Why can't Star Destroyers land?

The Expanded Universe aside(landing barges). We have now seen the Galactic Transports and the Venators land on worlds such as Coruscant and Kashyyyk. Why do you think the Empire removed this ability from the later Star Destroyers? Certainly not because of size because the Venator was only little shorter then the Imperial ship by 400 meters.

 

ISDs are much larger, and their repulsorlift systems are not powerful enough to lift them off the ground, or safely lower them to the ground. Those 400 meters of length clearly mean it is now too bulky to land.

I don't get it. You say "expanded universe aside," and yet the only place you can get this answer is from the EU. That is hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

off-story wise, for the same reason in Star Trek they decided to invent transporters, because they couldnt show the ship landing and thus it became cannon that it canot land, in-story wise, the previous is correct ^^^ , me thinks

 

Does that mean that ISD's can only be built in space?

It seems that the Venators could be built on land, or in space.

 

That's a good question. I'm not quite sure, honestly. They must have been built in space.

 

Star Destroyers are built in orbital shipyards at Kuat, Fondor, Bilbringi, etc.

 

The Star Destroyers seen in the PT are much smaller than those in the OT. The ones in the OT are large enough that they could create many problems with the atmosphere of the planet upon entrance. Because of this, the Empire decided it was best to build and operate them solely in space and have various forums of landing craft for planet-side operations.

 

Coming up with your own theory was the point of my question, while just using the movies alone.

 

My "own theory" based on the films happened to match that of the EU when I read it.

But alas, let's not turn this into an EU debate, k?

 

But a SD is so small compared to a planet the side of Coruscant. Wouldn't Atmospheric entry be even more easy since the ship is actually pointed? Since they didn't have any large conflicts anymore, maybe they didn't need it.

 

This is just my thought, but I would think that land on Coruscant would be pricey. They probably wanted to avoid having to set aside such a huge space to land these things, especially when it is just as easy to do it while they are in space.

Sure 1 SD is not huge, but to have a hole yard full of them on the planets surface would surely take away from the planets capability to grow and expand its cities. '

I am probably wrong, its just my opinion.

 

Also, the garrisons are already in place, spread throughout the galaxy.
It's just easier to ferry them back and forth from surface
to capital ship rather than invest in landing capabilities.
Also, it puts the ship at risk of ground attack, requiring
more defenses and more money.

 

I'm not sure if this is actually something I read or if I just dreamed it up, but I figured all GFFA ships were built in space. (Actually, I know where I got that from - Star Trek ships are constructed in spacedock, so I probably figured same for SW.) I agree that Coruscant real estate is probably incredibly expensive, making it wasteful to put shipyards there when they could just as easily be in space. It might even be easier to build things in space, because even though you have to expend fuel to get all the parts you need up into orbit, you then get to do the finer detail work of construction in an environment where you don't feel gravity.

Besides... I find it kind of cool to think about ships being built in spacedock. What better place to tour your new war machine than in orbit?

 

certianly makes more snese to build them in orbit, I mean that way they don't have to worry about the cost of a repulsar that can actually support the mass of a star destroyer, besides they're probably too big to break orbit under their own power anyway, probably need to be ferried in and out of the atmosphere..
..besides, the PT star destroyers all had disproportionally large engines, where as the OT star destroyers had these rather "small" engine nubs on the back (small being a relative term, sicne they were probably bigger than the PT version), the only ship deemed important enough to have these large engine nozels on the back of it, was vader's flagship, and that was certainly to large for atmospheric re-entry

 

Physics-wise, putting a huge craft like that through the atmosphere gives you a slew of problems. It would be difficult to steer, difficult to keep a velocity, and you'd have to worry about heat. Why would one need to land an ISD anyway? They've got docking bays aplenty, so shuttling in troops is pretty easy.

As for where they're built, I know all Corellian ships are built in space. I believe Kuat Drive Yards, the friendly people who brought you the Imperial Star Destroyer, do the same thing.

EDIT: I guess there's probably a lot of stuff that's difficult in Star Wars "physics-wise." My landing answer was just an observation.

 

Theres also the matter of a Star Destroyer being able to handle the pressures of a lower atmosphere, which is completely different from that in space.

Given the extra length, extra weight, it would require MUCH more powerful repulsorlifts (for EU people, think Lusankya) not to mention likely extra work on the hull.

 

Given the amount of power needed for the massive accelerations the SD's are capable of, the vast power needed to fire turbolaser blasts that can be measured in megatons and shields that can deflect such blasts, they should have plenty of power avialable for repulsorlifts to get on and off the surface of a planet.

There would be no fear of burning up in the atmosphere given the power of their shields. They have no landing gear but could probably easily hover just above a planets surface.

 

But the question is, why did the Empire decide to no longer have them land? Did the Star Destroyers evolve and their little landing struts shrival up and disappear?

 

They probably just didn't find it necessary. It would be easier to land a small shuttle. Star Destroyers are multiple kilometers long, so they can't land just anywhere.

 

Power for lasers/shields/engines != power for repulsorlifts.

 

Imagine how long it would take to unload the contents of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer without using landing barges of some kind. Besides, the only way in/out of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer is it's docking bays, which are designed for ships only, as they do not feature ramps of any kind.

 

In the Star Wars universe, almost all of the attack personnel are near slaves -- the clones. They never need to leave their Star Destroyer. Perfect and docile just living in their barrack waiting to go down to a planetary surface and kill. Or pilot their ship and shoot something down.

There really is no need to land. When some dignatary visits the Star Destroyer, or an admiral is shuffled around, they can use a shuttle. The amount of energy to life a Destroyer would be to big, big, big. Maxi-big in the words of Jar Jar.

 

They may only be 400 meter shorter than a Venator, but they are much wider and have much less open space inside. They would probably be crushed by a planet's gravity if they tried to land. The fuel silos alone contain reactant that is more dense that the ship itself by many orders of magnatude. Think about the Invisible Hand. It was ripped apart by Courascant's gravity well just because it go too close.

 

Now imagine trying to reverse park a Super Star Destroyer...

 

Where in the films is stated that a Star Destroyer can't land? Maybe they can and have retractable landing struts. As this issue never comes up in the films, it sounds like an EU question.