Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:44 pm Post subject:
|MrNexx wrote: |
|Speaking of internal gravity, was it that "south" was down, or was the center down (so decks were like onion layers)? |
|Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote: |
|I wonder if this is covered in the Death Star Technical Companion. |
|CRMcNeill wrote: |
|...Page 16. It devotes an entire paragraph in the right hand column to discussing the layout of the artificial gravity of the Death Star. |
|On p.16 of the Death Star Technical Companion, Bill Slavicsek wrote: |
|...While hanger bays imposed the gravity perpendicular to the Death Star's core, adjoining quarters shifted the gravity orientation to coreward... |
On p. 19, the general layout cross section portrays the reactor core as being along the north-south axis (taller than it is wide), which means that by "perpendicular to the core" he means perpendicular to the north-south axis, which is consistent with the movie showing the Falcon being tractored straight into a hanger bay in the equatorial trench with gravity coming up from the south.
So Nexx, for the complete answer to your question according to WEG, most of the habitable areas of the station were in the outer layers and gravity was indeed oriented so that the center was down. The exceptions to the 'center down' gravity were the hanger bays which were oriented so that down was south. This arrangement is both consistent with the films and still largely energy efficient.
What I don't like about that is that it would make more sense to have the entire station be core-down including the hanger bays. I can't think of any reason that hanger bays couldn't be open to the "top" of them and ships have to land like they do on a planet. The DS tractor control landed the unmanned Falcon without damaging it or scraping up the deck, so they seems to have enough tractor control to reorient ships as needed. It seems odd to me to have the entire station be the most energy efficient with respect to artificial gravity except flipping the hanger bays 90 degrees. It seems to me that the author just wanted to make something that makes the most sense but had no choice but to change it for the hanger bays to be consistent with the films.
To maintain continuity with the films, it feels more natural to me to have all areas of the station with gravity to be oriented along the same axis as hanger bay we saw. But maybe if someone could give me a technobabble explanation for the hangers being the exception to the rest of the gravitated areas of the station, I could be more on board with WEG's version.
Registration & Log-In Help