StarKiller {SPOILER}

[B.J.]

Boats aren't designed to go on land, yet you can beach a boat without crashing it. Is there an equivalent term for spacecraft?

"Landing." The space shuttle used to do it quite regularly, as did Luke's X-Wing and the Millenium Falcon.

But landing is something those particular craft are designed for, meaning it's a normal and controlled operation. Most boats are not designed to be beached. Beaching usually denotes some control, just short of crashing it, even though it's outside the boat's designed operation. You don't "land" a Star Destroyer, since that would infer it's part of its normal operation, but you wouldn't crash it either. I think we need a new term here.

 

[Ithekro]

Impact.

 

[Reverend]

Has it occurred to anyone that only the bits *above* the sand are "relatively" intact? Soft landing or no, the lower decks were probably pancaked from the sheer pressure sitting on top of them.

Plus IIRC at least on of the Star Destroyers we see is visibly damaged from the landfall, with it's nose sheered and bent upwards and the hull buckled and broken all along it's length.

Maybe the one Rey was scavenging from is one of a few that managed to slow down enough, or came in at a shallow enough angle to come out of it in more-or-less one piece. Still a right-off with no hope of ever flying again (let alone holding atmospheric pressure) but also not a crater of unrecognisable junk like you'd expect from an uncontrolled vertical decent.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

But landing is something those particular craft are designed for, meaning it's a normal and controlled operation. Most boats are not designed to be beached. Beaching usually denotes some control, just short of crashing it, even though it's outside the boat's designed operation. You don't "land" a Star Destroyer, since that would infer it's part of its normal operation, but you wouldn't crash it either. I think we need a new term here.

I'm just telling you the term. When an aircraft (or spacecraft) touches down, it's either a controlled landing or a crash landing. It's very much a binary, either-or term. There's no such thing as a "controlled crash landing."

 

[The Old Mixer]

I've seen landing on a carrier described as a "controlled crash".

 

[Reverend]

^That's more an informal testament to the difficultly, not the end result. Trust me, there's a world of difference between crashing on an aircraft carrier and not crashing on an aircraft carrier. There's no middle ground.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Do you speak from experience? Because the people who use the term do. What you're talking about is the difference between whether or not the word "controlled" is there.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Do you speak from experience? Because the people who use the term do. What you're talking about is the difference between whether or not the word "controlled" is there.

What you're talking about is slang, not a technical term, and one generally used to tease a pilot who made a really shitty controlled landing. There is no middle ground between the two; you either land successfully in a controlled landing or you don't and have a crash landing. No matter what your friend of a friend who knows a guy who once met a guy who overheard some guys talking about another guy they knew who worked on an aircraft carrier said.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's a term used by carrier pilots to describe landing on aircraft carriers in general, and well-documented, not a personal anecdote. Google "carrier landing controlled crash" or something similar and you'll find plenty of results from different sources.

(Or here, let me do that for you.)

They've done tests that show that carrier landing is more stressful to the pilots than combat. They are effectively coming to a controlled crash because the carrier deck isn't long enough for a proper landing...they have to use the tailhook to rapidly bring their speed down...and with their throttle open in case they miss.

And if you've never performed a carrier landing yourself, then I don't think you're anyone to argue with the terminology of those who have.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

For fuck's sake. It's described as a "controlled crash" as a slang term used in a joking fashion, and usually by the pilot's performing or observing them. What are you not getting about that? Even the various links you pointed to on Google say the same thing.

"In the real world landing on a carrier is essentially a controlled crash..."
"...described landing on a carrier as a 'controlled crash'..."
"Pilots call them controlled crashes: a crash because of the need to land hard, with the throttle wide open; controlled because the flier is trained to do it that way."

etc.

The actual, technical term for landing on a carrier is... wait for it... wait for it....: A carrier landing. You either do it successfully and land the craft, or you don't and crash the craft. Once again -- there is no middle ground.

Do you know what other type of landing pilots jokingly refer to as "controlled crashes?" Any landing by a helicopter.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It may be military jargon, but it's an actual term, and it's used for a reason. There's definitely a difference between what they do on carriers and an airstrip landing. It's a big hole in your stubborn "either/or, nothing in-between". And you're hardly an expert on it, considering that you thought that it was "used to tease a pilot who made a really shitty controlled landing" and that it was something that my "friend of a friend who knows a guy who once met a guy who overheard some guys talking about another guy they knew who worked on an aircraft carrier said." All of those search results prove that you never had a clue what you were talking about.

 

[Ithekro]

Either way, that is not what the Star Destroyers did on Jakku.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

It may be military jargon, but it's an actual term, and it's used for a reason. There's definitely a difference between what they do on carriers and an airstrip landing. It's a big hole in your stubborn "either/or, nothing in-between". And you're hardly an expert on it, considering that you thought that it was "used to tease a pilot who made a really shitty controlled landing" and that it was something that my "friend of a friend who knows a guy who once met a guy who overheard some guys talking about another guy they knew who worked on an aircraft carrier said." All of those search results prove that you never had a clue what you were talking about.

It's amazing how intentionally obtuse some people are, especially their inability to admit they're wrong and just deal with it. (Which, as an aside, you still are. But it's obvious there's no way to convince you of that. Ignorance is bliss and all that.)

That said, I find it immensely humorous that your only source of wisdom on the topic comes from (really bad) Google searches, while assuming the person correcting you -- and again, I'm most definitely correcting you -- doesn't know what they're talking about. Here's a small hint: I regularly fly into and out of Mexico City on a regular basis... and not as a passenger.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's amazing how intentionally obtuse some people are, especially their inability to admit they're wrong and just deal with it.

Sounds like you're talking about yourself. You've produced nothing to prove that I'm wrong, and I easily produced evidence that you were. To say nothing of your winning personality (e.g., "For fuck's sake").

 

[Neroon]

Sounds like you're talking about yourself. You've produced nothing to prove that I'm wrong, and I easily produced evidence that you were. To say nothing of your winning personality (e.g., "For fuck's sake").

Both of you take it easy. Disagreements are noted, replies offered. Leave it at that and stay away from the personal attacks

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I've missed out on the last few pages, probably a good thing, but it seems to me the big planet-busting weapons of the Star Wars universe are exercises in overkill. You want to reduce a planet like Earth to cinders? Easy-peasy. Push its own moon into it. Not as splashy as pumping a ridiculous amount of energy into the planet so as to blow it to bits, but either way you've made your point. Lacking a moon to push around, drag some asteroids with you and sling them where you wish. Annihilate approximately 5% of the habitable surface, and all life will get snuffed in due time. Not exciting by movie standards, but loads more logical.

 

[Ithekro]

Civilizations of this scale would likely have counters for asteroids. A full on moon, probably not, but weapons, shields, and tractor beam technologies might help. And after that, the population might escape or again given the scale of this civilization, they might be able to survive a planetary catastrophe. They won't survive the entire crust cracking and the insides coming out violently like a Death Star.

 

[Reverend]

I think overkill was the whole point. It was a naked display of overwhelming force and the terrifying might of the Empire, embodied in one battle station. The flip side of course was that it was also a massive display of hubris.

Also don't forget that there's a lot of Flash Gordon style pulp comic book fantasy in Star Wars and ridiculous, dastardly super-weapons created by the equally ridiculous evil villain was a fairly common trope. It was basically an archetypal death-ray (the clue is in the name. )

 

[CommanderTrip]

I'm sorry, still a little confused on this. So, Starkiller base. It drains a star to power its weapon. I get that. What I don't get is that does it have an orbit like Earth, and it just drains some energy from its sun to use its weapon, or is it mobile like the Deathstar, and it travels to different systems and drains the stars of all their energy?

 

[Ithekro]

I supposedly is mobile. Otherwise it be useless after draining its local star. My guess is it would go to the system it destroyed and use that star to power the next shot, as no one is using that star anymore.