Star Wars Canon: Just How Realistic Are the Single-Biome Planets?

[Kahani]

Is saying "this isnt real" ok here?

No, it's not. The point is to engage in some fun speculation about how realistic the fiction actually is. Merely saying "But it's fiction" utterly misses the point.

snip

Interesting article. Not sure I really agree with your conclusion for Hoth though. The only problem was that lichen on Earth doesn't grow quite fast enough. While it doesn't make sense for this sort of speculation to just handwave everything by saying different rules apply, neither does it make sense to assume that everything must be absolutely identical to Earth. If you just assume that lichen on Hoth grows a little bit faster than on Earth, there's no problem at all with it being realistic.

I think the whole problem only exists because they seem to give out too much information. Instead of saying "jup, this is a desert planet, or at least a few hundred km in all directions is like this" and just describing the current area in a fashionable sense, they go into details like saying the whole planet is the same as the current area or even describing the air humidity.

This is one reason the films are generally better than all the silly expanded universe stuff. In the films, Luke happened to land in a swamp, but there was no suggestion that that was all the planet consisted of. Tatooine was implied to be fairly arid, but we have deserts next to rivers and seas on Earth so it wasn't necessary to assume it was all sand everywhere. It's only when people come in later and insist on everything being a single biome that the problems start popping up.

The energy problem has a similar handwave: they obviously don't produce energy the same way we do. Lots of math has been done (mostly to prove that an Imperial Star Destroyer is more than a match for a Borg cube), but the power output of mere ships (nevermind planetary infrastructure) in Star Wars canon is ludicrous, obviously not achieved by the mere boiling of water (which is how everything in human history all the way up to a theoretical fusion powerplant operates in the real world). One can only assume that achieving that level of output would require a fuel source and energy production method far more efficient what the laws of physics could allow here. I'd say whatever Tibanna gas is (aside from the exhalations of balloon-creatures), it would be considered a miracle fuel on earth... one that produces negligible waste heat when converted to energy, considering all of their handheld plasma weaponry have metal barrels.

The trouble is that none of this helps. It doesn't matter how you produce your energy or how efficiently you use it, it all ends up as heat. Always. That's just thermodynamics. A very efficient blaster might not heat up the weapon much when fired, but what do you think happens to all the energy in the plasma bolt after it's hit something?

A similar problem applies to heat dissipation. The only way a planet can lose heat is by radiation, and that depends on the temperature of the planet. Unless you just handwave everything and say a wizard advanced technology did it, there's simply no way to get rid of heat without being hot. The "solution" Soviet Heavy mentions is meaningless - venting heat to the atmosphere doesn't mean anything when the problem is that the atmosphere is too hot. You could perhaps come up with some sort of giant heat sinks reaching out into space to do the job, but then you hit the problem related to rofltehcat's point - they already give us very detailed information about how everything works, and planet-sized heat sinks are not mentioned at all.

the mere boiling of water (which is how everything in human history all the way up to a theoretical fusion powerplant operates in the real world)

Wait, you think wind turbines and photovoltaic cells produce electricity by boiling water?

 

[Keith K]

First of all, in fantasy, there's no point discussing what's plausible. Star Wars is Fantasy, not sci-fi.

Second, Mercury, Venus and Mars are all basically single-biome planets to the same extent as Star Wars planets. Moons Io, Europa and Titan all appear to be remarkably uniform on their surfaces too. So it seems that Earth remains the oddity with its multitude of life-driven biomes.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Less excuse for the humans waking around with no protection, but as far as alien life is concerned, they probably evolved differently to survive in those environments. Who's to say all aliens must breath oxygen?

 

[iseko]

the mere boiling of water (which is how everything in human history all the way up to a theoretical fusion powerplant operates in the real world)

Wait, you think wind turbines and photovoltaic cells produce electricity by boiling water?

Hehe chuckled at that one. But to be fair I think he was referring to more legit ways of producing energy. Meaning coal, gas, nuclear (both fission and fusion)... That kind of thing. And yes yes wind turbines and solar energy are "legit" ways of producing energy bla bla bla go green power (not the point).

OT: interesting article. I try not to think to much about these kinds of things when watching the movies. Kind of stops me from enjoying them but still. cudos.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: snip

Is saying "this isnt real" ok here?

No, it's not. The point is to engage in some fun speculation about how realistic the fiction actually is. Merely saying "But it's fiction" utterly misses the point.

snip

Interesting article. Not sure I really agree with your conclusion for Hoth though. The only problem was that lichen on Earth doesn't grow quite fast enough. While it doesn't make sense for this sort of speculation to just handwave everything by saying different rules apply, neither does it make sense to assume that everything must be absolutely identical to Earth. If you just assume that lichen on Hoth grows a little bit faster than on Earth, there's no problem at all with it being realistic.

I think the whole problem only exists because they seem to give out too much information. Instead of saying "jup, this is a desert planet, or at least a few hundred km in all directions is like this" and just describing the current area in a fashionable sense, they go into details like saying the whole planet is the same as the current area or even describing the air humidity.

This is one reason the films are generally better than all the silly expanded universe stuff. In the films, Luke happened to land in a swamp, but there was no suggestion that that was all the planet consisted of. Tatooine was implied to be fairly arid, but we have deserts next to rivers and seas on Earth so it wasn't necessary to assume it was all sand everywhere. It's only when people come in later and insist on everything being a single biome that the problems start popping up.

The energy problem has a similar handwave: they obviously don't produce energy the same way we do. Lots of math has been done (mostly to prove that an Imperial Star Destroyer is more than a match for a Borg cube), but the power output of mere ships (nevermind planetary infrastructure) in Star Wars canon is ludicrous, obviously not achieved by the mere boiling of water (which is how everything in human history all the way up to a theoretical fusion powerplant operates in the real world). One can only assume that achieving that level of output would require a fuel source and energy production method far more efficient what the laws of physics could allow here. I'd say whatever Tibanna gas is (aside from the exhalations of balloon-creatures), it would be considered a miracle fuel on earth... one that produces negligible waste heat when converted to energy, considering all of their handheld plasma weaponry have metal barrels.

The trouble is that none of this helps. It doesn't matter how you produce your energy or how efficiently you use it, it all ends up as heat. Always. That's just thermodynamics. A very efficient blaster might not heat up the weapon much when fired, but what do you think happens to all the energy in the plasma bolt after it's hit something?

A similar problem applies to heat dissipation. The only way a planet can lose heat is by radiation, and that depends on the temperature of the planet. Unless you just handwave everything and say a wizard advanced technology did it, there's simply no way to get rid of heat without being hot. The "solution" Soviet Heavy mentions is meaningless - venting heat to the atmosphere doesn't mean anything when the problem is that the atmosphere is too hot. You could perhaps come up with some sort of giant heat sinks reaching out into space to do the job, but then you hit the problem related to rofltehcat's point - they already give us very detailed information about how everything works, and planet-sized heat sinks are not mentioned at all.

the mere boiling of water (which is how everything in human history all the way up to a theoretical fusion powerplant operates in the real world)

Wait, you think wind turbines and photovoltaic cells produce electricity by boiling water?

So I forgot a couple of extremely low-output methods... and one or two high-output ones (internal combustion engines and hydroelectric power), but I was thinking more of nuclear reactors and such. Relatively high-tech infrastructure. In hindsight, it was a stupid statement.

You're certainly correct about heat dissipation, though. Unless they use the planet itself as a heatsink somehow (space doesn't work as a heatsink, no matter for heat to move into), which of course isn't mentioned (and would assume a volcanically inactive planet with an artificially maintained atmosphere). Again, handwave assumptions. Star Wars is full of those. If we try to apply the laws of physics as we know them... shields don't work, none of their tech works due to the heat problem, hyperspace isn't a thing (Star Trek can join 'em with warp), repulsorlifts aren't a thing (so no hover-vehicles, colonised gas giants, et cetera), inertial dampeners go the same way as repulsorlifts, so no artificial gravity or comfortable acceleration to escape velocity...

My point is, picking just one aspect of a sci-fi property and applying the laws of physics is ignoring the milieu of the thing. Pointless. Not even fictional properties exist in cultural vacuum.

 

[RandV80]

I sometimes feel this sort of stuff is partially Stark Trek's fault. Star Trek has always competed with Star Wars in nerd fandom, so because Star Trek is actually 'science fiction' rather than 'science fantasy' while there's still some silly parts there they generally try to explain their stuff with science. A point which I'm sure Star Trek nerds were always happy to let their rivals know about, so rather than just letting it be what it is Star Wars nerds have gone ahead and tried 'science-ify' Star Wars lore.

 

[debtcollector]

Second, Mercury, Venus and Mars are all basically single-biome planets to the same extent as Star Wars planets. Moons Io, Europa and Titan all appear to be remarkably uniform on their surfaces too.

Yeah, they are. They are also absolutely uninhabitable, whereas Tatooine and Hoth are, while unpleasant, capable of supporting life somehow. Obviously, what this article is doing is demonstrating that, were these single-biome planets to exist IRL, they would be incapable of supporting life.

OT: My god, do people on the Escapist have some sort of allergy for speculative fiction? Yeah, we know it's not real, and we know the EU has bullshit explanations for everything, but isn't applying imagination and understanding of physical processes to something you enjoy more entertaining than just saying "a wizard (or Lucas) did it"?

For the record, I found this article fascinating, especially that one of the most plausible worlds was one from the hated prequels.

 

[Hutzpah Chicken]

I always thought that Hoth had seasons similar to how the seasons are near the poles of Earth. Likewise, I always thought that Tatooine, Ryloth, and other such desert planets were predominantly desert, but not solely desert. Either way, I would have thought that the binary system would have factored into the desert planet analysis.

lol, science!

 

[Veylon]

Less excuse for the humans waking around with no protection, but as far as alien life is concerned, they probably evolved differently to survive in those environments. Who's to say all aliens must breath oxygen?

Nothing. Heck, oxygen started out as a waste product here on Earth, an incredibly toxic and dangerous chemical polluting the environment. There's a whole chain of chemical processes that take place in the body to safely transport and process it in such a way as not to destroy your cells. It's nature's equivalent of using nuclear power.

 

[Boba Frag]

Great artice, really enjoyed it, and it coincides nicely with a Star Wars marathon I'm having at the moment (original trilogy only!)

Also, mother of God, some people get their knickers in a twist way to much over fictional things in these forums.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

The problem here is that you're acting under the assumption that life, planets, and even the laws of physics operate the same way they do in the real world. Since this is a universe where there exists faster than light travel so fast that one can travel from one side of the galaxy to the other in mere hours or days, an unreadable energy field that can make certain people basically wish things into existence, plasma weapons small enough to be the size of one's hand, and so forth, this is probably not the case.

BTW, the Star Wars galaxy has literally thousands of worlds that exist solely produce crops and meat, I don't think food for Coruscant would present much of a problem.

The problem here is that you're assuming the point of the article was to justify the biome planets according to Star Wars' internal consistencies, as opposed to testing it against what is currently understood about astronomy and biology. "How realistic are single biome planets" is a bit of a giveaway.

 

[Keith K]

Yeah, they are. They are also absolutely uninhabitable...

Well... I think the jury is still out on that. We don't have a very solid definition of 'habitable'.

 

[Gary Thompson]

Yeah, they are. They are also absolutely uninhabitable...

Well... I think the jury is still out on that. We don't have a very solid definition of 'habitable'.

Obviously they meant for humans, I'm sure without a doubt that a human would die if they were to go onto Venus unprotected.

 

[Splitzi]

Was this something people cared about after watching Star Wars? Out of everything else we could be talking about... or have we exhausted every other Star Wars related topic? Can't we just say that they used space magic or something? I mean, they have tech and knowledge froms dozens of alien species and we care about random rocks in space?

Off-topic: I'm really concerned with these slideshow/ click bait articles on The Escapist recently. Why has this started?

 

[Evil Smurf]

What an interesting read, I like reading about Star Wars.

original trilogy only

Whatever do you mean? There are only three films.

 

[Boba Frag]

What an interesting read, I like reading about Star Wars.

original trilogy only

Whatever do you mean? There are only three films.

My goodness, you're right, of course.

I fear I may have confused a horrifying dream I had where the spirit & fun of Star Wars was cynically rehashed & repackaged in order to sell billions worth of toys in million dollar green screen wankery....

*shudders*

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I don't see food being a huge problem for a futuristic city-planet. We've already invented lab-grown hamburgers and all kinds of synthetic food, so well on the way to replicators along the lines of Star Trek.

 

[JET1971]

A city planet is not impossible and is actually quite plausible. heat generated from power? ever hear of a heat exchanger? You can convert heat energy into electricity which reduces the temperature of whatever you are getting the heat energy from.

Food? you do not need land for farming. You do not even need soil for farming. Hydroponics being fact and sustainable in an interior with no soil proves it. Then you have synthetic foods that can be created.

As for a large portion of imports is food.. well getting real meat instead of syntha-steaks and plasti-burgers would be quite popular. then you have the huge diversity of exotic aliens who will undoubtedly require special food that needs to be imported. Of course the largest import is food.

So a large portion of the city planet is still hydroponics and synthetic food factories to feed the masses and a large part of energy production is using the heat generated by the city to be converted into electricity while also acting as air conditioners to cool the atmosphere. All plausible if you think about it.

As for the rest there is one fallacy in the article and that is comparing the planets to earth and the biology to earths. Not all planets supporting life will be comparable to earths and really very few can be.

 

[gridsleep]

Do you get the feeling that young George Lucas read Dune and just didn't get it?

 

[Brennan]

Dagobah is never stated or shown to be a single biome planet in the movies (can't speak to the EU, but the EU's only a step removed from headcanon anyway). That's just something people assume.

Not entirely unfair, because damn near every other planet in the original movies is single-biome, but not really a logical/rational assumption either.

*EDIT* Actually, now that I think about it, single-biome planets aren't entirely the rule that they might seem.

Explicitly single biome:
Tatooine
Hoth
Endor moon
Coruscant
Kamino
Mustafar


Not explicitly or implied to be single biome (in the movies):
Dagobah
Yavin IV
Naboo
Utapu
Kashyyk
Assorted planets in prequels seen in snippets of the war, like the one with all the colorful/luminous fungi, or the one with the giant bridge cities.

Several (if not all) of the ones on that second list are assumed to be single-biome by the EU, but that's just dumb fans being dumb, not the fault of anything in the movies. Kashyyk is borderline, since it's technically an EU planet that graduated to canon, so if the EU created it as a single biome world, that characterization may be grandfathered into the canon universe (though of course, it doesn't have to be, given how pick-and-choose the prequels are about EU elements). Bespin, being a gas giant, doesn't really count either way for our purposes.

Hoth has plot-related anthropic principle going on: it was chosen by the Alliance for a secret base because it's normally considered uninhabitable,(hopefully) making it easier for the empire to overlook, which could imply that its odd balance of habitability/inhabitabilty is actually rare. Tatooine is basically planet Somalia so Luke/Annakin can come from someplace so poor and crappy that they can't escape without getting off the planet altogether. Kamino and Mustafar are both pretty realistically singe biome. Endor moon is crap, but if you handwave hard enough, you might be able to make something of Endor itself being a gas giant. Like maybe Endor reflects (or generates) enough light/radiation to keep the moon evenly warm in a way a normal planet wouldn't be.

Basically, with the exception of Endor moon, most single biome planets have a reason or justfication. Planets which don't need to be single biome generally aren't actually identified or implied as such... they're just assumed to be by the audience.