Where's my explanation for TIE bombers?
That crashed star destroyer in Force Awakens
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
They'd probably say something like "oh that asteroid was extra dense" or "It launched those bombs, not dropped them!" maybe something about a magnetic field idk.
The Y-Wings in Rogue One also dropped bombs. Which is the first we've actually seen them do that in a movie, outside of the Death Star attack diagram in ANH.
Last edited:
To me this is akin to Spock saying he likes one android and hates another.
I'd be more worried about why that asteroid's gravity was perpendicular to it's surface...I mean that space slug burrow was a straight vertical shaft down from the surface and the Falcon landed on the inner edge and yet they were able to walk around with no issue...
The answer is: don't think about it!
For years I didn't. Stupid internet.I'd be more worried about why that asteroid's gravity was perpendicular to it's surface...I mean that space slug burrow was a straight vertical shaft down from the surface and the Falcon landed on the inner edge and yet they were able to walk around with no issue...
The answer is: don't think about it!
I can honestly say I've never thought about how science or gravity apply to the space slug. And I never will.
Also to fly down into the asteroid its arsehole was wide enough for a ship to come inside. So does that slug hop from rock to rock or is it part of the rock? Is the rock not a rock but part of its body? Han must have known about it so that's why he landed the ship there.
I’m really more interested just how messed up Ker Bif was after lots of the DS2 wreckage wound up on the planet. The novelization of TROS also mentioned that the Ewok moon got some wreckage deposits as well.
Yeah about that. What planet was the wreckage where Palpy is in Rise Of Skywalker? I find that whole movie hard to take seriously.
Last edited:
The problem I have with floating ISDs is that it made the Victory class less important.
Here was this huge ship that made it part way into the atmosphere (like nu-Galactica) and now all of a sudden flight is no big deal.
Only First Order era Finalizer ships should float.
Here was this huge ship that made it part way into the atmosphere (like nu-Galactica) and now all of a sudden flight is no big deal.
Only First Order era Finalizer ships should float.
Personally, I find Star Destroyers floating within an atmosphere a bit silly looking, and have thought so ever since we first started seeing them on Rebels. Though I accept with technology being what it is in the Star Wars universe, there's no reason why the Star Destroyers shouldn't be capable of atmospheric flight. I just think it looks silly.
This is my question. We have already seen ISDs in Rogue One above Jedha city. Star Wars has always been "rule of cool" vs. practical science.
We already had Venator Star Destroyers in The Clone Wars doing landing operations.
As for the Victory-class Star Destroyers. Instead of just being able to operate in the atmosphere (since Star Destroyers can clearly do that now), have them able to perform combat maneuvers in atmosphere easily, without being ponderous, like the other Star Destroyers. There were a few engagements in atmosphere in The Clone Wars (and technically in Revenge of the Sith) were the Star Destroyers, while functional, were not at their best. A most combat capable Victory-class Star Destroyer would be an asset for such operation. Not only because it would be more maneuverable in the atmosphere, but also because it was more of a battlecruiser than a battlecarrier. The Venator-class was very much a battlecarrier with that giant flight deck. The Victory would be a better combat warship, but has few starfighter assets, and likely isn't as suited for delivery of massive ground armies to world. The Imperial-class Star Destroyer would take both the heavy combat quality of the Victory and the fighter and troop carrying compliments of the Venator, and make a larger, more intimidating Star Destroyer for Palpatine's rule.
As for the Victory-class Star Destroyers. Instead of just being able to operate in the atmosphere (since Star Destroyers can clearly do that now), have them able to perform combat maneuvers in atmosphere easily, without being ponderous, like the other Star Destroyers. There were a few engagements in atmosphere in The Clone Wars (and technically in Revenge of the Sith) were the Star Destroyers, while functional, were not at their best. A most combat capable Victory-class Star Destroyer would be an asset for such operation. Not only because it would be more maneuverable in the atmosphere, but also because it was more of a battlecruiser than a battlecarrier. The Venator-class was very much a battlecarrier with that giant flight deck. The Victory would be a better combat warship, but has few starfighter assets, and likely isn't as suited for delivery of massive ground armies to world. The Imperial-class Star Destroyer would take both the heavy combat quality of the Victory and the fighter and troop carrying compliments of the Venator, and make a larger, more intimidating Star Destroyer for Palpatine's rule.
Well when you consider the first movie was supposed to be space fantasy I can forgive them that. It's the nerds and techheads who want to science everything and have explanations for everything that kind of ruins the fun aspect of this, or did they seem to take over the discussion over the years?
YES an SD hovering over a planet is impractical and looks ridiculous but it's fun and that's how I reconcile all this and I don't care about the technobabble that much as long as the stories are good. I didn't care much for Rogue One.
I do actually have a nerdy question
Wouldn't an ISD or standard SD hovering over a city create its own gravity well?
Yes, which is why they primarily do it over desert worlds or worlds they don't care about.
On Exegol I have a feeling that part of the navigation beacon's use was to ensure their gravity wells didn't mess up each ship's course.
Similar threads
