But Gwaihir, we know there was not an ecological disaster in Endor. Ok, it’s not strictly cannon, since in starwars that’s only the movies and novelizations of the movies are cannon (anyway any starwars official material is far better than what trekkies call cannon), but the planet was visited many times later and the Ewoks were still living happily in their tree villages.
That discussion is wrong from the beginning. It should be why wasn’t there a disaster... maybe the Alliance managed to repair the planetary shields after the battle, maybe the gravity of the “controversial” gas giant “Endor” or “Tana”, the one “Sanctuary Moon” or “Forest Moon of Endor” is or was supposed to orbit deviated all debries.
Aloofi, tonnage would only be equivalent to length if ships had a constant section and a tonnage of 1 kt per linear meter. The resulting ships would be a few meters in width and height, constant for all ships but hundreds of meters in length.
So SE4 ships are small when compared with sci-fi mainstream.
Many Trek and B5 ships have their tonnage listed in their stats. Compare them with SE4 tonnages for further reference.
A fast approximation to include SE4 ships in those charts would be that 36x36 mini pictures are close to the 1 pixel = 10m scale.
Here you have
my spreadsheet to check my math and play with the values.
I also made this shipset, the
Box based on the measures from the spreadsheet.
The interesting thing is that I didn’t resize anything so all ships are in the same scale (even in the fleet/group pictures). I even used an orthographic projection instead of perspective to better preserve scaling.
Re: OT: Starship size comparisons 1 pixel per meter
It does have non-zero "zero" density after all ! 
Hybrid Mode
