Considering that sound can't travel through vacuum.

  • 5
    If you watched Star Wars without the sound effects, just think how boring it would be. You may as well go see a silent film.
    – Cameron
    Commented Feb 13, 2011 at 20:43
  • 66
    This, among many other things, is why Star Wars is sci-fantasy bordering on straight fantasy. :)
    – DampeS8N
    Commented Feb 13, 2011 at 22:29
  • 16
    In the EVE Online lore, an in-universe designer mentions that "[a]s you know there is no sound in space, but [while] developing the capsules we found that people wanted to use as many of their senses as possible, thus we added the sound. By letting a computer create three dimensional sound we also add to the awareness you have while in battles, for instance."
    – Nick T
    Commented Oct 4, 2011 at 15:50
  • 26
    Because...[answer drowned out by sound of millennium falcon flying by]...and that's why.
    – Valorum
    Commented Mar 13, 2014 at 20:32
  • 3
    @NickT So "audio emulators" as mentioned a couple of times in Mass Effect 3?
    – IG_42
    Commented Dec 31, 2015 at 9:46

14 Answers 14


In one of the many, many shows that covered scientific inadequecies in Star Wars, it was explained that because the engines used ions, and space is not truly empty, the sound was transmitted through the little gas that was there. I guess this could explain why few ships actually used thrusters to change attitude in space also. Weak, but it was all they could come up with.

  • 9
    The density of matter in space is so low that you'd barely even register it as a pressure wave... if one was even created. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 4:09
  • 19
    When J. Michael Straczynski (you know you're a fan if you can type that name without thinking) was preparing for production on Babylon 5, he and his crew sent out questionnaires to many scientists about such issues. He stated, online, that they were surprised that many scientists said that air expanding from the exploding ship could carry sound. (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsNoisy - click on Live Action under TV)
    – Tango
    Commented Jun 22, 2011 at 23:57
  • @Tango Do you remember if the discussion involved particle charges in the expanding gas? In space, with an atmosphere to dampen energies of all kinds, particle charge could perhaps be more effective (than normal) at transmitting aspects of the explosion – which conversely could be detected by appropriate sensors, and render explosion phenomenon in the acoustic range. High-bandwidth information in the range of human senses would trump limited awareness (by forcing data to remain in the realm of visual-sensor-readout). Since this is retcon, I'm commenting instead of answering Commented Nov 24, 2014 at 17:54
  • @NewAlexandria: No, I do not. It might be possible to find JMS' comments on it, since they were on Usenet and would be archived. (I'd suggest using 'jms' for his name or jms@b5 or maybe [email protected], he used one of the latter two, but I don't remember which when he signed his posts.) Add in, maybe, "Sound in space" and that might narrow down the hits. I do remember they had responses from well known groups and organizations. I think they even worked with JPL on a few things to make sure they were accurate.
    – Tango
    Commented Nov 24, 2014 at 21:12
  • Especially those sonic mines over Geonosis from Slave I......sounded cool but made no sense from a physics perspective. Commented Apr 5, 2021 at 3:02

Not just explosions, you can hear music, too. With any possible reasons to describe explosion hearing, you can't explain the music.

So, it's clear: Explosions are listened to by us only (we are third persons outside the movie). Skywalker & Kenobi would be unable to hear explosions.

  • 35
    My favourite answer. I don't understand why you have to look for a scientific rationale when it is clear that what you hear in movies as a viewer is not necessarily meant to be the exact same thing you would hear had you actually been there. Music is, of course, the first thing that comes to the mind.
    – Malcolm
    Commented Feb 27, 2012 at 22:31
  • Good point, we as viewers hear things the characters might hear. The person firing a weapon system from a starfighter will hear it, and will hear their own engines. The person in an exploding starfighter will hear the explosion. Pretty damn loud, too! ; ) Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 15:13
  • 2
    Wait... you mean Luke didn't hear dramatic music suddenly start around him any time he saw Vader? Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 15:14

It is for dramatic effect to enhance the story. No science in sight! :)

  • 39
    Actually, the original movie's novelization included a quick explanation for (at least part) of this - The computer provided the sound of the TIE engines to give Luke/Han some situational awareness while they manned the quad guns. By simulating the sounds, Han/Luke could tell where (in relation to them) the TIE's that were out of sight were at any given time, without needing to look at (and potentially misread) instrument panels.
    – Jeff
    Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 19:54
  • 5
    The inertia dampers in the XWing cockpits were also designed for situational awareness. Wedge partially blames Jed Portkin's inertia damper settings as a reason why he died.
    – surfasb
    Commented Jan 21, 2012 at 19:36

The claim that explosion sound effects in the vacuum of space is "wrong" assumes that the microphone is at the same place as the camera. But neither the microphone nor the camera are part of the story; they're part of the medium through which the story is told.

  • 18
    Just what I was thinking. When you’re watching Star Wars YOU ARE NOT IN SPACE. This is why you can hear telepathic force conversations too, despite not being inside Luke’s mind. Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 12:37
  • Great point @PaulD.Waite! why DO we all demand rationale for space explosions but never for Kenobi's ghostly warnings? Commented Jan 12, 2016 at 3:28

The canon novel Lords of the Sith makes explicit the fact that characters in-universe cannot hear explosions in the vacuum of space. For example, on page 16:

[Vader's] interceptor streaked toward the gun bubble, aimed directly at it. Content with the trajectory, he unstrapped himself, overrode the interceptor’s safeties, threw open the cockpit hatch, and ejected into space.

Immediately he was spinning in the zero-g, the ship and stars alternating positions with rapidity. Yet he kept his mental hold on the air-lock handle, and his armor, sealed and pressurized, sustained him in the vacuum. The respirator was loud in his ears.

His ship slammed into the gun bubble and the transport, the inability of the vacuum to transmit sound causing the collision to occur in eerie silence. Fire flared for a moment, but only a moment before the vacuum extinguished it.

We therefore have to interpret the sounds we hear in the films as an out-of-universe artifact (i.e. as observers, we can hear the sound of a ship exploding as if we were inside the ship itself).


If you're looking for some kind of excuse try claiming that the explosions are hot enough to create plasma and you are listening to a unfiltered radio receiver.

It's not a great explanation---the details aren't right---but for something to hang suspension of disbelief on, it'll do.

And it covers the guns, too, if they work on magnetohydrodynamic principles.

  • 6
    And the big explosions, the ones that tear spacestaions or planets apart, would generate a lot of electromagnetic noise, so you might be able to justify it that way. Also bothersome to me are the 2D ring shockwaves. I think its somewhat in imitation of the shocks we see in pictures of explosions from the Vietnam war. But that is the effect of an interaction of a shockwave and the surface (mach stem), and would not hapen in space. Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 0:55
  • 3
    But, @Omega, they look so cool! Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 1:17
  • 2
    I'm with Omega Centauri. Yeah they do look cool .. on a surface. In space they just make no sense at all.
    – JustJeff
    Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 1:58
  • @JustJeff: You might want to turn on your sarcasm detector. But you can't watch that kind of show without turning your suspension of disbelief up to eleven anyway. In fact, I can't watch the alleged prequels at all. ObXKCD: Too bad they only ever made the three of them. Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 2:03
  • 2
    sarcasm was, in fact detected, which is why i didn't aim my previous comment at you as such. it's just that the prequels were such a disappointment that i wasn't content to merely +1 Omega's comment w/o amplifying it a bit. Meesa think chuckems all and try again!
    – JustJeff
    Commented Feb 14, 2011 at 23:12

It was learned with 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), released in 1968, that 100% pure space realism doesn't make for good sound design. It managed to be dramatic enough through its own silence, but that was part of the art of the film.

When audiences see an explosion, they expect to hear it. That's been our experience since birth; things that drop make a noise when they hit, and things that explode make a bang. This is so ingrained in us that many times even depictions of real explosions in documentary-type shows, filmed from a distance for safety, have the explosion part of the soundtrack brought up to match the blast. Otherwise, we'd think that they screwed up the sound-to-video matchup in post-production.

So, out-of-universe, most space sci-fi movies have put sounds in space; the Enterprise whooshing by, sounds of phasers, blasters, and torpedos heard in shots taken from an in-space POV, even the "puff" of thrusters firing in Apollo 13 (1995), which was very technically accurate in most other respects. Sometimes it can be explained that, although the POV is outside, we're listening to what someone inside the ship that we're looking at would hear reverberating from the hull of the ship through the inside atmosphere; that explains 99.9% of the sounds in Apollo 13. However, most of the Star Trek and Star Wars sound design simply cannot be backed up by real physics; it's simply more dramatic to engage both sight and sound in a movie, and when that movie is in a theater, even feel (as the shock wave of the sound reproduction of the explosion "hits" you, and low rumbles resonate in your seat).

I can think of only one of the "pop" sci-fi movies after 2001:A Space Odyssey where the silence of space was ever illustrated, and that's Star Trek (2009), where the woman is sucked out through a hull breach in the Kelvin into the vacuum in the initial scenes; the full perspective of the battle is right in front of you but I think even the explosions and phaser fire is cut out, leaving just a subdued music track for the shot of her floating away amidst debris from the Kelvin and weapons fire from both ships. Again, its sole purpose is not technical accuracy but rather drama; our rational mind expects silence in a vacuum, so we get a taste, and we suspend disbelief and are sucked into the universe of the movie, after which they can do whatever they want sound-wise (like the "light-speed boom" of a ship entering Warp).

  • I read a book about George Lucas (years ago, sadly, so I don't remember exactly what book it was) that said Lucas considered 2001 to be the greatest "space movie" ever, and that he consciously decided that an action movie like Star Wars should let viewers hear sounds in space, despite the science. Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 20:11

Pablo Hidalgo (Head of the Lucasfilm's Star Wars Story Group) spoke to this in a recent tweet. In short, ships in the Star Wars universe don't travel through pure vacuum. They instead travel through a form of invisible matter called "ether".

Among other things, this explains how the audible compression waves that would be caused by an explosion in air can also be heard in space.

PH: If you need to, you could say the interstellar medium in Star Wars does have an ether, which would explain such pulpy things as sound, concussion rings, visible drag, and such odd tech callouts as "an etheric rudder" from Heir to the Empire. Only if you ⋆really⋆ need to, though.

Like if it helps you sleep at night and whatnot.

  • A downvote? Why hast thou forsaken me?
    – Valorum
    Commented Jan 1, 2018 at 12:30
  • The tweet no longer exists. Without context I can only guess, but this sounds somewhat non-canon to me. Like he's saying "you can think this to yourself if it makes you feel better"; but not that it's an actual canon explanation.
    – JMac
    Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 18:28
  • @JMac - There are other mentions of 'ether' in other Star Wars fiction. This was, however, the most clear and unambiguous reference.
    – Valorum
    Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 18:39

I heard JMS once say that an astrophysicist told him that you CAN hear explosions in space - just not the way they sound in movies. Specifically, if you have an explosion, part of the makeup of that explosion is something that will carry the sound waves (like oxygen). So when the (whatever) explodes, you'll "hear" it when the gases involved in the explosion reach you.

  • 9
    And you're vapourised in the firey wave of death... Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 4:11
  • 3
    I think that JMS also said that one could consider the sounds as being from the point of view of the people on the ships that were exploding, or the ships firing weapons. He also said that viewers were free to consider these sounds as part of the score. (I think this was from usenet, quoted on the Lurker's Guide site somewhere?) Commented Jun 23, 2011 at 4:30
  • 2
    In so far as what people think of when they think "sound", JMS is wrong. An explosion might propagate gas so it collides with another ship, "sound" would be so attenuated as to not be audible to humans. A distant nuclear explosion might "ring" or "bang" a ship but that's the concussion of vaporized materials from the ship you are on. I imagine it would feel like a submarine's close call with a depth charge. There's not a very big difference in distance between total destruction and getting your "bell rung".
    – Jim2B
    Commented Mar 23, 2015 at 3:19

I was under the impression that, on some scenes, it was done properly.

For instance, when Fett was chasing Obi-Wan in the asteroid, the sound from the explosions had a delay. Which was the time required for the shockwave to reach the ship.

EDIT: When I said shockwave, I meant the shrapnel + gas + whatever was expanding in those explosions. Those would reach the ship and transmit the vibrations.

Depending on the distance to the explosion, that could produce a considerable amount of sound inside the cabin (which does have air), but not damaging the ship in any significant way.

  • The shockwaves don't reach the ship though, otherwise it would have blown up. Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 4:13
  • 3
    The shock wave would propagate through air, not in a vacuum (in a vacuum, if you get hit, it's not by a shock wave (sound), it's by shrapnel). That was the whole point of the question.
    – user56
    Commented Apr 20, 2011 at 6:58
  • 1
    This is the right answer. The effect is exaggerated, of course, just as the effects of firearms and explosives are exaggerated in atmosphere in every movie I have ever seen. Explosions are caused by part of a solid (or other materials) being turned into a rapidly expanding cloud of gas. When that gas reaches another ship, it would transmit/create sound when it impacts the hull. Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 17:48
  • There might also be a second effect, without intervening atmosphere, other than the minimal gases from the explosions, the radiant energy of lasers or exceptionally bright explosions (like nuclear) might create sound within ships by causing their hulls to expand rapidly, even if only to minimal extent. Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 17:51
  • Actually it was Obi-Wan who was chasing the Fetts (plural)
    – PStag
    Commented Dec 31, 2015 at 0:41

It's set in a different galaxy with different physics, much more fantastical, where science of our universe has no sway.

According to George Lucas himself:

RS: You firmly establish that at the beginning of Star Wars with the words: “A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…”

Lucas: Well, I had a real problem because I was afraid that science-fiction buffs and everybody would say things like, “You know there’s no sound in outer space”. I just wanted to forget science. That would take care of itself. Stanley Kubrick made the ultimate science-fiction movie and it is going to be very hard for somebody to come along and make a better movie, as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t want to make a 2001, I wanted to make a space fantasy that was more in the genre of Edgar Rice Burroughs; that whole other end of space fantasy that was there before science took it over in the Fifties. Once the atomic bomb came, everybody got into monsters and science and what would happen with this and what would happen with that. I think speculative fiction is very valid but they forgot the fairy tales and the dragons and Tolkien and all the real heroes. (Source)

H/T Valorum!


In the early 80's NPR adapted the original trilogy for radio. In the first part, they explain that the Falcon added the sounds as an aural clue to what was happening nearby.

HAN: Off you go. When you're in, put on your headset and we'll run you through a couple of test traverses!


HAN: Good. Your sensors'll give you an audio simulation for a rough idea of where those fighters are when they're not on your screen. It'll sound like they're right there in the turret with you.

LUKE: Got it.

  • 2
    I've taken the liberty of adding in the quote you're referring to.
    – Valorum
    Commented May 8, 2022 at 19:05

I seem to recall somewhere - maybe in the A New Hope novelization - Han explaining that the sounds are added by the ship's computer, based on its sensor data, as a way to alert personnel (gunners in this case) about the position of ships without taking their eyes off the sights or needing a lot of interpretation.

So if your ship - say an X-Wing - picks up an exploding TIE fighter off on the left, it plays an appropriate sound, and you know that the TIE fighter on the left blew up without having to look at it. If it detects something coming up alongside you, it plays an appropriate engine noise. That sort of thing.


You can read sound optically: try Googling "laser microphone".

And anyway, the viewer is supposed to enjoy a godlike viewing experience, there nothing to say that the viewer is forced to live with the limitations of the human body and senses. As long as the characters don't hear the sounds, everything else is okay.

One might as well complain when we are treated to a swooping establishing aerial view of a historical battle, "But that's stupid, people wouldn't see that in real life, they didn't have helicopters in the Nineteenth Century!" Or think about indoor scenes when we follow characters from the side as they walk through doors, or where we see an interior view of a scene in a 10ft wide kitchen, with the camera 20ft away, because it's a set and the obstructing walls aren't there.

Imagine how upset physicists would be if they were presenting the latest computer-generated flythough of the structure of our galaxy, or a deep space survey of galaxy clusters spanning hundreds of millions of lightyears, if some "Sheldon" stood up in the audience and declared "You've got the physics all wrong! your observer is travelling at vastly more than the speed of light! This video shouldn't take five minutes it should take hundreds of years! It's been sped up! And where's the Doppler shifts? Fake!"

  • Not to mention the musical sound track. Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 15:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.