10 hours ago, Captain Warden said:

I think this is likely the heart of the matter... They would've done everything possible not to lose the Raddus. Which is a shame, because if they'd evacuated the Raddus onto the support ships at the beginning of the chase, they'd still have hundreds of Resistance personnel still alive, rather than the mere handful on the Falcon. Oh well. At least they took down Snoke's ship in the process.

Also, I think that the Raddus never actually got to Hyperspace, but just got really fast. Consider:

A. The Raddus was critically low on fuel, and when Holdo attempted the jump, ran out of fuel before getting to Hyperspace; so, just getting really fast.

B. The Raddus collided with the Supremacy while it was still in it's run-up to Hyperspace (the stars streaking), and a "Hyperspace Ram" is only possible during that time.

3 hours ago, draco193 said:

The one thing this film has done for me is just cement the fact that Disney wants you to read all the books/ play all the games / watch the tv shows for the extra little bits. I will assume we hear more about Snoke in the next film, but that there will be a novel about him in there as well that will really illuminate his rise to power.

It's fine, because so far most of the extra material has been Not bad to really good. But it's extra stuff that I have to buy.

This is the Disney MO when it comes to franchises. Notice how they’ve handled Marvel- all of the movies interact, to the point we have Iron Man in Spidey’s debut movie, Hulk guest starring in Thor, etc. The shows on Netflix do the same- the Punisher storyline starts in Daredevil, Daredevil’s story and Iron Fist’s both almost require watching the Defenders. Luke Cage builds off Jessica Jones. Disney doesn’t want us to just watch/buy what interests us. They want to make us buy in to everything else around it, too. Milk the fanboys, as it were.

Personally, I’ve only read two of the Disney EU books, and the success rate was just barely 50%. Lost stars was mostly good, with a few issues, while Aftermath was built on some good ideas, but poorly written and executed. I might get around to Thrawn, eventually, but possibly not, too. After all, I already read and enjoyed Zahn’s original story of Thrawn, including much of his history. Do I really want to read something different just for the sake of its difference?

4 minutes ago, MarekMandalore said:

I might get around to Thrawn, eventually, but possibly not, too. After all, I already read and enjoyed Zahn’s original story of Thrawn, including much of his history. Do I really want to read something different just for the sake of its difference?

You could plug Thrawn right in between Outbound Flight and the original Thrawn Trilogy without any conflict. It's in my opinion the best out of the new canon books that I've read so far.

24 minutes ago, MarekMandalore said:

This is the Disney MO when it comes to franchises. Notice how they’ve handled Marvel- all of the movies interact, to the point we have Iron Man in Spidey’s debut movie, Hulk guest starring in Thor, etc. The shows on Netflix do the same- the Punisher storyline starts in Daredevil, Daredevil’s story and Iron Fist’s both almost require watching the Defenders. Luke Cage builds off Jessica Jones. Disney doesn’t want us to just watch/buy what interests us. They want to make us buy in to everything else around it, too. Milk the fanboys, as it were.

Personally, I’ve only read two of the Disney EU books, and the success rate was just barely 50%. Lost stars was mostly good, with a few issues, while Aftermath was built on some good ideas, but poorly written and executed. I might get around to Thrawn, eventually, but possibly not, too. After all, I already read and enjoyed Zahn’s original story of Thrawn, including much of his history. Do I really want to read something different just for the sake of its difference?

So what you are saying is Rey will be in the new Avengers movie? Yeah, that makes sense, why the **** not. That dude has a hand that needs to be cut off, what better way than a light saber ..... and I am not sure this is really a joke.

BTW those Afermath books are the worst. Complete trash - not worth it. The rest of the new books are okay. I wouldn't say none of them are great but they aren't aftermath trash. Thrawn is the weakest of Zahn's books but it doesn't conflict with the rest his books in anyway and is enjoyable enough.

7 hours ago, Gallanteer said:

Travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops boy etc.

We don't know if Snoke's ship is irrepairable yet. Badly damaged yes, destroyed, no.

Honestly, your right in theory. Large ships in real life have been repaired from disatorous damage. The problem is that I would guess at least 20+Km just got lopped off in deep space, where are they going to find a shipyard to fix that? Or if they try to fix it there, that would take years to make it right and not some duct tape Esq fix. That not even taking into account possible loss of Major reactors and personnel.

My bet is that we'll see it again, just sans wing. With a hill Jack fix on that side.

6 minutes ago, Noosh said:

Honestly, your right in theory. Large ships in real life have been repaired from disatorous damage. The problem is that I would guess at least 20+Km just got lopped off in deep space, where are they going to find a shipyard to fix that? Or if they try to fix it there, that would take years to make it right and not some duct tape Esq fix. That not even taking into account possible loss of Major reactors and personnel.

My bet is that we'll see it again, just sans wing. With a hill Jack fix on that side.

A little bondo. Trash bags taped over the windows. Unpainted Hull Sections covering large sections.

12 minutes ago, Noosh said:

Honestly, your right in theory. Large ships in real life have been repaired from disatorous damage. The problem is that I would guess at least 20+Km just got lopped off in deep space, where are they going to find a shipyard to fix that? Or if they try to fix it there, that would take years to make it right and not some duct tape Esq fix. That not even taking into account possible loss of Major reactors and personnel.

My bet is that we'll see it again, just sans wing. With a hill Jack fix on that side.

5 minutes ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

A little bondo. Trash bags taped over the windows. Unpainted Hull Sections covering large sections.

Is there duct tape in the Star Wars universe?

1 minute ago, Megatronrex said:

Is there duct tape in the Star Wars universe?

It is Light on one side, dark on the other, and it binds the universe together

Just now, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

It is Light on one side, dark on the other, and it binds the universe together

That's too d*** funny.

7 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Is there duct tape in the Star Wars universe?

Rey demands Tape from Finn in TFA, or the Falcon will flood with poisonous gas.

49 minutes ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

It is Light on one side, dark on the other, and it binds the universe together

My life is now better because you said that.

3 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

So I have some thoughts about this whole "hyperspace ramming" discussion. There were a few quotes in the movies that seemed to infer that a failed hyper space jump could land parts of a small ship in several systems. Perhaps then the reason hyperspace weaponry was never really built upon was the risk of inaccuracy?

If you miss with a turbolaser, that bolt will carry until the gas is consumed and the bolt breaks down, no harm done, you jump a torpedo into hyperspace and miss... it could hit a planet with enough force to wipe out an entire city.

Even if the torpedo hits, how much of that weapon is dispersed at the target area? After all we're talking about materials traveling faster than the speed of light, how long does it take materials accelerated to that kind of speed to slow.... will chunks of that explosive end up hitting a caravan of civilians 5 systems away?

We really can't even infer how much of the raddus was vaporized and how much of it got dumped across it's trajectory.

Also consider the dangers of having weapons with independent hyperdrives aboard a ship. One crossed wire. An impact shock. Even something as simple as a missdetonation. All the sudden half your ship just got ripped into hyperspace.

I think this is one of those moments where people didn't use it as a weapon because the risks well outweighed the rewards.

Sorry, but... no.

First, it's not a matter of physics. It's a matter of (a) military logic and (b) storytelling.

If it's physically possible and produces the intended effect, military logic demands that it gets built, because the risk of hitting some other poor sap five systems away must be balanced against the prospect of your planet being reduced to slag by orbital bombardment or a Death Star superlaser . But the bigger point is that, where (apparent) logic is not followed, good storytelling demands that this is justified on-screen, or at least lampshaded : "We could really use the old planetary defense system right about now - yes, too bad the Empire dismantled all hyperdrive weapons after the Clone Wars!" Done.

Anyway, regarding the operational details such as accuracy, accidents, etc, how are hyperlances (for lack of a better word) any different from vessels, such as starfighters? In fact one could simply repurpose obsolete snubfighters, rusty old Corellian freighters or whatever - it's not like hyperdrives are expensive or scarce. Just imagine how many ISDs the Rebellion could have knocked down with an MC80's hangar worth of hyper-kamikazes (piloted remotely or by droids, if you're concerned about the Rebel scum's willingness to sacrifice lives - which I wouldn't be, given their track record at employing suicide tactics). Trading a 15-point squadron for a 150-point ISD? Heck yes!

Again, one could come up with contrived explanations of why the ramming by the Raddus was somehow fundamentally different from any other situation previously encountered where this would have been a hugely appropriate tactic (off the top of my head: the blockade of Naboo, the battle of Coruscant, the battle of Scarif, the destruction of Alderaan, the battle of Yavin, the battle of Hoth, the battle of Endor, the attack on Starkiller Base). But because it has no setup whatsoever, and does not appear to involve any technical difficulty other than a willing pilot, the circumstances just don't look or feel special, and that's what bothers me and (I think) many others.

39 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

If it's physically possible and produces the intended effect, military logic demands that it gets built, because the risk of hitting some other poor sap five systems away must be balanced against the prospect of your planet being reduced to slag by orbital bombardment or a Death Star superlaser

Bad logic to run by.

"Well, since we've had 30+ years and the plans we decided it would be a good idea to build a death Star of our own for when the next bad guy threatened us with a superweapon, ready the right-back-atcha"

The rebels just don't THINK like that. An excuse could be made for the empire building those weapons, but how is that more effective than a battlestation that can blow up planets and a star fleet that can actually hold systems? Or more cost effective than turolasers, which seem to hold the galaxy in fear well enough.

You're thinking is along the lines of "Well if the rebels wanted to stop the empire from building ships why didn't they just hyperspace ram Kuat drive yards until it was dust. Or blow up all the planets that held the empire's forces by hyperspacing a cheap cargo ship hauling explosives into it?

It's the same reason why the United States isn't running around glassing everyone we fight. There are weapons just morally wrong to use unless the conflict calls for them.

39 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Anyway, regarding the operational details such as accuracy, accidents, etc, how are hyperlances (for lack of a better word) any different from vessels, such as starfighters? In fact one could simply repurpose obsolete snubfighters, rusty old Corellian freighters or whatever - it's not like hyperdrives are expensive or scarce. Just imagine how many ISDs the Rebellion could have knocked down with an MC80's hangar worth of hyper-kamikazes (piloted remotely or by droids, if you're concerned about the Rebel scum's willingness to sacrifice lives - which I wouldn't be, given their track record at employing suicide tactics). Trading a 15-point squadron for a 150-point ISD? Heck yes!

They're not. based on dialogue there's evidence that crashes in hyperspace cause long reaching effects. So even if you could calculate the hit, there's evidence it could endanger countless people. Also we don't know how a low mass object interacts with a large ship like an ISD. Could be the thing just impacts on the surface, or even vaporizes into the shields. We just don't know. For all we know it could work and take half the ISD into hyperspace with it crashing explosions and debris through 30 systems. So far, they haven't filled in that why, but messing with hyperspace seems like the kind of crazy idea that backfires and kills billions to me.

39 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

But because it has no setup whatsoever, and does not appear to involve any technical difficulty other than a willing pilot, the circumstances just don't look or feel special, and that's what bothers me and (I think) many others.

This makes sense, but like any growing universe give them time to fill in the gaps. I'm sure they will.

Has there ever been an intersystem hyperspace jump? Or is it only between systems?

Because people keep asking why the First Order didn't just jump a Star Destroyer in front of the Raddus when I don't even think inter system jumps are a thing.

11 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Has there ever been an intersystem hyperspace jump? Or is it only between systems?

Because people keep asking why the First Order didn't just jump a Star Destroyer in front of the Raddus when I don't even think inter system jumps are a thing.

I think you mean intrasystem.

And I think that they would take fractions of a second as the distance is so short.

21 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Has there ever been an intersystem hyperspace jump? Or is it only between systems?

Because people keep asking why the First Order didn't just jump a Star Destroyer in front of the Raddus when I don't even think inter system jumps are a thing.

In the Eu, ref: Microjumps

7 hours ago, draco193 said:

The one thing this film has done for me is just cement the fact that Disney wants you to read all the books/ play all the games / watch the tv shows for the extra little bits. I will assume we hear more about Snoke in the next film, but that there will be a novel about him in there as well that will really illuminate his rise to power.

It's fine, because so far most of the extra material has been Not bad to really good. But it's extra stuff that I have to buy.

Disney also want you buying the golden dice, the pseudo yin-yan necklace, a tiny alien penguin.

Those shots were so obvious product placement.

5 hours ago, Democratus said:

TLJ was a flawed, yet fun, romp in the Star Wars universe.

The old guard handed the baton to the youngsters. Luke had an amazing send off.

There was goofy stuff with the ships in space (fuel, flying Leia, ramming, etc.), but the heart of the story was in the right place.

Yoda himself states the thesis of this movie: failure is how we grow.

Nearly every plan in the movie ends in failure, both for the FO and the Resistance. But the two sides react differently to their failure and this is how we can see the difference between the two.

Will Disney learn its own lesson?

5 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

So I have some thoughts about this whole "hyperspace ramming" discussion. There were a few quotes in the movies that seemed to infer that a failed hyper space jump could land parts of a small ship in several systems. Perhaps then the reason hyperspace weaponry was never really built upon was the risk of inaccuracy?

If you miss with a turbolaser, that bolt will carry until the gas is consumed and the bolt breaks down, no harm done, you jump a torpedo into hyperspace and miss... it could hit a planet with enough force to wipe out an entire city.

Even if the torpedo hits, how much of that weapon is dispersed at the target area? After all we're talking about materials traveling faster than the speed of light, how long does it take materials accelerated to that kind of speed to slow.... will chunks of that explosive end up hitting a caravan of civilians 5 systems away?

We really can't even infer how much of the raddus was vaporized and how much of it got dumped across it's trajectory.

Also consider the dangers of having weapons with independent hyperdrives aboard a ship. One crossed wire. An impact shock. Even something as simple as a missdetonation. All the sudden half your ship just got ripped into hyperspace.

I think this is one of those moments where people didn't use it as a weapon because the risks well outweighed the rewards.

What could be the chance? 0.00000000000000000000001% of hitting anything else?

I would say that is more probable a turbolaser explodes that a lost shot in the space hitting 1st something, 2nd valuable.

Deleted

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Bad logic to run by.

"Well, since we've had 30+ years and the plans we decided it would be a good idea to build a death Star of our own for when the next bad guy threatened us with a superweapon, ready the right-back-atcha"

The rebels just don't THINK like that. An excuse could be made for the empire building those weapons, but how is that more effective than a battlestation that can blow up planets and a star fleet that can actually hold systems? Or more cost effective than turolasers, which seem to hold the galaxy in fear well enough.

You're thinking is along the lines of "Well if the rebels wanted to stop the empire from building ships why didn't they just hyperspace ram Kuat drive yards until it was dust. Or blow up all the planets that held the empire's forces by hyperspacing a cheap cargo ship hauling explosives into it?

It's the same reason why the United States isn't running around glassing everyone we fight. There are weapons just morally wrong to use unless the conflict calls for them.

What would be the moral conflict?

Blowing up planets maybe not but star destroyers? That is what rebels try to do every time.

If nuclear bomb could be focused on the target without huge collateral casualties and its long-term effects removed I see USA throwing them all the time.

Hyperspace torpedoes seem a great option to me. 1 missile with a devastating effect on the target that vaporizes or enter hyperspace just after hitting to dissappear randomly with any other pernicious effect? **** yes! If it ever get a collateral casualty I would be highly surprised.

1 hour ago, Forresto said:

Has there ever been an intersystem hyperspace jump? Or is it only between systems?

Because people keep asking why the First Order didn't just jump a Star Destroyer in front of the Raddus when I don't even think inter system jumps are a thing.

Lol yes

I mean, they get the reference of the Raddus thanks to the [whatever] on Snoke's ship. Why not take some destroyers and jump to be back some parsecs ahead?

56 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

What could be the chance? 0.00000000000000000000001% of hitting anything else?

I would say that is more probable a turbolaser explodes that a lost shot in the space hitting 1st something, 2nd valuable.

It's not our galaxy. It's vastly more populated. Also it's pretty clear the debris of the Raddus didn't go in a straight line, if a hyperspace weapon splits up on impact who knows where it'll drop out. We also have to consider the size and complexity of the device being used. The bigger it is, the more parts it has, the more chance for collateral damage. If the chances are so slim in this universe of hitting anything, why do they need ultra precise Nav computers to calculate hyperspace travel at all?

I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm a gun owner and a CCW license holder, but you don't fire a weapon when the backdrop isn't safe. It's how innocent people get shot.

I carry that same logic with any sort of weapon, fictional or no. Collateral damage is bad. And there's just no way to know what kind of damage you could do by jumping a ship, explosive, laserweapon, asteroid, or whatever else through hyperspace as an attack. Especially since after impact you have literally no control over the device.

52 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If nuclear bomb could be focused on the target without huge collateral casualties and its long-term effects removed I see USA throwing them all the time.

So if you fire a torpedo at an ISD through hyperspace, and it blasts half that ship but that half get accelerated with it, there's not going to be any consequences? How do you know it wont do that? That reactor core sounds like something that would give off all sorts of hazardous radiation. Not to mention the physical debris being hurdled through space at speeds over 299792458 meter per second.

What if that torpedo his the target and pierces right through it before detonating? At those speeds that explosion could be happening far beyond visual range. Do you have any idea who you may hit?

The point is there COULD BE huge collateral casualties. They make it pretty clear that even traveling in hyperspace is dangerous without precision. Hucking a rocket at 299792458 meter per second towards an ISD and hoping for the best sounds like some haphazard military thinking. Especially when something as simple as an X-wing seems to suffice against an enemy like the Empire.

They did win with those ya know lol

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

"Well, since we've had 30+ years and the plans we decided it would be a good idea to build a death Star of our own for when the next bad guy threatened us with a superweapon, ready the right-back-atcha"

What? No. That's not it at all.

"You have expensive ISDs and SSDs and Death Stars . We have cheap rocks. Your move."

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

You're thinking is along the lines of "Well if the rebels wanted to stop the empire from building ships why didn't they just hyperspace ram Kuat drive yards until it was dust.

It seems like a perfectly valid question to me.

(The answer is, of course: because hyperspace ramming is simply not consistent with the Star Wars continuity. In Star Wars, if you want to blow up a facility, you need to approach to visual range and kill it with turbolaser fire. Star Wars mimics WW2-era combat, with dogfighting and strafing and gunnery-based naval battles - while hyperspace ramming is akin to Tomahawk missiles.)

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

It's the same reason why the United States isn't running around glassing everyone we fight.

I'd rather say it's the same reason why the US does run around launching Tomahawks against everyone they fight.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

There are weapons just morally wrong to use unless the conflict calls for them.

Sure, but:

• there is nothing pointing at hyperspace ramming being morally wrong
• even if it were somehow morally dubious, why would it be justified in he case of Holdo (to save a few dozen people) and not in the other cases I cited (to save billions)?
• if there are circumstances under which "the conflict calls for them", doesn't that mean (just like nuclear weapons) they would get built , just not used ?

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

based on dialogue there's evidence that crashes in hyperspace cause long reaching effects.

Please elaborate. As far as I can tell you are referring to line uttered by Han (of all people) to express concern about getting himself killed in a crash. Hardly evidence of anything other than Han being colorful in his speech.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Also we don't know how a low mass object interacts with a large ship like an ISD. Could be the thing just impacts on the surface, or even vaporizes into the shields. We just don't know.

We now know perfectly well how a [insert number here]-tonne object interacts with "a large ship like an ISD". It does so in an extremely desirable way - if your goal is to break it. Now if it's a matter of mass, you can always hyperfling rocks or whatever else you want. And if it's a matter of shields vs shields, well then you put them there too. It's still a winning move if it takes down an enemy ISD/Dreadnought/SSD/MSD/DeathStar.

It's like a cruise missile: sure, you might need to make it quite big and expensive to be effective. But if it sinks a nuclear aircraft carrier worth one thousand times that much? Best investment ever .

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

messing with hyperspace seems like the kind of crazy idea that backfires and kills billions to me.

Yes - which is why it's so fracking annoying that TLJ opens that Pandora's box... especially when it accomplishes next to nothing. If they had used it to blow up Starkiller Base, risking (even causing) the death of millions to save billions, I'd get it. But if it's crazy and dangerous and immoral, what's the bloody point of doing it now ?

It's the inconsistency that kills me.