TIE fighters
- Travel between star systems really requires a hyperdrive. So non-hyperdrive ships such as the basic TIE fighters should be removed. -Finlayson 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. But apparently, starfighters aren't mentioned as having to be interstellar in their article here. So they aren't just "spacefighters". — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log)
- PS: It's already been done. But the TIEs still listed did have hyperdrives. -Aiddat
20 million
Thats not very many starships if you think about it. Are you sure thats right?
- Yes, I was wondering about that. It seems there would be more than that in the Core alone. Source anyone?Chack Jadson 12:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed that number would equal less than one per planet. HavetStorm 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- No idea what source that's from, but it actually does kind of make sense if you think about it from a pre-Clone Wars perspective. No major wars = no need for big navies. Still seems low, though. Sionay 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- The source is Rogue Planet. But it's only in the known galaxy, and only according to Tarkin. -LtNOWIS 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering about this myself. 20 million isn't enough for even One in a thousand people on Coruscant alone, and we saw how many people on Coruscant had a starship. Was Rogue Planet canon?
- I doubt the new influx of wars and military demands beginning with the clone wars would increase the number much, the Imperial fleet, the largest fleet in galactic history only had 25,000 Star destroyers, which is insignificant compared to this 20,000,000 figure--99.141.179.43 23:22, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Let's clear some stuff up. Most of the ships seen on Coruscant are only atmospheric crafts, like the bus in episode 2. Also, there were wars before the Clone wars that demanded fleets of starships. Although starship is an umbrella term for many crafts, space travel was not as commonplace as star wars makes it seem, and 20 million, I think, might be an OK conservative estimate made directly before the Clone wars. Remeber that just because the Core worlds have a lot of ships, it does mean that every habitable planet out there is a huge spaceport like Coruscant. Omicron 94 21:39, 17, August 2010
- No, it's pretty clear it's an example of writers having absolutely no concept of scale. 72.200.151.13 20:05, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Let's clear some stuff up. Most of the ships seen on Coruscant are only atmospheric crafts, like the bus in episode 2. Also, there were wars before the Clone wars that demanded fleets of starships. Although starship is an umbrella term for many crafts, space travel was not as commonplace as star wars makes it seem, and 20 million, I think, might be an OK conservative estimate made directly before the Clone wars. Remeber that just because the Core worlds have a lot of ships, it does mean that every habitable planet out there is a huge spaceport like Coruscant. Omicron 94 21:39, 17, August 2010
- I doubt the new influx of wars and military demands beginning with the clone wars would increase the number much, the Imperial fleet, the largest fleet in galactic history only had 25,000 Star destroyers, which is insignificant compared to this 20,000,000 figure--99.141.179.43 23:22, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering about this myself. 20 million isn't enough for even One in a thousand people on Coruscant alone, and we saw how many people on Coruscant had a starship. Was Rogue Planet canon?
- The source is Rogue Planet. But it's only in the known galaxy, and only according to Tarkin. -LtNOWIS 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No idea what source that's from, but it actually does kind of make sense if you think about it from a pre-Clone Wars perspective. No major wars = no need for big navies. Still seems low, though. Sionay 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed that number would equal less than one per planet. HavetStorm 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
All starships are starcruisers?
Is it correct to state that "starcruiser" is a synonym for "starship"? This would mean that any hyperdrive-capable craft, even small fighters and escape pods, could be called starcruisers... -Kev-La Ttolya 11:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC, a cruiser is a ship of a certain size: it would be bigger than a corvette Leia's Blockade Runner at the beginning of ep IV, but smaller than a Star Destroyer. TomXP411 (talk) 16:33, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
War
Is it really correct to say that a captain would surrender once their shields gave out?
No, the hull of the ship would start taking the hits once the shields went down. Also, shields were not simply for protection against lasers. They protected against kenetic assaults like stray asteroids, missles, and torpedoes. Finally, the loss of the bridge on a capital ship did not necessarily mean the death of the ship. Many capital ships had auxiliary bridges in case of the loss of the main bridge. All star destroyers are noted as having had auxiliary bridges. It also appears that Corellian corvettes (at least the corvette Night Caller) also had an auxiliary bridge. The loss of the Executor for example could possibly be noted as being a extremely unusual occurance, as a ship as important as that would indefinately have an auxiliary bridge fully staffed during times of combat in case of such a catastrophic situation.--Sinister Turnip 03:10, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct. From a tactical perspective, it's obscenely stupid to run combat operations from an exposed bridge, like we saw at the Battle of Endor. So that captain was either stupid or arrogant. He should have been on the battle bridge, not on the main bridge like he was. TomXP411 (talk) 16:35, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
Space Stations
I personally think space stations shouldn't be listed as a type of starship, since they have no hyperdrive and often no sublight engines. I know the Death Star has hyperdrive, but I think it's just an exception. Any thoughts? --69.115.17.218 20:37, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. By real-world definitions at least, the Death Star would not be a space station, which compared to other space craft have no significant propulsion systems. The thrusters they use are for maneuvers called, well, station-keeping, serving only to keep them in the proper orbital path. The Death Star was a gigantic capital ship, capable of going anywhere it needed to in order to fulfill its purpose of inflicting maximum terror and forcing subservience. It wasn't even meant to stay in one place for long unless its presence was required as a deterrent (in which case I would say whatever utility it possesses is being wasted—it needs to be able to make a show all over the Galaxy).
- All other considerations aside, when it comes to housing and maintaining ships and personnel, what's the ESSENTIAL difference between a ship large enough for ships to dock in, like a Star Destroyer, and the Death Star? There is none—it's a matter of size and capacity. It should still be called a space station here because the canonical sources are unanimous, but let's not extrapolate from that. I would be comfortable saying over 99% of space stations in SW are NOT starships. 72.200.151.13 20:17, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, all space stations are spacecraft. NASA calls the ISS a spacecraft, for example, as it does all of our orbiting satellites. So the only difference between a large spacecraft and a space station is its intended purpose: a station usually loiters in one location and provides a semi-permanent presence, whereas a starship is mobile and doesn't stay in one place very long. TomXP411 (talk) 16:38, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
Intergalactic
I'm concerned by this paragraph:
Intergalactic starflight became possible with the invention of the dual-drive system, which included an anti-grav drive to exit a system's gravity well, allowing inter-system travel, and a hyperdrive system for faster-than-light travel
The tern Intergalactic is incorrect here. Intergalactic travel means travel between galaxies. Since all of the action in the Star Wars universe takes place in one galaxy, there was no intergalactic travel. The correct term is *interstellar* travel.
Second, the EU books state pretty clearly that ships use ION drives for sublight travel and use repulserlifts for landing and takeoff. Repulsers can't be used for motive power once away from a planet.
TomXP411 (talk) 16:45, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding your first point: one of the definitions of intergalactic is "of, relating to, or occurring in outer space." So the term is not incorrect here. It is, however, ambiguous, since it also means "between galaxies." I changed it to interstellar to remove this ambiguity.
Regarding your second point: do feel free to update the article to fix this! Asithol (talk) 02:00, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I could not edit the article last time I tried (it was protected.) TomXP411 (talk) 02:05, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Are you still unable to edit? It's semi-protected, which means you ought to be able to edit it since your account is at least four days old. Asithol (talk) 20:53, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't tried yet. Been a little busy. :-) TomXP411 (talk) 23:28, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Please add
Thanks.
i posted this to Talk:Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser earlier, but the drop down menu on Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser still says Talk (0) in Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Edge, even after rebooting my computer. What's up with that?
Actually, maybe ship and starcruiser should redirect to starship instead of starship/Legends?
--96.244.220.178 07:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)