Starship Volumetrics (update)

[DSG2k]

I've noticed folks here referencing the Volumetrics page, so I figured I'd let you know that it's been updated. As of this writing, some 58 Trek spacecraft and parts thereof have calculated volumes and estimated masses right here.

Enjoy!

[Captain Seafort]

Thanks very much - that's a useful resource. One or two of the lengths area bit off - Home One is 3800m, the Ex is 19000 (that's a fairly new refinement), and DSII is about 900km. Other than those minor issues, great stuff.

[DSG2k]

Thanks very much - that's a useful resource. One or two of the lengths area bit off - Home One is 3800m, the Ex is 19000 (that's a fairly new refinement), and DSII is about 900km. Other than those minor issues, great stuff.

I guess my Home One and Executor info is out of date . . . I'll have to see where the new figures come from. However, the DS2 size is correct . . . the oft-quoted 900km figure is based on a single fellow from ILM (and given the widely varying backstage Monsterprise sizes we know how relevant that is), and an unfinished matte painting.

But if we need to go further with the Star Wars stuff we can start a thread in that forum. I posted it here for its Trek value.

[Captain Seafort]

I guess my Home One and Executor info is out of date . . . I'll have to see where the new figures come from.

The Executor is mentioned in the Databank here, and Home One's length is derived from RotJ, here.

However, the DS2 size is correct . . . the oft-quoted 900km figure is based on a single fellow from ILM (and given the widely varying backstage Monsterprise sizes we know how relevant that is), and an unfinished matte painting.

The size is consistent throughout RotJ - the ratio of DSII to the moon remains constant, and I consider the backstage comment to be merely additional supporting evidence. I'm not entirely sure why you refer to the 900km figure as being "oft quoted" - by my reckoning the inaccurate 160km figure you use is far more prevalent in the lower-canon sources.

But if we need to go further with the Star Wars stuff we can start a thread in that forum. I posted it here for its Trek value.

I'm half-tempted to move this thread into the "Other" forum to be honest - it's a great resource for both Trek and Wars.

[DSG2k]

the ratio of DSII to the moon remains constant

Not really, actually. Endor seemingly varies from 11 to 99 times the size of DS2. So it's really all over the place by that comparison method. I just use the Imperial shuttle as a primary yardstick.

But if you prefer a 900km DS2, there's a method presented on the page to allow you to recalculate the figures to your liking.

[Captain Seafort]

Not really, actually. Endor seemingly varies from 11 to 99 times the size of DS2. So it's really all over the place by that comparison method.

Evidence please - I've seen no such evidence of order-of-magnitude shifts in the station's size.

[DSG2k]

900km proponent Curtis Saxton and I both have this shot as showing Endor about 11-11.5 times larger than the DS2. So let's look at another image:



This is a frequently used shot. So let's see what happens if we make a circle 11.5 times larger than the DS2 on it. After all, the DS2 is clearly in front of the planet from this view, and hence closer to us, so the worst case scenario should be that Endor looks smaller than the circle.



Oops.

Turns out that instead of 11 times, we have to go with something more like 33 times, as in the shot below:


(larger (though still half-scale) version here)

Or there's this shot:



Now opinions could differ here as to what we're looking at, since unlike earlier the battlestation is not in front of the limb of the planet. For instance, if we were in very low orbit, then the DS2 could be very far away indeed (and even in a higher orbit), and thus it could appear smaller than it really ought to. (The situation is akin to seeing DS2 from on the ground, and concluding that the planet is almost infinitely bigger.) That said:



It ends up appearing 99 times smaller than Endor.

At that angle, if the station were really only 11 times smaller than Endor, it would have to be in a very interesting orbit indeed, since not only would it need to appear that size from LEO, but it would also have to be at the correct orbital height to appear that size from such an angle. Those are some severe constraints which must also be compatible with the shield generator and a constant altitude consistent with the other scenes . . . in other words, stuff probably starts breaking pretty quick.

Finally, Saxton's argument for a 900km station is based on a 'super-trench' which he believes to exist beyond the observed equatorial trench. Even Saxton acknowledges that the equatorial trench alone does not support a 900km station, so he takes an unfinished version of the film image below (i.e. an unfinished matte painting) and declares that white space at the upper left (where the piping would later go) is evidence of a larger super-trench.



However, there's no evidence for that super-trench, especially when you piece together the scenes of folks approaching the trench:



So that's about it.

[Sionnach Glic]

That does seem quite a bit odd. So we've visuals from seperate scenes giving us two different numbers.

A thought, but isn't Endor reffered to as a moon? If so, perhaps that larger one is the planet that Endor orbits, rather than the moon itself? That'd resolve the problem nicely.

[Mikey]

That does seem quite a bit odd. So we've visuals from seperate scenes giving us two different numbers.

A thought, but isn't Endor reffered to as a moon? If so, perhaps that larger one is the planet that Endor orbits, rather than the moon itself? That'd resolve the problem nicely.

You and your damned simple, logical resolution!

[Graham Kennedy]

Maybe you did it by drawing big circles for some reason, but just in case I'm not teaching my grandma to suck eggs... you know there's an equation for determining the radius of a circle when you have a segment of it like that. The straight-line distance across the visible curve is a "chord" and the distance from the middle of the chord up at right angles to the top of the planet is called the "sagitta". The radius of the planet equals ( (chord length)^2 / (8 x sagitta length) ) + (sagitta length / 2)

So for this :



I get a chord length of 618 pixels and a sagitta of 15 pixels, which means the planet in that image has a radius of 3190.2 pixels; a diameter of 6380.4.

Which is, in fact, 39 times larger than the 163 pixel diameter DS2 in that image.

(Personally I don't know and don't care how big the DS2 or Endor are. I just found this method of calculating circles recently and thought it was pretty cool.)

[DSG2k]

I copied my original method (and used my original images) from years ago when making the initial point, so pardon my imperfect method. I'll definitely have to make further use of the method you've presented whenever I upgrade the work with HD screencaps.

As for Endor being a moon, the RotJ novelization explains that the 'mother' planet disappeared at some point. However, in the opening moments of the film we do see another round space body at a great distance away, so either there's a second abandoned moon in some peculiar solar co-orbit or the planet is the ruddy grey body we see to the upper right here:

[Sionnach Glic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that been retconned? I seem to recall hearing something to that effect. *goes off to look it up*

In any case, the simple fact is that we've got conflicting visuals. One pinning the size of Endor as being 11 times larger than the DS2, one pinning it as being 39 times bigger, and one pinning it as being 99 times bigger. If your numbers are sound then that's one hell of a problem to rationalise.

Also, the idea of the main planet dissappearing is pretty damn bizzare. I can't imagine it just poofing out of existence. And if it were destroyed in a fashion reminiscent of Alderaan then Endor itself would have been completely screwed over by chunks of planet hitting it. It would probably have been rendered uninhabited if such an event were to occur. Even if all debris spectacularly managed to miss the planet, the sudden removal of what is presumably a massive gravitational source in relatively close proximity would most likely cause serious problems for the moon.

I don't know about you guys, but based on the idea of the planet vanishing making no sense at all, I'm just going to stick with my previous suggestion that the scenes with the bigger planet show the planet Endor orbits, while the small one is Endor itself. It would certainly explain why one is 99 times bigger than the DS2 and the other is a mere 11 times larger.

[Captain Seafort]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that been retconned? I seem to recall hearing something to that effect. *goes off to look it up*

It has. The DB lists the DSII as being 900km in diametre.

In any case, the simple fact is that we've got conflicting visuals. One pinning the size of Endor as being 11 times larger than the DS2, one pinning it as being 39 times bigger, and one pinning it as being 99 times bigger. If your numbers are sound then that's one hell of a problem to rationalise.

We also have the briefing room hologram, which agrees with the 1/11th figure.

I don't know about you guys, but based on the idea of the planet vanishing making no sense at all, I'm just going to stick with my previous suggestion that the scenes with the bigger planet show the planet Endor orbits, while the small one is Endor itself. It would certainly explain why one is 99 times bigger than the DS2 and the other is a mere 11 times larger.

I would say that the only really iffy scene is the one showing the DS about 40 times smaller than the planet/moon - the other one has the DS above the limb, so it may well be a perspective issue. This is reinforced by the fact that the PoV is directly above the planet, as shown by the fact that we can still see it in the reverse-angle shot of the shuttle.

[Aaron]

Oh christ, RSA and the DSII. Hasn't anyone gotten fed up with this crap by now?

[Tsukiyumi]

Oh christ, RSA and the DSII. Hasn't anyone gotten fed up with this crap by now?

RSA?

Sorry, I must admit ignorance on that one.