We can neither prove that it is impossible nor possible true. But there is at least as much evidence pointing to it being possible as not. Actually more so IMO.

That is not so. To believe that it isn't possible requires no reasoning because there's no reason to suppose it is. Like Voice said, Russell's Teapot. To believe that it IS possible (your case), we have to rationalize how a galaxy full of engineers who work on hyperdrives don't know that they're working on planet-destroying bombs the whole time and also, why someone willing to destroy a planet would not make use of such technology to do so when it's many orders of magnitude cheaper than building a Death Star. Or why the Rebels would bother with trench runs and disabling shields when they could just pop a ship into the middle of one.

In short, they're not equally possible. One requires nothing extra to assume is the case, the other requires a tonne of rationalization and contorted supposition.

We now know that ships can hyperspace deep into gravity wells.

We also know that they can bypass planetary shields while in hyperspace

Yes to both of these, but neither says anything about causing planet wrecking explosions.

We don't know what the destructive effect of a ship in hyperspace hitting a planet has in canon but when it happens in Legends the effect is devastating.

Legends isn't canon, however. And if that's how it is in Legends, then it makes little sense.

Maybe someday they will show us what the effect is in canon, maybe they won't but discounting the idea because it hasn't been shown happening in canon yet seems very flimsy to me.

That's not why it's discounted as explained above. You don't just assume something exists because no-body has says it doesn't.

We know objects in real space can effect those in hyperspace and destroy them, Han's comment about flying through a star or bouncing too close to a supernova showed that in ANH. Why is it so hard to believe that the destruction or at least damage could be mutual in the case of a ship hitting a planet? If there was a chance that a ship in hyperspace couldn't impact a planet it could be argued but that idea has been blown out of existence. So now it seems like the only claim is that the damage would somehow be one sided.

We know objects in real space can effect those in hyperspace and destroy them, Han's comment about flying through a star or bouncing too close to a supernova showed that in ANH. Why is it so hard to believe that the destruction or at least damage could be mutual in the case of a ship hitting a planet? If there was a chance that a ship in hyperspace couldn't impact a planet it could be argued but that idea has been blown out of existence. So now it seems like the only claim is that the damage would somehow be one sided.

Flying into a planet in real space is also a very bad idea. Why would it be otherwise in hyperspace? And "why it is so hard to believe" has been given a ridiculous number of times - because if it were possible huge numbers of people would know about it and there would be no purpose to the Death Star, no need to do a trench run or shut down the shields on Endor and plenty of other cases. Warfare would be vastly different to what we see on screen and do you really think every casual trader or bounty hunter or passenger line and X-Wing pilot would have a cheap world-destroying weapon under them with the setting still looking the way we see it? THAT is why it is "so hard to believe" as explained more times than I can count.

By that logic ships can't jump through shields because the rebels didn't do so at Endor. After all why send a commando unit to destroy the shield generator if the rebels could just have some fighters exit hyperspace inside the shield while the fleet held the perimeter? .

Oh wait it was proven that ships can jump through shields..

So anyone have anything not based on the idea that if it was possible we would have had to heard about it or seen it by now?

How many times do I have to point out that just because we haven't seen it happen or heard about it happening being mentioned does not mean it is impossible before people comprehend the point?

By that logic ships can't jump through shields because the rebels didn't do so at Endor. After all why send a commando unit to destroy the shield generator if the rebels could just have some fighters exit hyperspace inside the shield while the fleet held the perimeter?

Because the instance of Han Solo jumping the Millenium Falcon through the shields in TFA was heavily highlighted as an insane stunt that very nearly killed them. So if it takes a very experienced Han Solo to pull this off with a small ship that he's flown for decades and customized like crazy and he still only survived it by the skin of his teeth, why do you expect the Rebel fleet to watch the vast majority of their attack force splat into the side of the Death Star for the sake of one or two stragglers who might someone luck out and survive?

Oh wait it was proven that ships can jump through shields..

Again, that doesn't remotely help your case. Firstly because of all of the above, secondly because they're separate issues. It would make as much sense for me to say "we saw no evidence of cross-guards on lightsabres in the OT but in TFA we find out they can exist. So there's no reason spaceships can't destroy planets by hyperspacing into them."

Again, the argument is very, very simple. It's not that it can't exist because we haven't seen it. It's that what we have seen would be massively different if it did.

So anyone have anything not based on the idea that if it was possible we would have had to heard about it or seen it by now?

In the nicest possible way, you seem unable to get the logical sequence here.

How many times do I have to point out that just because we haven't seen it happen or heard about it happening being mentioned does not mean it is impossible before people comprehend the point?

You can point it out as many times as you like, it's not an argument that hyperspacing into a planet blows it up and it's not a counterpoint to all the arguments why doing so does not.

If Han can accurately time a jump through a shield manually it makes no sense for a navcomp or astromech to be unable to do so. There's no way Han can react that much faster then a navcomp or droid controlling the jump could.

And ships hyperspacing into planets has been shown as devastating worlds in Legends without contradicting anything we saw on screen so insisting that such a capability in canon would somehow prevent or change the events seen onscreen is futile.

Also while we don't know the damage such an impact would inflict in Canon even if it just punches a crater the size of the ship into the surface of the object it would be enough to severely damage or cripple a Death Star if it hits the superlaser or the engines and enough to take out a structure on a planet.

The only way hyperspacing ships into an object couldn't be an effective last resort weapon would be if somehow hitting the mass shadow destroyed the ship without doing anything to the object generating the mass shadow.

*sigh*

Sorry I'm just sick of people claiming it is impossible with no proof to back them up. If it is possible in Legends, which is is, but stated to be impossible in Canon show me where don't just say it can't be done because you believe the setting would have to be much different if it were possible.

Claiming it is impossible because it being possible would radically alter the setting is a theory just like the idea that such an impact could shatter a planet. The difference is that some people are insisting one theory is fact in the setting and not the other.

Either theory could be correct or the damage level could be somewhere between the two extremes which I've admitted though the planet shattering damage level at least came from aLegends source not out of thin air.

If Han can accurately time a jump through a shield manually it makes no sense for a navcomp or astromech to be unable to do so. There's no way Han can react that much faster then a navcomp or droid controlling the jump could.

Again, you never actually join up the implications of anything you say. Star Wars is not a setting where droids are shown to be vastly superior to people because of they're computer-based. Battle droids don't fire a hundred perfectly accurate shots in ten seconds even though modern computing could do that - in fact they're lousy shots; C-3P0 can't better time the jump through the shield than Han Solo because he has perfect digital timing because he's a droid. That's not the universe that is portrayed and if there was "no way" that Han could be a better pilot than a droid, we would not see the setting that we see because it wouldn't make sense.

And ships hyperspacing into planets has been shown as devastating worlds in Legends without contradicting anything we saw on screen so insisting that such a capability in canon would somehow prevent or change the events seen onscreen is futile.

Futile, possibly. Incorrect, no.

Also while we don't know the damage such an impact would inflict in Canon even if it just punches a crater the size of the ship into the surface of the object it would be enough to severely damage or cripple a Death Star if it hits the superlaser or the engines and enough to take out a structure on a planet.

This is not argument. This is just you claiming something is so.

The only way hyperspacing ships into an object couldn't be an effective last resort weapon would be if somehow hitting the mass shadow destroyed the ship without doing anything to the object generating the mass shadow.

Which would be entirely possible. Maybe flying into a mass shadow DOES only destroy the vessel in hyperspace without affecting the planet in real space. Just as plausibly, it could do no more damage than if it flew into the planet in real space. Flying a ship into a planet doesn't destroy it in normal space. Why do you suppose hyperspace changes that so dramatically? No reason.

Sorry I'm just sick of people claiming it is impossible with no proof to back them up.

An argument that if X exists then the universe must be different to what we see, is a supported argument. You don't appear to understand this logical principle. The classic example of Deductive Reasoning is as follows:

1. All living people can die.

2. Socrates is a living person.

3. Socrates can die.

You are like someone unable to make the jump to step 3 and insisting that unless someone appears and says that Socrates can die, it's fine to claim they can't. We have established that many things in the setting would not be so if what you claim were true. We have checked canon sources and found that they are so. We can therefore make the simple logical step to conclude that what you claim is false.

If it is possible in Legends, which is is, but stated to be impossible in Canon show me where don't just say it can't be done because you believe the setting would have to be much different if it were possible.

Again, you do not understand logic. Nobody needs to show you where it is stated that something is impossible just as we don't need to show you where it is stated that bringing people back from the dead with bacta tanks in Star Wars is commonplace and easy. All we need to show is that the universe we do see is inconsistent with that. Which has been done many times for you.

Claiming it is impossible because it being possible would radically alter the setting is a theory just like the idea that such an impact could shatter a planet. The difference is that some people are insisting one theory is fact in the setting and not the other.

It's not a Theory. Nor a hypothesis. It's Deductive Reasoning. Or Inductive Reasoning if you're not a mathematician and really pushing it. But in either case, it's application of logic. A hypothesis is an idea. A theory is a testable idea. If you're calling what I wrote a theory, then congratulations - we have tested it and it passes.

Either theory could be correct or the damage level could be somewhere between the two extremes which I've admitted though the planet shattering damage level at least came from aLegends source not out of thin air.

Your idea from Legends is not reconcilable with what we see on screen. Ergo, it is false.

Until something in the new canon explains what happens when a ship in hyperspace hits the mass shadow of a planet neither my theory that doing so would be destructive to the planet nor yours that it would be harmless can be considered tested. They are testable but haven't been tested yet.

And since everything in Legends from the period in question was specifically written to be reconcilable with what we saw on screen in the OT and the PT and TFA has not proven it is impossible it is reconcilable with what we see on screen by default.

Until something in the new canon explains what happens when a ship in hyperspace hits the mass shadow of a planet neither my theory that doing so would be destructive to the planet nor yours that it would be harmless can be considered tested. They are testable but haven't been tested yet.

Incorrect. You've now fallen back to simply stating things to be so. The setting would be different from what we see if you could destroy a planet just by hyperspacing a ship into it. That is the test - is what we see consistent with what you propose? It is not and has been demonstrated to not be. Over and over and over.

And since everything in Legends from the period in question was specifically written to be reconcilable with what we saw on screen in the OT and the PT

News to me. If that was their intent, they failed. There is a good reason why "Legends" has been explicitly declared "Legends".

it is reconcilable with what we see on screen by default.

And proven irreconcilable by sanity and evidence. All you're doing is ignoring all the arguments you don't like and then saying there's nothing to prove it can't be how you say.

The setting isn't changed by ships being able to jump to hyperspace inside another ship or ships being able to jump through shields so where is your proof that a ship hyperspacing into a planet being destructive to both rather then just the ship would change the setting?

You believe it would change the setting but you aren't a writer for the Star Wars canon any more then I am so neither of us can state how things work in canon we can just offer theories which we can't test ourselves instead having to wait for someone else to test them for us.

Anaxes was destroyed either late in the Clone Wars or between the first two trilogies but has it been stated how it was destroyed? It obviously was not a Death Star so there have to be other forces that could destroy a planet pre-Death Star and pre-Starkiller.

The setting isn't changed by ships being able to jump to hyperspace inside another ship or ships being able to jump through shields so where is your proof that a ship hyperspacing into a planet being destructive to both rather then just the ship would change the setting?

You are at least shifting the grounds of your argument. Normally I would be annoyed by someone shifting the goalposts of their argument, but in this case I'm grateful that at least it is moving towards something more reasonable. What you just said is 'where is the proof that hyperspacing into a planet isn't harmful to both'. That's something I've never argued. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What I contested was your original assertion that a ship hyperspacing into a planet would blow up the planet. The proof that this is wrong, is in the entire set-up of the Star Wars universe. The Empire would not have built a Death Star to destroy worlds if a hyperspace engine could accomplish the same. The Rebels wouldn't have conducted trench runs or do what they did in TFA (phrasing to avoid spoilers) if you could weaponize hyperspace travel in this way. Nor would space travel be so common place and cheap if any moody teenager could devastate a world with such a ship.

You want to shift ground and argue that maybe the thing hyperspaced into takes damage as well as the vessel? Sure, that's possible. You want to argue your original points - no. Those are dead and buried.

You believe it would change the setting but you aren't a writer for the Star Wars canon any more then I am so neither of us can state how things work in canon we can just offer theories which we can't test ourselves instead having to wait for someone else to test them for us.

Again, false. You can look at what exists and make arguments about what is consistent and not consistent. This is basic logic. Your assertion that someone can't say something is true or false about Star Wars setting without being one of the writers, is bogus.

Anaxes was destroyed either late in the Clone Wars or between the first two trilogies but has it been stated how it was destroyed? It obviously was not a Death Star so there have to be other forces that could destroy a planet pre-Death Star and pre-Starkiller.

Who knows? It's not been answered in canon. There were build ups in the unfinished episodes of TCW about the development of the Death Star. There were episodes where Obi Wan and Anakin come across a colossal Khyber crystal and the indications were that it was intended to be a part of the Death Star's weapon. At any rate, there are good reasons already given why a hyperspace drive isn't a planet-destroying weapon so why should we make it our go-to explanation for the destruction of Anaxes when there are other available reasons which work fine. Suggesting that planets being destroyed is just an accident with a hyperdrive away is unnecessary.

Even if the hyperdrive itself can't be used as a weapon directly we know it can be used to bypass planetary shielding. That might not do anything about the Death Star, though I still think its mass shadow being struck would do at least some damage but jumping past Coruscant's shields would at least allow a shot at the Imperial palace and Palpatine. Yeah many of the ships might splat on the surface or the mass shadow but with the Death Star active there would probably be rebels willing to run those odds.

And I suppose navigation tech might have made a huge leap between the trilogies but there is no proof of that AFAIK.

As for my feelings on the hyperdrive as a planet wrecker if Legends says something like this is possible in most cases, including this one, I believe it is until canon actually states otherwise and vice versa.

And given that some of the hyperdrive tricks in TFA were things I thought were impossible until I saw them, like safely jumping a ship that is inside a freighter the size of a small cruiser, there is very little I am willing to state is outright impossible using one without it being definitely stated in a canon source..

The destruction of Alderan was a key point in the rebel alliance too, so there would still be support for the alliance, although not as much as if they'd succeeded in destroying the Death Star.

However, key planets may not join the alliance, so for example if Mon Cal didn't join the rebellion would be dead on its feet as they wouldn't have the mon cal ship yards building fighters and capital ships for them...

Mon Cal is likely to be Target #2... it's got (according to now decanonized sources) a strong and open rebellion and is key (with Alderaan) to the forming of the Alliance... If the Death Star Survives, it's probably going to toast that world within the year. And Kashyyk. Maybe even Nal Hutta, for good measure.

With Leia turned, it's dark indeed. She knows all the major rebel groups. She can and will have the Bothans, Mon Cal, Sullustans, and even Incom Corporation liquidated by Tarkin's Terror Machine.

Her even being publicly seen Drugged and in Vader's Custody would be sufficient to shatter the Rebel Alliance...

Episode IV: A New Hope

"It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy...."

Note that they have had ONE victory as a unified rebellion...

"You are a member of the Rebel Alliance and a Traitor!" Vader turns to the guards, "Take her away!"

We know that the resistance starts before she's even born... but the Rebel Alliance has had one victory... a crushing defeat immediately following, with the most visible face, and having been captured and turned after being the recruiter for the unified alliance?

Ain't no alliance any more. And the local rebellions are largely known to Leia...

And, as Princess Irulan says... "A beginning is a very delicate time."

Oh, and Vader and Tarkin likely have the exhaust port shielded better.

Tarkin didn't consider the port a major problem and the type of shielding needed to block torpedoes would prevent the port from fulfilling its purpose which is why it was shielded against lasers but not torpedoes in the first place. And Vader doesn't even like the Death Star so I doubt he will bother ordering a minor flaw fixed.