Thread:ByAsura/@comment-25295648-20200806192204/@comment-25295648-20200814033450

ByAsura wrote: There's actually something more accurate you can use to measure the beams. These city-ships are actually MC80a star cruisers (they're the same size, but don't actually have armaments).

Edit: I tried calculating it with 20 psi, and it only got 4 megatons (divided by 3) for each destroyer. It is easier to use the beams in the scan, looking at it, the panel with the the ISDs in the comic is actually the same panel showing the beams hitting Mon Calamar and exploding, just with a middle being removed it seems. The angle and scale of the beams are all the same. So we can directly scale the ISD to the explosion:


 * Star Destroyer Width = 148 pixels = 600 meters


 * Explosion Diameter = 364 pixels = 1475.67567568 meters


 * Explosion Radius = 737.83783784 meters = 1.71029773 square km


 * Fireball radius = 265 kilotons of tnt
 * Heavy blast damage radius = 39 kilotons of tnt

Divide by 3:

​​​​​​
 * Fireball radius = 88.333 kilotons of tnt
 * Heavy blast damage radius = 13 kilotons of tnt

Anyways, I think finding the size of the explosion based on the planetary curvature wrong because that would imply these star destroyers are hundreds of kilometers in width or magically, midway through, the turbolasers broadened out again despite it being obvious they were thinning down. Obviously these beams weren't dozens to hundreds of kilometers, this isn't a Deathstar laser lol.

Even the highest clouds are only 76-85 kilometers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud

If this really is thousands of kilometers in blast radius, the height would far exceed 76-85 kilometers and be far above the clouds, when they clearly aren't in the scan.

The angle could simply be distorting the curvature, or it's just artist error not realizing how wonky and out of scale the horizon would be if drawing it curved.

I will rewrite fromally what I think should be added to my blog and then looked upon by calc group members, is  that okay?