Do you know how much energy it takes to shield a whole planet? And this isn't Earth, the amount of energy holding us back from doing things may be trivial to a society that can go faster than light.

It isn't that they can't. It is that it is a super inefficient and super dumb way to operate when there is an easier, more efficient solution right in front of them. Now, anyone who cuts power to the station can wipe that facility out when it crashes. If it was in proper LEO, it would be a lot harder to aim at the facility.

I personally have never seen anyone lay out the energy that goes i to shields in Star Wars. Just the weapons. So I have no clue. I am assuming the answer is "a lot"

The surface area of a sphere is equal to four times the radius squared, when you change to an efficient 2,000 or even 160 kilometer orbit from the 30 or so another poster suggested you end up having to shield over 28 times as much area at 160K. If you think that's less efficient than having two star destroyers use their already demonstrated ability to arbitrarily hang in place...well..um fine? I mean, Do star destroyers even need to refuel?

This sounds like a Common Core Math question my sister brought home once.

Do you know how much energy it takes to shield a whole planet? And this isn't Earth, the amount of energy holding us back from doing things may be trivial to a society that can go faster than light.

It isn't that they can't. It is that it is a super inefficient and super dumb way to operate when there is an easier, more efficient solution right in front of them. Now, anyone who cuts power to the station can wipe that facility out when it crashes. If it was in proper LEO, it would be a lot harder to aim at the facility.

I personally have never seen anyone lay out the energy that goes i to shields in Star Wars. Just the weapons. So I have no clue. I am assuming the answer is "a lot"

The surface area of a sphere is equal to four times the radius squared, when you change to an efficient 2,000 or even 160 kilometer orbit from the 30 or so another poster suggested you end up having to shield over 28 times as much area at 160K. If you think that's less efficient than having two star destroyers use their already demonstrated ability to arbitrarily hang in place...well..um fine? I mean, Do star destroyers even need to refuel?

This sounds like a Common Core Math question my sister brought home once.

See? Common Core is practical!

Why does it matter? It's a movie.

And applying physics as we understand it doesn't translate well to a sci-fi series that says bacteria allow you to control the force. Who says physics are the same in the Star Wars universe? Why does turning off engines literally stop a ship from moving? What about inertia?

What about when a ship drops out of light speed? How is it stopping all of that momentum in a fraction of a second without killing everyone on board?

Come up with all the theories you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Star Wars does not need to obey all the laws of science humans have come up with.

Im arguing because I find it fun. I will argue right up until I get my CC and wave 5.

Star Wars is supposed to exist in our universe. Just Long Ago and Far Far Away. So normal physics should apply. They don't, but should.

Far far away could refer to a parallel universe with different physics.

Do you know how much energy it takes to shield a whole planet? And this isn't Earth, the amount of energy holding us back from doing things may be trivial to a society that can go faster than light.

It isn't that they can't. It is that it is a super inefficient and super dumb way to operate when there is an easier, more efficient solution right in front of them. Now, anyone who cuts power to the station can wipe that facility out when it crashes. If it was in proper LEO, it would be a lot harder to aim at the facility.

I personally have never seen anyone lay out the energy that goes i to shields in Star Wars. Just the weapons. So I have no clue. I am assuming the answer is "a lot"

The surface area of a sphere is equal to four times the radius squared, when you change to an efficient 2,000 or even 160 kilometer orbit from the 30 or so another poster suggested you end up having to shield over 28 times as much area at 160K. If you think that's less efficient than having two star destroyers use their already demonstrated ability to arbitrarily hang in place...well..um fine? I mean, Do star destroyers even need to refuel?

This sounds like a Common Core Math question my sister brought home once.

See? Common Core is practical!

Too bad the question was so complex she couldn't answer it.

I enjoyed the space battle quite a bit.

What I enjoyed more is that this movie all together felt real to me: Sacrifices, individual initiative, heroism, is what carries the Rebels to victory against a resource superior opponent. It's not just about a whiny Jedi with a lightsaber (seems to be a common theme), but it's about all the tremendous effort it takes to get things done.

I also liked that "victory" was not caused by 10-20 X-Wings like it was in Death Star 1.0 or Starkiller base. I liked that it took real effort, from every resource the Rebels had available.

As for the actual discussion about how 2x ISD-Is, a star base and a bunch of Ties lost vs. a ragtag Rebel fleet: The same way we got our shh kicked in at Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack orchestrated by a seasoned Rebel Admiral (Raddus) who had the balls to execute it and a firm objective at hand. The Imperials seemingly had incompetent admirals and were caught completely with their pants down. After Vader came in with Devastator, you can see what a more experienced commander can do with a fully aware and battle-ready ISD-I.

I enjoyed the space battle quite a bit.

What I enjoyed more is that this movie all together felt real to me: Sacrifices, individual initiative, heroism, is what carries the Rebels to victory against a resource superior opponent. It's not just about a whiny Jedi with a lightsaber (seems to be a common theme), but it's about all the tremendous effort it takes to get things done.

I also liked that "victory" was not caused by 10-20 X-Wings like it was in Death Star 1.0 or Starkiller base. I liked that it took real effort, from every resource the Rebels had available.

As for the actual discussion about how 2x ISD-Is, a star base and a bunch of Ties lost vs. a ragtag Rebel fleet: The same way we got our shh kicked in at Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack orchestrated by a seasoned Rebel Admiral (Raddus) who had the balls to execute it and a firm objective at hand. The Imperials seemingly had incompetent admirals and were caught completely with their pants down. After Vader came in with Devastator, you can see what a more experienced commander can do with a fully aware and battle-ready ISD-I.

Also, it takes a while to get dressed and run to your battle station if the ship is a mile long...

I enjoyed the space battle quite a bit.

What I enjoyed more is that this movie all together felt real to me: Sacrifices, individual initiative, heroism, is what carries the Rebels to victory against a resource superior opponent. It's not just about a whiny Jedi with a lightsaber (seems to be a common theme), but it's about all the tremendous effort it takes to get things done.

I also liked that "victory" was not caused by 10-20 X-Wings like it was in Death Star 1.0 or Starkiller base. I liked that it took real effort, from every resource the Rebels had available.

As for the actual discussion about how 2x ISD-Is, a star base and a bunch of Ties lost vs. a ragtag Rebel fleet: The same way we got our shh kicked in at Pearl Harbor. It was a surprise attack orchestrated by a seasoned Rebel Admiral (Raddus) who had the balls to execute it and a firm objective at hand. The Imperials seemingly had incompetent admirals and were caught completely with their pants down. After Vader came in with Devastator, you can see what a more experienced commander can do with a fully aware and battle-ready ISD-I.

Also, it takes a while to get dressed and run to your battle station if the ship is a mile long...

Not to mention it was on a remote, paradise planet, and most of the crew was probably on holiday rotation.

I'm not making excuses, but it's pretty much Pearl Harbor, Star Wars edition.

Maybe its a background in astrophysics and rocket design, but the hammerhead corvette was actually not the part that bothered me about the battle.

1)once the two ISDs collided, they would just come apart. They are outside of atmosphere (assuming that shield can't be penetrated by anything) so they would just keep orbiting. Them dropping is a painfully stupid gimmick in space movies.

2)if atmosphere does escape that shield, then they would de-orbit... Over a few months or years depending on altitude.

Maybe its a background in astrophysics and rocket design, but the hammerhead corvette was actually not the part that bothered me about the battle.

1)once the two ISDs collided, they would just come apart. They are outside of atmosphere (assuming that shield can't be penetrated by anything) so they would just keep orbiting. Them dropping is a painfully stupid gimmick in space movies.

2)if atmosphere does escape that shield, then they would de-orbit... Over a few months or years depending on altitude.

Check how far away from the planet those ships would need to be to actually be in unpowered geosynchronous orbit. Once you figure that out, you'll be surprised that the disabled ISD didn't fall straight into the shield sooner. It is also why the the second ISD didn't bounce when hit but rather got tore up. They would need to be using a lot of energy to be standing right over that shield gate making the second ISD more immovable than an object in a natural unpowered orbit.

That... isn't how orbits work at all. You mean geostationary. That is an orbit with a period equal to the planet's (sidereal) day and at the planet's equator so that it doesn't appear to move at all from someone on the ground. Geosynchronous just means an orbital period equal to the sidereal day so that it returns to its original position and speed relative to the ground each day. It is like comparing a square to a quadrilateral.

I will use Earth as a reference since the planet looked similar mass and size. They were not in geostationary orbit. They were in what is called Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (Low Scariff orbit?). It is about 300km up and there is still an extraordinarily thin atmosphere up there. An object in LEO with maintain its orbits for long periods of time, but the thin atmosphere will eventually slow the satellite (ISD in this case). This takes months. The International Space Station requires boosting to its orbital velocity every few months because of this or it would deorbit. This movie portrays this effect as happening in minutes or seconds. That is absolutely wrong. A ship that loses power while in orbit will just stay in that orbit until drag due running into matter (like an atmosphere) slows it down. As it slows, the periapsis ends up lower than the surface of the planet and it crashes.

"Unpowered" and "powered" orbits are not a thing. Either it is in orbit, or it is undergoing a "burn" and is changing orbits. There is no such thing as a powered orbit.

If you want a crash course in orbital mechanics, go buy Kerbal Space Program and have fun. It is remarkably accurate at representing orbital mechanics.

Tl;dr: The ISDs would have sat in orbit after being torn apart. The shield base doesn't stay above the Imperial installation. KSP is awesome.

You are right about the orbit terminology. They are not in orbit at all. They are in burn to stay in position above the shield gate which was very close to the planet. Their speed parallel to the planet isn't anywhere close to obtaining an orbit and would fall as soon as their burn was disabled. This wouldn't take days or weeks, but probably minutes considering their slow speed and mass and proximity to the planet. Which was my point all along. Think of how fast those ships would need to be moving around the planet to be in an actual orbit compared to how they were actually moving.

Ah. Now i get where you are coming from. If we believe that the shield gate was built that stupidly (which i guess IS how it is shown), you are a lot closer to right. There are a few corrections though.

-The ISDs mass doesn't matter from a fall speed perspective. Only from a momentum POV for how much damage is done to during collisions. A feather and an ISD in the same situation will accelerate at the same speed. Gravitational force is directly proportional to mass.

-LEO at that height would be about 7.7km/s. They were traveling about 0.5km/s.

- Accelleration due to gravity at that height is roughly 9 m/s^2. That ISD looked around 1km or so above the station. So the fall time would be roughly 15 seconds.

My argument is coming from the idea that they are in LEO and traveling at the needed 7.7km/s. Mostly because it would be unfathomably stupid to put it hovering at 300km. You would be spending a similar amount of energy that it would take to to hover the whole station a meter off the ground. It didn't even occur to me that someone would engineer it that way.

In this fictional universe they have the ability to build a station capable of destroying planets. Having space ships do a "powered orbit" or maintain "flight" is exactly how it's done, we really don't have a word for that. They simply have enough energy to do this. Our space ships don't nearly have enough fuel so they take days to reenter the atmosphere not minutes as they do in SW.

were just missing a scene.

Its obvious the commanding imperial officers in space were so completely caught off guard by the attack that they did not know what the proper response should have been. They in standard imperial arrogance casually sought guidance from their Superior officers. This is why the imperials were so slow to act in space in pretty much every way. Initial engagement, fighter launch, destroyer engagement etc...

or it was a sub par movie 6/10 and the writing was alright (despite the near endless praise i see for it)

that Vader scene was tight though XD

Maybe a scene where a senior officer shouts something along the lines of, "can't you see what's happening? Why are you all standing around?!"

For some reason, that's ringing a bell....

Maybe its a background in astrophysics and rocket design, but the hammerhead corvette was actually not the part that bothered me about the battle.

1)once the two ISDs collided, they would just come apart. They are outside of atmosphere (assuming that shield can't be penetrated by anything) so they would just keep orbiting. Them dropping is a painfully stupid gimmick in space movies.

2)if atmosphere does escape that shield, then they would de-orbit... Over a few months or years depending on altitude.

Check how far away from the planet those ships would need to be to actually be in unpowered geosynchronous orbit. Once you figure that out, you'll be surprised that the disabled ISD didn't fall straight into the shield sooner. It is also why the the second ISD didn't bounce when hit but rather got tore up. They would need to be using a lot of energy to be standing right over that shield gate making the second ISD more immovable than an object in a natural unpowered orbit.

That... isn't how orbits work at all. You mean geostationary. That is an orbit with a period equal to the planet's (sidereal) day and at the planet's equator so that it doesn't appear to move at all from someone on the ground. Geosynchronous just means an orbital period equal to the sidereal day so that it returns to its original position and speed relative to the ground each day. It is like comparing a square to a quadrilateral.

I will use Earth as a reference since the planet looked similar mass and size. They were not in geostationary orbit. They were in what is called Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (Low Scariff orbit?). It is about 300km up and there is still an extraordinarily thin atmosphere up there. An object in LEO with maintain its orbits for long periods of time, but the thin atmosphere will eventually slow the satellite (ISD in this case). This takes months. The International Space Station requires boosting to its orbital velocity every few months because of this or it would deorbit. This movie portrays this effect as happening in minutes or seconds. That is absolutely wrong. A ship that loses power while in orbit will just stay in that orbit until drag due running into matter (like an atmosphere) slows it down. As it slows, the periapsis ends up lower than the surface of the planet and it crashes.

"Unpowered" and "powered" orbits are not a thing. Either it is in orbit, or it is undergoing a "burn" and is changing orbits. There is no such thing as a powered orbit.

If you want a crash course in orbital mechanics, go buy Kerbal Space Program and have fun. It is remarkably accurate at representing orbital mechanics.

Tl;dr: The ISDs would have sat in orbit after being torn apart. The shield base doesn't stay above the Imperial installation. KSP is awesome.

The Hammerhead was pushing the Star Destroyer towards the gate. The other ISD was fortuitously in the way, but the objective was to ram the first ISD into the gate in the first place. So, the sole acceleration on that mass was towards the gate (where it ultimately ended up going). The other ISD gets cut in half, which presumably would mean the engines cease operating. Now the only acceleration on that object is the first ISD pushing towards the gate. Meanwhile, the Hammerhead is still pushing both towards the gate as long as it is capable, so while other forces go away, the only remaining forces on the ISDs are the Hammerhead (which is, again, pushing towards the gate) and gravity (which is also inducing an acceleration towards the gate). So I'm not sure why you're insisting that they would have sat in orbit.

Maybe its a background in astrophysics and rocket design, but the hammerhead corvette was actually not the part that bothered me about the battle.

1)once the two ISDs collided, they would just come apart. They are outside of atmosphere (assuming that shield can't be penetrated by anything) so they would just keep orbiting. Them dropping is a painfully stupid gimmick in space movies.

2)if atmosphere does escape that shield, then they would de-orbit... Over a few months or years depending on altitude.

I swear I saw the Hammerhead Corvette still pushing the SD when it went down into the atmosphere. I will have to watch it again, or wait until the movie comes out to confirm that though.

I'm pretty sure it went down for the cause. Pretty brave crew...

Lets be clear though it was ramming the shield that actually destroyed the Star Destroyers not the rebel fleet. There is no rebel power creep here, they committed to a very unusual scenario that ended up working in their favor.

Maybe its a background in astrophysics and rocket design, but the hammerhead corvette was actually not the part that bothered me about the battle.

1)once the two ISDs collided, they would just come apart. They are outside of atmosphere (assuming that shield can't be penetrated by anything) so they would just keep orbiting. Them dropping is a painfully stupid gimmick in space movies.

2)if atmosphere does escape that shield, then they would de-orbit... Over a few months or years depending on altitude.

I swear I saw the Hammerhead Corvette still pushing the SD when it went down into the atmosphere. I will have to watch it again, or wait until the movie comes out to confirm that though.

I'm pretty sure it went down for the cause. Pretty brave crew...

Can confirm that the hammerhead was will there when the ISD went down into the gate

All of you doing the additional research I mentioned: You the real MVPs

Thank you for supplementing the observations!

So I just saw the movie, and while generally I thought it was okey but not great (a meagre 7, if I were to rate it) one thing specifically disappointed me: the space battle.

And you lost me right there. Not reading any further. just insanity,

I kind of felt bad for those poor ISDs over Scarif. They were just sitting there, chilling and doing their best to look intimidating. All of a sudden this Rebel fleet pops out of nowhere and starts making a mess. Then one ISD gets disabled and shoved right into its buddy. Honestly, seeing those two mighty warships slam into each other then crash down onto the shield gate was like watching two elephants tripping over each other and ending up falling over. Poor things.

Loved the space battle by the way. Just gonna throw that out there.

I can't believe we are arguing about this. I thought the scene wass great Xs skidding off the shield door? Awesome. ISDs making amess? Cool! Hera's freakin Ghost? Omigawd!! Whether or not a corvette can push a crippled ISD? Who cares. Pass the popcorn. I want to see Red and Gold leader again!

To those complaining about the Scarif gateway station not launching TIEs immediately?

Think about how long it takes an off duty pilot to rush to a hangar, dress in an environment suit, and climb into a TIE cockpit. Current armed forces only have a tiny fraction of their aircraft fueled armed and manned at any time.

To those complaining about the Scarif gateway station not launching TIEs immediately?

Think about how long it takes an off duty pilot to rush to a hangar, dress in an environment suit, and climb into a TIE cockpit. Current armed forces only have a tiny fraction of their aircraft fueled armed and manned at any time.

Fully agree. Real world generally only aircraft carriers would have (1-2) alert fighters ready to go, but even they would take a few min to get into the air. There were probably CAP (combat air patrol) fighters flying around, but they would have been quickly taken out from the larger surprise attack. Ever seen the pictures from Iraq/Afghanistan of soldiers in their gear in their pajamas or underwear? When the alarm goes off, it takes time to get your self put together (Iraq vet, I speak from experience). And here they would have had to get dressed, check it's vacuum rated, pre-flight checks, and then take off. That's a good 10-15min MINIMUM.

Plus if there's anything we've learned about TIE fighters from armada its that they need to be a coordinated swarm.

They clearly were waiting to launch the whole wave at once.

Launching 1 or 2 TIE fighters at a time would be suicide.

To be fair, out military forces keep so few on alert because we're not quelling a rebellion, and our enemies can't poof into existence a few feet away from us.

That said, I think launching your ties all at once makes more sense since if you launched them as they got ready you'd basically be sacrificing them one at a time.

Love how fans try to correct a movie's inaccuracies by comparing it to a game. Also the most knowledgeable Star Wars fans were advising the writers of the film. Also I thought it was the best Star Wars film since the Empire Strikes Back and I saw every single film in theaters on opening weekend. So I've been a huge Star Wars nerd since 77.

I'd elaborate more later but I want to see where this goes first.

I am one of you............I saw Starwars May 1977 the day it opened. This is the best of the films. It is dark, gritty, what a rebel force should be like. The origionals did without the real "war feel". This is a rebellion against as dictatorship...there is no mercy between both sides. Also Star Wars is imagineering. If you want reality, most of the designs would not be able to enter the atmosphere at all. But I am not an engineer or scientist, so if a Hammer head rams a Star Destroyer and moves it, well in the "physics" of the Star Wars universe then it works. Everytihng is relative.

Plus Rogue One makes it seem that Scarif is the first battle of the Galactic Civil War. There are insurgencies and resistance movements interspersed throughout the galaxy but probably nothing close to the level we see in the film.

So I just saw the movie, and while generally I thought it was okey but not great (a meagre 7, if I were to rate it) one thing specifically disappointed me: the space battle.

And you lost me right there. Not reading any further. just insanity,

If anything has been learned by this election season it should be we are all entitled to our opinions. Group think is bad mkay? And I respect the right everyone has to disagree. From both sides of the aisle. Imperial and Rebel. Like and dislike. Hot and Cold. Soft or firm. (I draw the line at peas though. There just gross. And you're a weirdo if you like them.)

Fine, it was a surprise attack, except that it was not really for the Imperial Ships, as the ground team engaged before the Rebel fleet arrives. Which I assume would put the orbitting ships on high alert no?

Then I noticed the shield dome on the soon to be disabled SD was destroyed at some point in the battle.

It has been long since established that those domes are sensor domes, not shield generators.

As for the hammerhead corvette ramming and destroying the 2 ISD's, which some people defend. How would you think of the following scene in a pacific theatre WW-II movie:

A small US fleet engages the Yamato & Musashi guarding a port. After a lucky torpedo disables the Yamato's engines, a small US Destroyer rams the Yamato, then pushes the Yamato against the Musashi, causing the Musashi to be cut in two halves bow to stern after which both super heavy battleships sink. Would that make for a believable naval scene?

No but the corvette didn't have to deal with friction and gravity soooooo