35

In the universe of Star Wars, many ships (excluding the X-Wing - the large circles on the front are retro thrust nozzles) appear to lack forward-facing thrusters or retro thrusters.

TIE Fighter breakdown

The TIE fighter has 2 engines, both which face backwards. So, what slows it down?

I read on Wookieepedia that they turn using etheric rudders, and read on a chat forum (I do not remember which) that they can use etheric friction to slow down, but I couldn't find any references to this. Do they perhaps use special repulsors to slow down? In this question many people answered that they use special repulsors to control their flight and direction, so perhaps could the same technology be used to slow them down?

So, how do Star Wars ships slow down?

To clarify, I want answers based on the Star Wars universe, not real-life physics. I am also willing to accept answers based on the Star Wars Extended Universe (now named Star Wars: Legends).

T.J.L.
  • 5,451
  • 4
  • 29
  • 51
Restioson
  • 412
  • 4
  • 10

2 Answers2

23

Short answer: Nothing. Star Wars is scientifically inaccurate, you just have to accept that. I view Star Wars as a fantasy story rather than a science fiction story because it has nothing to do with science.

If you want to stop in space you have to apply the same impulse towards the opposite direction to slow down. Which means if you have one main engine in the back of the ship: You have to turn your ship around. If you don't want to do that you have to have an engine just as powerful as your back engine in the front or have a weaker engine burn much longer than your main engine.

The fact alone that the engines are constantly running is a flaw because in reality this would keep accelerating the ships indefinitely.

There are many, many other flaws such as space stations and ships not having any orbital velocity, sound in space (!), X-Wings having to put their wings together in order to be faster (reduce drag in space? :D ), laser/light sabres neither consisting of lasers/light nor being sabres, parsecs being a measure of time rather than a distance (just because a parallax second has "second" in it, doesn't mean it's a measure of time) etc.

For those who downvote this answer because in one referenced answer there is a description saying an X-wing has reverse thrust: That's irrelevant for this question because:

  1. Bigger ships don't have that and the question isn't about X-Wings alone
  2. You NEVER see an X-Wing use reversed thrust in ANY of the movies.
  3. It is also stated that repulsorlifts are responsible for maneuvering but if they were they would have to have nearly as much thrust than the actual engines which makes absolutely no sense.
T.J.L.
  • 5,451
  • 4
  • 29
  • 51
Broco
  • 488
  • 2
  • 5
  • Repulsorlifts or other thrusters would only need as much thrust as the main engine if the goal was to accelerate in any direction as quickly as you could while going straight ahead. This is, obviously, unnecessary. If you need to do that, you'd just spin the ship around and apply full thrust. But in 99% of cases, ships can take their time to slow down because they have a very wide and long field of view thanks to sensors. – Ellesedil Jan 11 '17 at 11:16
  • 1
    Regarding Ellesdil's arguments: I was referring to the flight patterns X-Wings and other craft show in Star Wars. They behave like fighter jets on earth and you see no difference in flight patterns between them flying in space or on the surface of a planet. E.g. in "reality" a dogfight in space wouldn't look like it does in Star Wars since the chased craft could simply turn around on the spot. – Broco Jan 11 '17 at 11:23
  • Also "The fact alone that the engines are constantly running is a flaw because in reality this would keep accelerating the ships indefinitely." is not a flaw in that it will "keep accelerating the ships indefinitely" as you see in cars on earth. An engine can be running but not providing any power to move the vehicle. – TheLethalCarrot Jan 11 '17 at 12:47
  • 1
    @TheLethalCoder you can't compare an engine of a space ship with a car engine on earth. A car accelerates with friction and moving parts, a space ship does so by pushing mass or energy away from itself. The good part about Star Wars is that according to lore they use ION engines which exist in our reality too (though not as powerful as in Star Wars) and those only light up if they provide thrust so a lit up engine means the ship should accelerate. To provide sources before anyone starts whining again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster , http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_engine – Broco Jan 11 '17 at 14:01
  • @Broco A lit engine means it is on not necessarily moving the spacecraft, same as a car, that was my argument. Also a lit engine could be producing matter/energy that moves anyway it fancies and so cancel its affect out on the spacecraft itself and only when the engine powers to move the craft does it take effect by moving the matter/energy out the back of itself – TheLethalCarrot Jan 11 '17 at 14:08
  • 4
    @TheLethalCoder Did you even read my comment? I told you that the craft in Star Wars mostly use ION engines and with ION thrusters there is no "if its lit up it doesn't mean it's producing thrust", it is exactly that. Ionized and accelerated gas = emitting light + producing thrust. But maybe NASA, Newton and Einstein are wrong and you're right, who knows. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/Ion_Propulsion1.html – Broco Jan 11 '17 at 14:22
  • 7
    Sad to see a perfect honest answer get donwvotes just because it relies on logic instead of citing some silly Phlebotinum from some canon/demi-canon source. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan and love the franchising but if one needs a canon citation please add it to the tag and explicit it. – jean Jan 11 '17 at 15:14
  • 4
    @Broco I was looking for a canon answer based on star wars physics, not real life physics. I understand the confusion, though. I've edited my question to reflect this. – Restioson Jan 13 '17 at 06:04
  • About the parsecs part Han did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs by flying near black holes, making the distance shorter. So it's still a unit of distance. But that's Legends EU. – Neow Jan 13 '17 at 08:32
  • @Neow I'm pretty sure Han boasts about doing the Kessel run in 12 parsecs in ANH, making it canon. Its not stated how he did that, though. – Polygnome Jan 13 '17 at 09:27
  • Quite right about sound. See why and how can you hear explosions in space in Star Wars? – Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE Jan 13 '17 at 13:27
  • The X-Wing argument is revelant to my question, as it shows that some ships do have reversed thrust. – Restioson Jan 13 '17 at 13:33
  • 2
    @jean I felt it was quite obvious to provide an answer relative to Star Wars, not to real life physics. I have edited my question, though – Restioson Jan 15 '17 at 09:32
  • @Jean: “if one needs a canon citation please add it to the tag and explicit it” — the premise of this entire site is to answer questions about fiction. I think unless someone specifically asks for a real-world explanation, we can assume they’re asking about how the fictional universe explains the aspect being questioned. – Paul D. Waite Jan 15 '17 at 13:50
  • Everyone, please be respectful of each other. Constructive criticisms are welcome, and should be responded to constructively. – Rand al'Thor Jan 15 '17 at 13:51
  • 2
    @Restioson well if you want the question answered inside the Star Wars lore you will still be disappointed. Star Wars has no consistent underlying own physics the way e.g. Star Trek has. You may list repulsorlifts or the retro thrusters in the X-Wings but if repulsorlifts have enough thrust to slow a ship down, why does it even need a main engine? There are so many weird things about Star Wars physics that I stopped trying to explain them, it simply makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, I love SW but not because of the accurate and consistent physics ;) – Broco Jan 15 '17 at 22:21
  • @Broco I just want it to follow the lore. I don't mind if it's disappointing :) – Restioson Jan 16 '17 at 10:48
  • And another physics problem in Star Wars. Capes flutter in the vacuum of space. http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/149080/why-was-darth-vaders-cape-fluttering-at-the-end-of-rogue-one – RichS Feb 05 '17 at 08:52
  • George Lucas most definitely addressed the parsec as a unit of distance in Star Wars (whether it was before or after the movie was released, who knows?). The idea was that ships can never travel in a perfectly straight line, since there are planets/debris in the way. A ship with better a navigation system (the Falcon) could get closer to a straight line point-to-point, therefore the measured distance was lower than the competition's. – Joel H. Feb 08 '17 at 20:45
  • @JoelH. Yeah, I wouldn't stick to that though because if you take parsecs as a unit of distance in Star Wars lore you end up with a Han Solo being born before the events of Phantom Menace. Hint: The Kessel Run comes pretty close to black holes and coming too close to them has some nice effects on time. And yes, I'm pretty much a nerd. https://www.wired.com/2013/02/kessel-run-12-parsecs/ – Broco Feb 10 '17 at 15:35
  • @Broco You make some assumptions there that are incorrect - larger ships do in fact have Reverse Thrust. This is actually seen in Revenge of the Sith. Repulsorlift technology, meanwhile, is quite throughly explained in any number of sources (Including the X-Wing Series but most notably the Corellian Trilogy, though additional information can be found in the Technical Guides) and is clearly referenced as needing a mass to push against in order to generate lift and movement - thus explaining why a deep space fighter would still need an engine to maneuver. – Mark Feb 10 '17 at 19:20
  • @Mark Revenge of the Sith is the first time it is actually shown on a large ship and again: It's completely inconsistent throughout the Star Wars movies and in case of Revenge of the Sith (in case you're referring to the emergency landing scene) also physically incorrect. If you put a plate behind a burning engine that is attached to the ship it does close to nothing besides heating up. Let's just agree that there is an aether in the Star Wars universe "space", that would explain a lot of things way more easy. – Broco Feb 13 '17 at 00:31
  • @Broco I think you have some confusion about exactly how Reverse Thrust works. Modern Jet Engines do in fact have what are essentially large metal plates that redirect thrust when they apply their reverse thrust, see here:http://www.aviationshop.com.au/avfacts/editorial/bgt/tr6c.jpg However, there's a larger problem with your argument. If placing a metal plate behind an engine does nothing to redirect the thrust, how exactly do the walls of the Engine work beyond just 'heating up'? Better Picture just like ROTS here: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-742371b2e64408582ae4ef5824ac8889-c – Mark Feb 13 '17 at 14:29
  • @Mark First of all, I said "metal PLATE", not actual cones like they are used in aviation, also I said "close to nothing", not "nothing". Secondly you cannot compare reverse thrust in an atmosphere to that in space. Planes use this system because a lot of the actual deceleration is achieved by friction, reversing thrust only has like 20% power of actual thrust, you don't redirect it forward 100% but mostly vertically. It allows you to decelerate without reducing thrust which can be crucial in emergency situations. In space such a system would be super ineffective due to the lack of friction. – Broco Feb 14 '17 at 22:40
  • @Mark and to clarify again: The metal plate STOPS the thrust, but as you see in the movie, it's mostly directed sideways and is not nearly enough to sufficiently slow such a big craft down in space. – Broco Feb 14 '17 at 22:43
18

Ships in the Star Wars universe travel through a property known as "ether" which acts as a dragging force. This explains a considerable number of issues including why ships have a top speed, how explosions can be heard in space, why there's no overt worries about relativistic effects, why ships need to burn fuel constantly to maintain their speed, how tight turns are made and why TIE-Fighters don't need retro-thrusters.

Pablo Hidalgo (Head of the Lucasfilm's Star Wars Story Group) spoke to this in a recent tweet

PH: If you need to, you could say the interstellar medium in Star Wars does have an ether, which would explain such pulpy things as sound, concussion rings, visible drag, and such odd tech callouts as "an etheric rudder" from Heir to the Empire. Only if you ⋆really⋆ need to, though.

Like if it helps you sleep at night and whatnot.

That all being said, there's some weak evidence in the non-canon (but still awesome) TIE Fighter Owners' Workshop Manual that the magnetic constrictors on the TIE engines are capable of manipulating the output of ions to create reverse thrust. So much so that pilots are warned against doing it too harshly for fear of ripping the wings off.

As the TIE fighter's engines generated and released charged ion particles through aft vents to propel the craft, pilots used the flight controls to direct the particles in almost any direction, giving the craft excellent maneuverability. Expert pilots could not only execute tight loops, rolls, and spins, but maneuver at high speeds around obstacles and through access tunnels. Despite the TIE fighter's remarkable agility, pilots exercised caution when reverse thrusting to brake their speed during atmospheric flights, as sudden stops could cause severe structural damage to the wing spars and support pylons.

Community
  • 1
Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • Thanks for finally putting this question to rest :) – Restioson Jan 01 '18 at 12:51
  • 1
    @Restioson - Honestly, I've know the answer for a while. I just needed a better source than Wookieepedia and a bunch of Legends novels. – Valorum Jan 01 '18 at 13:12
  • 1
    Never thought we'd be turning to Twitter for a reputable source, haha – Restioson Jan 01 '18 at 13:14
  • 1
    OK - I completely commend your answer. But it does suggest that Star Wars exists in a completely different universe and not in "a galaxy far far away". :) – Steve Mc Dec 27 '19 at 13:48
  • @SteveMc - That was discussed with Pablo Hidalgo. He wanted to address the issue of time dilation in relation to going near to black holes in the Maw. He made it clear that their physics isn't our physics. – Valorum Dec 27 '19 at 13:53
  • In my headcanon thrusters and control surfaces in Star Wars bend spacetime in weird ways which makes them succumb to drag, etc. – Sagar Patil Nov 28 '20 at 20:55