How did the Super Star Destroyer Executor get destroyed exactly?Star Wars RotJ: why was the Executor chosen as a target?Are Rebel pilots trained to conduct suicide runs?How big is the Death Star compared to the ExecutorHas a Star Destroyer ever actually destroyed a Star?Who is left to fight in Star Wars episodes 8 onwards?Did Rey's flight of the Millennium Falcon conflict with known Super Star Destroyer schematics?How did the crash disable the star destroyer?How big is Snoke's command ship compared to a Super Star Destroyer?Star Wars Eclipse-Class Super Star DestroyerWhy isn't Vader in the Super Star Destroyer Executor at the beginning of Return of the Jedi?
Prime joint compound before latex paint?
Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?
Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?
Is Fable (1996) connected in any way to the Fable franchise from Lionhead Studios?
Wild Shape Centaur Into a Giant Elk: do their Charges stack?
Denied boarding due to overcrowding, Sparpreis ticket. What are my rights?
Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?
Latin words with no plurals in English
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
What kind of transistor turns on with 0.2 volts?
How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
New order #4: World
Visa needed to visit friends in London
Copycat chess is back
Manga about a female worker who got dragged into another world together with this high school girl and she was just told she's not needed anymore
Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?
Is Social Media Science Fiction?
aging parents with no investments
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?
How do you conduct xenoanthropology after first contact?
Is repealing the EU Withdrawal Act a precondition of revoking Article 50?
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
How did the Super Star Destroyer Executor get destroyed exactly?
Star Wars RotJ: why was the Executor chosen as a target?Are Rebel pilots trained to conduct suicide runs?How big is the Death Star compared to the ExecutorHas a Star Destroyer ever actually destroyed a Star?Who is left to fight in Star Wars episodes 8 onwards?Did Rey's flight of the Millennium Falcon conflict with known Super Star Destroyer schematics?How did the crash disable the star destroyer?How big is Snoke's command ship compared to a Super Star Destroyer?Star Wars Eclipse-Class Super Star DestroyerWhy isn't Vader in the Super Star Destroyer Executor at the beginning of Return of the Jedi?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
This is what happens to the Super Star Destoyer Executor in RotJ
- All fire is concentarted on the Super Star Destroyer Executor.
- Only 2 A-wings destory the bridge deflector shields
- And before forward weapons are activated a third A-wing crashes into the SSD bridge which explodes from all sides.
- And then the 19.000 meter long craft sinks like a dart into the Death Star, destroying it completely.
How and why? I always thought this ship a total useless part of the movies because it really doesn't show any threat anywhere, other to be big. And while it is part of the final battle it's defeated in the most easiest way possible.
star-wars
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
|
show 1 more comment
This is what happens to the Super Star Destoyer Executor in RotJ
- All fire is concentarted on the Super Star Destroyer Executor.
- Only 2 A-wings destory the bridge deflector shields
- And before forward weapons are activated a third A-wing crashes into the SSD bridge which explodes from all sides.
- And then the 19.000 meter long craft sinks like a dart into the Death Star, destroying it completely.
How and why? I always thought this ship a total useless part of the movies because it really doesn't show any threat anywhere, other to be big. And while it is part of the final battle it's defeated in the most easiest way possible.
star-wars
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
5
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
2
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
2
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05
|
show 1 more comment
This is what happens to the Super Star Destoyer Executor in RotJ
- All fire is concentarted on the Super Star Destroyer Executor.
- Only 2 A-wings destory the bridge deflector shields
- And before forward weapons are activated a third A-wing crashes into the SSD bridge which explodes from all sides.
- And then the 19.000 meter long craft sinks like a dart into the Death Star, destroying it completely.
How and why? I always thought this ship a total useless part of the movies because it really doesn't show any threat anywhere, other to be big. And while it is part of the final battle it's defeated in the most easiest way possible.
star-wars
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
This is what happens to the Super Star Destoyer Executor in RotJ
- All fire is concentarted on the Super Star Destroyer Executor.
- Only 2 A-wings destory the bridge deflector shields
- And before forward weapons are activated a third A-wing crashes into the SSD bridge which explodes from all sides.
- And then the 19.000 meter long craft sinks like a dart into the Death Star, destroying it completely.
How and why? I always thought this ship a total useless part of the movies because it really doesn't show any threat anywhere, other to be big. And while it is part of the final battle it's defeated in the most easiest way possible.
star-wars
star-wars
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
edited Apr 3 at 19:21
Valorum
414k11330173238
414k11330173238
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
asked Apr 3 at 19:16
KasperKasper
28738
28738
5
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
2
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
2
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05
|
show 1 more comment
5
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
2
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
2
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05
5
5
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
2
2
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
2
2
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The film's official novelisation indicates that a mixture of torpedo fire (and the kamikaze A-Wing) set off a chain reaction of explosions, starting at the bridge but spreading to the mid-section of the ship.
The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaction
got set off, from power station to power station along the middle
third of the huge Destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of
explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it
spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star.
The junior novelisation also mentions that the intensive fire knocked out the secondary control systems and that the ship was pulled into the Death Star as a result of its own gravity.
The A-wing smashed into the Executor’s bridge and exploded, causing
the entire ship to veer off course. Damage-control crews were unable
to seize command using the auxiliary control centers, and the Executor
was dragged into the Death Star’s gravitational field.
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208451%2fhow-did-the-super-star-destroyer-executor-get-destroyed-exactly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The film's official novelisation indicates that a mixture of torpedo fire (and the kamikaze A-Wing) set off a chain reaction of explosions, starting at the bridge but spreading to the mid-section of the ship.
The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaction
got set off, from power station to power station along the middle
third of the huge Destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of
explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it
spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star.
The junior novelisation also mentions that the intensive fire knocked out the secondary control systems and that the ship was pulled into the Death Star as a result of its own gravity.
The A-wing smashed into the Executor’s bridge and exploded, causing
the entire ship to veer off course. Damage-control crews were unable
to seize command using the auxiliary control centers, and the Executor
was dragged into the Death Star’s gravitational field.
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
|
show 6 more comments
The film's official novelisation indicates that a mixture of torpedo fire (and the kamikaze A-Wing) set off a chain reaction of explosions, starting at the bridge but spreading to the mid-section of the ship.
The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaction
got set off, from power station to power station along the middle
third of the huge Destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of
explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it
spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star.
The junior novelisation also mentions that the intensive fire knocked out the secondary control systems and that the ship was pulled into the Death Star as a result of its own gravity.
The A-wing smashed into the Executor’s bridge and exploded, causing
the entire ship to veer off course. Damage-control crews were unable
to seize command using the auxiliary control centers, and the Executor
was dragged into the Death Star’s gravitational field.
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
|
show 6 more comments
The film's official novelisation indicates that a mixture of torpedo fire (and the kamikaze A-Wing) set off a chain reaction of explosions, starting at the bridge but spreading to the mid-section of the ship.
The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaction
got set off, from power station to power station along the middle
third of the huge Destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of
explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it
spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star.
The junior novelisation also mentions that the intensive fire knocked out the secondary control systems and that the ship was pulled into the Death Star as a result of its own gravity.
The A-wing smashed into the Executor’s bridge and exploded, causing
the entire ship to veer off course. Damage-control crews were unable
to seize command using the auxiliary control centers, and the Executor
was dragged into the Death Star’s gravitational field.
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
The film's official novelisation indicates that a mixture of torpedo fire (and the kamikaze A-Wing) set off a chain reaction of explosions, starting at the bridge but spreading to the mid-section of the ship.
The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaction
got set off, from power station to power station along the middle
third of the huge Destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of
explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it
spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star.
The junior novelisation also mentions that the intensive fire knocked out the secondary control systems and that the ship was pulled into the Death Star as a result of its own gravity.
The A-wing smashed into the Executor’s bridge and exploded, causing
the entire ship to veer off course. Damage-control crews were unable
to seize command using the auxiliary control centers, and the Executor
was dragged into the Death Star’s gravitational field.
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
answered Apr 3 at 19:24
ValorumValorum
414k11330173238
414k11330173238
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
|
show 6 more comments
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
5
5
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
Having actually run the calculations for how long it would take to pull the SSD into the Death Star using official metrics for the masses of both objects, this seems unlikely. Also, the Executor has an enormous mass, which cannot be changed easily and would allow secondary controls (Which are very likely automated in the event of primary bridge loss) to resume control. My assessment of the situation is that it is unrealistic... even for in-universe.
– Sarah Szabo
Apr 4 at 3:20
1
1
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
@SarahSzabo - So you're happy that there's an interstellar spaceship whose main job is to transport an actual wizard around the galaxy, but you think that the poor command+control systems are what makes the situation unrealistic?
– Valorum
Apr 4 at 5:59
1
1
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
@Valorum Just because the genre is SciFi, doesn't mean you can patch every single plothole with that argument. In a world where technology is so advanced, you wouldn't expect such silly design errors. Even more so, because I already accepted that the story is unrealistic, I would expect that trend to continue and have the design of the ship being unrealistically good, not unrealistically bad. I'd expect those ships to Lightspeed away on auto-pilot when they are about to be hit, or something like that.
– JAD
Apr 4 at 6:51
1
1
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
@JAD well, if you think about it, design errors are not too uncommon within the empire. The first death star was destroyed by shooting one torpedo in a hole. ATATs can easily be taken down using a cable. In the first movie, their ships can't even detect droids inside an escape pods, even though droids are extremely common in their universe. I would'nt trust an engineer from the empire with designing a cup, even less a ship.
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:18
1
1
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
@JAD True it was sabotage, but entrusting a critical project such as the death star to someone who has every single reason in the universe to sabotage it, is, quite frankly even more stupid that if it was a simple design flaw
– user3399
Apr 4 at 7:45
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208451%2fhow-did-the-super-star-destroyer-executor-get-destroyed-exactly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
My car weighs a ton and is nearly 5 metres long. If the steering wheel catches fire while I'm driving, I'm gonna crash.
– Valorum
Apr 3 at 19:31
2
@Valorum: Sure, but the art is for the driver to achieve the following, right before burning to ashes: To turn and lock the steering wheel in such a way that the car does a 90° turn, followed by a movement straight ahead, and thereby hit the one big obstacle that should preferrably be evaded for safety reasons. (In case there are usually no death stars in the area you usually drive around in, you may want to imagine a more mundane obstacle.)
– O. R. Mapper
Apr 3 at 20:55
2
The Emperor never disagreed that overconfidence was his weakness. Use a rubber stamp to put Incompetence on each of those bullet points, and add another one about not intensifying the forward batteries in time.
– Mazura
Apr 4 at 1:26
I imagine this'll come down to "It was unlikely, but it happened".
– user45266
Apr 4 at 5:23
@Valorum Your car does not have an additional steering wheel that allows someone else to assume control in the event that the primary steering wheel becomes nonfunctional. A better scaled comparison would be driving with a learner vehicle (where the passenger has a second steering wheel, brake pedal, etc.) with a trained instructor beside you when a piece of hail cracks your windshield in the middle of a storm. The instructor (who should be ready and alert due to the conditions) would be likely to get control before an even more catastrophic crash happened.
– jpmc26
Apr 4 at 8:05