which dwarfs next to a red giant say Beetlejuice (dunno the sp), which dwarfs next to a nebula say Crab, which dwarfs next to a galaxy say, the Andromeda, which dwarfs next to my penis, Dick...

:lol:

No no no. You are in error my friend, but luckily I know what the problem most likely is.

When you start getting into measurements of galaxies and whatnot, you might be tempted to use scientific notation to save space.

However your case, I think you're not taking a negative sign into account in regards to yourself.

For example, the milky way is 9.4605284 * 10^20 meters in diameter (give or take a few light years). When you measure Zamboni Jr, you're probably getting a number that resembs. X * 10^-21 meters.

Notice the negative sign in front of the 21. That means you multiply X by 1 / 10^21. This results in a very tiny number which I believe is much more accurate

:lol:

Zamboni
2003-Oct-06, 03:33 AM
@wedgebert:
Be that as it may, it's named "Dick", not "Zamboni Jr... I don't go around calling your son a dick.

As for the measurement, the error only occurred because I was comparing to yours, making mine relatively as big as a galaxy.
Heh heh heh...
:lol:

captain swoop
2003-Oct-06, 08:18 AM
They made the Eagle too big! Its actual size (in the Space:1999 universe anyway) is around 31 meters, NOT 68 meters! Here's a link that explains why that's the case: http://www.space1999.net/~eagle/making_down.html#2
But other than that, I must say that Starship Dimensions is one the best web sites I've ever seen!!


And Red Dwarf isn't there.

Avatar28
2003-Oct-06, 02:47 PM
Okay, I think I forsee locking in this thread's future. Can we please drop the penile comparisons?

Madcat
2003-Oct-07, 02:26 AM
No Way! This thread's awesome! :)

mbjvx
2003-Oct-09, 05:43 AM
All right you panzies:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/execdive7.jpg

Now draw some triangles or something, and figure this one out: what is the degree of the curve in this shot?

But who cares? That's just a DAMMED WICKED picture!

Zamboni
2003-Oct-10, 06:03 AM
http://www.fortunecity.de/homebuilder/pics/scitech/sperm.jpg

Alright alright, no more off topic stuff...

One question, if I built a ship as big as a planet, would I need time zones on it? What about inside?

Doodler
2003-Oct-17, 07:02 PM
As to Endor's size, let me throw a log on the fire. The body referred to in Return of the Jedi is definitely a moon. Having been to Endor in Star Wars Galaxies, which was made with supervision by Lucasfilms for the purposes of creating a number of worlds which had not been documented via film, there is a representation of the planet around which Endor orbits. It appears to be a large terrestrial planet, probably akin to the superterrestrial planets that were once postulated to be the epistellar jovians like 51 Pegasus B. Massive terrestrial worlds 8-10 times larger than Earth with masses well into the Mj range.

As much as my stomach turns to remember them, the Ewok adventure movies made after Star Wars (characters from which appear in SWG) there were a few skyshots that showed a large world over Endor, which is probably the primary.

wedgebert
2003-Oct-19, 07:42 PM
As to Endor's size, let me throw a log on the fire. The body referred to in Return of the Jedi is definitely a moon. Having been to Endor in Star Wars Galaxies, which was made with supervision by Lucasfilms for the purposes of creating a number of worlds which had not been documented via film, there is a representation of the planet around which Endor orbits. It appears to be a large terrestrial planet, probably akin to the superterrestrial planets that were once postulated to be the epistellar jovians like 51 Pegasus B. Massive terrestrial worlds 8-10 times larger than Earth with masses well into the Mj range.

As much as my stomach turns to remember them, the Ewok adventure movies made after Star Wars (characters from which appear in SWG) there were a few skyshots that showed a large world over Endor, which is probably the primary.

Actually, Endor is not a moon. The films take priority over all other Star Wars fiction, and they mention repeatedly about it being on a "moon of Endor".

So Endor is the giant planet, and everything takes place on an unnamed moon.

Kizarvexis
2004-Dec-18, 04:57 PM
Jeff has updated the site with a pic of Spaceship 1. :)

http://www.merzo.net/index.html

Kizarvexis
P.s. also posted in the Babbling section

AstroSmurf
2004-Dec-20, 09:52 AM
Jeff has updated the site with a pic of Spaceship 1. :)

http://www.merzo.net/index.html
But what about Spaceship Zero (http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1010)? :lol:

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-20, 10:24 AM
I feel Jeff has done an exceptional job. I originally linked there from a powers of ten site. I don't see anyone else even comming close to what he's trying to do.
I would like to see where the Freedom Ship would show.
And I seem to remember a StarTrek TOS episode or two that had planetary sized space ships and asteroid space ships. And what about V'gers cloud. It would show another power at least. Then the planets and Sol could be included.
One real site about size comparisons that I like is
http://www.nikomi.net/english/astronomy/starsizes.htm

and I also like this one
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/superc.html

Just to bring some atronomy into the discussion...LOL

Kizarvexis
2004-Dec-20, 01:50 PM
I feel Jeff has done an exceptional job. I originally linked there from a powers of ten site. I don't see anyone else even comming close to what he's trying to do.
I would like to see where the Freedom Ship would show.
And I seem to remember a StarTrek TOS episode or two that had planetary sized space ships and asteroid space ships. And what about V'gers cloud. It would show another power at least. Then the planets and Sol could be included.
One real site about size comparisons that I like is
http://www.nikomi.net/english/astronomy/starsizes.htm

and I also like this one
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/superc.html

Just to bring some atronomy into the discussion...LOL

I like both of those sites. I'll have to show the kids. Thank you.

Kizarvexis

SSJPabs
2004-Dec-21, 04:39 AM
I think its great that he puts something as classic as Robotech on there and it even matches the official length on Robotech.com.[/url]

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 09:00 AM
One real site about size comparisons that I like is
http://www.nikomi.net/english/astronomy/starsizes.htm

and I also like this one
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/superc.html




I like both of those sites. I'll have to show the kids. Thank you.

There is a thread in this forum where I asked about the Anzwers Universe sites validity. Seems the final view at 14 billion light years conflicts some members please consult that post for more info.

General Astronomy- How accurate is this reference, poll included

Fram
2004-Dec-21, 01:10 PM
When I was young (ah, those were the days...), I had a quartett (does this exists in English? A card game thingy) about spaceships (real and fictional!), with their age (year they supposedly were made, from a saucer of 1951 until some millions in teh future), size, speed (some had no speed, that was fun), number of inhabitants, and a few more I can't remember now (contrary to almost all other quartetts, they had no cylinders, PK or petrol use). Lots of great ships, from Tie Fighters and X-wings to Saturn V and 'real' flying saucers from fifties movies, IIRC. I don't have it anymore, but I guess there will be some people around here who know what I'm talking about. Certainly great stuff when you're a kid. I think the manufacturer was Hemma, and it was from the mid eighties?

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 01:33 PM
Is there a reference Here?

http://zappa.brainiac.com/spaceship/spacecardinfo.html

Fram
2004-Dec-21, 01:45 PM
It might be 'Space rckets' by Mattel, but then the German version. I can't be sure, but it is the only one that comes close!

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 01:47 PM
Nice site for card games tho, hugh

=D>

captain swoop
2004-Dec-22, 08:50 AM
I would like to see the 'Pyramid' motherships from SG 1 on there and the Replicator 'Planet'