Talk:1458: Small Moon

Probably another dig at the Pluto "dwarf planet" controversy?199.27.133.109 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Implying that it might not be? 108.162.216.109 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is too good. I laughed for about 2 straight minutes.. :D 199.27.128.89 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a short placeholder explanation for the comic itself, using 199.27.133.109's suggestion. Needs refining and explaining of the alt text. Cheers. 173.245.54.207 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In the movie, they didn't have 3 hours to argue over the thing. Not sure if that's relevant... Haelbarde (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason it couldn't be a space station would be that something so large would wind up collapsing in on its own gravity. 173.245.54.204 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not solid, it's a comapritively low density on the whole (on the order of ten thousand millionths that of Earth's sea-level atmospheric pressure, if I've not thrown a rogue zero or two in to the calculation by accident, so is doubtless mostly vacuum outside of the functional/habitable/structural areas), there are obviously various gravitational compensators for the inhabited sections (hence "looking sideways out of the equator ring" and along the beam-channel, yet "up from the surface" from the trench system defence turrets and other internal shafts are also vertiginously 'up-down' in nature) and doubtless its structural stength is composed of various Unotanium (i.e. "durasteel") alloys and the like, way beyond what we could currently build with Earthly technology. 141.101.98.245 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that a Death Star can not be a moon. Briff (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that it is canon that the "Star Destroyer"s are neither (if taken literally) capable of destroying stars nor (in the sense of "star ship" in general) are they technically destroyer-class ships. You've got to put it down to The Empire just having no sense of relevence when it comes to naming its vessels. Probably too much influence from clone-thinking... 141.101.98.245 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I will argue that by my understanding of the term, it actually is a moon whenever it is orbiting a planet but it would probably be better to come up with new terminology given the interstellar capabilities. --108.162.237.183 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Band of Traveling Accountants

I've never heard of the word "deunifying"; did you mean "disuniting" or "disunifying"?173.245.54.203 14:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I marked the transcript as incomplete; we can't be sure as to who is saying which lines in the final panel without Randall telling us himself. Notably, the second-to-last-line does not sound like something Ben Kenobi would say; more likely it's Han Solo. 108.162.216.188 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Comment is much more easily seen as coming from Solo than Kenobi. And, if they did rescue Leia during the intervening interval (one of the two scenarios suggested), Kenobi wouldn't be present. Equinox 199.27.128.117 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear other editors: "In this galaxy" was wordplay on the Star Wars opening crawl. I find your lack of pop culture disturbing. Changing the phrase to "In this solar system" was incorrect. Furthermore, although the predominant civilization on Earth allows moons of nearly any size, it is not necessarily true that inhabitants of SWG followed the same nomenclature. I think the wording should be restored. - Frankie (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, we know for sure that SWG defines "moon" differently than we do, because when the Millennium Falcon arrived, the Death Star was not orbiting another non-star body (it was the largest body in its spatial neighborhood) and therefore could not be a moon of any kind. - Frankie (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)