Talk:Executor (Star Wars)

message: :The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
----
I recall seeing the super star destroyer colliding with a planetoid, not the "incomplete second Death Star" as the History section mentions.  I don't know if it was Endor, or any of the moons (except 2nd, of course) of Endor.  So I will leave the edit to someone to has factual knowledge to update the page. (This is referenceing 31 December 2005 revision.)
:I saw the movie two days ago. It was the Death Star. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Are we sure that the rebel crashing his Awing into the bridge was really a kamikazi attempt? It seems to me he had lost control of his ship due to heavy damage and the colision was accidental
That's how it always looked to me too. But never underestimate the Power of the Marysue in the SWU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Star_Wars_Rebel_characters#Crynyd.2C_Arvel  Ribonucleic 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain you're right. The sparks and crap and the way he was screaming and trying to pull up tend to confirm that. –Xoid 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamikazi? 

message: Is it really plausible that the crew was 2.6 million? This would be twice the crew of the Death Star which is hundreds of times bigger. Perhaps the 2.6 million includes families of crew members? --Funkmaster 801 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; 2.6 million couldn't possibly be the crew number. I always thought the crew was a quarter million. Even though the ship is 17.6 km long, a considerable amount of the ship would be filled with computer cores, weapon systems, main engine drives, subsidiary reactors, life support, and other technical things. Maybe, 250,000 was the human crew and the rest of the 2.6 million were droids. But I think the human crew was 250,000.- JustPhil 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's based on this from the article: "The 8,000 meter version of the Executor was said to have a crew of over 250,000 of the Empire's finest officers and crewmen. However, if the crew density were to remain the same between the 8,000 m and 17,600 m versions, the crew compliment would likely be in the order of 2.6 million."  Scaling up the crew density is a heck of a wonky method for ariving at 2.6m.194.72.92.36 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you kept the ratios the same, there isn't a chance in hell that you could go from 250,000 to 2,600,000. The ship would need its 'rear end' to be (roughly) five times the width of the 8,000 km version (assuming that the ship still tapers to roughly the same point). Also, I hate to bring up the possibility of another LEW entry, but… should we go with the Star Wars DB's figures, and make mention of this fact? There's also the disputed length of the Executor (if you do some heavy maths, you come up with a third figure, something like 17.x km, IIRC). –Xoid 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew 

message: since this seems to be such a hotly contested difference, could someone please explain the distinction between a star dreadnaught and a star destroyer? --Funkmaster 801 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  difference between a naval destroyer and a battleship 

message: Why does it say that Executor is a name that kenner toys didn't want because it was too "mature." It's Executor, not Executioner. --Pollard666 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Most of the information on this page is in-universe plot summary. I'd suggest this article redirect to Super Star Destroyer#Executor, which trims the plot and has supporting citations. --EEMeltonIV 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Super Star Destroyer