Which ship can go faster, the Millennium Falcon or the USS Enterprise-D?

Question

As far as I can tell, both universes have equally objective ideas of speed. Do we know how fast the two ships, Millennium Falcon and USS Enterprise-D, can go? Which is faster?

I'm at a loss why someone would vote to close this as opinion-based. We have objective figures for both ship's top speeds and multiple examples of their travel across known distances. — Valorum, Mar 21 '17 at 11:58
To second what @Valorum has said. It is clear there is canonical evidence to answer this question, and requires very minimal amounts of speculation. — Edlothiad, Mar 21 '17 at 12:05
I love that this example question was finally asked. https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10717/23384 — tobiasvl, Mar 21 '17 at 12:11
Enterprise, Enterprise, Enterprise-A, *Enterprise-B, [Enterprise-C](http://memory-alpha.org/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-C)), [Enterprise-D](http://memory-alpha.org/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-D)), [Enterprise-E](http://memory-alpha.org/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-E)), and [Enterprise-J*](http://memory-alpha.org/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-J)). — Mithical, Mar 21 '17 at 12:15
Please clarify which Enterprise. There are a lot of Enterprises in ST canon^ — Mithical, Mar 21 '17 at 12:15
I worked out the speed of the Enterprise-D before, by how long it was going to take them to get a certain distance in a certain amount of time at warp whatever, but what I found when analyzing other episodes is inconsistency! Grrr! — n00dles, Mar 21 '17 at 12:57
@n00dles - Don't be disheartened. The TNG Technical manual clearly states that warp speed is affected by interstellar conditions. Warp 2 means how much energy you're putting in, not how much speed you're getting out. — Valorum, Mar 21 '17 at 12:59
[Enterprise-J](http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Enterprise(NCC-1701-J))_ is by far the fastest if the commentary on the Wiki page is accepted, as it's able to cross the universe and possibly even time-travel. But since those comments are non-canon, the canon answer would have to be, "We don't know." with regards to the Enterprise-J. — Nat, Mar 21 '17 at 13:32
@Nat - "I guess I’d have to call it a Universe class vessel. The approved J had one deflector, recognizably descended from the NX. I imagine they are beyond Transwarp. I imagine they can fold space, and that they are exploring other Galaxy’s (extremely risky business) besides the Milky Way." - Doug Drexler. — Valorum, Mar 21 '17 at 14:58
@Valorum You aren't getting my point. It's the standards I am talking about. Star Trek presumably uses standard Earth year (in the light year definition) which has 365 days, each day containing 24 hours, each hour containing 60 minutes or so. There are many ways in which distance denoted by light year in one universe can be different from that in another universe. Maybe, Star Wars uses 100 days year or second, minute definition is entirely different. — user931, Mar 22 '17 at 18:22
@Valorum It doesn't say it's same. We just don't have enough data. — user931, Mar 22 '17 at 18:46
Can there ever be a point in comparing [the speed of a ship in] a universe that bothers with realistic-ish properties which have consequences with [the speed of a ship in] a universe that uses numbers as something they should increase to increase the level of awesomeness (and spends a lot of time retrosplaining when a unit of distance is confused with one of speed)? — Jasper, Mar 23 '17 at 12:07
The obvious answer is that SpaceBall-One is the fastest. It can go to plaid. — Omegacron, Mar 23 '17 at 18:22
I'm deeply disappointed that the answers to this question haven't involved doing the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. — Jack Aidley, Mar 24 '17 at 12:05
@aksh1t I always liked that even though the Heart of Gold could go infinitely fast, and passes through every point in the universe simultaneously, it still gets outrun more than once in the series. — Devsman, Mar 24 '17 at 19:20
@Mithrandir I believe you forgot the [Enterprise](http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Enterprise(NX-01)), _[Enterprise](http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Enterprise(NCC-1701_alternate_reality)), and _[Enterprise-A](http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Enterprise(NCC-1701-A_alternate_reality))_. Considering the differences between the latter two and their prime universe counterpart, it's possible that they may have had a higher top speed. — Justin Time - Reinstate Monica, Mar 25 '17 at 23:36
There's no way to answer this. It's Gorilla v Shark. As this answer states (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/77492/125493) there's no good way to compare warp speed, even in ST. The 1701-D might mathematically be slower than the Falcon, whilst the original 1701 might match her. It makes no sense, and is ultimately up the whim of the writer. — GridAlien, Mar 05 '20 at 18:38
To quote Valorum: "I'm at a loss why someone would vote to close this as opinion-based. We have objective figures for both ship's top speeds and multiple examples of their travel across known distances" - based off canon we can derive an answer. There is no reason to close the way I see it — fez, Mar 05 '20 at 19:26
@fez - Precisely. The point of Gorilla Vs. Shark is that you're asking things that can't be objectively quantified, like who'd win in a fight between Superman and Spongebob. If the question is about a quantifiable attribute such as their height, it's easy to compare like with like — Valorum, Mar 05 '20 at 19:52
@Valorum, this is opinion based because the answer differs depending on the Enterprise chosen. Kirk's ship was once knocked 1,000 ly off course, and it took them only 8 hours to return. In other words, it would have taken them 25 days to do the Voyager journey. Even if the Falcon existed in Star Trek (which it doesn't) it'd still be just an opinion. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 13:03
With or without Wesley and/or the Traveller boosting the Warp Drive? — Chronocidal, Mar 06 '20 at 13:06
@GridAlien - That's generally considered to be an example of 'early episode weirdness', just like the Enterprise being used for time travel archaeology in Assignment Earth. — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 13:59
@Valorum, then under that logic the time it took for the Falcon to go from Mos Eisley to the Death Star could also be discounted as 'early weirdness.' It's an opinion. Until a writer addresses these discrepancies in Trek, on screen, any rationalization between them is just an opinion. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 14:28
@GridAlien - It's been addressed by Trek writers and actors repeatedly. Here, for example. — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 14:30
@Valorum that's the point. There's too much inconsistency for this comparison to be objective. Another writer could come along later and change it again. Anything we do is just our opinion. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 14:34
@GridAlien - Sure, another writer can always retcon something. That doesn't mean we should throw every question in the bin — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 14:36
@Valorum, This question is asking about comparing the top speed of two imaginary space ships, using imaginary technology, from two different imaginary universes. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could possibly believe it could have an "objective" answer. This question should be closed. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 14:41
@GridAlien - As I've pointed out (repeatedly), these aren't entirely fictional universes. These are fictionalised versions of our universe. We have plenty of reason to believe that fundamental constants are the same from one to the other — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 14:46
@GridAlien - This issue has already been raised on Meta. If you have an answer that differs, feel free to post it so that I can downvote it; https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10746/why-does-the-community-continue-re-opening-this-particular-question - "It's not down to the questioner to prove every crackpot hypothesis that comes along before they're allowed to ask a question that compares fictional universes." — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 14:55
@Valorum, FTL travel is impossible in our universe. Clearly, something important is fundamentally different. Regardless, I'd hold that a question asking about Batman's skill vs James Bond is also largely opinion based, despite both being fictionalizations of our universe. And I'll gladly raise the issue on Meta. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 14:57
@GridAlien - If you asked which could jump higher, that would be very answerable. Alas James Bond (and all spy-fi) is off-topic. Gorilla Vs. Shark is fine is you're asking which is the better swimmer or climber. — Valorum, Mar 06 '20 at 14:59
@Valorum, well at least we can agree to something that should be closed. Anyway, here's my post on meta (https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/a/12945/125493), feel free to downvote. — GridAlien, Mar 06 '20 at 15:14

score 206 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 16 '20 at 09:31

206

The Millennium Falcon is (approximately) 58,000 times faster than the USS Enterprise-D.

The (Galaxy Class) Enterprise-D's top speed is stated to be Warp 9.8.

DATA: Projection, sir. We may be able to match the hostile's nine point eight, sir. But at extreme risk.

_{^{TNG: Encounter at Farpoint}}

This handy reckoner from the TNG Technical Manual shows us that this is equivalent to approximately 3000(ish) times the speed of light.

By comparison, the (YT-1300 light freighter) Millennium Falcon traverses a distance of approximately 70,000 light years (based on the distance from Tatooine to Alderaan, the known size of the Skyriver galaxy and the known length of a year in the Star Wars universe) in less than a few hours, equating to a top speed of around 20,000 light years per hour or something like 175,200,000 times the speed of light.

edited Jun 16 '20 at 09:31

Community

1

answered Mar 21 '17 at 11:54

Valorum

689,072
162
4,636
4,873

67

I guess .5 past light speed just isn't what it used to be – Machavity Mar 21 '17 at 13:25
13

Where is it said it is only a few hours from Tatooine to Alderaan? – Jack B Nimble Mar 21 '17 at 13:45
15

@JackBNimble - In the new novelisation; http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/103114/how-long-did-it-take-the-millennium-falcon-to-get-from-tatooine-to-the-death-sta/103115#103115 - "The kid must have heard it because he scowled and switched the lightsaber off. “Oh, this is pointless. What can I really learn on a ship in a few hours?”" – Valorum Mar 21 '17 at 14:08
30

According to this answer and the Wookiepedia article on Hyperspace, hyperspace travel is more like a series of 'jumps' across 'wrinkles' in realspace. So it seems to me like the Falcon isn't going that fast, but is rather taking a series of shortcuts. – DaaaahWhoosh Mar 21 '17 at 14:10
18

Hyperspace in star wars is like hyperspace in Stargate, usually travel is done on a series of interconnected wormholes / routes. Free travel is slower, but more sneaky. Hyperspace in star trek is alcubierre-drive hyperspace. not that fun. – CptEric Mar 21 '17 at 14:38
10

@DaaaahWhoosh : Which IIRC, is why the Falcon made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs when parsec is a unit of distance. Apparently the race wasn't measured in time, it was measured in distance due to hyperspace routes or something like that. – Mark K Cowan Mar 21 '17 at 15:18
3

The comments here were getting quite unwieldy and off-topic, so I've moved them to chat - please continue the discussion of physical theories of hyperspace there instead. – Rand al'Thor Mar 21 '17 at 19:46
2

An older "Star Trek Technical Manual" (purchased in 1974) said that Warp Factor N was N^2 times the speed of light. Which would make a trip at WF8 to anywhere take weeks or even months. – WGroleau Mar 21 '17 at 20:07
3

I believe most prior references in Trek establish warp factors to be n^3 the speed of light, not the square. eg Warp 2 = 8c, 3=27c. On that basis, Warp 9.8=941c. As for the OP's question, good grief, they're two different fictional universes. Let's debate how many angels can dance atop the head of a pin. – David W Mar 21 '17 at 20:38
5

@MarkKCowan as I understand, the point of "the Kessel run in 12 parsecs" is that the run is a route past/through a cluster of black holes... the more powerful the ship the closer it can get to the black holes and thus the more optimum the path. – Kaithar Mar 21 '17 at 23:41
3

The warp factor scale changed between TOS and TNG; it was Factor-cubed in TOS, and... far more complicated... in TNG. – T.J.L. Mar 22 '17 at 05:40
@DaaaahWhoosh if you take spied = distance / time, then it definitely has a higher speed. – Tim Mar 22 '17 at 23:01
@Valorum I'm a long way from convinced that quote means what you're interpreting it as. Consider that "a few hours" may be what's left of the journey at the point they have the discussion, which may well be multiple days into the journey. – Jules Mar 23 '17 at 18:33
@Jules - There's a line slightly earlier; "the old man had been lecturing Luke from the moment the ship had settled into hyperspace.". Now you could argue that maybe the ship had taken days to "settle into hyperspace" but that conflicts with what we've seen in Rebels where the crew press a few buttons, then go about their business while they wait for the ship to near its destination. – Valorum Mar 23 '17 at 19:08
1

bah. the Falcon's speed calculation is nonsense. Just because it travelled an apparent 70k light years doesn't mean the ship moved that distance in hyperspace. That's like someone taking a shortcut through a marathon and claiming they ran at 150kph. – KutuluMike Mar 24 '17 at 19:30
@KutuluMike - A straight-line distance is the requirement for a calculation of speed. The fact that you can travel other than through space doesn't change the fact that you moved from a to b and that it took x time. – Valorum Mar 24 '17 at 19:41
the "speed" of an object is how quickly it's position changes over time. The only way to measure it is to know the distance traveled from the reference frame of the object. That's how time dilation and other such physics concepts work: objects move "less distance" from their own reference than we think they did from ours. From the Falcon's perspective, it didn't move 70k light years, it moved "however long the hyperspace lane was." – KutuluMike Mar 24 '17 at 19:56
@KutuluMike - You and ILoveYou should form a pedants club – Valorum Mar 24 '17 at 19:57
9

nah. pedantry is pointing out that a Trek ship in warp is stationary from it's perspective and thus moves at 0 ly/sec. It's the ships warp bubble that moves at 9.8 warp. – KutuluMike Mar 24 '17 at 20:00
@DavidW The issue's not really that they're two different universes; you could ask the same question about two ships in the same universe and encounter the same problems. Or even the same ship in the same universe; for example, the above answer estimates the MF's speed as "175,200,000 times the speed of light" while the MF's owner bragged that it could get up to 1.5 times the speed of light. It's this sorta thing that makes the question not have a consistent answer, not that two different universes are involved. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 21:49
@Nat - He did not say that. He said that "She'll make point five past lightspeed" whatever the hell that means. – Valorum Mar 25 '17 at 21:51
@Valorum That means that that the MF ("she") can accelerate to ("make [it to]") 1.5 times ("point five beyond the") the speed of light. Just normal English to my eye. It's how guys who love cars brag about the top speed that their cars can get to. Hans is the same way, just he has a space ship instead of a car. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 21:53
@Nat - Except that that would mean that a journey between stars would take decades. Whatever your opinion of Lucas, you can't imagine that he was that clueless. – Valorum Mar 25 '17 at 21:55
3

@Valorum He also had Hans say that he made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs or something. Whatever anyone's opinion about Lucas might be, it's pretty clearly stated in plain English. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 21:56
@Valorum To level with you, because I can tell that you're a big fan, I'm looking at this as an engineer who just saw this question on HNQ. I saw Star Wars as a kid and thought it was a decent film. But, the physics and writing's absolutely horrible from any reasonable technical perspective; Lucas (assuming that he's the writer, right?) obviously had no idea how space worked. Which, makes sense, since the dude wrote the script long before Google, or even the modern educational system. So I'm willing to not criticize him for it, just he did write what he wrote. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 21:59
@Nat - Indeed. But he was pretty clear that his ships were trans-galactic. – Valorum Mar 25 '17 at 22:15
7

@Valorum Yeah, though when they raided the Death Star, they could've just had an unpiloted ship crash into it at light speed or whatever and called it a day. Rather, the ships appeared to be chasing each other, implying that they were moving near their operational limits, while going at what looks like 30 miles-per-hour (judging distance from the size of the people). At those slow speeds, conventional guns could've shot the fighters down with ease. None of it really makes any sense; it's just a movie. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 22:20
As a note, @KutuluMike, a fair comparison would have to look at realspace distances traveled, considering that each series uses an entirely different form of FTL transport. – Justin Time - Reinstate Monica Jun 15 '19 at 17:41
Warp speed is inconsistent, even in ST. As this answer states (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/77492/125493), the 1701-D is "slower" than the original going at 8.4 (TOS). – GridAlien Mar 05 '20 at 18:37
You cannot compare how light, physics and gravity work in the two absolutely different universes. – SovereignSun Aug 07 '20 at 06:02
@SovereignSun - Not only can I, but I did. – Valorum Aug 07 '20 at 06:49

MichaelK · Answer 2 · 2020-03-06T13:45:49.147

115

They travel at the same speed — 1.0 SOP — which is not comparable

All star ships in all science fiction are always traveling at The Speed Of Plot.

This may sound snarky but the comment is serious; it is meant to point out that the numbers are not comparable, even within the same universe. Also they are irrelevant, because speed is not really important. What is important is: "will the ship get me where I am going in time?" And in science fiction, that answer is...

Star ships always arrive on time, or suitably late for the plot

Transportation in fiction is...

An unimportant inconvenience that must be dealt with, because the audience do not accept that characters just magically pop from one place to the other. By example, this is why Transporters were added to Star Trek.
Part of the plot, in that the travel will take exactly as long as is needed to make the plot come out right
Set dressing, a reason to place a bunch of characters in a cramped space where they need to interact with each other.

Think about it, and ask yourself this rhetorical question: when was the last time that travel in fiction happened so fast that the characters were left with lots of dead time, or so slow that a plot-line was obstructed by it? For the most part, travel is mentioned only to maintain Willing Suspension of Disbelief, and speed is mentioned only if it is relevant for the plot or the set dressing.

Another way of putting it is to paraphrase Gandalf's Principle of Wizardly Timeliness: a star ship is never late, nor is it early, it arrives precisely when the author means it to.

This, in turn, means that if you start digging into it — as people have done starting with the very cryptic statement that The Millennium Falcon did the Kessel Run in a number of parsec, which is a measure of distance and not time — you will find that the speeds are wildly inconsistent and do not actually make any sense. As Valorum points out in the comments: star ship speeds are easy prey for Early Installment Weirdness. And once the hand-waving starts to try to make this come out right — "wormholes", "folding space" and what-not — then all bets are off and you cannot make any kind of comparison. The numbers may be incomparable even within the same universe.

Also, when trying to compare this, there is one more thing we need to consider...

The difference between "getting from A to B", and "to travel at a speed"

Note that there is a huge difference between being able to get from one point to another, and to actually propel yourself at a certain speed.

You can get from one town to another at an average speed of — say — 200 kilometers per hour if you go by train. But if you were to propel yourself on the other hand, with no machinery or vehicle to help you, then the maximum sustainable speed you could attain would be about 20 kilometers per hour at the very most.

In the case of the Millennium Falcon this certainly seems true in that — first — Solo claims the ship makes it "point-five past light-speed", not more than 1.5 c, which is nothing compared to any of incarnations of the Enterprise we know, from NX-01 and on-wards. But — then — the Falcon manages to get half-way across the Far Far Away galaxy in a really short matter of time. So it appears the Falcon is taking shortcuts or piggybacking on something that allows it to get to the destination in a time that makes for a higher average speed than the ship can actually propel itself.

If the USS Voyager could travel in the same manner as the Millennium Falcon, then the whole of the Star Trek: Voyager series would have been quite short, with the pilot episode ending with them travelling from the Delta Quadrant to the Alpha ditto with ease and being home in time for Janeway's next coffee, and that would have been it. Instead Voyager plods along at 1.0 SOP until the finale, whereupon they just wormhole the ship home and close down the show.

Whereas, if the Millennium Falcon would have had to suffer the constraints of the USS Voyager there would not even have been a galaxy-wide war because years would be spent in transit just going from one star to the next one. But instead ships even as large as the Death Stars (120 and 900 km respectively) can just gallivant around the galaxy without even breaking a sweat.

One example that the actual values of SOP in the Star Wars universe are approaching Ludicrous Speed: the Empire has time to...

blow up a planet
make a dash to Dantooine (Cassio Tage, seen on screen in A New Hope, travels from the Death Star to Dantooine)
search the planet to find a rebel base
examine it close enough to conclude that "it has been deserted for some time"
report back to the Death Star

...all squeezed in between the time Obi-Wan "fear[s] something terrible has happened" and the Falcon arriving in the rubble-field that is formerly known as Alderaan.

Hence, comparisons between physical speeds are entirely pointless, because the ships will arrive just in time to make the plot come out right.

There is only one exception to this...

Games

The only time the actual speed of a star ship in fiction is relevant is if the plot is not fixed, but is instead open-ended. A typical case for this would be in a role-playing game.

Now I myself have not played any of the Star Trek or Star Wars role-playing games, and I doubt you will find any that are 100% canon. But if you are looking for some hard numbers regarding the speeds of the ships in question, I would direct you to look there in the first place.

edited Mar 06 '20 at 13:45

answered Mar 22 '17 at 12:05

MichaelK

1,740
1
9
11

15

Their speeds are portrayed inconsistently, for sure. But the writers always seem to have at least one eye on the worldbuilding aspects, especially in later episodes. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 12:20
3

@Valorum Yes, because they run into people that ask questions such the very question that crowns this page. But by then it is usually too late and you cannot make ends meet without retconing and — I will not even call it "reverse engineering" — blatant hand-waving. – MichaelK Mar 22 '17 at 12:33
8

The trope is "Early Installment Weirdness. Some can forgive and others cannot. True fans accept that it's not real and that mistakes sometimes happen. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 13:25
3

I know there's a tweet from our beloved Pablo Hidalgo saying that space travel happens as fast as they need it to. Just googling "Pablo Hidalgo speed of plot" got a number of hits, including this highly relevant one. – Turambar Mar 23 '17 at 13:45
2

Even with the variation in speeds within each universe, the two are so many orders of magnitude different that there is a clear answer. The MF can get halfway across the galaxy in a few hours, Voyager (and so Enterprise) is more like 70 years. – Kevin Mar 23 '17 at 18:31
1

@Kevin "how far can it get in a given time" is a different question than "how fast can it travel". I can get from Copenhagen to Stockholm in little over an hour. My top speed is at the very best no more than 15-18 km/h. – MichaelK Mar 23 '17 at 18:39
@MichaelKarnerfors way to nitpick my phrasing. "Top speed" / self-sustained speed is actually more in line with my meaning. Voyager actually made the trip ("can get") in a few years due to aid from some more advanced technology; the 70 years is calculated from its "top speed." The Falcon made a similar journey on its own (no more than "top speed"). – Kevin Mar 24 '17 at 04:54
4

The Millennium Falcon travels at .5 past the Speed Of Plot. – Ber Mar 24 '17 at 05:09
@Kevin Well considering that people keep saying that the Millennium Falcon travel by skipping from wormhole to wormhole I thought the distinction should be made. – MichaelK Mar 24 '17 at 05:20
10

This answer is extremely unconstructive, and this kind of dismissive logic can be applied to most questions on this site, but should not. If there are inconsistencies in the source material they should be cited. Normally the author plays with distance, not speed – Andrey Mar 24 '17 at 18:48
3

@Andrey "Extremely unconstructive"? According to you and what army? I am sorry that the reality of the question did not give you the answers you were hoping for but I will not invent stuff out of thin air just to please you, because that would not only be "extremely unconstructive" as you put it, but also blatantly false; I will not lie just to please the likes of you. The way I have described it is the way it is: unless the authors already from the start considered it, then things like star ship speed will fall victim to Early Installment Weirdness. Sorry, but there it is. Deal with it. – MichaelK Mar 24 '17 at 18:57
1

+1. The claim that the MF made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs strongly suggests that the writers had the MF moving around at the speed of plot without any significant concern for what that speed actually was. They couldn't have even tried to sanity-check the speed of plot to ensure that the in-universe numbers were at least plausible, or they'd have realized that the given figure didn't even make sense. – Nat Mar 24 '17 at 23:26
2

@MichaelKarnerfors: inventing things out of thin air is what Science Fiction and Fantasy is all about. Of course everything exists to advance the plot and of course things aren't always consistent. People want answers with self-imposed requirements of abiding by the make-believe stories because it's fun and interesting. I don't understand how this question has so many upvotes, it's antithetical to this sites purpose. – whatsisname Mar 25 '17 at 04:57
1

I find this answer frustrating. You've stated that you can't compare them, then later you've compared them and directly answered the question asked. "If the U.S.S Voyager could travel in the same manner as the Millennium Falcon, then the whole of the Star Trek: Voyager series would have been quite short, with the pilot episode ending with them travelling from the Delta Quadrant to the Alpha ditto with ease and being home in time for Janeway's next coffee, and that would have been it." – Valorum Mar 25 '17 at 14:03
4

@whatsisname The issue here's that the plot holes are way too large, as discussed in the top answer in Was the Millennium Falcon too slow?. Star Trek's science is pretty bad, but Star Wars's science is beyond redemption; it's far too inconsistent to even invent explanations for. The best you can do is accept that it's broken and choose to ignore it while watching the films. – Nat Mar 25 '17 at 21:43
1

To be fair, the whole "12 parsecs" thing can be explained one of three ways, each of which is equally plausible: 1) The writers forgot to do their research first. 2) Han used a shorter route, which is likely more dangerous considering most people don't use it (this one is plausible once one considers the standard weakness of FTL drives not working well near gravitational wells, which makes it very likely that standard routes give wells a wide berth when possible). 3) Han was trying to con some rubes. – Justin Time - Reinstate Monica Mar 25 '17 at 23:52
1

DS9 also used SOP values a lot: apparently the station is very remote, yet its runabouts with a maximum speed of warp 5 can get anywhere you want in no time at all. With very few exceptions, every journey in any ship seems to take only a couple of hours: a standout example is in The Homecoming, where Li Nalas has been shot over in the Cardassia system, but the runabout still makes it home in time for him to receive emergency medical treatment (should take around ten days). – Mar 26 '17 at 14:16
1

@Valorum Well I am sorry that you find it frustrating but the things I listed are the only hard numbers he have to go on in the Star Wars universe. We know Solo claims ".5 past light speed". And then we know that the Falcon travelled over a large portion of the galaxy in the matter of hours. Already there things are cocked beyond any chance to straighten it and the question is doomed to be left without an answer. Frustrating? Yes, but that is the way it is. Lucas did not bother about these details and just goes directly to establishing that the ship is fast, because Solo says it is. – MichaelK Mar 27 '17 at 07:53
5

This should be the accepted answer. – Salman A Mar 27 '17 at 11:15
2

My problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You've identified that the Falcon is clearly faster, yet still want to get the slightly snarky "speed of plot" point in. The first part is a solid answer, the latter is not only fluff but inconsistent fluff. You've invalidated your own argument – Valorum Mar 27 '17 at 11:55
2

@Valorum No, I have concluded that the Falcon can get from one location to another in a really short time, but that at the same time the only actual number that is ever mentioned about the physical speed of the ship is much too slow for this. So take it up with George Lucas, not me, because it was Lucas that made the mistake of trying to make the Falcon sound bad-ass by using stupid slow speeds and having Solo blurt out a measures of distance instead of time just because Lucas assumed parsec had anything to do with seconds. – MichaelK Mar 27 '17 at 12:02
1

Clearly Lucas had no interest in the technical specs of the ships... he just wanted to tell a story. And if you need any further proof about this, just look at the novelisation. How do they measure time in the galaxy far far away? By Standard Time Units. I must say... can it get any more clear that the nitty gritty and nerdy details such as time and speed and physics just do not matter one iota to Lucas. :) – MichaelK Mar 27 '17 at 12:05
4

While the question squeaks past the "Gorilla v's Shark" check, it's close enough to be nonsensical. This answer IMHO points out exactly why the question isn't really answerable and why attempts to answer will be unsatisfying and won't make sense. – Binary Worrier Mar 28 '17 at 11:43
Getting from one place to another is moving a distance. Speed is how much distance you can cover over time. There is not a difference between getting from one location to another in a short time and moving fast. This whole answer is ridiculous. – DCShannon Apr 27 '17 at 22:01
@DCShannon I argued for why there is a difference between the two. You provided no counter-argument. Instead you just jumped to the bare assertions that there is no difference and that the answer is "ridiculous". Your comment — in my not very humble opinion — is more of a tantrum-fueled foot stomping than it is constructive feedback. Fact remains that Lucas did not give any consideration to things such as speed and similar when he made the story other than to do some "name dropping" in order to establish the Falcon as a Cool Ship™ – MichaelK Apr 28 '17 at 11:16
@MichaelKarnerfors I haven't presented an argument because we're not arguing. I explained my downvote. – DCShannon Apr 28 '17 at 19:02
1

@DCShannon I believe speed doesn't necessarily work that way within a fictional universe. In a fictional universe it is entirely possible to travel slowly yet cover a lot of distance. Watch this: "My ship's speed was 5000 mph, and I traveled from Sol to Vega in two days." You can say it's impossible, but I wrote it, so it's part of my universe. In this case I made the contradiction pretty easy to see, but it's essentially the way speed of plot works. It's just usually better hidden. Speed then becomes an irrelevant concept - unless descriptions are highly consistent or it's 1.0 SoP. – Misha R Jun 09 '19 at 21:24
"Point five past light speed" can not necessarily be used to conclude that the Falcon's speed is 1.5c. Let's suppose that I am driving my car one day and I say to the passenger, "She'll do point five past speed limit". Did I just say that the car will go 55.5 mph? 1.5 * 55 mph? You might argue for either, but I would say the sentence is so asensical that it probably doesn't mean either. It can't be parsed in any meaningful way without assumptions. Point five what? How does "past" relate mathematically to a speed? Any answer is an assumption. – Chris Strickland Aug 13 '21 at 08:09

user931 · Answer 3 · 2017-03-24T07:49:12.260

13

This is a difficult question because if it's not a Gorilla vs Shark question, I'll have to choose sides: Star Wars or Star Trek. Where Star Trek used to give me Think Beyond feelings with "Space: The Final Frontier" and "Where no man has gone before" dialogues, I remember myself trying to behead my parents using a toy lightsaber for fun. Star Wars is barbaric and it's great that such technologies don't exist in real. Choice made. Let the battle commence!

While the other answer says that Millennium Falcon was 58000 times faster than a premium USS Enterprise, I don't agree that the Falcon won. Let me first quote a non-canonical commentary about USS Enterprise J, then I'll go with canon:

I guess I’d have to call it a Universe class vessel. The approved J had one deflector, recognizably descended from the NX. I imagine they are beyond Transwarp. I imagine they can fold space, and that they are exploring other Galaxy’s (extremely risky business) besides the Milky Way.
- Doug Drexler
_{_{(Thanks to @Valorum for it)}}

Now, the canonical race:

Rules: Millennium Falcon and USS Enterprise E are floating side by side at one end of the galaxy. They'll start running on the firing of Death Star hyperlaser. Whichever would hit the red ribbon on the other end of the galaxy would win. TV cameramen are on Infinite Improbability Drive to record everything.

Hyperlaser fired.
Picard: Let's see what this Galaxy-class starship can do. Maximum Warp. Engage.
Falcon's computer is still computing before the hyperspace jump and the Enterprise is already several light years away.
Data: Our sensors indicate that Millennium Falcon just moved past us and it's 100 light years ahead of us.
Picard: Never Surrender. Never Give up.
After reaching the other end of the galaxy, Riker's (great great great)^100 grandson: Data, let's jump back in time.
USS Enterprise E hits the red ribbon moments before Millennium Falcon.

Note: I didn't cheat. If you understand Spacetime well, going FTL actually mean traveling back in time. Also, USS Enterprise E has time traveling capability without using Slingshot Effect. It was shown in Star Trek: The First Contact (Enterprise returned back to future on its own).

edited Mar 24 '17 at 07:49

answered Mar 22 '17 at 09:42

user931

115,946
150
581
1,075

2

They also have time travel in the Star Wars universe. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 09:46
They have wormholes in Star Trek that allow instantaneous travel also. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 09:53
2

@Valorum That page says that Time Travel was theoretical. The devices were hypothetical. Not to mention, Falcon is the main subject here. – user931 Mar 22 '17 at 10:52
4

The Enterprise E used the Borg's time hole thingy to return to the present. They don't have that capacity normally. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 11:01
@Valorum At that point, Borg sphere was already destroyed. – user931 Mar 22 '17 at 11:18
1

If you understand spacetime well, going FTL is impossible, and if you ignore that it actually means traveling through imaginary space (whatever that means). – Devsman Mar 22 '17 at 13:00
2

@ILoveYou - But their time-hole wasn't. – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 13:22
@Valorum Which kind of interpretation is that? Are you suggesting that there's a permanent wormhole above Earth? – user931 Mar 22 '17 at 14:52
3

@ILoveYou - Worth asking on the main site. As far as I'm aware they simply used the same deflector thingy to open an passageway that the Borg had punched in space-time. I'm unsure what happened to it afterwards. Probably it just dissipated on its own – Valorum Mar 22 '17 at 15:13
@ILoveYou I just watched First Contact a few months ago (after watching all of TNG, which I had previously only seen a couple seasons of). I distinctly remembering one of the characters (probably Riker, because Riker gets all the important lines when his actor is also the director) saying near the end of the movie that they “need to get back to the time-hole before it closes”. Now that, my friends, is some premier sci-fi writing. – Slipp D. Thompson Mar 23 '17 at 04:29

score 5 · Answer 4 · edited Mar 31 '17 at 00:46

5

We can't say for sure.

It may seem like it can have an objective answer because both Star Wars and Star Trek universes show top speeds of ships. The main problem actually is that we don't know for sure if standards and units used in both universes are same.

For example, the accepted answer says that Millennium Falcon is 58000 times faster than USS Enterprise D based on the fact that the Falcon travelled 70000 light years within hours. First, do we know that light year definition is same in both universes? After all, Star Wars has a track record of using parsec as a unit of time. Second, if the definition is really the distance travelled by light in one year, what if a standard year isn't 365 days long? There are other troubles like definition of fundamental units of time itself.

Update:
There are other issues, too. We don't know for sure if physics and fundamental constants of both universes are same. And, I've a lead here. In Star Wars universe, there's this thing called "The Force" exists. What if midichlorians interact with photons to reduce speed of light in vacuum significantly?

edited Mar 31 '17 at 00:46

answered Mar 22 '17 at 18:42