It read like several people were editing in their arguments about this and that into the article as it grew. Never mind the fuss, but thanks for pulling my attention to the article's current content and particularly the cleanup needs of that section. Balancer 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC) I'm aware, but that wasn't what I was getting at, or did you miss the whole deal with all the yelling about how ITW isn't canon? Rogue 9 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC) And here I thought you were talking about the article. That mentioned, I see I'm going to have to go de-POVing in this article, which now reads like someone trying hard to convince. The backstage evidence is worth mentioning, although you seem to have written it in a very argumentative fashion. Rogue 9 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) That canon level is 'C.' Which, incidentally, happens to be the same as practically every other bit of published SW material, including the Essential Guides cited as labelling them shield globes. Screeching that it's written by fans and not endorsed by Lucasfilm isn't going to get you anywhere, because the statement is blatantly false. As the article notes, he has said outright that the Inside the Worlds books are on a canon level with the ICS and other reference books when asked a direct question about it. Now that that's out of the way, let's have the canonicity of Inside the Worlds from the man who's in charge of such things, namely Leland Chee. First off, the bridge tower globes are sensor domes. but I think this has gotten a bit bloated and meandering. Deckiller 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) All of us contributing to this article thank you. This is what I would love to see the for the TIE fighter article: an article that encompasses all classes, which reduces the amount of stubs. Best rationalization is that the 2300 Gs is for the Victory class, as the entry discusses all star destroyers and not just Imperators or Victories - Lowkey 13 Hey Balancer 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) The entry in NEGVV is incorrect, 3000 Gs for ISDs is derived from ROTJ. It's most likely that either one or both of the figures is in fact incorrect. Where are you getting those numbers from, anyway? Rogue 9 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) It's an interesting problem. If the Avenger had a tractor beam on the Falcon, the chase would have been over.

So how is it possible for a ship that size to catch up with the Millennium Falcon? Is it the use of tractor beams? Since Imperial Star Destroyer has maximum acceleration of just 2300g, while the Millennium Falcon has an acceleration of 3000g. Imperial Star Destroyer Sublight speed issue 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Venator.JPG.18 Fair use rationale for Image:ISD9275860.jpg.11 Stardestroyers At The Battle of Coruscant.1 Imperial Star Destroyer Sublight speed issue.

Star destroyer hangar bay