70

In Star Wars: The Force Awakens, once the Starkiller Base has depleted the star it is drawing power from, is it supposed to travel to another star where it can draw more power? Or is it non-mobile and supposed to fire a few, limited shots only? Or can it somehow reuse the star it is drawing power from, even after it has been depleted?

Its name suggests that it will "kill" or completely deplete the star it is drawing power from, but I haven't noticed an indication in the film that the Starkiller Base can travel to other stars.

DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
galacticninja
  • 11,340
  • 4
  • 68
  • 90
  • 15
    Well, technically if it completely absorbed the star it was orbiting, without the star going nova, it would stop orbiting that star... because it no longer exists. The planet would then slingshot in the leftover direction. With a bit of planning, they could actually target the next system and start over once it arrives and starts orbiting a new star. It would just take... a while. – Vogie Dec 31 '15 at 16:43
  • According to Napkin math, assuming the gravitational orbit velocity of the Starkiller base is the same as Earth's orbit around the sun (940 million kilometers/year) and a light year is Light year is over 9 trillion kilmeters a year, the planet would travel 1 light year in about 9.5 to 10 years. So... a while. – Vogie Dec 31 '15 at 17:20
  • 6
    The way I interpreted it was that it drew the energy of the sun, but once it stopped drawing the energy the sun would just start up again. It's like a generator rather than a battery -- you can take all the energy that a generator produces, but that doesn't kill the generator. – iayork Jan 02 '16 at 17:38
  • 2
    @iayork - That was my interpretation. They somehow extracted all of the energy being output from the star into space, but only for a few minutes. – Valorum Jan 02 '16 at 17:59
  • 1
    @Richard, weren't there forests visible at some point during the rebel attack? If the sun (or even "one of the suns") had gone out for more than an hour or so after the initial firing, they'd have all frozen solid. Same goes for travelling to another solar system, I think. – Harry Johnston Jan 07 '16 at 02:08
  • @harryjohnston - Finn said that the planet regularly went subzero, even without the starkiller slurping the sun. – Valorum Jan 07 '16 at 08:41
  • 1
    @Richard: OK, but there's a difference between "subzero" and "the atmosphere liquefies". But I haven't actually done the math to see how quickly that would happen. – Harry Johnston Jan 07 '16 at 20:08
  • 1
    Interestingly, the original plan was for the "Doomstar" to steal the energy from its stellar victims, causing their planets to freeze: http://www.slashfilm.com/force-awakens-changes/2/ – Valorum Jan 07 '16 at 21:22
  • @Richard -WTF? They stole the idea from the Worst. EU. Book. Ever???? (cookie points if you know what I'm talking about) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jan 07 '16 at 21:30
  • I don't recall Finn saying the planet went subzero. In any event, "Starkiller Base" appeared to get two shots out of the local sun. The first one appeared to me to weaken the star, and the second one put it out.

    It's not a great design.

     – Mahatma Randy May 02 '16 at 22:36
  • @Vogie You're off by a factor of a thousand. 1 light year every ten thousand years, not every ten years. – Kyle Jones Mar 17 '17 at 00:06
  • @Vogie it would take no time at all. In the JJ-verse every planet is visible with the naked eye from every other planet – Gaius May 13 '18 at 17:21

6 Answers6

42

UPDATE 2016/01/07

As per Pablo Hidalgo on Twitter (Usual disclaimer: his Twitter account explicitly says anything he says is "not to be cited as canon", so this is not fully canonically proven yet)

Steele Wars Podcast ‏@SteeleWars Jan 2
Any insight on if #StarKillerBase can redrain the same sun?
Or can it use far away suns from other systems? @pablohidalgo (please/thanks)

Pablo Hidalgo @pablohidalgo @SteeleWars
The Starkiller is mobile. Able to travel distances in hyperspace amid a very populous star cluster.

UPDATE 2016/01/06

Looks like WGA script confirms what we see onscreen, to a degree. It does consume its sun. However, what's made a bit unclear in the script is, whether it consumes the entire Sun in one shot. The way the wording seems to me, is that it consumes the sun SLOWLY.

A vast view of the planet -- a MASSIVE SOLARVAC ARRAY surrounds a port TEN MILES IN DIAMETER.
MILLIONS OF PANELS turn on the ARRAY -- a wave of BRILLIANT REFLECTIONS. Suddenly, like a planetary-scale TESLA COIL LINE OF ENERGY, THE POWER OF THE SUN begins to TRAVEL DOWN to the Starkiller Base planet.

and in Finn's briefing

FINN
It uses the power of the sun. As the weapon is charged, the sun is drained until it disappears.

and

They follow Finn on the snowy hike. On the horizon, THE LASER SIPHON SHOOTING INTO THE SKY, SLOWLY SUCKING THE SUN DRY.
INT. STARKILLER BASE - CONTROL ROOM - DAY
Technicians at work, the SUN SUCKING seen in the window behind him.

Original answer

According to the novelization, the energy of the sun is only used to help the weapon get ready - the weapon's offensive energy itself doesn't come from the sun, it comes from Dark Energy.

“As near as I understand it,” Finn continued, “enormous arrays of specially designed collectors use the power of a sun to attract and send dark energy to a containment unit at the core of the planet, where it is held and built up inside that containment unit until the weapon is ready to fire.”
“Impossible,” Ackbar insisted. “Although we know there is more dark energy in the universe than anything else, and that it exists everywhere around us, it is so diffuse that it can barely be detected. Let alone concentrated.” Finn persisted, despite the discomfort he felt at disagreeing with someone of Ackbar’s rank and experience. “It can be, and it is,” he responded with certainty.
Statura, at least, seemed ready to believe. “If the engineering could be worked out,” he observed, “one would have access to an almost literally infinite source of energy.”

There is no mention of travel capability in the novelization, but it doesn't seem that it's needed - the energy of a star is really really really a lot, in real life - so it would take a lot of time to make a meaningful impact on a star.

To understand this, let's find a random Internet caclulation for Sol:

  • The Sun emits 3.8 x 10^33 ergs/sec or 3.8 x 10^26 watts of power, an amount of energy each second equal to 3.8 x 10^26 joules.

  • In one hour, or 3600 seconds, it produces 1.4 x 10^31 Joules of energy or 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours.

  • Since E = mc^2, in 1 hour it looses (1.37 x 10^37 ergs)/(9 x 10^20) = 1.5 x 10^16 grams or 15 billion metric tons of mass.

  • It's been doing this for about 4.5 billion years!

UPDATE#2

Found canon confirmation that Starkiller Base likely couldn't be moved in novelization:

Please note that the following Poe's statement comes AFTER they had seen the schematics of Starkiller base from survey team they sent, which means they would have seen/known if it has a hyperdrive:

“We’d likely get only one shot at it,” Poe put in. “What Admiral Ackbar said about keeping it secret would only work as long as its location remains unknown. Once the First Order realizes that we know where it is, they’d throw everything they’ve got into defending it with ships, mobile stations, and long-range detectors. We might never get close to it again.”

Note that he doesn't simply say "once First Order realizes that we know where it is, they will fore hyperdrive and move it".

UPDATE:

This is NOT canon, but my own speculation, but there is one very plausible explanation for why the film visuals make it appear as if a star's actual mass was "slurped into" the weapon in the movie, contrary to what the novelization seems to say:

This was how J.J. Abrams tried to visually depict "Dark Energy" being gathered. Because that is kind of hard to visualize for the filmgoers.

DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
  • 2
    Does the novelization mention how the Starkiller fires energy at targets light years away if the base doesn't physically travel to the target planet? – RobertF Dec 22 '15 at 13:05
  • 2
    @RobertF - it does. A bit offtopic for this answer, so please ask as a separate question and I'll post the quotes – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 13:20
  • 22
    And yet, in the movie, they very clearly (and explicitly) consume an entire star. And they had to do that before they could fire. – Plutor Dec 22 '15 at 13:23
  • 1
    @Plutor - I'll need to re-watch, but realistically speaking, it's likely just a visual effect showing the energy being syphoned off. Remember, a star is immensely larger than a planet - how can you "consume" it into an inside of a much smaller planet? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 13:31
  • 13
    I'm not saying it makes sense. But the dialog and effects seemed pretty clear to me -- the star vanishing was the point at which the base was fully charged. – Plutor Dec 22 '15 at 13:45
  • @Plutor - I don't remember seeing an entire star being eaten either, I'll have to watch the film again. That would be suicidal if the Starkiller base destroyed the star it was orbiting. – RobertF Dec 22 '15 at 13:57
  • 18
    i agree with @Plutor it appears that the star was completely consumed, as they had "until the light runs out" to absorb so much of the star that it no longer gives off light leads me to believe they ATE the whole star. then when the base blows up, it appears as a new star. some random nerd physicist calcs http://nerdist.com/the-physics-of-starkiller-base-how-powerful-is-the-force-awakens-superweapon/ – Himarm Dec 22 '15 at 14:10
  • 1
    @Himarm - the novelization very explicitly says it became a binary system. Meaning old star is still there – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 14:14
  • 11
    The movie does show the star being sucked in entirely. There's no sun left after in the movie. There's a new one after the base explode. – Jonathan Drapeau Dec 22 '15 at 14:16
  • 4
    so whoever wrote the novel needs to have a chat with JJ – Himarm Dec 22 '15 at 14:17
  • 2
    @Himarm - The novel is based on screenplay and is 100% canon. Also, if you think about it logically: if the star vanished, how come the planet isn't in absolute darkness from that moment on? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 14:23
  • 4
    @DVK other then the lighting they needed to show the actors the planet is essentially in darkness, from the time it finishes the star till it blows up. and the novels can have errors, if the novels directly contradict the movies, i believe we take movies word over novels on any contradictions! – Himarm Dec 22 '15 at 14:25
  • @Himarm - There's a difference between "darkness as in night, but you clearly can see things", and "darkness as in, there's no star nearby" - the latter would make it pitch dark, impossible to see anything. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 14:31
  • 4
    There's billions of stars in the sky, pretty far from pitch black but I see your point and there seems to be a star-huge difference between the movies and novel. – Jonathan Drapeau Dec 22 '15 at 15:10
  • 6
    I don't recall the actual recorded dialogue in the movie mentioning dark energy, and it specifically mentioned "depletion" of the sun several times – HorusKol Dec 22 '15 at 23:00
  • @HorusKol - need to re-watch to confirm. No script yet as far as I'm aware – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 23:04
  • 3
    My interpretation was that the weapon drained all the heat from the outer layers of the sun, leaving it dark, but didn't destroy it. As for "starkiller", I gather that was only a nickname, so I don't think you should read too much into it. – Harry Johnston Dec 22 '15 at 23:09
  • @HarryJohnston - "Starkiller" can mean it kills planets by turning them into stars. Or that it can kill a star the same way. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 22 '15 at 23:16
  • ISTR someone mentioned in the movie something along the lines of: "so they've created a mobile planet destroying machine". – Möoz Dec 22 '15 at 23:42
  • In theory, the base could travel to a different star once its parent star is consumed. You'd just need to have a clear line of sight to your nearest star system and very good calculations to time when your sun's gravitational pull will be reduced to the point that the planet/base can escape the gravity well. And, the journey might take a bit of time. – Ellesedil Dec 23 '15 at 01:16
  • 6
    After a rewatch fin says in the rebel meeting that it uses the sun to charge the weapon till the sun goes "out" afaik a sun going out means its dead/out of fuel. Then later when the resistance is at star killer base they say, we have until the stars "gone" so as long as theirs light we have hope – Himarm Dec 24 '15 at 23:31
  • 4
    I love how the answer to this question, including some actual math about how massive stars are, shows how ridiculously nonsensical the film is. This weapon is only one part of it, but ya, clearly they were sucking up the entire star because they don't know and don't care that it makes zero sense and is just ridiculous and apathetic to common sense, let alone astronomy. But "go go confused pre-adult protagonists! Who cares about making any sense, right?" – Dronz Dec 26 '15 at 07:09
  • 2
    @Himarm: That's definitely what I thought they meant when I saw it. However, the interpretation that they are just sucking up the thermal energy from the star until it is no longer incandescent is the most physically plausible interpretation I've heard that's still somewhat consistent with what's said/shown on screen. Sucking out the energy would leave a ball of warm hydrogen, without the outward pressure of escaping light to keep it big. It would start to collapse under its own gravity until fusion re-ignited and it bounced back to size (days/weeks timescale?). It would probably look cool. – Peter Cordes Dec 26 '15 at 18:11
  • 2
    If all the star's hydrogen got sucked into the planet and compressed, the surface gravity of the planet would crush everyone. The Star Wars setting clearly has artificial gravity / counter-grav (levitation), though, even on small ships like the Falcon. So I unfortunately can't rule that out with this argument, because the containment system could counter-grav to maintain constant surface grav. Per general relativity, energy == mass, so the gravitation would be the same whether the hydrogen underwent total conversion to energy or not (normal fusion only changes ~1% of mass to energy). – Peter Cordes Dec 26 '15 at 18:18
  • 11
    Hi guys. Please note: this is not physics.se. The physics in star wars works however they tell us it works, idiotic or otherwise. – KutuluMike Dec 28 '15 at 13:43
  • 2
    I'll note that Finn's dialogue in the movie contradicts the novelization here. He specifically says that the base draws energy from the star until it "goes out"; a star that "goes out" isn't a star anymore (no fusion); even a white dwarf is still emitting energy and light. Thus, if the planet can't move, if must have been in a multi-star system to begin with. – KutuluMike Jan 04 '16 at 23:51
  • @MikeEdenfield - I'll check the script, this is one of theunresolved conundrums I still owe people as far as my past script-less answers – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jan 05 '16 at 00:02
  • +1 ... this is exactly what I was going to ask! In the movie it clearly consumes the sun in order to charge the weapon. There should have been no second charging of the weapon because there would have been have been no sun after the first shot. There was no mention of "dark energy" in the movie itself. In the movie it was "as soon as the whole sun is consumed, then it can fire" – JK. Jan 05 '16 at 01:03
  • I'm dubious. If the base had to travel to a different sun before firing the second time, how did the rebels know where to find it? (And why didn't we get a big, flashy, planet-going-into-hyperspace scene?) – Harry Johnston Jan 14 '16 at 02:35
  • @HarryJohnston - they sent scout ships there, and the locations were quite near each other if you believe Hidalgo's tweet. And personally, I think the whole script/Hidalgo version is far inferior to novelization version anyway :) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jan 14 '16 at 02:57
  • https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX_hZcYW8AAPZ_W.jpg – Valorum Feb 14 '16 at 20:46
  • Who writes these novelizations anyway? – Adamant Apr 05 '16 at 02:24
15

Both the Death Star I and II had hyperdrive capability. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the Starkiller Base also has similar capability.

There has been a new official map released with locations for the new canon - http://newmediarockstars.com/2015/11/star-wars-maps-starkiller-base-ilum-theory/

Included on this map is a label for "Starkiller Base Origin Point" - indicating that it has since moved from that location.

HorusKol
  • 45,787
  • 9
  • 142
  • 202
  • 8
    But the Death Star I and II were constructed as space stations. It looked to me like the Starkiller base was built into an existing planet. – Kevin Dec 25 '15 at 00:05
  • 5
    @Kevin - burrowed would be a more apt technical description. Having said that, there was absolutely nothing in the Novelization to indicate hyperspace capability – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 25 '15 at 00:25
  • I feel it's worth a mention that we never see a Death Star use hyperdrive in any of the movies. In the first one it appears to travel to Alderaan and Yavin through normal space. Obviously we never see Death Star II move at all. – Todd Wilcox Jan 06 '16 at 19:44
  • 3
    @ToddWilcox - even travelling within the same star system at sub-luminal speeds would take many days/weeks/months – HorusKol Jan 06 '16 at 22:04
  • 2
    @Kevin - yes, Starkiller base was built out of a planet... why couldn't they have added a hyperdrive when they built in the honking great star vacuum and blaster cannon thing? – HorusKol Jan 06 '16 at 22:06
  • @HorusKol: even if we assume a hyperdrive powerful enough to move an entire planet is possible, it would add enormously to the cost and construction time, and seems entirely unnecessary. – Harry Johnston Jan 07 '16 at 02:04
  • 2
    @HarryJohnston - why unnecessary? How else would the Starkiller get to another star to consume as fuel for the superweapon? And the addition of a a hyperdrive after building such a weapon, instead of a massive fleet of ships, doesn't seem that much worse. – HorusKol Jan 07 '16 at 02:57
  • I don't agree that that's what the weapon did. (But yes, given that assumption, it would need a hyperdrive.) – Harry Johnston Jan 07 '16 at 02:57
  • 1
    Interestingly, a variant of the same map from this answer (probably from the Visual Dictionary) drops Origin Point and just denotes the point as Starkiller Base. – Wrzlprmft Jan 07 '16 at 15:28
  • 1
    @ToddWilcox - Flying between stars at subluminal speeds would take years, possibly thousands of years. The Death Star had a hyperdrive. – superluminary Apr 07 '16 at 14:33
  • 1
    @Kevin - The Death Star was a metal sphere the size of a moon. The Starkiller is a rocky sphere made from a hollowed out planet. If we assume it's possible to move the metal sphere, why not the rocky sphere? The Starkiller clearly has an insane amount of energy at its disposal. – superluminary Apr 07 '16 at 14:42
  • @superluminary IMHO, when the genre is Science Fiction/Space Opera, real-world physics stuff can be interesting to discuss but is not necessarily applicable. – Todd Wilcox Apr 07 '16 at 15:00
  • 1
    @ToddWilcox - One of the beautiful things about Star Wars is that it has always felt plausible. We never, in any of the movies, see a ship travelling between two stars without a hyperdrive. When Queen Amidala's hyperdrive is damaged, they have to land on Tatooine to get another one. There's no question of continuing subluminally.

    If Starkiller Base can travel between star systems (and it can, because we see it eat two stars) it has to have a hyperdrive. This is how Star Wars physics works.

     – superluminary Apr 07 '16 at 15:32
  • @superluminary There was the Millennium Falcon in ESB, but that was retconned as using a slower backup hyperdrive, iirc. – JAB Jul 15 '19 at 17:37
8

We now have canon confirmation that the Starkiller Base is indeed mobile (using hyperspace engines to move its colossal mass) and totally drains its local sun of energy when it's primed.

The superweapon charges by draining a nearby sun of its power until it disappears. To fire again, the whole base moves to the next star system to devour a new star.

Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know, Updated and Expanded

Community
  • 1
Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
-1

My easy answer- the Starkiller, it doesn't need to move. Snood or whomever, perceiving it as a terror weapon, intending to use it only a few times to cow the populace (sound familiar, G. M. Tarkin?), simply does not expect to move it. After destroying the senate, he could shelve it.

Jami Kennedy
  • 9
  • 2
    I'm not sure this holds water. So SKB fired once to destroy the Hosnian system and then drains another star (in its entirety) to fire on the Rebels. It's an apparent 1 star = 1 shot ratio. So... where did SKB get the star to fire shot #1 if it can't move? – Machavity Apr 06 '16 at 02:05
  • It can clearly move because it eats 2 stars in the movie. Moving from star to star in a reasonable timeframe requires a hyperdrive. Ergo it has a hyperdrive. – superluminary Apr 07 '16 at 14:36
-1

If we go by the evidence in the film, then they was no sign that Starkiller base could in fact move. Third hand evidence such as the map with Starkiller bases origin does imply at may be able to move but, this may have been added to try and explain the inconsistencies around the film.

Likewise we can't necessarily look to the novelization for the answers, as novelists will tweak film scripts to iron out any inconsistencies they find.

If we try to look too closely at the film we see another glaring discrepancy, in that Finn says, as the weapon is charged the sun is drained til it disappears.

Yet it was broad daylight when they made the first shot at the Republic Capital planets.

Screenwriters will often go for scenes that will captivate the audience, rather than thinking about the science behind it. So it's probably best not to delve too deeply, and just enjoy the experience.

Ravenstar68
  • 11
  • 2
    The novels are vetted by the LucasFilm Story group, as are the films and other new materials. The word from on high is that all new Star Wars properties are considered to be equally valid. – Valorum Apr 30 '16 at 11:59
  • They may be vetted, but that does not stop novelists from adding their own amendments to deal with any inconsistencies a script might have. A perfect example for me is the novelization of the film Fantastic Voyage, where Isaac Asimov changed the ending to have the protaganist get the white cell to follow our heroes to the surface of the eye. In the film they ignored what would happen if the digested sub de-miniaturized. – Ravenstar68 May 01 '16 at 06:59
  • 1
    There is a substantial difference between a normal 'official novelisation' and the books that were produced to go along with the launch of Star Wars. The level of input from the studio was much more extensive. – Valorum May 01 '16 at 08:25
-3

With the usual arrogance, the First Order did not see a point to have a hyper drive on SKB. The Death Stars were going to have them because they had limited attack range, where the Death Star would have to travel to the Star System to Target an individual planet. The Starkiller base can fire all the way across the galaxy to a target. Plus, the SKB served it's purpose in annihilating the Republic government. Now it is really up to the resistance and a new Jedi Order to save the day against an army of Sith armed with lightsabers. Different from the original trilogy, but FWIW, I like the concept.

DieHard200904
  • 1
  • As far as I know, the Starkiller base did have drives, because otherwise it'd be rendered useless after it had consumed a sun to fuel the cannon. – Gallifreyan Jul 06 '17 at 19:10
  • Does it saids sun? that would be a mistake, the Sun is the star of the Earth. – Feuergeist Dec 08 '17 at 00:52