I don't really understand the scaling of Star Wars ships, particularly the covettes.

 

For example,

 

1. The Tantive 4 is 150 meters. Yet in the interior, we see long hallways and varying corridors throughout the ship that indicate that it is larger than a mere 150 meters.

 

2. These Thranta class Corvettes. They are supposedly smaller in size to the Hammerheads we see in Kotor 2. Yet, in Kotor 2, we see the interior as a believably medium-sized frigate. However, the Thranta hallways during the flashpoint contain large hanger bays, a colossal bridge, high roofs, and multiple levels. Simply, the Thranta interior looks closer in size to Harrower. This is contrasted with the exterior, which can be passed within just a few seconds in the Cornelian shipyards.

I've often wondered about that myself. It also shows up in the size differences between the Gravestone and the Eternal Fleet ships - the interior of the Gravestone is clearly bigger, but the exterior is clearly much smaller.

 

A careful analysis involving targeted field repair or mail collection droids shows that the player ships (Fury, Mantis, XB70, Thunderclap, XS Freighter, and Defender) are approximately the same size on the inside and on the outside (with the outside being bigger). In fact, they are sufficiently similar in size (in/out) that I'm left wondering where they keep all their fuel, air, water, food, waste water (I hope I don't need to explain this), etc. And of course they have no room for what rocket engineers coyly call "propellant", normally highly energetic materials in extremely large quantities. By point of comparison, fully fueled and ready to launch, a Saturn V's weight was about 90% fuel and oxidiser. Where exactly would you store that sort of quantity of propellant in a player ship? (This sort of reasoning is why I assert that Star Wars starships must use some sort of reactionless thruster.)

I've always thought the Interiors of the XS and Thranta cruiser in particular looked considerably larger then the outside. Some of it I believe is what I posted in another thread "Room Scaling" for the Player Camera particularly the Class ships. The interior of the "Endar Spire" and "Harbinger" from the KOTOR series I Believe are accurate or very close in Exterior/ Interior scaling.

I've often wondered about that myself. It also shows up in the size differences between the Gravestone and the Eternal Fleet ships - the interior of the Gravestone is clearly bigger, but the exterior is clearly much smaller.

 

A careful analysis involving targeted field repair or mail collection droids shows that the player ships (Fury, Mantis, XB70, Thunderclap, XS Freighter, and Defender) are approximately the same size on the inside and on the outside (with the outside being bigger). In fact, they are sufficiently similar in size (in/out) that I'm left wondering where they keep all their fuel, air, water, food, waste water (I hope I don't need to explain this), etc. And of course they have no room for what rocket engineers coyly call "propellant", normally highly energetic materials in extremely large quantities. By point of comparison, fully fueled and ready to launch, a Saturn V's weight was about 90% fuel and oxidiser. Where exactly would you store that sort of quantity of propellant in a player ship? (This sort of reasoning is why I assert that Star Wars starships must use some sort of reactionless thruster.)

 

The 2 technologies I've seen identified for ship engines (not counting weird stuff like the vong dovin basals) are the TIE's Twin Ion Engines and the X-Wing's Fusial thrust engines, which would require very little propellant.

 

It's fairly safe to assume that other engines run on similar principles of high energy/low propellant thrust.

The 2 technologies I've seen identified for ship engines (not counting weird stuff like the vong dovin basals) are the TIE's Twin Ion Engines and the X-Wing's Fusial thrust engines, which would require very little propellant.

 

It's fairly safe to assume that other engines run on similar principles of high energy/low propellant thrust.

You can't get away from the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. Ever. If you want high thrust with low propellant use, then you require energy consumption that's beyond reasonable. (Earthly ion engines produce spit-all thrust, but can do so over a very long period.)

It was always weird in games. Like Steve said the closest thing that matches the exterior would be the class player ships.

You can't get away from the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. Ever. If you want high thrust with low propellant use, then you require energy consumption that's beyond reasonable. (Earthly ion engines produce spit-all thrust, but can do so over a very long period.)

 

You can quite easily actually, just make up magical materials and wave your hand until people stop questioning it. Even Star Trek, which tries to be somewhat scientific, does that. Star Wars doesn't even try.

 

Star Wars has always been very loose with power in particular. Take the aforementioned TIEs. Their power comes from the solar panel wings. Panels of that size would do like, a few kW?

 

Then take the Vong, which throws conservation of energy out the window...

Star Wars doesn't even try.

You got that right.

 

Re: Alderaan in ANH. Well. I looked it up - if Alderaan is about the same size and density as Earth(1), then "unbinding" it (blowing it to wee small rocks) would take enough energy to consume the entire output of our Sun for *twelve*days*.

 

So yes, very very magical materials.

 

(1) There are strong reasons to support the assertion that Earth is at the *small* end of habitable planets, so it's a reasonable thing to suppose.