• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Wars and faster than light travel

It's around 120,000ly in diameter according to canon and legend sources.

They may claim that, but the stories certainly don't portray it as anywhere near that immense. Narratively, it's depicted as something much more cozy in scale. We're talking about stories, not anything real, so what defines smallness is a matter of the scope of the depiction, not actual numbers. For instance, a fictional single-biome or single-culture planet is functionally far smaller than a real planet with all its diversity of populations and biomes, even if it's claimed to have the same diameter.
 
Considering how odd the technology can get, it is possible that there were several single biome terraforming projects tens of thousands of years ago.

I see no need to concoct scientific explanations for a fantasy like Star Wars, which has never made any pretense of credibility. But just for the sake of discussion, I can't see any benefit to terraforming a world to have a single uniform biome or climate, or that it would be remotely stable for any length of time if you did. The only kind of world to have a uniform environment is a dead world or an extreme, hostile world, like Venus or Mercury or a fully glaciated "Snowball Earth" planet. Where there's life, there's change and diversity, and vice versa. For energy to flow, for things to happen, you need differentials for it to flow across. Where everything is uniform, nothing happens. Terraforming a whole planet to be uniform would be incredibly stupid and pointless, and while that certainly doesn't rule out someone trying it out of some warped ideology, it would never last. Not in anything remotely resembling a scientifically plausible universe, which Star Wars has never attempted to be.
 
I used to think that the warp drive in ST was way faster than any travel in SW.
Now I am not so sure.
Warp drive seems to be multiples of light speed 1, 10, 100, 1000, or whatever the scale might be.
SW travel seems to be a series of interconnected wormholes, which could be faster.
Now I am confused.
 
I used to think that the warp drive in ST was way faster than any travel in SW.
Now I am not so sure.
Warp drive seems to be multiples of light speed 1, 10, 100, 1000, or whatever the scale might be.
SW travel seems to be a series of interconnected wormholes, which could be faster.
Now I am confused.
There have been various explanations as to how it works but one that I always preferred was that going to lightspeed lets them jump in to another dimension of hyperspace, which allows them to navigate and get to places faster and travels at lightspeed and greater.
 
I used to think that the warp drive in ST was way faster than any travel in SW.
Now I am not so sure.

It depends. In the original Star Trek and TNG, Roddenberry stressed that interstellar travel should never be portrayed as a quick, casual commute; after all, a trek, by definition, is an arduous, challenging journey. So travel between star systems was generally presumed to take days or weeks, although there were occasional exceptions. Star Wars, by contrast, pretty much always portrayed interstellar journeys as quick hops, a matter of hours or days. In the prequels and after, even getting from Coruscant near the galactic core to Tatooine on the fringes was portrayed as a relatively quick jump.

However, modern Trek productions from the Kelvin movies onward have tended to use a more Star Wars-ish model, with interstellar travel usually taking a matter of hours or minutes.



SW travel seems to be a series of interconnected wormholes, which could be faster.

I don't think it's wormholes per se. It's hyperspace, a higher-dimensional space allowing faster journeys, but there seem to be certain established routes and entry points that are more viable than others. A wormhole is like a bridge over a river; I think SW hyperspace is more like an ocean that has certain favorable currents and sea lanes, or a mountainous region that has some easily traversed passes amid more difficult terrain.
 
Christopher said:
In the prequels and after, even getting from Coruscant near the galactic core to Tatooine on the fringes was portrayed as a relatively quick jump.

Tatooine to Alderaan ( a core world, allegedly ) in the original 1977 film took a matter of at most hours rather than days.
 
Yeah this is from the newest, or one of the newest canon maps, but Alderaan's position was the same in the EU
W2HUpz5.png
 
Both are on relatively well travelled hyperspace routes, and the Falcon is the fastest hunk of junk in the Galaxy.
 
It depends. In the original Star Trek and TNG, Roddenberry stressed that interstellar travel should never be portrayed as a quick, casual commute; after all, a trek, by definition, is an arduous, challenging journey. So travel between star systems was generally presumed to take days or weeks, although there were occasional exceptions. Star Wars, by contrast, pretty much always portrayed interstellar journeys as quick hops, a matter of hours or days. In the prequels and after, even getting from Coruscant near the galactic core to Tatooine on the fringes was portrayed as a relatively quick jump.

However, modern Trek productions from the Kelvin movies onward have tended to use a more Star Wars-ish model, with interstellar travel usually taking a matter of hours or minutes.





I don't think it's wormholes per se. It's hyperspace, a higher-dimensional space allowing faster journeys, but there seem to be certain established routes and entry points that are more viable than others. A wormhole is like a bridge over a river; I think SW hyperspace is more like an ocean that has certain favorable currents and sea lanes, or a mountainous region that has some easily traversed passes amid more difficult terrain.

That seems to be a pretty good explanation. Thank you. Trying to understand higher-dimension space makes my head hurt, and I have been trying to figure out Temporal Mechanics. :)
(Temporal Mechanics - The study of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff ;))
 
Last edited:
I just meant the planet isn’t there any more. Well…not all in one piece anyway.
Was the entire Hosnian system destroyed as well?
 
I see no need to concoct scientific explanations for a fantasy like Star Wars, which has never made any pretense of credibility. But just for the sake of discussion,

i.e. I'm going to put down everyone who engages these in these common discussions on a sci-fi forum while I do the same exact thing, which is also kind of how I keep the lights on.
 
Both are on relatively well travelled hyperspace routes, and the Falcon is the fastest hunk of junk in the Galaxy.
Kind of weird how a planet right off a major hyperspace route ended up allegedly the planet farthest from the bright center of the universe.
 
True, Pre Kelvin/Kurtzman era, it took some time to get from A to B, days, sometimes weeks, when Riker was offered his first command it was said that it would take 6 months of travel to get to his ship i think? Federation itself is a 1000 Ly acroos or so, taking about a year to get from one end to the other if you use Voyager math.

Were as Star Wars, it seems that it takes practically no time at all, Get from 1 planet to another in under 30 minutes, sometimes less. So the speed of Hyperspace is astronomical. However, You have to think that Hyperspace travel has been in use for 5000 + years. After 5000 years of travel in our own galaxy, id hope it would be similar to star wars as taking a short trip for Eggs and Blue Bacon.

I'd always thought that Starwars had sometype of slow FTL other than Hyperspace. Take Mando and the Frog lady with her depleting egg collection. Her trip in Hyperspace would have been 5 minutes, but taking the slower FTL takes a couple of days instead. Maybe it is in the next system.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top