Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • Similar to what I was thinking... my thoughts were more along the line that exposing two sets of maneuvering engines (side and bottom\top) would help to maximize surface area of the available thrusters. This depends on the layout of the thrusters, obviously. And, for that matter, how they work, whether they obey Newtonian behavior (doubtful since virtually nothing else in Star Wars does once you get past the obvious) or Star Wars own special brand of microgravity celestial mechanics.
    – erdiede
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 4:59
  • Nitpick on the Kessel run: that uses hyperspace engines, which are quite different than sublight. The Falcon is one of the fastest ships in hyperspace, but as I recall, not for sublight.
    – Kevin
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 5:24
  • 2
    @Xantec - no offense but doesn't anyone bother to go to in-Universe sources before speculating? Falcon, like most SW ships, uses repulsorlifts for planetary gravity wells!!! Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 10:36
  • @DVK sorry, I have a tendency to just logically think my way through a problem first and then look up additional resources if I can't figure it out.
    – Xantec
    Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 13:05
  • +1 for Kessel run mention. Important to keep that in mind. Commented Dec 1, 2011 at 17:36