Talk:Tector-class Star Destroyer/Legends

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) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 agree. It should be removed. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:44, 16 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.
 * 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)
 * True. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 14:29, 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)
 * I suppose so... I'll take a closer look to try to see it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Official Confirmation
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."


 * Thanks for this news, JimRaynor! Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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...
 * It's canon, anon, whether you like it or not. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 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) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 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)
 * So am I by saying "It's canon". ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:13, 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
 * Whether that image is of a Tector or not, a Tector participated in the Battle of Endor. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, that ship has been confirmed to be a hangarless Star Destroyer. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 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)
 * Yeah, VT, I knew you flipped the image. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:31, 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)
 * Still a dispute over canon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)