From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: Why Endor? OR The Economy of Galaxy Farfaraway
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:41:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvEH0F.J9t
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:

>As the original poster of this thread, I would like to summerize the responses
>that *I* like and my comments on the subject.

>1. Which Galaxy is it?
>For the few didn't get it (including those who think this to be the FUTURE
>Milkey Way), all 3 movies begin with a fairy-tale-like text: "A long time ago,
>in a galaxy far, far away". Well, for a lack of better name I decided to call
>it Galaxy Farfaraway (I humbly suggest we adopt this name in this newsgroup).

Too hard on the eyes.  I vote for "The Galaxy," or "The Star Wars Galaxy."

>2. How many habitable systems?
>Respondents suggested that the Imperial fleet is much larger than any that we
>saw (including in the Endor battle) and must thus require the infrastructure of
>(perhaps) millions of planets. I think that the Emperor has made it clear that
>the balk (if not all) of the Imperial fleet was at the battle of Endor. Anyway,
>since we don't know what the production capacity of the industrial systems is,
>this is hardly the point. If a Death Star can be constructed at ENDOR, a
>serious industrial planet should be able to churn out stardestroyers like
>they were toaster-ovens.

The Death Star was assembled at Endor, but I think it's reasonable to assume
that the materials to build it didn't come from there.  We have no evidence
that some gigantic mining operation exists on Endor, or anywhere within that
star system.

As for the bulk of the Imperial fleet being at Endor, I seem to remember it
being mentioned in the Rebel briefing that the bulk of the Imperial fleet was
*not* at Endor.  The Rebels had purposely occupied the Empire elsewhere in the
Galaxy so that less Imperial ships could remain at Endor.  If that was the
case, then what we're seeing is just a small portion of the whole Imperial
fleet.

>I have not seen any good argument against my second supporting argument 
>(thousands of probe-droids). That figure is mentioned twice in TESB, in the
>openning text, and in Admiral Weasel (sp?) rebuke: "We have THOUSAND of probe
>droids searching the FAR reaches of the Galaxy. I want proofs, not lead" (the
>emphasis is mine, I may be SLIGHTLY misquoting). The Empire is clearly
>conducting an exhausive search! (oh, and BTW, I don't think PDs have hyperspace
>capabilities - the one we see does not use it, the Empire finds HS capability
>too difficult even for tie-fighters, and the PDs are allready crammed with
>functions within their small volume).

Well, first of all, the term "thousands" could signify any number from 1,000
to 999,999.  If the actual number of probes sent is on the higher end of the
scale, we have to assume that the Empire had a *lot* of planets to choose from;
especially if, as the Admiral said, these probes were only searching the far
reaches of the Galaxy.  Lord knows how many probes went to the interior regions.

If you want to speculate even further, you could say that perhaps the Admiral
was only referring to the probes sent by that particular Star Destroyer.  "We"
might refer to "me, you, and the crew of this SD" and not "the Empire in
general."  In which case the number of probes launched by the Imperial
fleet as a whole may number in the hundreds of thousands.

>All-in-all, I still think there are hundreeds (or perhaps low thousands, at
>most) habited systems. But I now base this solely on the number of probe droids.

To add fuel to the fire, let me also say that we see dozens of nonhuman
alien races in the Star Wars films.  Each of them evolved on their own
planet.  Now, given the human-to-alien ratio shown in the films, one might
venture that the total human population of the Galaxy (and therefore the
number of human-occupied planets) is perhaps 100 times that of the total
alien population.  That in itself would imply several thousand inhabited
planets in the galaxy, at least.

Obviously, there are a lot of major gaps in this reasoning, but I offer it
anyway just for the heck of it.

Another argument: The events of the first film imply that the Imperials are
fairly cavalier about blowing up planets.  Tarkin wipes out Alderan just for
laughs.  In a Galaxy that only has a handful of inhabited worlds, it seems
unlikely that the Empire would wipe out such worlds as casually as they do.

>3. Are the planets we visit on the fringes of the Galactic economy?
>There seems to be a consensus that they are.

I think they're supposed to be.  There's no such evidence in the films, 
though, but the various source materials imply that the Rebellion mostly
takes place in the backwater regions of the Galaxy.



                                            --Steve Stelter
                                              sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu




"Learn you must the ways of the Force, Luke.  The Force cannot be seen nor
heard, nor can it be tasted or felt.  It must be smoked."

                                               --Not Yoda
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars