This page, presented as a table, is one of the most difficult ones to critique [from a formatting standpoint; it doesn't seem any less dishonest and/or unreasonable than his other pages- Ed]. To help alleviate the basic formatting problem for my critique, this document will make use of a table similar to the one that Mr. Anderson uses to present his findings. It may still be difficult to determine exactly what is being rebutted, because of the inevitable differences in length between what Mr. Anderson presents in his table boxes and the rebuttals presented here, but the table appears to be the most expedient and rapid solution for presenting findings against this particular page.

  United Federation of Planets (UFP) Galactic Empire (Empire)


This box presents enormously interesting findings. Mr. Anderson begins by stating that the only planetary count we have is from The Original Series (TOS), and that that count is one thousand. He then correctly points out that it is unclear whether this is referring to Earth colonies or to the entire UFP. The other count he presents is from The Next Generation (TNG), in which Picard states that the UFP is made up of approximately 150 member worlds. In Anderson's words:

"If Kirk referred solely to Earth colonies, and every other Federation member world had at least 10, the total number of Federation colonies would be about 2500. However, the only total planetary count we have for certain is 1000."

He then concludes by stating that the Federation has an estimated 5000 worlds, twice as large as his highest presented estimate!1

[Editor's note: it's fascinating how he can take Kirk's statement that "we're on a thousand planets and spreading out" to mean that they have five thousand planets; only RSA can do such things and keep a straight face]

Again, we have interesting suppositions made by Mr. Anderson. In the A New Hope (ANH) novelization, Tarkin states that there are one million systems in the Empire. Mr. Anderson states that:

"one may presume these are all inhabited, though this is not certain."

Anderson goes on, later in the table, to present numerous estimates that rely on Tarkin's statement as referring to all planets, inhabited and uninhabited. [Cleverly devious; he says that it's "uncertain", but then he quietly picks one option and uses it henceforth, as if it's completely certain]

Anderson simply lies to misrepresent canon when he explains how he arrived at his figure based on Attack of the Clones (AotC):

"In any case, at least several thousand solar systems are populated, since that is the number Dooku had under his thumb in Attack of the Clones, with another ten thousand ready to join him. It is not known what percentage of the Republic these systems represented, but Palpatine referred to the idea as the Republic being "split in two". This could refer to a numerical division of half-and-half, or may only represent a more general concept such as economics or population. If it was a rough halving of the Republic, we could guess that the total number of full-membership Republic worlds was on the order of fifty thousand to one hundred thousand."

The canonical novel clearly refutes his reasoning by demonstrating the full context of the conversation:

"I fear this vote," Palpatine remarked.

"It is unavoidable," replied Mace Windu ...

"And it could unravel the remainder of the Republic," Palpatine said.

"Never have I seen the Senators so at odds over any issue."

... "I don't know how much longer I can hold off the vote, my friends," Palpatine explained. "And I fear that delay on this definitive issue might well erode the Republic through attrition. More and more star systems are joining the separatists."

Mace Windu, a pillar of strength even among the Jedi, nodded his understanding of the dilemma. "And yet, when the vote is done, if the losers do break away—"

"I will not let this Republic that has stood for a thousand years be split in two!" (pp. 54-55)

From this, it is clear that Anderson is resorting to lies to misrepresent canon. The discussion is not about the current separatists, but about what will happen if all of the systems that lose from an upcoming, hotly contested, debate defect. If they do, then the Republic will be split in two. The negotiations Palpatine refers to are not with the separatists, but within the Republic itself! Anderson is clearly lying about this particular issue, but an examination of the evidence proves him wrong.

[Editor's note: when Kirk says they have a "thousand planets" RSA hears "inhabited planets", but when Tarkin says they have a "million systems", RSA hears "maybe inhabited, maybe not". Do I even need to explain what's wrong with his conduct?]

Territory Size

Anderson makes reference to the map of the Federation used in Keiko's classroom and in "Conspiracy" [TNG]2. He also states that the UFP spans 8000 light years, based on a statement made in "Star Trek: First Contact" (ST:FC), and assumes that 8000 LY represents the maximum width, which he applies to the map to determine the total volume of the UFP.

There's just one problem with his approach: the distances on the map most certainly do not equate to being 8000 light years. The distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri is fairly easy to calculate. It is assumed that the Alpha Centauri labeled on the map from "Conspiracy" is the binary Alpha Centauri (made up of Alpha Centauris A and B), which is more distant from Earth than the more dim Alpha Centauri C. It is at a distance of 4.4 light years from the Sol system3, which is conveniently also labeled for us on the map. The distance on the map between Sol and Alpha Centauri is to be labeled "distance M." Using this distance as a reference, we find that each of the boxes is approximately 2M by 2M by 2M (8 cubic M's). Discounting the 4 discontinuous boxes, we find that the total volume of the UFP is about 30,000 cubic light-years. Either the map is inaccurate, Picard's statement was incorrect, or the member worlds of the UFP are within about 8000 cubic light-years of each other, with colony worlds further out. Alternatively, he could be referring to the distance between the different "arms" of a perforated UFP. This would make sense, given that we know from Star Trek: Insurrection that the UFP has not even charted all of its worlds fully, and does not control each and all of the planets within its territory—even the habitable ones.

Anderson goes on to totally disregard his earlier assumption that the million star systems Tarkin was referring to may be presumed to be inhabited, but as the quote is ambiguous it is difficult to fault him for doing this, now. If anything, he should merely have deleted the statement above, which would have done nothing to affect the accuracy of his page. This is a common error.

However, Qui-Gon does not even suggest in The Phantom Menace (TPM) that not all of the stars have been visited. He was having a conversation with Anakin Skywalker, which proceeded as follows.

ANAKIN: There are so many. Do they all have a system of planets?
QUI-GON: Most of them.
ANAKIN: Has anyone ever been to them all?
QUI-GON: Not likely.

Nowhere in that exchange does Qui-Gon even hint at there being unexplored worlds within the Galaxy. In fact, he seems to hint that that is not the case! By saying "Not likely," instead of "Impossible," or "No," Qui-Gon infers that all of the stars have been visited. In addition, Anderson's analysis is clearly incorrect of the Outer Rim. The Outer Rim likely does not refer to the Outer Rim of the Galaxy, but the Outer Rim of the Republic. This is clear from Obi-Wans conversation in AotC with Dexter Jettster. Moreover, the "Outer Rim" could be a term that refers to a planet above or below the Galactic plane, a possibility which Anderson ignores.

KENOBI: Kamino ... is it part of the Republic?
DEXTER: No, no, it's beyond the Outer Rim. I'd say it's about twelve parsecs outside the Rishi Maze.

Clearly Dexter is referring to the Outer Rim of the Republic, and states that in part to answer Kenobi's question about whether or not Kamino was in the Republic.

Anderson then justifies himself by saying that he does similar things with Star Trek. Let's examine his examples of when he has done similar things with Star Trek statements: "I apply similar reasoning to Pike's comment to the Talosians about being from ‘the other end of this galaxy'." Okay, Earth is located in a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. It is quite easy to imagine the Talosians being from almost anywhere in the Galaxy, but being referred to as the "other end." They could even be coming from the base of the arm of the Galaxy, but be described in such a manner quite easily. Anderson's other example is the similarly ludicrous: "Picard's comments in "Conspiracy" that the Enterprise had been on the outer rim." Of course the Enterprise was on the Outer Rim of the Milky Way. It is based from Earth, and Earth is on the outer fringe of the Milky Way. Picard's statement tells us nothing.


"Deep Space Nine's "Statistical Probabilities" suggests that a protracted war with the Dominion could, by one estimate, result in 900 billion Federation casualties and a Federation defeat. In this projection, five generations after the defeat, a rebellion would start on Earth, and within another generation the Dominion would be conquered, and a new Federation would be born.

The projection suggests that in spite of the unthinkable casualties, some if not all Alpha Quadrant races would survive quite well, even to the point of conquering the entire Dominion. This would seem to suggest an absolute minimum Federation population of between one and two trillion . . . probably more.

Final Tally: ~ 2 trillion persons, rough minimum estimate" (emphasis added)

Anderson uses conjecture based on "Statistical Probabilities" [Deep Space Nine], to justify his assertion that the UFP could have as many as two trillion inhabitants as a rough minimum estimate, however this is not necessary. His reasoning totally disregards the five generations between the UFP's disastrous war and the revolt that culminates in the destruction of the Dominion! The population of the UFP, of course, can hardly be less than 1 trillion, and probably comes closer to 1.5 trillion, but to say that the statements in "Statistical Probabilities" indicates a population much higher than that is difficult to fathom. The UFP's population should, quite obviously, grow in the interceding five generations (particularly since 900 billion have just been wiped out). Further, Anderson concludes his paragraph by saying that the minimum UFP population is between one and two trillion, but states that the rough minimum estimate is about 2 trillion! Clearly he is unfamiliar with lower-limits.

Again, Anderson lies about the context in which "I will not allow this Republic ... to be split in two" was said in an effort to misrepresent the population of the Empire and lend credence to his claims of a tiny Empire. His final estimate is somewhat reasonable, though extremely conservative. The fact of the matter remains, however, that the context in which the quote was said clearly rules out the possibility of the 10,000 systems being numerically important—in fact, it makes them nearly insignificant! Only if the losers from the upcoming (and presumably very close) vote break away will the Republic "be split in two."

Besides, "split in two" is much different from "split into equal halves". When Quebec threatened to secede from Canada, our politicians were all on TV forecasting doom and gloom if the country should be split in two. But Quebec is nowhere near half the country, with only 17% of Canada's land area. Obviously, if RSA were to apply his "split in two" = "split in equal halves" reasoning to real life, he would come up with some interesting conclusions on geography!]

Planetary Defenses

In "The Last Outpost" [TNG], the Enterprise's crew is astonished that a forcefield is capable of being projected from the surface of a planet into orbit, where it would surround two ships and prevent them from moving. This seems to indicate that planetary shields in Star Trek are limited to a very low altitude, or that they are of such low power that starships can easily move through them. This is consistent with "The Defector" [TNG], in which it is revealed that extending shields for five kilometers ahead of the Enterprise substantially weakens them. Thus, while planetary shields in Star Trek may be theoretically possible, the practical limitations of UFP technology preclude their use on most planets.

[Editor's note: naturally, after admitting that the Federation has no militarily useful planetary shields to speak of, he must try to deny the existence of SW planetary shields too]

It stands to reason that a planetary shield could easily be constructed by overlapping theater shields, but Anderson ignores this possibility because to admit to the possibility of having planetary shields would damage his Death Star firepower estimates. Planetary shields clearly exist in the SW universe, whether or not Anderson admits to such. Contrary to his statements4, the Alderaan shield has been clearly observed in both the Special Edition (SE), and original forms of the trilogy.

The Alderaan planetary shield is clearly inferable in the SE version of the trilogy, in direct contradiction of what Anderson states, what is visible even before the weapon begins to affect the surface of the planet itself. Namely, the curvature of Alderaan would prevent light from hitting one part of the atmosphere and then ricocheting to be visible off of a completely different part of the atmosphere- one which would have been invisible to the point of impact- is explainable only by the existence of a planetary deflector shield.

[Editor's note: the fact that they couldn't land on Endor without shield deactivation in ROTJ is also indicative of a planetary shield

Ship Count

His starship estimates are reasonable, assuming that the UFP fleet count refers only to true starships and does not include shuttlecraft, runabouts, etc.

[We should keep in mind, however, that there is no particular reason to make that assumption; the word "ship" is not necessarily restricted to capital warships; a modern fighter pilot will often refer to his plane as "my ship"]

"[A]n infrastructure that can build a Death Star should be able to field a hefty fleet. (Just counting volume, a 120 kilometer Death Star is the equivalent of over 1.7 million starships of one cubic kilometer.) On the other hand, they only had 27 starships at the Empire's most important tactical engagement (RoTJ), so there's a great deal of uncertainty in play."

They had only 27 starships at the Empire's most important tactical engagement, plus the Death Star II, which is vastly larger than the original one that Anderson mentions above5. The presence of the Death Star was, quite obviously, vastly more important to the Empire than the presence of the rest of their entire fleet at Endor.

"The Imperial Starfleet has not been fleshed out in the slightest. The fleet is known to include Imperators and a smaller number of Executors, and presumably older ship classes such as the Acclamators. The latter of these is the smallest, at better than 700 meters."

And the Communication Ship mentioned in the canon novelization, and Saxton's Anonymous Star Destroyer #5, both of which appear in canon.6

Thus, even with only what is seen on screen, we find that Anderson deliberately ignores canon evidence, despite being fully aware of the existence of additional ship classes within the Empire.7

[Editor's note: perhaps Mon Mothma's dialogue about how the Imperial starfleet is spread all over the galaxy looking for them escaped RSA's attention]

Reactor Tech

Fully and totally accurate.

[Editor's note: not surprising, since he only points out that they use fusion for impulse and M/AM for warp, and then stops]

[Editor's note: RSA bases his entire argument on the "artificial sun" line in the ANH novelization]

The ANH Novel reference which DarkStar accredits such power is actually inconclusive to say the least. It is clearly referring to the amount of energy released, as opposed to the manner in which it is produced. It is also an enormously vague quote, with many possible interpretations. Interestingly enough, there are some kinds of stars that do not rely on nuclear fusion to generate power- something that Anderson's interpretation of the quote is precluded by. Moreover, the repeated problems with safety in UFP plasma conduits are a likely explanation for why Imperial "power distribution appears to be simple electricity."

[Editor's note: as pointed out in my debate with him, the dictionary definition of "sun" says nothing whatsoever about nuclear fusion or mechanism of power generation; it refers only to luminous celestial bodies. His attempt to claim that the word "sun" is a full analytical description of power-generation mechanism is beneath contempt]

Reactor Power

In "The Dauphin" [TNG], the reactor power of the Enterprise-D is quantified as being less than one terawatt. Data's quote [from True Q] is clearly not applicable due to the intense amount of speculation generated as to what he was about to say. This will be dealt with more fully on the page regarding this incident, itself.

This entire box is an excellent example of circular reasoning. Anderson decides to assume the Imperator class Star Destroyers are limited to simple fusion based on a spectacularly vague quote from a novel. He then claims that the amount of power estimated by other analysts must be incorrect because the ship is limited to simple fusion, and fusion cannot generate such power. Of course, a rational analyst would examine the evidence and determine that the results of the power generation can be quantified. Once this occurs, we have two choices:

  1. Rule out simple fusion as an energy source and assume that something more powerful is being used.

  2. Decide that simple fusion is being used, but that it somehow creates as much power as has been observed.

In either case, results are what matter in determining how advanced or effective something actually is.


When activated, shields stop some scanners, necessitating a brief lowering of the shields every few minutes. This sometimes allows others to transport through shields (ref. "The Wounded" [TNG]), and could potentially lead to a danger of weapons firing through shields, however firing through shields has never been observed to take place due to this limitation.

In "Survivors" [TNG], a 400 gigawatt weapon eliminates the Enterprise's shields in a single shot. The subsequent two shots destroy the Enterprise's weapons control, and do some internal damage, including the infamous exploding console syndrome.

Incidentally, if we continued Anderson's policy of using a mechanism to disprove an effect (as he used in claiming that ISD reactors were limited to fusion power, and therefor the power estimates he had seen were incorrect), we would soon find out that ST shields, based on gravity, are nearly completely useless, especially when they are used in a manner of "hull hugging" during combat situations, which they sometimes are. Moreover, EM radiation (lasers, light, etc.) requires a considerable amount of gravity to bend. In fact, even the sun exerts only the slightest bending effect on passing beams of light. The small power requirements for shields reveal that, if they actually do operate with gravity, they should be nearly useless. Moreover, it is unclear how gravity can be rapidly be depleted by such forces as electromagnetic energy, or even small particles, but we see this consistently throughout Star Trek.

In "Relics" [TNG], it is revealed that "a few extra gigawatts" is substantial enough to represent considerable reinforcement of shipboard shields.

It is also interesting to note that Star Trek shields do not fully protect ships, while they are active. Numerous incidents demonstrate that attacking craft can do physical damage to UFP ships while their shields are still up. This demonstrates a very unusual mechanism is at work with UFP shields. This phenomena is seen clearly in "Conundrum" [TNG], during which a 2.1 Megajoule weapon shakes the bridge, even though the ship has its shields up. Since 2.1 MJ is far too little energy to actually shake a ship the size of the Enterprise, we must assume that the weapon damaged the ship's internal systems.

Additionally, if shields in Star Trek actually were designed to use gravitons, and through gravitons gravity, in order to protect the ship, then we would expect to see light bending around shielded starships and their defenses. We do not see this. Thus, Star Trek shields are almost certainly not based on gravity.

The necessity of destroying asteroids demonstrates that the shields on ISD's are very poor at stopping physical impacts? They were in that asteroid field for hours, and perhaps days. In "Genesis" [TNG], it was considered inadvisable for the Enterprise D to enter an asteroid field that was vastly less dense and violent than the one in the Hoth system seen in "The Empire Strikes Back" (ESB) because the Enterprise was too big. An ISD is much larger than the Enterprise, and Death Squadron went into the asteroid field, anyway. Having said that, Star Wars ships clearly require two sets of shields: one that is designed to stop physical impacts, and one that is designed to stop energy.

Note that one Star Destroyer in the asteroid field withstood a 2 TJ impact without damage in ESB8. [Editor's note: and the Death Star withstood the explosion of Alderaan from a mere six planetary diameters out, according to the canon novelization; a blast of some 1E38 J of which a quantity of debris carrying some 3E31 J of kinetic energy was headed its way]

[Editor's note: RSA also completely ignores the reaction-force explanation for energy weapons and physical impacts requiring different countermeasures]


Once again, Anderson ignores "Genesis" [TNG], in which the Enterprise did not enter an asteroid field due to the risks. And that asteroid field was much less dense and much less violent than the one observed in ESB. Additionally, in "The Nth Degree" [TNG], it is revealed that the Enterprise-D cannot withstand a single near miss from its own aft-torpedo launcher at close range. That is, if the Enterprise fires on something within a few hundred meters of itself, it will destroy itself, even with its shields up. In "Q Who" [TNG], the Enterprise is prevented from firing on a Borg cube due to the risk associated with a torpedo detonation at a range of kilometers! How is this consistent with the impact we see in Star Trek: Nemesis? The answer has to do with the type of impacts involved. In Star Trek: Nemesis, the Enterprise collides with another starship. Both objects are being subjected to the "mass lightening effect" that is used to help aid maneuverability in combat. Thus, the actual collision has very little kinetic energy associated with it. The hull strength remains unchanged by the mass lightening, so the ships collide with a very small amount of energy, and their hulls are capable of withstanding the force of the impact. However, even with the mass lightening effect, both starships sustain considerable damage, necessitating very lengthy repairs.

The ship in ESB that suffered an impact to the bridge was clearly not destroyed. This has been discussed to death in numerous debates. Moreover, a careful inspection of the film reveals that the bridge may not have been "sheared off" at all. The outline of the bridge is visible after the impact, although it is difficult to see due to all of the debris. The non-canon elements of Anderson's claims will be dealt with later.

Anderson points out an example of stone being useful in protecting a temple, due to its density. He, of course, neglects to mention a very similar event that happened in "Cost of Living" [TNG], in which Riker suggested using a torpedo against an asteroid but Data explained that "the core is composed of densely compressed nitrium and chrondite. It is unlikely that another photon torpedo will have any effect on it." Given that a torpedo detonating five kilometers away from the Enterprise in "Q Who" [TNG] was likely to destroy the ship, it is quite clear that UFP armor is extraordinarily weak. At least in the Imperial case, direct hits are required to destroy other starships.

Beam Weapons

Note how Anderson assumes 100 MT torpedoes, and then goes on to make a completely subjective guess as to how powerful phasers actually are, while utterly disregarding the quotes he himself provided on the effectiveness of phasers. According to Anderson's own quotes in the box itself, the Enterprise "Must avoid a variance above .06 terawatts." Further, 200 years before TNG and DS9, phaser's maximum output was merely 5 terawatts. Anderson takes the figure and decides that technology will have improved by several orders of magnitude over the course of two hundred years, even though according to "Relics" [TNG], quite a bit of UFP technology is the same as it was in the time of TOS, and much of the technology that is used on the Enterprise-D was actually invented by the crew of a single ship 200 years earlier in "Enterprise." Further, he arbitrarily assumes that photon torpedoes produce one hundred megatons of energy for making his subjective comparison, without explaining why. Thus, he takes a piece of subjective evidence, ignores a piece of objective evidence, and then uses the subjective evidence to subjectively extrapolate from that evidence to arrive at an estimate!

Anderson's claims regarding extraordinarily low turbolaser power demonstrated in canon will be dealt with in other pages. Suffice it to say that he misinterprets and misrepresents a considerable amount of data.

Missile Weapons

Anderson's high-end calculations will be dealt with on a different page. His low-end, "canon-ball" figure is high for Star Trek V. Dropping a rock from orbit would have done more damage than was observed.

In "Conundrum," [TNG] Riker is confident that one photon torpedo "ought to do it" to an outpost with a shield output of 4.3 kilojoules. Note that this is a laughably tiny observed firepower, and Riker was unable to guarantee a destruction of the outpost with a single torpedo! Moreover, this rules out the possibility that phasers are powerful enough to do even that much damage to shields.

There are a number of things to be noted about this box. The first is that he makes very vague references to proton torpedoes throwing shrapnel, but does not provide a source. Note that a pair of torpedoes detonating on the surface of the original Death Star is enough to shake the entire vessel considerably. This, quite obviously, overrules one Anderson's statements: either missile strikes to the hull of a starship are effective in disrupting the internal workings of a starship, or the yield of such weapons is spectacularly high- it would have to be to physically shake something the size of the Death Star. Further, missiles are also used in Return of the Jedi (RotJ), when Wedge fires his two torpedoes that destroy the "power regulator on the North Tower," and by Lando Calrissian, whose concussion missiles destroy the Death Star's main reactor. Of course, Anderson pretends to have compiled a complete, canon listing of missile weapons with the following statement: "Capital ship missile weapons have not been observed, though fighters have been seen to use them in ANH and TPM." In fact, of all the Star Wars movies, only ESB does not have a missile weapon being fired from a starfighter. And ESB had bombs being dropped by Imperial bombers! Anderson apparently neglected to mention half of the movies in which missile weapons have been involved, despite the implication that his is a complete listing!

Weapons Ranges

"With a limited torpedo loadout, and the fact that torpedoes are dangerous to use at extreme short range, it makes some sense to close to point-blank."

It does? A weapon that is dangerous to use mandates movement to point blank range? This would obviously be to the benefit of a side that does not have torpedoes, or whose torpedoes are inferior, but why would two sides who both have torpedoes wish to move to a very close range before opening fire?

Also note how Mr. Anderson believes in excellent maneuverability for ST ships, though this has not been observed in most cases. He further ignores the potential of electronic counter measures and heavy jamming to be the actual reason why starships engage at such tiny ranges in Star Trek so frequently, and he falls for the warp-strafe fallacy, which will be explained away in a later page.

In "A Matter of Honor," starship ranges are explained by the dialogue to be in thousands of kilometers, but a visual analysis of the episode clearly shows the range to be in kilometers at the most. Why, in "The Die is Cast" [DS9] did Sisko order his ship to move to just 500 meters before opening fire?

In the Voyager episode, "Equinox," Voyager was unable to fire on a ship as it moved into the atmosphere while maintaining orbit. This indicates that Voyager cannot fire its weapons accurately against a maneuvering target at a range of a few thousand kilometers. The visually observed (and, therefore, verifiable) ranges in Star Trek are always in the area of a few tens of kilometers, at the most, when engaging maneuvering targets.

Moreover, the occasional use of "manual targeting," once a targeting computer has been destroyed, indicates that the range is sufficiently small so as to allow a human to target enemy vessels with reasonable accuracy. This is hardly a selling point of ST ships.

Note how Anderson, here, admits that the accuracy of the Trade Federation battleship did not improve, even as the Queen's starship in TPM skimmed the hull. This is clearly indicative of a lack of accuracy independent of range. Since the accuracy did not improve as the range became smaller, it is a clear indication that the range had nothing to do with the alleged inaccuracy of the Trade Federation's ships. In RotJ, we heard that the Imperial fleet was in attack position when it was at a considerable distance from the Rebel fleet, as shown when Lando surveyed the Imperial ships and many of them were visibly a very large distance away. Further, since he clearly used the EU to decide that ranges were sufficient to launch an orbital bombardment, it is fair to use the EU to point out that in Rebel Dream a New Republic capital ship successfully engages another starship from outside the system- a range unheard of, even in Star Trek.

FTL Drive

Note how, in this box, Anderson ignores the fact that TOS ships appeared to be the fastest! He clearly states that starships in Star Trek V can make 20,000,000c, whereas starships in TNG can sustain merely 2,700c. Anderson then uses this to conclude that newer ships are faster! This is supported by the fact that the UFP had apparently changed the method in which warp drives operated during TNG, DS9, and VOY. During those series, we heard about a UFP "speed limit" designed to preserve the environment, until the USS Voyager left with an early, ecologically friendly warp drive. This clearly contradicts what we see on his website. This is becoming a pattern on the site, with explanations of reasoning concluding with figures that are wholly dissimilar from the conclusions allegedly drawn from that reasoning.

[Editor's note: he uses ST5 for this 2E7c figure, but he neglects to mention that they could not possibly have been at the centre of our galaxy. The centre of our galaxy is a nightmare of black holes, free antimatter, etc., and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the modest planet-sized cloud we saw in ST5. Perhaps Sybok was being figurative when he said it was at the centre of the galaxy, but whatever the explanation, we can see quite clearly that this modest little planet bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual centre of the galaxy]

Anderson is incorrect in his statements that it is difficult to generate canon estimates for hyperdrive speeds from Star Wars. He concludes that "there is nothing in canon to support [speeds such as those reported in the EU]." Of course there isn't. There isn't any data to support such speeds, using purely canon data. Note how Anderson dismisses the EU out of hand for having different speeds for different ships in different areas. Anderson strongly implies that we should disregard EU hyperspace speeds due to the differences in them. He has essentially picked and chosen what parts of the EU to admit into his website. By implying that the speed differences observed in Star Wars hyperdrives prevent them from being accurate, but simultaneously dismissing the EU statements (and, in fact, statements in the movies) that indicate hyperdrives have radically different capabilities.

The canonical RotJ Novelization shows that the distance between Endor and Sullust (where the Rebel Fleet gathers) is hundreds of light years. "It [the Rebel fleet] was hundreds of light-years from the Death Star -- but in hyperspace, all time was a moment, and the deadliness of an attack was measured not in distance but in precision." (page 145) Now, we know that the Rebel fleet does not even jump into hyperspace until after Threepio informs Han that there is a secret entrance to the shield bunker "on the other side of the ridge." We're not real sure how long it takes the Rebel Fleet to arrive at Endor, but the difference could not reasonably be more than one day. The lower limit speed is thus 200 light years over twenty four hours, or nearly 75,000c. A much more reasonable speed is 400 light years over two hours, which comes out to 1,752,000c! Thus, we find a canonical example to support the figures demonstrated by some of the EU. This does not even take into account the canonical reference to different hyperdrives having different capabilities, but the rag-tag Rebel Fleet undoubtedly carried some ships that were relatively slow in hyperspace—it had transports, capital ships, and starfighters all moving as one! Since this is over 80 times Anderson's estimate for a "fast ship" in ST, it is fair to say that hyperdrive, even with just canon examples, is far faster than warp in the TNG era.

[Editor's note: numerous other supporting cases are found in TPM and AOTC as well, with travel from Core systems to the Outer Rim taking place in mere hours at most]

STL Drive

"Federation ships have incredible advantages over Imperial ships in acceleration."

Anderson has taken to claiming that a UFP starship, using only its impulse engines, could out-accelerate a ship that was capable of averaging more than 2000c over a 6 lightyear journey! See the corresponding SW STL Drive panel for details.

"Federation starships could run circles around their Imperial counterparts."

While Imperator-class ships are doubtless less maneuverable than the UFP's largest ships, they are also thousands of times more massive. The turn demonstrated by the damaged Tyrant after it was hit by Rebel ion-cannon fire in the Battle of Hoth demonstrated a spectacular turning ability, which is very similar to the demonstrated maneuverability of the two ships in "Emissary" [DS9] that Anderson mentions. It is clear that the ship was capable of excellent pitch and yaw control rates from what is shown immediately after it is hit.

We do have the interesting bit about the travel time from Coruscant to Naboo. Anderson is correct in stating that it is shown to be a real-space affair, because we do see the ship in real space, during the trip. We must also infer several things: the distance between Coruscant and Naboo must be greater than the distance between Naboo and Tatooine because the damaged Queen's starship in TPM could not make it to Coruscant, but could get to Tatooine to try to make repairs. Let us set the distance between Naboo and Tatooine as being a mere three light years, as that is about the smallest distance possible between two different star systems. Let us then set the distance between Naboo and Coruscant as being twice that distance, or six light years, and say that the trip took one day. The time-in-transit could hardly be more- Anakin was wearing the same clothing when he arrived on Naboo as he had been when the two were leaving Coruscant. Significant time dilation is impossible due to the ages of people not actually on board the ship remaining relatively unchanged from before the journey began to when it ended. Thus, if we assume, as Anderson did in his FTL Drive section, that the trip between Naboo and Coruscant was a real-space affair. We then get a figure of one light year every four hours. We thus see that the term "slower than light" travel in Star Wars is a bit of a misnomer. Using Anderson's own statements in the FTL and STL drive sections, we find that even in real space, the transport was averaging a respectable 2250c. Now remember that hyperdrives are always pegged as being significantly faster than real-space engines. More importantly, we find that even transport ships in a commercial flight in Star Wars totally outclass Star Trek in terms of speed in real space. In fact, Star Wars engines are more than twice as fast as Anderson's own "cruising" warp speed for most ships in Star Trek. In other words, using the slowest engines available to both sides, Star Wars ships are orders of magnitude faster than Star Trek ships, and doubtless significantly more maneuverable, in order to avoid debris from striking them at such speeds.

Also note that the ability to accelerate to such speeds eliminates the possibility of "a less-advanced, possibly Newtonian, approach" to propulsion.

Antigravity Technology

No real corrections here. The NX-01's shuttles appear to use antigravity, of some kind, as do most UFP shuttles. Their decidedly un-aerodynamic shapes, and lack of wheels, prevents them from being able to take off in a conventional manner, so they must use some form of anti-gravity device to help them life off from planets.

Again, no real corrections. It would have been nice if Anderson had cited his source properly on the bit about repulsorlifts requiring a considerable gravity field to push against, rather than merely an object, but it is reasonable in its other suppositions.


The most important thing to remember about this particular comparison is the obvious double standard that Anderson applies. Note that he qualifies the statement about UFP sensors with the following: "Barring interference (natural or artificial)." He then goes on to explain that SW ships require dedicated communications ships to jam scanners. Of course, this renders any comparison between the two sides that ensues with those qualifiers as being meaningless. Obviously, this could indicate numerous things about both sides: That SW ships use only comparatively primitive jamming, or that both their jamming and sensor capabilities are enormously advanced, and well past the capabilities of the UFP and its vessels. In addition to these blatant and deliberate omissions, Anderson then goes on to claim that Star Wars ships, because they cannot track into the obviously extra-dimensional hyperspace while remaining in real space, themselves, have no FTL sensors. This is clearly an improper line of reasoning.

Comparisons are usually only valid if all other factors are equal. This is an unusual occurrence in Star Wars vs. Star Trek comparisons, and it is very difficult to compare across the board. A similarly biased box in the sensors column, except obviously biased in the favor of Star Wars instead of Star Trek, will be included in quotes below the more serious discussion.

Star Trek sensors are only effective if they enjoy a lack of interference. Even natural and fairly common interference can prevent them from accurately scanning. Their sensors can track individual particles and note disturbances in them, but their incredibly poor computing power prevents the sensors for searching for, and focusing on, anomalous readings.

There is, quite obviously, evidence of FTL sensors in SW. The Rebels on Hoth were aware of the Imperial fleet moving out of hyperspace even before Lord Vader himself was informed. This would be impossible without FTL sensors of some sort. A ship cannot be tracked once it has entered hyperspace, as Anderson correctly contends. Again, warp strafing does not exist, and that statement will be dealt with in detail later on. Even if warp strafing did exist as a viable tactic, Imperial forces would be able to track incoming targets using the FTL sensors whose existence Anderson refuses to acknowledge.

Note the self-contradiction Anderson invokes in this box. In the Star Wars STL box he states that:

"Warsies claim that a screen in ROTJ showed the Imperial Fleet making a maneuver that would have involved acceleration of 30 km/s². However, it is not stated that the screen shows the Imperial fleet, and the scale of the screen is suspect. Further, the script suggests its the Rebel fleet approaching through hyperspace."

However he states here that Star Wars sensors "[c]annot track ships accurately at FTL speeds (ANH Novel)." Clearly he is contradicting himself by suggesting that the Imperial screen could track the Rebel fleet as it approached through hyperspace!

[Editor's note: this kind of inconsistent use of evidence is one of his most tiresome tactics; he says the display is showing the Rebel fleet or the Imperial fleet, depending on what's most convenient at the time]

It should also be noted that the canon TPM Novelization makes it clear that sensors in Star Wars can detect the Force itself. Since no one in Star Trek has ever been able to detect the Force, or any trace of it, we must accept that Star Trek sensors lack a major capability that Star Wars sensors possess.

Star Wars sensors may or may not be limited to tracking objects in real space, and therefore cannot actively track targets in hyperspace. Star Wars sensors are so good that dedicated starships need to be used in order to diminish the accuracy of opposing starships, and so much interference must be generated so as to prevent even friendly ships from using their sensors to the fullest. Star Wars sensors can track objects several light seconds away instantly, as demonstrated by [ROTJ], when the Rebels used sensors to discover the Rebel fleet dropping out of hyperspace even before the Imperial commanding officer was aware of it.


Again, Anderson falls for the fallacy of comparisons without similarity [aka false analogy fallacy]. Comparisons are only reasonable if all other factors are equal, and in this case we see that they are not. Star Trek vessels are compared [by RSA] only to Star Trek vessels, while Star Wars vessels are only compared to Star Wars vessels. There are no serious informational problems with this sub-comparison, but the conclusions generated are all erroneous or suspect.

"are remarkably tough little ships."

They are remarkably tough for Star Trek. Anderson qualifies this statement by explaining that runabouts had withstood weapons fire from Jem'Hadar ships. That is an obviously subjective interpretation of the evidence, particularly since Jem'Hadar firepower is not known to be particularly strong by Star Wars standards.

The link is broken to his acceleration page, but using "mixed canon and non-canon data [admitting the EU]," there are considerably better accelerations reported than the 130km/s² that Anderson reports. [Editor's note: and RSA reports the figure only to attack it as "non-canon" anyway; the Yavin circumnavigation figures are around 30 km/s², and those figures are based on ANH so they cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand and the magical "non-canon" incantation]

Destiny's Way reports engagement speeds nearing lightspeed. Additionally, the Naboo cruiser in TPM reached orbit in seconds- so quickly that it was already outside of Naboo's atmosphere when Qui-Gon arrived from the boarding ramp in the bridge. This would have required acceleration much greater than the 130km/s². This same trip to the bridge took Anakin Skywalker only seconds in the same movie, when he alerted the people there that Qui-Gon and Darth Maul were involved in a duel.

Special (but common) Tech

Transporters and replicators are definite advantages that the UFP has over the Galactic Empire. Transporter range is more interesting than Anderson mentions, but this seems a minor nitpick, and the range mentioned in "A Matter of Honor" is, indeed, 40,000 kilometers, though this range is demonstrated incorrect by the visuals.

[Editor's note: it should be noted, however, that the transporters' well-documented inability to penetrate dense heavy metals or operate in the presence of significant electromagnetic radiation will make them virtually useless against Imperial capships, so their only use is quick deployment and retrieval from planetary surfaces in the absence of solar flares, jammer fields, or electrical storms]

A debate on the topic of Anderson's bizarre assertion that another mechanism was in effect when the Death Star fired on Alderaan will be dealt with on the page that references it specifically.


The Federation has a large amount of experience with massive fleet engagements (DS9), bringing into play an amalgam of tactical and strategic concepts from air, sea, and land

[Editor's note: (chortle) he must be referring to the Federation which uses "Moving Wall" fleet tactics, Nelsonian-era ramming and boarding tactics, and ground troops with no armour, no artillery, no combined-arms tactics, no NBC gear, and who don't even wear helmets. This may be the single funniest line on his entire site]

Again, Anderson misrepresents facts. He showed us himself that Star Wars vessels can easily double the cruising speeds of UFP vessels in real-space. Moreoever, warp strafing does not appear to be an effective tactic, if it is even possible. This will be elaborated on during the rebuttal of his page discussing warp strafing.

Fleet encounters usually end up as close-range affairs, either to preclude the use of torpedoes (known to be unsafe if fired at extremely close range), or to preclude the use of fleet fire concentration on individual ships.

The part about how fleets close to very close range, however, is highly unusual, and demonstrates another double standard. In the Star Wars Sensor box, Anderson explained how Star Wars ships were primitive, because their sensor jamming could not selectively target and disable the sensors on enemy ships. Here Anderson explains how both sides wish to eliminate the use of torpedoes and combined fire from multiple starships from the battlefield, and thus both sides close the range of the engagement. He also utterly disregards visual evidence from Chintoka, in which the UFP and its allies closed the distance to a group of orbital weapons platforms, effectively (if Anderson is to be believed) eliminating their ability to use torpedoes. The platforms, equipped with regenerative protective measures but lacking their own torpedoes, prove all but immune to UFP weapons. Thus, the UFP and its allies have removed their ability to engage the enemy with their most powerful weapons for no apparent gain, particularly since their platforms are largely static and can therefore not maneuver effectively to throw off UFP weapons.

[Editor's note: the Federation fleet could not fire on the Chintoka platforms until they were literally within a kilometre of them, and the fleet was unable to concentrate fire on the "battle moon" once they figured out that it was supplying power to all the platforms, which gives you an idea of their limited range in any non-ideal environment]

Anderson uses the Empire Strikes Back novelization to state that the fleet at Hoth is considered "a great space armada," but neglects to mention the conference that that very novel explicitly describes. According to the novel (that Anderson cites as a source when determining that this is a "great space armada"), "Vader stands, staring out the window above the control deck. Then slowly turns toward the bridge. Before him are the hologram images of twenty battleship commanders." That's funny, seeing as how Anderson states that only six ships were involved in the fleet.

[Editor's note: it should also be noted that in an absolute sense, it is a great space armada, capable of enormous destructive power. The fact that the Empire has many such great armadas is hardly altered by this fact]

Also note the self-contradictions that again crop up. Anderson states that:

"Maneuvering tactics are almost non-existent, in part due to the bulk, sluggishness, and relative slowness of the ships. Ramming is also not performed, possibly due to the relative fragility of Imperial ships (The Executor's quick explosion upon colliding with the Death Star supports this notion.)"

Earlier, he stated that "some SW Galaxy ships are quite maneuverable, given their bulk (Home One turn in ROTJ)." In other words, ships in Star Wars are large and bulky, but also fairly maneuverable considering their size, but they are not nimble due to their bulk and sluggishness. This is clearly another self-contradiction. Also note that that paragraph break and the subsequent necessity for a transitional phrase back to Imperial ships in the first quote demonstrates conclusively that Anderson was not referring solely to Imperial ships, but to Star Wars ships in general.

"Ramming is also not performed, possibly due to the relative fragility of Imperial ships."

[Editor's note: unbelievable. Klingon Vor'cha cruisers get cut in half by Jem'Hadar fighters ramming them and he thinks SW ships are "fragile" because after taking hundreds of asteroids exploding against their hulls, one hits a bridge window and causes some internal damage?]

This is also not true. The A-Wing that destroyed the Executor's bridge clearly rammed the ship. In the Battle of Endor, according to the canonical novelization, there are numerous incidents of Rebel ships ramming Imperial ones [also, we saw many asteroids striking the ISD during the TESB asteroid-field scene without causing any damage, and the novelization described a "steady rain" of asteroids against its hull].

Finally, Anderson was made aware since early July 2002 that the Empire had more than two classes of capital ships, but he refuses to make the necessary update for his page, instead moving rapidly to new material while leaving significant deficiencies in his older works.

Ground Combat

Since a page exists solely for the discussion of ground combat on Anderson's site, the UFP claims on this topic will be examined in depth during those parts of this rebuttal.

Note how Anderson uses EU material in citing a speed for the AT-AT walker (he says, "according to some sources," in clear reference to the EU), therefore EU material is considered to be applicable for the purposes of this box. Therefore he is incorrect in his statements that air-support is lacking in the Empire. Numerous examples of Imperial air-support exist in the EU, including the use of several TIE variants. Additionally, Imperial ground forces are equipped with some shielded equipment9

Other Imperial forces are equipped with ground to air weapons, including missile launchers. Combat droids are frequently used in combat, and several varieties of stormtroopers exist for many purposes. In the time of the Republic, armed transports with ranges of hundreds of thousands of light years transported large armies to combat zones, and Imperator class Star Destroyers have inherited this role, maintaining pre-fabricated garrisons to be deployed relatively quickly. AT-AT walkers are nearly impregnable to all ground-based weapons fire, although starship weapons can destroy them if properly managed. Isard's Revenge suggests that proton torpedoes are required to do this, and proton torpedoes have yields of hundreds of megatons, though it is unclear whether or not the torpedoes in question were equipped with such large explosive charges. Disruptors can blast through at least a meter of duracrete, although limited to close range. Stormtroopers are sometimes equipped with weapons with very large payloads, including thermal detonators. Thermal detonators are grenade-like weapons, and the most powerful of them can demolish enormous skyscrapers by destroying their foundations. Star Trek has no comparable weapons to repeating blasters, firing shots that each impart kilotons worth of energy.

Other Special Advantages

"Medical technology and knowledge seem to be far more advanced in the Federation. Compare the ability to repair almost any non-lethal wound to the use of artificial limbs, peculiar medical watertanks, and Darth Vader's suit in Star Wars. Granted, they are advanced artificial limbs, but artificial limbs all the same."

The medical technology required to keep Vader alive is extraordinary. His spine required complete replacement of numerous vertebrae.10 "Ethics" [TNG], revealed that UFP doctors are incapable of performing similar operations, even in life-or-death scenarios.

Also note that there is no canonical Star Wars account of a disease. Therefore, disease does not exist within Star Wars, demonstrating that in Star Wars all disease has been eliminated. This clearly indicates that Star Wars medical technology is considerably better than that of the UFP, in which disease is still a consistent problem. In fact, the UFP does not even have established parameters for dealing with disease, as is revealed in "Angel One" [TNG].

"Starfleet ships are capable of precision attacks to disable enemy ship systems ("Shockwave"[ENT], "The Defector"[TNG], "The Wounded"[TNG], etc.), whereas the Empire seems capable of just firing and hoping for the best (ANH)."

Analysis of the comparative firepower levels and accuracy of the two sides will later make it clear that Star Wars accuracy, even in the terms with which it is described here, is more than sufficient to win a war against the UFP. This will be elaborated on in a different page.

Droids may also present quite an advantage, though apparently few are as sentient, intelligent, and resourceful as C-3P0 and R2-D2.

[Editor's note: welcome to RSA's house of madness. Now he's saying that C3PO and R2D2 are somehow special, even though both are stock units. C3PO was literally cobbled together from parts found around a junkyard, and R2D2 was a mass-manufactured astromech droid, of an obviously popular and recognizable model (the children on Tatooine recognized him as such immediately)]

"On the other hand, most people in the Republic thought droids couldn't think at all. And, actually, given that droids are subject to electronic hallucinations (ANH novelisation, p. 9), perhaps droids ought to be left out."

Frankly, the final few boxes of Anderson's "Overview" become increasingly bizarre. Here he is saying that droids represent no advantage because they are a piece of machinery and do not think. This makes little or no sense. By that token, turbolasers, shields, transporters, and starships should all be eliminated from the debate. The second statement is equally bizarre. Hallucinations make things worthless, so droids should be excluded. By that token, all people on both sides should similarly be excluded from the debate. The fact is that droids represent a significant tactical and strategic asset of the Empire, and by eliminating them, Anderson is arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be included on his website.

Anderson writes that "Starfleet ships are capable of precision attacks to disable enemy ship systems ("Shockwave"[ENT], "The Defector"[TNG], "The Wounded"[TNG], etc.), the Empire seems capable of just firing and hoping for the best (ANH)." Again, Anderson ignores canonical evidence. The RotJ Novelization refers to Admiral Ackbar ordering his fleet to, "Concentrate your fire on their [Executor's] power generators. If we can knock out their shields, our fighters might stand a chance against them."

Other Special Disadvantages

"Federation warp engines make large targets."*

This is kind of an odd comment, seeing as how he stated previously that Imperial ships are incapable of targeting specific aspects of a ship. The problem with the warp-nacelles is the ease with which they are damaged due to their exposed positions. Moreover, this is a box dubbed "Other Special Disadvantages." Something is not really a disadvantage unless it becomes important during a conflict (which Anderson said that this would not, when he claimed Imperial vessels could not target individual components of starships), and if it is a disadvantage unique to one particular side. Since, when speaking of Imperial disadvantages, Anderson states "Those huge engines make huge targets," we see that this particular disadvantage fails under both criteria.

In any case, the primary Star Trek disadvantage is not mentioned here. That is that their ships are unreliable. Their systems are constantly breaking down for no apparent reason. Also note that, while there have been numerous computer glitches and the like in the Star Trek universe, there has never been any comparable problem in a canonical Star Wars reference. Finally, the plasma conduits seen frequently on the bridges of UFP ships pose a danger to the crew in combat situations.

[Editor's note: one of their biggest problems is an over-reliance on one-note solutions. They have a "jack of all trades, master of none" approach to everything from personnel training to starship design. All of their scanners are subspace, for example, so all of them simultaneously become useless in the presence of interference which jams them but which would have no effect on ordinary optics or radar. They use naval bridge officers for covert ground-force operations in enemy territory. They train everyone from enlisted men to officers in the Academy, giving them years of knowledge which they mostly won't need. Personnel are considered literally interchangeable between jobs. They do not understand combined-arms tactics on the ground. They use just one type of beam weapon and one type of missile (compare this to SW, with its turbolasers, blasters, ion cannons, seismic charges, thermal detonators, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, heavy missiles, strategic warheads, light sabres, superlasers of various sizes, etc)]

"One would think that the larger ships must have a horrible response time to emergency conditions."

This is truly a bizarre statement. Anderson is trying to use subjective reasoning in the place of objective fact. "Not only does the Empire still use gunnery crews on the ship's periphery (not used in Trek since TOS in favor of direct weapons control from the bridge)," Anderson then goes on to claim that the use of sub-systems and independent stations (which improve response time) is a weakness. [Editor's note: amazingly, it doesn't occur to him that a manned system is actually superior, because over-automation makes it easier to "stop up the drain", to use Scotty's famous line. In the event of damage to the control circuits between the bridge and the gunnery station, an Imperial gunner can go to local override and continue to do his job. But on a Federation ship (as we've seen many times), such damage renders the ship toothless] This is merely another in the long list of Anderson's self-contradictions revealed on his "Overview" page. Again he uses subjective reasoning to draw a conclusion which may or may not be correct:

"[S]hips of such colossal size would make "Imperial Rapid Response" an oxymoron."

[Editor's note: truly strange. He seems to think it's impossible for the crew of a starship to work quickly if it's large. Why, then, was the Imperial fleet able to ambush the Rebel fleet by sweeping around the Endor moon in less than a minute after their arrival?]

"Those huge engines make huge targets. Really huge. Downright massive."

This is truly a bizarre statement. Not only is it a mess, grammatically (Anderson dismisses some critics due to their grammatical deficiencies11), but it also appears to be completely and totally irrelevant. There is no canon evidence that the engines of an ISD are particularly weak or poorly protected.

[Editor's note: the destructive backwash from the engines would probably destroy any torpedo long before impact, and we already know that ray shielding can allow exhaust to get out from the example of the DS exhaust port, so you can't expect to punch through it with energy weapons either]


* Since the time of this writing, Mr. Anderson has quietly changed this sentence to read, "Federation warp engines make large targets. Really huge. Downright massive." His intent was clearly to better parallel his statement about Imperial engines. The meaning of the sentence is unchanged.

1 Robert Scott Anderson, A Brief Comparison of Federation and Empire (November 30, 2002).

2 Spike, Spike's Star Trek Page: Graphics, Okudagrams, Displays, Maps, and Labels (September 14, 2002)

3 The Sol Company, Alpha Centauri 3 (1998-2002).

4 Robert Scott Anderson, The Alderaan Shield Fallacy, (November 30, 2002).

5 Doctor Curtis Saxton, Star Wars Technical Commentaries: Death Stars (April 2, 2002)

6 Doctor Curtis Saxton, Star Wars Technical Commentaries: Warships of the Empire (April 25, 2001).

7 (Various) Ripping Apart DarkStar's Cowardly Attempt to Avoid Criticism (July 6, 2002).

8 Doctor Curtis Saxton, Star Wars Technical Commentaries: Star Destroyers (June 2, 2001).

9 Bill Smith, The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. Del Ray Books, New York, NY (November 1997).

10 Doctor Curtis Saxton, Star Wars Technical Commentaries: Injuries of Darth Vader (May 31, 2002).

11 Robert Scott Anderson, Prior Feedback (September 14, 2002)