Talk:Death Star

opening sentence

surely it is advisable to have the adjective fictional at the beginning of the sentence rather than at the end, so as to avoid people mometarily thinking that a large star destroyer actually exists...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.168.92 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (size issue)

Although I'm a firm believer of 120km/160km size, as based on scaling from movies themselves, I'd like to thank whoever wrote the current (as of October 2008) version of the page; in my opinion, it offers the perfect compromise between various sources without going into unecessary details.

Again, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.137.53 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

January 26-27 reversion

Page was reverted for the following reasons

• While "cultural impact" descibes most items listed, it does not apply to Mimas' similarity to the Death Star; it only applies as trivial
• Mimas only resembles the Death Star at certain angles, namely angles that show its crater. While said point may be obvious it is still relevant.
• Mimas' Voyager images and the time frame of their discovery are relevant to the article. Said point only takes one sentence, I don't I'm asking too much to leave it there.
• While Mimas and Nemesis are both of astrological subject matter, that alone does not make them relevant enough to each other to be lumped into the same paragraph.

--TheDoober (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out a coincidence is not encyclopedic. Cite a source that substantiates the claims about "certain angles" and "Mimas' size, shape, and large crater" make for a "very close" resemblance. --EEMIV (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

troops and stormtroopers

607,360 troops, 30,984 stormtroopers

Thats what the article states and my question is, the difference is?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AT&T "logo"

Unless someone can show the mainstream press or anyone who actually matters cares enough about this image, it doesn't belong here. There are lots of pictures out there created by people with Spare Time; that is insufficient reason to include it here. More appropriate would be the ACTUAL AT&T logo, which sources cited in this article have compared to the article subject. --EEMIV (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Infeasibility of "Death Stars"

Given that the Science Channel appears to be about to produce a program documenting how to engineer a "Death Star" it seems useful to document the degree of difficulty (and potential impossibility) of a "Death Star" as envisioned in Star Wars. According to the Wikipedia entry on "Gravitational binding energy" it would take a week's energy output of the Sun to exceed the binding energy of a planet the size of the Earth (roughly the size of Alderaan). Though I do not remember the exact time for destruction from the movie (someone who has a copy could check this) I would guess that it is going to require ~5 orders of magnitude more than the power output of the sun (~10^31 W) to pull off planetary destruction on a movie "wow factor" time scale. It is highly questionable whether one could produce or direct that quantity of energy in an object the size of a Death Star in the time frame portrayed in the movie. It is useful to bear in mind that the external delivery of that quantity of energy to the surface (or core) of a planet has to deal with the large quantity of matter/plasma generated leaving the planet due to the portrayed method of energy delivery (laser beam) [light would significantly interact with and be blocked by these]. IMO, the only way one could explode a planet (as envisioned in Star Wars) would be the delivery of a fairly large "anti-matter" bomb to the core of the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)