---

STAR WARS Technical Commentaries FAQ

---

1. General

1.1 What is the motivation of this FAQ?

This FAQ is about the STAR WARS Technical Commentaries web site, not about STAR WARS itself.

The purpose of the FAQ is to cover the important aspects of the site that are most often misunderstood.

1.2 Basics

1.2.1 Where is this site?

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

1.2.2 Who wrote this site?

Dr Curtis John Saxton, theoretical astrophysicist, currently working at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory of University College London, in England, (previously employed at Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie in Germany, after Australian National University; PhD at University of Sydney, Australia). Convenor, writer and editor of this site.

Results arising from discussions with others are acknowledged in the credits on each page. Original and constructive contributions from correspondents are edited into existing pages.

1.2.3 Why was this site written?

To illuminate STAR WARS with a sense of realism. To explore the interesting implications of the phenomena depicted on screen (and in some of the unfilmed literature). As an exercise in the extension and consolidation of the "suspension of disbelief" that is necessary for an effective fantasy. To rectify omissions and distortions in the coverage of the STAR WARS universe found in some licensed references. To study the objective and quantifiable aspects of the STAR WARS universe, to assess the capabilities of beings and phenomena in STAR WARS.

These key objectives have remained largely unchanged, although the motivation and emphasis of this site have evolved gradually since the site's foundation.

1.2.4 How old is this site?

The first pages went online near the end of February 1995, and became known to people other than the author in the early days of March. At the time, there appeared to be only three other STAR WARS web sites in existence, and only one of these survives to this day.

1.2.5 May I use some images?

Images in the STAR WARS Technical Commentaries web site were created for exclusive use in this web site. Private viewing in offline forms is acceptable, but none of these graphics files may be used elsewhere on the InterNet or World Wide Web.

In the opinion of the author of this site, image poaching, plagiarism and other kinds of image duplication from one site to another makes both sites look tawny and derivative. It diminishes the originality and diversity of the Web. It unfairly exploits the efforts of people who went to the trouble of creating, cleaning and cataloguing the images in the first place.

Images created as illustrations for one site do not readily fit into different documents. Indiscriminate use of other peoples' images is a sign of poor page design. Every image should exist as a customised creation for a particular purpose, in a particular document. The production of original graphics files is worth the effort; services for video digitising and scanning are cheap.

If you're able to put a convincing case for why you, as a complete stranger who is not involved with this site, should be given image files, then the author of this site may (at his sole discretion) choose to offer original graphics which do not appear in this or any other web site.

1.2.6 Is this site related to Lucasfilm or any of its licensees?

No. This web site is a private hobby, and is unaffected by the author's contributions to the official literature.

1.2.7 Is this site related to official publications by the same author?

No. The website and the books are kept deliberately separate and have different methodologies and motivations. This site is purely empirical; it relies entirely upon the full bredth of the published canon and expanded universe literature. It does not present new inventions. Everything in this site is a revelation based on extant evidence. Officially published books require and allow creativity, whereas this website is exclusively restricted to analysis and review.

1.2.7.1 What were the author's official publications?

C. J. Saxton is an acknowledged contributor to:

• Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, Dorling Kindersley, 2002, [author].
• Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections, Dorling Kindersley, 2005, [author].
• Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, Dorling Kindersley, 2003, [technical consultant].
• Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: Trilogy, Dorling Kindersley, 2004, [technical consultant]

1.3 Motivation

1.3.1 How does this site relate to Star Trek?

It doesn't relate to Star Trek. It has nothing to do with the SW vs ST online debate nor any debate like it. Although those debates are useful insofar as they stimulate people to think about how the STAR WARS universe works, this site strictly excludes direct discussion of other fictional universes.

1.4 Presentation

1.4.1 Why are there no awards, banners or web-rings?

Because these things make the pages slower to download and add no substance. Unqualified, implicit endorsement of other peoples' web sites (implied by awards, banners and web-rings) might also have undesirable legal ramifications.

1.4.2 Why aren't Java/CGI/frames used in this site?

Because I detest gimmicks. Sites which attempt to look "modern" or "fashionable" become outdated-looking much more quickly than sites which are clear of purpose and consistent in content. I have seen very few sites which contain web gimmicks which could not have been done equally well with clean, pure, vanilla HTML.

1.4.3 Why does this site contain errors of spelling and grammar?

Because this is how I talk, write and type. My text editor does not contain a spelling-checker, and I don't have a team of playtesters and proofreaders. Whenever I find an error, I correct it, but I don't have time for a systematic search for flaws. This site is more time-consuming than writing a published book, because it needs to continually grow and evolve. I would be extremely thankful to anyone who alerts me to the presence of a typo.

1.4.4 Why doesn't this site acknowledge the latest leaks from official products?

Firstly, because it is foolish to base a commentary on information that is non-final and taken out of context. Secondly, because the practice of web sites dealing in leaks is unethical and detrimental to the interests of Star Wars fandom. Advance titilation dulls the finally released story. Leaks cause and spread apathy, cynicism and disappointment.

1.5 Correspondence

1.5.1 Why aren't my e-mails answered?

All messages are appreciated and read, but I am usually busy. I have several real-life research projects which take precedence over private hobbies like this web site. The continual expansion of this web site means that the effort required to maintain it also increases, so I have even less time for correspondence.

In the long run, e-mail messages are answered according to a "last on, first off" approach. Older messages which remain unanswered can become buried beneath newer unanswered messages. They are only answered when the influx of new messages has relented significantly, and after all newer messages have been dealt with.

I am sometimes forced to economise on my correspondence by assigning a lower priority to certain kinds of redundant or semi-redundant messages. These include: any message which puts a proposition which has already been treated somewhere in the web pages; invitations to one-one debate reiterating topics which are already explained exhaustively in the web pages. Time and effort are better spent on original topics in publicly readable web pages.

1.5.2 How can I increase the chances of a quick reply?

Be concise and specific. Never send the message more than once. Concentrate of new discoveries rather than what is already known. All claims should be supported by verifiable evidence, including exact chapter and page numbers where appropriate. Keep the message on-topic. Don't send commercial propositions.

---

2. Results

2.1 Where do the results come from?

From observations and measurements of images and events in canon and official non-canon STAR WARS material, principally the films. Canon sources are given precedence, followed by auxiliary documentation from the creators of the films, and then official non-canon sources are considered.

2.2 What are estimates?

Often it is not possible to calculate an absolutely exact figure for a measurement. An estimate is an approximate value with a specfic level of uncertainty or precision. The true figure must be close to the estimated result, and the range of uncertainty can be expressed as outlined below.

2.3 What are uncertainties?

If a measurement or the result of a calculation is stated in the form X±Y, then Y is the uncertainty. It indicates the precision of the measurement. It means that the true answer probably lies in the range of X-Y to X+Y. It almost certainly lies somewhere within the range of X-3Y to X+3Y.

If there are two independent estimates for the same quantity, U±V and X±Y, then the true value is likely to be within the overlap of the two ranges, or if there is no overlap, between the ranges.

2.4 What are lower and upper limits?

Sometimes it is only possible to say that a quantity is more than a certain value; sometimes it is only possible to say that a quantity is less than a certain value. These are lower limits and upper limits respectively.

For example, if we know how much energy it takes to destroy a planet, then we know that any planet-destroying weapon has an output matching or exceeding this lower limit. However without further information we can't necessarily calculate whether it's more powerful by a factor of a few times, thousands of times, billions of times, or more.

If we calculate a lower limit on the energy needed for a turbolaser to vaporise an asteroid, we then conclude that the energy of the particular turbolaser shot was not less than a certain amount. This does not necessarily mean that the weapon was on its lowest power setting.

Events and feats shown in the STAR WARS films indicate lower limits much more often than upper limits. Each statistic given in these pages is noted as either a lower limit, upper limit, or absolute estimate. Most of the figures stated in this site are purposefully conservative.

2.5 How are time measurements made?

Either by directly timing the events of the films on videotape or DVD using a stopwatch or inbuilt clock; by noticing timing information within the film (eg. the Death Star countdown announcements in A New Hope); or by counting the number of frames between events. Frame rates, according to the advice of W.Poe, include:

• NTSC video: 30/s
• PAL video: 25/s
• American film: 24/s
• European film: 25/s
• Super 8 film (home): 18/s
• Super 8 film (?): 24/s

When American films are converted to PAL video, the usual procedure is for each frame of film to become a frame of video, and the total screening time is shortened slightly. When American films are converted to NTSC video, every fifth frame of film is repeated on video, so that five frames become six frames.

2.6 What are "back-of-the-envelope" calculations?

The term "back-of-the-envelope" has several connotations:

• calculations which are sufficiently straightforward or simplified so that they could, in principle, be written on the back of an envelope;
• indicate which factors or physical processes are dominant;
• indicate the bounds of behavior of the system;
• usually intended to provide order-of-magnitude answers, or else something more precise but which still falls short of a full calculation done by computer simulation or numerical integration etc.

For instance the calculations involving the properties of the Endor moon are back-of-the-envelope because they are realistic, but one or two of the quantities used are educated guesswork. This does not mean that the result is arbitrary. The density of the sanctuary moon must lie somewhere between the densities of Earth and Mars. We use a plausible number which fits the general trend for planets of terrestrial composition, but without completing comprehensive and detailed geological structure calculations with exact equations of state for all the minerals, etc.

The calculation of the threshold energy needed to destroy Alderaan is exact for a model planet which is nearly identical to Earth, but Alderaan might differ from this result by a few percent. However it will not vary by factors as large as ten or two.

---

3. Continuity

3.1 What is "official"?

The events, characters, locations and other situational elements of most licensed STAR WARS literature is "official". Materials integral to the creation of those products (e.g. design notes used in the production of the movies) may also be considered official. Official sources contribute to a continuity of intra-textual STAR WARS history. The main exceptions are the licensed comics marked with an "Infinities" logo: these whimsies are unofficial and outside continuity. "Official" status is not a matter of personal opinion. "Official" status does not necessarily imply validity, since some official sources contain errors, e.g. contradictions with higher sources.

3.2 What is "canon"?

"Canon" consists of the non-negotiable "facts" of the STAR WARS universe and its history. All canon material is official, but only a minority of official material is canonical. According to Lucasfilm's continuity editors, writing in STAR WARS Insider #23, canon is defined as:

`Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations.

"Canon" status is not a matter of personal opinion. The movies are the highest form of canon, because they are independently, objectively measurable representations of events and entities within the STAR WARS universe.

3.3 What is "apocrypha"?

"Apocrypha" is a term used (with diminishing frequency) for any STAR WARS material that is official but not canon. Canonical evidence always overrules apocryphal evidence. Apocrypha can only be used to judge other apocrypha, or to supplement canon. The term "apocrypha" tends to emphasise the subordinate status of non-canon material, but is not intended to be derogatory. Alternative terms, such as "unfilmed STAR WARS fiction" or "expanded universe" (EU) could be used just as well. The most commonly used term is EU.

3.3.1 What is the "Expanded Universe"?

The "Expanded Universe" comprises official publications that are lower than the status of canon but contribute to an official STAR WARS continuity. This is a synonymous with the less common term of "apocrypha".

3.4 How can continuity errors be assessed?

When non-canonical official material (secondary evidence) conflicts with canon (primary evidence), the canon prevails. When canon appears to conflict with canon, we say that there is a "blooper". When this happens, or when there is a conflict between equally ranked non-canon official sources, resolution must depend on reference to intrinsic and extrinsic considerations, including: physical possibility; semantics; social/cultural plausibility.

3.4.1 What is the significance of the artists' intentions?

In cases when all objective forms of evidence (e.g. the measurable images in a movie or the printed words of a book) prove indecisive, then we may at last resort to considering the declared intentions of the authors and artists. Such evidence is subjective and therefore risky. It can be plagued by many problems. The artists involved in a project do not necessarily share the same intentions. Individuals can misrepresent or miscommunicate their intentions, either unconsciously or deliberately. Furthermore, an artist's intentions can change over time, especially in retrospect after the source has been published and fans have reacted. Statements of authorial intent are less convincing if they are made in hindsight, but are more convincing if they are contemporary.

3.4.3 What is the significance of the "Holocron"?

Lucasfilm keeps a database, called the "Holocron", to record additions to the official continuity. This living record is used as a source of information for licensees. It is a description of continuity, but it does not actually govern or define continuity. True continuity depends on the usually understood and long-established hierarchy of canonical and official evidence.

3.4.4 What is the significance of "G-canon" and "C-canon" notations?

According to official reports, the "Holocron" uses four classification symbols to annotate STAR WARS sources. "G" sources are claimed to have some contribution from George Lucas. "C" denotes ordinary continuity (official sources). "S" denotes secondary continuity: tales where the events are discontinuous but characters or other entities may exist somewhere in the STAR WARS universe. "N" denotes non-continuity sources, such as the "Infinities" comics.

"S" and "N" classifications are a helpful guide to treating the lowest sources in the STAR WARS literature.

The distinction between "G" and "C" does not absolutely settle the objective evaluation of continuity. These two classifications don't coincide with the boundary between canon and EU. Not all "G" sources are canon (e.g. prologue by George Lucas in the paperback edition of the EU novel Shatterpoint). All canon sources include contributions from at least a few people other than Lucas. Many sources originate in a mixture of "G" and "C" influences. Information in a canonical source (especially the movies) necessarily holds higher priority than any EU source, no matter who is the author. In any case, the individual contributions in a collaborative, licensed project are unknowable and inseparable to some extent. The influences upon (and between) the contributors are too complicated, and too often subliminal, to be traced fully. Finally, it is the substance of a source (not its putative origin) that has to be measured and assessed. Thus the GCSN source classification does not (by itself) address or solve conflicts between EU and canonical sources. Except on "S" and "N" levels, the GCSN scheme does not necessarily bestow priority to one set of evidence over another.

3.5 Where can I read more about continuity?

Issues relating to continuity, canon and apocrypha are discussed in a dedicated page within this web site. The most clear and concise official discussion can be found in the pages of the premier issue of STAR WARS Insider, which is issue #23.

Alternative discussions can be found on several other sites. For instance there is the continuity section of Wayne Poe's The Ultimate Starwars vs. Startrek Database [http://www.mrpoesmorgue.com/sources.html].

3.6 Is Shadows of the Empire canon?

No. Lucasfilm has never declared it canon. This is only fan-rumour and wishful thinking. The fact that several visual elements of Shadows of the Empire appear in the Special Editions of the STAR WARS films has no bearing on the continuity status of the events and personalities of the SOTE multimedia project.

3.7 Are leaks official or canon?

They are certainly not canon. Canon is the final state of the core movies of the saga. Leaks and trailers are works in progress, and the finished artworks or products may differ.

3.7.1 What is the value of behind-the-scenes reports?

Reports and diaries from the production of incomplete movies (or other media) provide intriguing, tentative hints and clues to the future development of the STAR WARS continuity. However they do not constitute final evidence in debates about continuity and technicalities. The final version of the movie (or publication) may differ from what the preview reporter has seen. Until the final story is available for confirmation and independent measurement, privileged preview reports deserve cautious skepticism. For example, if a character is a proven casualty in Attack of the Clones but behind-the-scenes reports say that he/she survives during Revenge of the Sith then the reports are incredible until proven by the finished film.

---

4. Military Terminology

4.1 Why do you use the term "Imperial Starfleet" for the Imperial Navy?

Because this is the term used in the STAR WARS movies, in particular the narrator's text at the start of The Empire Strikes Back. The term "Imperial Navy" does not appear in canonical sources.

4.2 Why is a naval captain senior to a naval commander?

Because this order of rank is part of the universally understood definitions of those two words. It's an unalterable convention of the English language. Whoever says that a captain is lower than a commander, in any navy or fighter force, is simply and objectively in error.

Note that an army captain is not the same as a naval or pilot captain; he equals a naval/pilot lieutenant, and this rank is inferior to a naval commander and naval lieutenant commander. A naval/pilot captain is equal to an army colonel.

---

5. Warships

5.1 Star destroyers.

5.1.1 What is an Imperator-class star destroyer?

The original and specific name for the mile-long 'Imperial Star Destroyer.' It is incorrectly and unwittingly renamed by West End Games, whose initial research was too superficial to uncover the classic Star Destroyer Imperator Class blueprints.

Warship classes are named after the first ship put into service. Imperator was the lead ship of its class, and it therefore defines the class name. According to the Star Destroyer Imperator Class blueprints, Imperator was built at the Gyndine shipyards.

Many second-generation sources use of the term Imperial-class. This name derives from a misunderstanding of naval terminology, in a poorly researched passage of an early second-generation roleplaying sourcebook. "Imperial star destroyer" simply means that the destroyer is owned and operated by the Imperial Navy. It is a statement of affiliation; not a class name.

5.1.2 What and where is Gyndine?

The star destroyer Imperator was built at Gyndine. This ship was first assigned to the Corellian sector starfleet. This may mean that Gyndine is in the Corellian Sector (but not necessarily so).

Gyndine was a powerful administrative world mentioned in Splinter of the Mind's Eye and Rebel Dawn. The governor was a corpulent dark-skinned man named Bin Essada. Secret mining colonies in other systems were established by the Gyndine authorities, e.g. Mimban. The purpose of these colonies may have been to provide a secure source of raw materials in support of the shipyards.

Gyndine and its facilities have been mentioned in several other novels and reference books.

5.1.3 Why are star destroyers medium-sized warships?

1. Because that's what the term "destroyer" implies. They have always been destroyers, even in early versions of the A New Hope screenplay. During the escape from Tatooine, Solo seemed to name one of the pursuers as a "cruiser", but Harrison Ford is well-known for his ad-libs. Alternatively, the two destroyers in the background might really have been accompanying a larger, genuine cruiser.
2. The common mile-long star destroyer is much smaller than the command ship Executor, which presumably is the supreme warship class. In realistic terms, the size relationship between a destroyer and a battleship is much closer than between Imperator and Executor. If anything, calling the Imperator a destroyer is over-generous.
3. Comics, including Dark Empire and the Marvel series, show an abundance of Imperial warship designs, and they fill out a spectrum with some smaller and some larger than the basic star destroyer. This distribution justifies the movie destroyer's designation as a middle-sized class of warship.

5.1.4 Where were the big ships during the Battle of Endor?

They probably were protecting assets in less remote regions of the Empire, either in large fleets like that of Admiral Giel [Marvel comic series], or stationed in important regions like the Core and Deep Core [Dark Empire series; Darksaber].

Imperator-class star destroyers seem to be used galaxy-wide and are favoured for their versatility in the remote regions of the Outer Rim where the STAR WARS films took place. Executor was an exception at Endor simply because it was the Imperial flagship.

Return of the Jedi introduced two previously undescribed warship designs.

• One of them, seemingly massing somewhere between Executor and a destroyer, was present in the Return of the Jedi novel, but is not seen in the present edition of the film. It was involved with the fleet's communications and jamming the Rebel fleet's scanners. The ship is described as having huge docking bay cavities.
• There was another destroyer-sized vessel in the film which lacked docking bays altogether. Its ventral features are reminiscent of the Allegiance from Dark Empire. The curious ship was only glimpsed once, when the Millennium Falcon flew low across its underbelly.

5.2 Executor

5.2.1 What do "command ship" and "super star destroyer" mean?

"Super star destroyer" is a colloquialism and not a functional naval designation. It is a slang term used mainly by rebels in reference to any Imperial warship larger than a destroyer. This includes cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, fleet carriers and dreadnoughts: many kinds of command ships.

A command ship is a warship of vast size and power, intended to be an unassailable command platform and mothership. Befitting their capabilities, they are a sign of supreme naval prestige. "Command ship" could be regarded as a broad designation including the star battleships and star dreadnoughts that lead the Empire's strongest naval formations.

The Executor-class star dreadnought is a command ship design. Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class are others.

5.2.2 Why is the Executor's length eleven miles rather than five or eight miles?

Because in the movies it is about eleven times the length of the Imperator-class star destroyer. ILM artists chose this size deliberately, and it was intentionally kept the same in both films, in every scene showing both classes of ship. To provide a yardstick, they also gave Executor a bridge tower exactly the same as the destroyers'.

In turn, the star destroyers are scaled according to other vessels. Their one-mile length is consistent with the destroyer's known size in relation to the Tantive IV, the Millennium Falcon, Lord Vader's Lambda-class shuttle, and the TIE fighters that escorted it.

The "five mile" length is a fallacy created in the first edition of the Guide to the STAR WARS Universe. It apparently arose because the writer was confused by earlier references to the five escorting star destroyers in The Empire Strikes Back. The error has only been perpetuated because subsequent writers have failed to treat old secondary references with proper skepticism.

5.2.3 Why are the tower globes scanners and not shield generators?

Because if they were shield generators they would have been protected by their own shield emissions. A-Wings could not damage them. The fact that they were damaged by A-Wing fire is a demonstration that the shields had failed moments earlier, and the Executor had become vulnerable.

The Return of the Jedi novel clearly indicates that the rebel cruisers employed tactics aimed at overtaxing the Imperials' power systems, in the hope of causing temporary shield failure. Ackbar's explicit intention was that these failures would make the enemy vulnerable to rebel starfighters.

Furthermore:

1. Shields are not associated with globes or any other external structure on any other shielded STAR WARS ship. Shield generators in STAR WARS are internal.
2. At least some types of sensors are known to be external features. Eg. dishes on Millennium Falcon, Corellian Corvette. Nobody dares suggest that these are shield generators.
3. The globes are fashioned and positioned identically to the scanners of capital ships on Earth. Positioned for maximum field of view. Dishes protected within polyhedral domes. Clearly this is the artistic inspiration and physical analogue for the star destroyer globes.
4. The star destroyer blueprints published in 1978 state that they're long-range scanners.
5. Only one of the two tower globes was damaged. If the globes were simply the bridge shield generators then the rebels would need to destroy both globes before the bridge shields were completely lost.
6. Indeed the full number of globes on and surrounding the Executor's tower is at least ten.
7. When part of a complex machine is damaged, other components may fail, power systems become unbalanced etc. It may have been so with the Executor. The Executor's globe destruction may have caused wider system failures, possibly including devices which could have revived the shields after the Calamarian barrage. This tenuous, indirect and secondary after-effect is the greatest possible connection between the scanner globes and shielding functions during the Executor incident.
8. Destruction of the scanner globe impeded the ships' targetting systems. Poorly aimed fire failed to stop Green Leader's fighter before it collided with Executor's vulnerable bridge.

5.3 Eclipse

5.3.1 Why was Eclipse only 17.5km long?

The Eclipse is slightly shorter than the Executor. The primary evidence for the Executor is in the films, which show a length of about eleven miles. The primary evidence for the Eclipse is the text of the Dark Empire comic, which states a length of about ten miles. Some secondary and derivative books have wrongly stated that the Eclipse is twice the length of Executor. Those statements were based on a false understanding of the Executor's length. The primary evidence still stands: although the Eclipse is much fatter and wider, and therefore has a greater total tonnage, it is definitely shorter.

5.4 Death Stars

5.4.1 Why were there more than two Death Stars?

Aside from the two battle stations shown in movies, several other Death Stars and derivative battle stations occur in official but unfilmed STAR WARS stories.

Death Star prototype:

At least one functional prototype was left in the Maw Cluster. It became known in the novel Jedi Search.

Tarkin:

A minimalist superlaser platform built after the first Death Star but before the station at Endor. It is found in the Marvel comic series, and was mentioned again in Essential Guide to Weapons & Technology.

Coruscant Death Stars:

This is Return of the Jedi artwork, revived The Illustrated STAR WARS Universe by Anderson and MacQuarrie. The (assumed identity) author, an Imperial advisor employed evasive language, described the stations without mentioning their military function, but did not tell any explicit lies. Each of the Coruscant objects has a superlaser dish. Initially, the film involved battles around twin Death Stars at Coruscant. The rebels would never have dared to attack a well-defended system, and Coruscant provided little opportunity to explore "ewok" or "wookiee" themes, so Lucas established another Death Star at Endor.

Darksaber:

Created by a Hutt clan in a novel by the same name.

5.4.2 How big was Death Star II?

According the Richard Edlund, the ILM artist who supervised the special effects, the second Death Star was over five hundred miles in diameter. That's over 800km.

The smaller figure of 160km published in some secondary sources is only a false guess.

Pictures in the movie relate the size of the station to the size of the sanctuary moon. If the battle station was only 160km, the Endor moon would be less than half the size of Earth's moon, and would be completely incapable of supporting life. In order for the moon to be large enough to be habitable, the Death Star II needs to be greater than eight or nine hundred kilometres across.