Subject:
|
Re: how large would the ISD be compared to the Enterprise-D?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars, lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:22:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
897 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Brian Tobin writes:
> He explains in exhaustive detail how you can clearly show that the Executor
> is 11 times the length of a 1.6 KM Star Destroyer, or 17.6 km (11 miles) in
> length. The easiest way is to use the bridge structure as a perfect
> comparative reference. The two ships share THE SAME bridge, which provides
> an exacting way to compare length.
That's what I really dislike about SWTC. He pulls some factoid that sounds
right, and uses it as though it were fact. I first noticed that on his
description of AT-AT stride length, but also on his AT-AT height
description, and (IIRC) some of his commentaries on Echo Base.
Anyway, there's no real "proof" that the ships have the same bridge
structure (although it sure looks to be possible), though I admit it would
be a good way to approximate the overall size of the vessel. Really, IIRC,
you can only claim that the SSD is "no bigger than X" and "no smaller than
Y", as compared to other ships in the fleet that it's seen with. There's no
sense of depth between the ISD's and SSD, so it's not really clear how
perspective clouds the issue.
The best way to figure it would probably be:
- compare Endor's size to the size of the Death Star II (I'd use the
hologram projection scene)
- Endor is theoretically about the same size as Earth (at the very least has
near the same mass)
- Check curvature of DSII to SSD.
But that's really only because we also have no way to verify the size of
ISD's. Though I suppose we could check the RBR escape pod size, compare to
the RBR, then compare to the ISD... that'd theoretically get a valid size
estimate as well... Hmm... Things to check...
> Sorry for the rant, but I've been a champion of the truth about SD scale
> since I was a kid and could see on the screen that the Executor was
> obviously bigger than was being claimed!
Yeah, it's pretty clear that there are HUGE discrepancies-- but that's to be
expected, given that it's just a movie, and as long as it looked consistant
at a "first-eyeball" glance, it went in-- and various other sources weren't
nearly as thorough as us true geeky fans, and just made up numbers. Or went
by Lucas's descriptions which were just his own impressions, rather than
based on what was shown in the films...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
