The Imperials, with their tall bridge tower, did exactly the same thing.

​

Why do people keep saying the star destroyers weren't in gravity? They were. The whole premise of the battle requires the planet to be right there.

I think the idea was that the poster thought they were in orbit- "free-fall" hence behaving as if they were in zero gravity. But, I don't think that fits - the shield is far too close to the planet for the battle to take place in geostationary orbit (where ships would be stationary relative to the planet's surface).

The main hull (so the not bridge, which is basically a scrotum, who seriously designs a ship that begs to be kicked in the nuts?) looks like a large version of the nebulon's bulky front but (without its column of stuff.) both look like they have oblongs encased in armor that doesn't cover the front bit.

Profundity MC75 from Rogue One Visual Guide

Nebulon-B:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/nebulon-b-frigate

There's similarities - but not enough to justify retconning the Nebulon-B as a Mon Cala design.

My only complaint was that Darth Vader in this movie was wielding his lightsaber in a manner that was inconsistent with A New Hope.

I just take it as the fact that the lightsaber battle between Vader and Kenobi in ANH wasn't the priority. It was Obiwan taking one last shot at winning the ideology argument with his apprentice. So he spent little effort lashing out. Vader knows Kenobi and knows he isn't going to flee. So Vader is in no hurry. Hence the odd, slow, conservative lightsaber fight. Ignore that it was wierd because it was an old geezer trying to swing a stick around while filming a movie he despised.

Vader in Rogue One is a thug/hatchetman on a mission and those troopers need to die for success. My only gripe was that he gave them any warning. His delay was for dramatic tension - I get it. I would more expect him to just trigger some grenades off their belts and then sweep and slaughter survivors.

My only complaint was that Darth Vader in this movie was wielding his lightsaber in a manner that was inconsistent with A New Hope.

I just take it as the fact that the lightsaber battle between Vader and Kenobi in ANH wasn't the priority. It was Obiwan taking one last shot at winning the ideology argument with his apprentice. So he spent little effort lashing out. Vader knows Kenobi and knows he isn't going to flee. So Vader is in no hurry. Hence the odd, slow, conservative lightsaber fight. Ignore that it was wierd because it was an old geezer trying to swing a stick around while filming a movie he despised.

Vader in Rogue One is a thug/hatchetman on a mission and those troopers need to die for success. My only gripe was that he gave them any warning. His delay was for dramatic tension - I get it. I would more expect him to just trigger some grenades off their belts and then sweep and slaughter survivors.

Why do people keep saying the star destroyers weren't in gravity? They were. The whole premise of the battle requires the planet to be right there.

They are in orbit around the planet yes, so there is a gravitational effect taking place, but it is nothing like being on the surface of the planet. There are in near zero G. Also atmosphere plays a huge roll in how things move on a planet surface. Something we really don't think about but is a constant force around us.

Why do people keep saying the star destroyers weren't in gravity? They were. The whole premise of the battle requires the planet to be right there.

They are in orbit around the planet yes, so there is a gravitational effect taking place, but it is nothing like being on the surface of the planet. There are in near zero G. Also atmosphere plays a huge roll in how things move on a planet surface. Something we really don't think about but is a constant force around us.

Not even close. At the height of the ISS, the gravity effect is still 9 m/s^2, down from 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of earth. Either they were in an actual orbit (which they weren't) or they were using anti-gravity techniques. We know they have these, because it is the only way for an ISD to park itself over a city, and just hang there. (Also, most speeders use something that keeps them off the ground, although that might be something else)

Also, this is Star Wars.

Fighters bank to turn and ships come to a stop when their engines turn off.

Don't go looking for Newtonian perfection.

Also, this is Star Wars.

Fighters bank to turn and ships come to a stop when their engines turn off.

Don't go looking for Newtonian perfection.

But I want to gripe, and don't want to have to search too hard for things to gripe about. Why must you impede my need to complain?

Oppressor!

Why do people keep saying the star destroyers weren't in gravity? They were. The whole premise of the battle requires the planet to be right there.

They are in orbit around the planet yes, so there is a gravitational effect taking place, but it is nothing like being on the surface of the planet. There are in near zero G. Also atmosphere plays a huge roll in how things move on a planet surface. Something we really don't think about but is a constant force around us.

Not even close. At the height of the ISS, the gravity effect is still 9 m/s^2, down from 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of earth. Either they were in an actual orbit (which they weren't) or they were using anti-gravity techniques. We know they have these, because it is the only way for an ISD to park itself over a city, and just hang there. (Also, most speeders use something that keeps them off the ground, although that might be something else)

So the ISS is a good example of this. They are not free floating in space around Earth. Instead, they are falling towards it, but are moving so fast in orbit, they don't get close to the Earth. Same could be said for the ISD once the ions took it out. It was falling towards the planet, but since they were all in orbit, it looks stationary since they are all moving at the same speed relative towards each other. Just nudge the crippled ship which can't move itself and bam, got yourself a ISD razor blade.

They look much too close to the planet to be in orbit - given that the gate is stationary relative to the base facility.

Geostationary orbits are very high up.

Given that earlier in the movie we see the Star Destroyer Dauntless hovering over Jedha City - seems like the same principle, but at a higher altitude - maybe a couple of hundred km, but not 30,000-odd km as would fit with standard geostationary orbits for Earthlike planets.

It's like in ROTS - one engine failure on the Invisible Hand and it drops like a rock before it can pull out of its dive.

Why do people keep saying the star destroyers weren't in gravity? They were. The whole premise of the battle requires the planet to be right there.

They are in orbit around the planet yes, so there is a gravitational effect taking place, but it is nothing like being on the surface of the planet. There are in near zero G. Also atmosphere plays a huge roll in how things move on a planet surface. Something we really don't think about but is a constant force around us.

Not even close. At the height of the ISS, the gravity effect is still 9 m/s^2, down from 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of earth. Either they were in an actual orbit (which they weren't) or they were using anti-gravity techniques. We know they have these, because it is the only way for an ISD to park itself over a city, and just hang there. (Also, most speeders use something that keeps them off the ground, although that might be something else)

So the ISS is a good example of this. They are not free floating in space around Earth. Instead, they are falling towards it, but are moving so fast in orbit, they don't get close to the Earth. Same could be said for the ISD once the ions took it out. It was falling towards the planet, but since they were all in orbit, it looks stationary since they are all moving at the same speed relative towards each other. Just nudge the crippled ship which can't move itself and bam, got yourself a ISD razor blade.

True, but they are not in orbit. They are way too low for geostationary orbit. LEO is a 90-minute orbit, or thereabouts.

They look much too close to the planet to be in orbit - given that the gate is stationary relative to the base facility.

Geostationary orbits are very high up.

Given that earlier in the movie we see the Star Destroyer Dauntless hovering over Jedha City - seems like the same principle, but at a higher altitude - maybe a couple of hundred km, but not 30,000-odd km as would fit with standard geostationary orbits for Earthlike planets.

It's like in ROTS - one engine failure on the Invisible Hand and it drops like a rock before it can pull out of its dive.

This is why it has to be some kind of anti-grav device. Same way the Falcon can lift straight up.

In the SW universe it is called a repulser left. Same thing they use on their umm, cars. I think other scifi universes call them anti-grav fields or the such. Either way, it takes a lot of power to keep those big ships up like that.

And technically they are in orbit as they are moving around the planet, just at the same speed the planet is rotating, which unpowered need to very high up indeed. Seeing as they are just out of atmosphere at 60-100km, they are really using a great deal of power to stay up.

No Power - No sustenance!!! Problem solve

Ms. Jones was a boring actress

Emotion for the love of god!