FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Tector-class Star Destroyer/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Allegiance-typeEdit

Just to clarify, since the Alliegance-type ships have a visible reactor-bulb, I don´t think they belong to the Tector-class. 62.16.231.165 13:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The only source that mentions the Tector is the Episode III Incredible Cross Sections. It doesn't say anything about the Tector lacking a visible reactor bulb. JimRaynor55 17:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Does the book call the ship by name? --SparqMan 22:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Otherwise, it should probably on

Yes, Tector is completely official. The full quote in the Episode III ICS concerning the Tector is "But the construction of Venator-class vessels is already slowing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class (renamed Imperial-class after the Jedi Purge) and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers. These ships will see service for decades to come, as the Republic is transformed into the Empire." I've seen some debate over the meaning of this quote. Some people believe that the description "mile-long" applies to both the Imperator and Tector. If that's true, then the Tector is all but confirmed to be the ship in ROTJ. That's why I said the Tector "may" be a mile long in the article. What do you think? JimRaynor55 03:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Since people working on the DK books, like Saxton, try to connect and clean up info from various places, I´m 100% sure the Tector-class is meant to be the bay-less ship in ROTJ. Now, if only we could get a proper name for that Comm ship as well... VT-16 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Um. The Tector is undoubtedly meant to be Saxton's Anonymous Star Dextroyer #5. However, "Anonymous Star Destroyer #5" is a fanon interpretation of a scene in RotJ that can also be read as showing the underside of an ISD model kitbashed to represent the dorsal armour of the bows. Why? I suspect the superstructure gets in the way of this angle on the VFX models. The bows of the models may also lack sufficient fine detail, provided here instead by reusing the more detailed model to represent a few dozen metres of plating rather than a mile long hull. In support of this alternative interpretation, we can note the orientation of the ship, and the lack of any upside-down ships in the right place in the previous shots - what we see there are a line of normally-oriented Star Destroyers. Neither interpretation is conclusively right, but I've recatagorized the RotJ material as "Behind the Scenes". --McEwok 15:55, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I have provided as an external link, clear images from the DVD versions of ESB and ROTJ, showing the severe difference between the dorsal surface of the Avenger and the ventral surface of the ROTJ ship. At the altitude the Falcon and its accompanying fighters are flying, they are covering more than a "few dozen meters", passing several high and low areas in the surface and compared to the Avenger, they should have passed the first elevated section in the rear of the ship, had this been the dorsal part. Not to mention making a sharp, 90-degree turn to avoid the command tower at the end. Furthermore, in the previous scene, the Falcon headed towards the nearest SDs (we see only a few) as Calrissian told everyone to engage at point blank-range. In this following sequence, we see he has passed several SDs, thus the film made a small leap in time from the previous scene, and there´s plenty of room to show a ship further back in a different position to the ones up front. Then there´s the tiny mention of passing over the "belly of an Imperial ship" in the novelization, which could refer to this scene. More than enough to argue that it´s a ventral side covered with armored plates. VT-16 00:47, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the screencap; but, um, I think you've misunderstood me on the "few dozen meters". To the casual viewer, what appears here are the bows of an ISD, seen from above, not the full length of the ship. Detailed analysis shows that the surface is in fact the underbelly of an ISD model, inverted and modified, seen almost to the stern. Two interpretations suggest themselves: (1.) we're looking at the belly of a modified, upside-down ISD; (2.) we're looking at the belly of an ISD model, modified and turned upside down, to represent the bows of an ISD, seen from above. --McEwok 01:23, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • If the latter suggestion is correct, the fact that we can identify features as far back as the dome surround does not mean that we're actually seeing anything like that far back along the hull. Yes, the surface detail we see is different than the surface detail on this area in the full ISD models - but there's certainly precedent for a detail model being inconsistent with a full ship model: the large model of the SSD command tower has markedly different surface detail than the command tower of the SSD model. The ultimate reason for the kitbash is simply practicality - as you can see in your own (excellent) screencaps, the ship's superstructure would obstruct this camera angle. Rather than build a detailed model of bow plating for a single shot, they adapted something to hand. --McEwok 01:23, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Since the surface features are so radically different and the Falcon is small enough to visibly cover a longer distance than on the Avenger model, I really don´t think you have any case here. Furthermore, nothing really points to them modifying a ventral model to be a dorsal model, rather, the novel seems to support the ventral surface-explanation. VT-16 01:28, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • "Radically different" means nothing (ref., again, Ex tower vs. Ex full model), especially when we have two SD models already. And does the Falcon really travel 1/2 mile in that shot? Nothing points to a new model, either. Or a Star Destroyer flying upside down. Ultimately, either way, it's all fan interpretation. --McEwok 01:36, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • My arguments were abit poor in the last post, what I really meant to say was "visual evidence trumphs intentions". In other words, you can argue about what they meant to do as much as you like, but it is irrelevant when compared to on-screen evidence that shows something else. The fact remains, if you compare the surface with a bottom surface of a regular destroyer, they are similar up to the hangar-cavity where the ROTJ ship has its cavity covered. I´ll hopefully provide some pics tomorrow. Ugh.
And the Executor´s main model is only supposed to be viewed from afar, which is what we see in the movies. They switch to the tower-model during close-ups. There isn´t anything in the films that clearly shows the features of the Exe-tower from afar, so that is a moot point. VT-16 01:53, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"Others believe the scene showed the top of a regular Imperial-class Star Destroyer's bows, kitbashed together from model-parts originally made to represent the underside of the hull. A good reason to do this, would be to save money from removing the command tower of a model or making a new surface, when the camera drew back during the filming of the surface. Why should we even keep this around? Evidence has been shown to support the idea that it's the ventral side of an inverted ship, and saying "it's just a cheap, poorly done ISD model" is going OOU. JimRaynor55 19:54, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've a theory that the Tector is the communications ship mentioned briefly in the novelization of RotJ but never clearly shown. Would this be viable, or am I thinking wrong? As the Tector clearly doesn't have a visible hangar bay for TIEs, why would it have been at Endor if not to provide the sensor jamming necessary for the Emperor's trap? Feel free to flame away for this ramble. Unsigned comment by 207.172.62.78 (talk • contribs).

  • There was a similar discussion to this on another talk page that I started. But I don't think they were the same. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The two candidates previously discussed were the Tectors and the Gauntlets (a.k.a. the ships similar to the Allegiance from Dark Empire), but neither of them had a hangar opening, which the comm ship did have (even being described as one of its weak spots). Since it was said to be one of the larger vessels at Endor, and the majority of the fleet had ISDs, it would have to stand out as something bigger, probably like a Gauntlet with hangars or something. VT-16 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is one thing that I have noticed. If you look closely, the structures on the hull that the Falcon flies over look a LOT like the ones around the smaller secondary hangar opening on an ISD, minus the hangar hole. --Commander Mike 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a small Question What if the underside of the "Tector Class" Ship is actually the armoured underside of an ISD, the absence of a visible hangar bay can be explanied by the captain of the vessel having closed the armoured blast doors after all flights of TIE fighters were launched, which allows him to protect a very vulnerable area of his ship. MagCon feilds do not act as shield they only keep atmosphere in, so even if the shelid failed an area of armour plating is better for torpedoes and lasers to impact upon than an exposed hangar bay, which contains outlets for the extrmely volatile fuel used by TIE fighters. 59.154.24.147 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Blast doors on Star Destroyers have been seen in some comics, the difference being that there's a line clearly visible around the frame of the door and they're sunken in, inside the superstructure. This model had no such thing, just armor from one end of the model to the other, even cutting out any reactor bulb. ILM literally changed the surface structure on the underside of an ISD model to get this shot, adding extra details and removing others. Whether they meant it to be the dorsal surface of a regular ISD or not, isn't known. But since it's not known, we either have a) a filmatic error on the part of the FX makers if it's the underside of an ISD, or b) another class, thus negating any error they made. LFL went with b). VT-16 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Official ConfirmationEdit

Leland Chee has officially confirmed that the hangarless ship seen in ROTJ is a Tector-class Star Destroyer:

"The Tector-class is mentioned by name and in his notes on the early version of the Cross-Sections book, Curtis Saxton intended for it to be the hangarless Star Destroyer. I note of this in the Holocron, so for all intents and purposes, it is official though it has never been identified by image in a published source." Unsigned comment by JimRaynor55 (talk • contribs).

This is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. All that we can see on this picture is THE UPPER FORWARD PART OF THE SUPER STAR DESTROYER. Simply get the photo of the SSD and check out the structure... Unsigned comment by 85.30.225.61 (talk • contribs).

  • It's canon, anon, whether you like it or not. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Jack, please stop using that for everything. You need actual arguments as well, because some people will never settle for "it's canon" alone. VT-16 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not. The model of the Executor is completely different, both the ventral and dorsal front of it. The model filmed in this scene is of a ventral ISD model without hangar-openings. It's features are the same as that of the ISD models made, but without hangars. VT-16 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • VT, if canon says what it is, I don't need an argument. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but there's been debates where people will complain about something, be told the source, and still complain and try to revert an article minutes later. I'm just trying to save time. VT-16 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Its the ventral side of a regular star destroyer... Notice how in the movie endor is always below the fleet, well in this picture it's above. That's because it's just an upside down shot of a normal SD Unsigned comment by 65.96.43.190 (talk • contribs).

  • Whether that image is of a Tector or not, a Tector participated in the Battle of Endor. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Plus, that ship has been confirmed to be a hangarless Star Destroyer. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, Nebulax, I was the one who flipped the image for this entry, and it is actually the ventral side of a Tector-class vessel. In the scene, the ventral side is pointing "upwards" with Endor underneath, I flipped it to have the ventral side point downward for the profile picture. The sequence runs across it and there is no hangar-opening present. VT-16 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice how the ISD's in the background are "right way up". 131.111.36.48 17:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why all the other ISD's are right way up (ie, ventral side towards Endor!) 131.111.36.48 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In space, there is no rightside-up or upside-down. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In space, there is the freedom of three-dimensional combat, with enemies capable of attacking from above or below. VT-16 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The laws of gravity don't apply. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And yet, every other ship is oriented in the exact same direction. Anyway, I have other question: if this ship doesn't have hangars, then how its crew gets onboard? Unsigned comment by 83.14.77.210 (talk • contribs).
      • 1) "And yet, every other ship is oriented in the exact same direction". You don't know that for sure. 2) I'm sure there's more than one way of getting on a Star Destroyer. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) What do you mean "I don't know that for sure"? I do know that for sure. The movie shows us that every other ship is oriented in the exact same direction. 2) Such as? Note that without hangars Tector has no ability to carry any support craft or shuttle. Imagine that his commander wants to fly to Executor to personally apologise to Darth Vader and take full responsibility :) Guess what - he can't. He has to wait for other ship to bring him a shuttle. Basically, uncharacteristically, compared to other Star Destroyers, Tector is forced to rely on other ships.--83.14.77.210 14:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • 1) In the RotJ film, every other ship is shown oriented in the same way the second Death Star is, minus the Tector-class Star Destroyer, but an old RotJ comic that I have (can't find it, but if I do, I'll post the full name) shows the second Death Star upside-down in comparison to the Imperial fleet. So my point is, the Battle of Endor was both rightside-up and upside-down. 2) It could simply be that the Tector-class lacked a main hangar, where starfighters were kept, and had what would be considered an auxillary hangar on other Star Destroyer classes like the Imperial-class. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • 1)Could it be one of Marvel comic books? :) Nevertheless, it's a comic book. It doesn't supercede movies. 2) By saying "auxillary", you mean the hangar in front of the main hangar, right? Or is there other hangar I don't know about?--85.89.170.28 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • 1) Uh, you don't get it. The fact is that a portion of the Imperial fleet at Endor was upside-down in comparison to the second Death Star at one point in the battle. 2) Yes, I mean the hangar in front of the main hangar. I'm not sure if a Tector-class Star Destroyer has such a hangar or not. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • 1) Oh please, give me more credit than that :) I do get it what you're trying to say. I'm simply pointing out that in the movie, which is higher source of the canon, at no point shows a portion of the Imperial fleet hanging upside down, especially when Lando starts his attack run. 1a) As for novelization, where in the movie they lose "one of the forward guns"? Where's this "controlled spin" that puts them towards "the belly of the leviathan"? The movie seems to contradict novelization at this point. 2) No, both of those hangars are covered up. Which means that either it has no support crafts whatsoever, or it has hangar elsewhere, making whole "heavily armored hangarless ISD" idea moot. Look, let's cut to the chase. Does Tector appear as canon in one of the official publications? Yes it does. Does it make sense? No it doesn't: it forces us to make two weird assumptions. I've noticed in other discussions area that you tend to use the "it's canon, period" approach. Well, I disagree with it - I like my Star Wars internally consistant (as much as possible :)). I certainly could argue that several other elements from the movies aren't canon, like Luke switching his milk cup hands in ANH, lightsabers changing colors from one shot to another (and, in once instance, in mid-shot), semi-transparent speeder cockpits, etc. All those, and more, are considered bloopers and aren't canon. Mistakes happen and I think that's what it is: I believe that dr. Saxton didn't fully thought through the idea of hangarless ISD. Well, it's wouldn't be the first time...
            • 1) Listen, nothing is contradicted, because never at any point is the entire space part of the Battle of Endor shown in either the movie, the comic, or the novel. Regardless, I can see that we're not going to convince each other that one of us is right and the other is wrong, so how about we just stop talking about it? ;) 2) Thanks for pointing that out that both hangars are covered. Well, it could be possible that the Tector-class is modified in the places that are not shown in the movie. But who knows. Until this class is further examined in an official source, we have nothing to go on. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Since we don't see the whole battle in the film, and even the comic adaption shows ships flying in different directions and up and down relative to one another, this is a nonsensical complaint. Space has no "up" or "down" so fighting can take place in any direction. VT-16 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
              • At no point did movies show capital ships being "upside-down" relative to each other. Image is just a regular ISD, and whoever said it is "hangarless" destroyer is mistaken. 87.252.131.100 04:59, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

This may be a stupid questionEdit

But how does, exactly, a capital ship with *no* hangar bay interact with other capital ships? Or resupply, for that matter? Docking to an orbital facility comes to mind, but it would severely limit said ship's theatre of operations. And doesn't explain how a Tector's captain would pull a Needa on Darth Vader. While I agree that it clearly doesn't have a large hangar bay capable of housing starfighters or capturing corvettes, it must have something... Gorthuar 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This is acutally the same kind of thing that myself and an anon were discussing above. As of now, the whole ship has not been shown (only the hangarless bottom has been), but it could be possible that it has some other way of entering it (something like the Venator-class's dorsal hangar bay, but on a much smaller scale, comes to mind as a possibility). —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, hangarless means hangarless. The only means then is for the crew to board through airlocks. Since it doesn't have hangars, it doesn't have ships to ferry troops, so there's no need to carry them and no need for large airlocks for embarking/disembarking them. Other than that, it could have openings only meant for provisions and supplies. VT-16 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So a docking bay you mean? like how the empire boarded the Tantive IV? That could work. probably would be on the sides in that case. Then they could use the TIE shuttle to transfer personell. As for the whole Tector arguement, I personally don't doubt that there was a Tector in the Battle of Endor. But these pictures
      Belly of a leviathan
      Bayless
      though they would fit the definition, are sketchy on details. In the drawing, it can't be determined what side is what. on the other, it is definitely a Tector (the hull pattern matches the bottom of an ISD sans hanger), but I'm thus confused as to why the ship is UPSIDE DOWN :P. Note that it is the only cruiser flying upside down in any of the movies, let alone the BoE. --Logan Felipe 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, since space is three-dimensional, combat would be 3D as well, and since most Star Destroyer classes have their heavy guns on their "backs" (i.e. the dorsal side), hitting a capital ship target below the horizontal plane requires the ship to roll around. And we see instances where background vessels are 90 degrees proportional to a ship the camera follows (for instance, the ISDs in ESB while chasing the Falcon and almost crashing, the Rebel ships when the Falcon dives "down" during some Endor scenes etc.) Going all the way around is just flipping the model 90 degrees more. ;P VT-16 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh... what? I don't understand that reasoning. Changing angle of the camera is not the same as changing the angle of the ship. The only reason background vessels appear to be 90 degrees to the camera follows is because it's the camera that changed angles.

But in this case, camera angle remained unchanged - it's the whole ship that turned upside down when we weren't looking.85.89.191.6 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • To show what I mean: The Millennium Falcon flew after TIE fighters and dove under ships. You see it in one of the chase scenes after they pass the medical frigate. There's a frigate, several transports and a corvette lying sideways while the camera follows the Falcon. From their point of view, the Falcon is flying "downwards", below them. Do you understand what I mean by "space is three-dimensional" now? VT-16 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, the ship probably has retractable docking corridors. ZeldaTheSwordsman 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further photographic (or other pictorial) evidence?Edit

If this was an official Class, where are the other depictions of it? (I was 131.111..... further up this discussion) best, 194.80.106.135 14:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It's only depicted in the film, and a card using that one scene as a background. That's it. VT-16 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not depicted ANYWHERE. The image used is the dorsal section of a standard ISD, and just because someone on WP flips the image 180° it doesn't change the facts. Whilst Leeland Chee has confirmed the existence of this class and its participation in the Battle of Endor, he also said it was never actually shown on any official source. I don't see why the image here is kept in the article (and even falsified to imply that it actually is the ship in question), but yeah. Lynata 17:20, 22 September 2009
      • I think the image in the infobox should be removed. Saying that it represents a Tector is purely speculation. The whole scene has been clearly flipped upside down and "passed" as a Tector. I can't see a valid arguement, when in the entire scene and battle this is the only ship that is "shown" as flying upside down. Yes, all the fighters and the Falcon are flying up, down, and every which way, but every capital ship and frigate shown are all flying straight on the same plane. I haven't seen any instance where one capital ship is pointing up or down in relation to another. It just seems kind of quick, dirty, and cheap to me.--CT-1987 16:02, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
        • I suggest you read the "Behind the scenes" section. Dangerdan97 16:40, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not convinced the Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi is indeed a Tector. I think it is canon, but not seen in that picture. 68.41.61.139 16:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Novelization Edit

I don't see how the picture and description in the ROTJ novelization defines the Star Destroyer as a Tector class Darth Marik87Animated Sith 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it doesn't define it as a Tector-class SD, but when the Millenium Falcon flies "over" the hull of a Star Destroyer, it is described as the belly of it, and is hangarless, which matches the description of a Tector. 68.41.61.139 17:36, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Why the other way? Edit

Well, if the Tector-class Star Destroyer is indeed oriented the opposite way of the rest of the Imperial fleet, why would it be in this direction in the first place? 68.41.61.139 23:26, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I am testing to see if this post on this very old topic is going to be seen by anyone.

Information exists about the topic that is not reflected.

Trying to see how to post a new topic under Tector. 08052016.23:27