Why can't Star Destroyers land?

Exactly, the films don't say one way or the other, so we must go to the EU to find the answer.

 

Can't use your own imagination based on the films eh?

Why do YOU think they can't land?

There is no answer to this question in the EU, only that they use landing barges. Nothing is ever said about the Imperial Star Destroyer's landing, so you have to use your imagination.

 

Am I the only one who thinks they CAN land? If there is no reason why not stated, I assume they can. There big and it would take a serious landing platform and a lot of fuel, so they don't alot probably, but sure they can.

 

The reason they can't land is because they are too big, and their repulsorlifts are not powerful enough to safely touch down on a planet with standard gravity.

In Wraith Squadron, a Star Destroyer does manage to hover a few hundred meters above a moon, but a moon has decidedly less gravity than a planet.

 

It is also logical to infer that most planets do not contain a suitable landing space for a Star Destroyer. They would literally take up the whole downtown area of some cities. They're multiple KILOMETERS long and most planets are not going to spend the time and effort to make a place for a Star Destroyer to land just in case it needs to. It's much cheaper, more efficient, and more logical to send down a landing shuttle.

 

I think the simplest explanation would probably be best, why can't Star Destroyer land?? why would they need to?

Star Destroyers seem to be, pretty much fighter carriers.. with a handful of offensive weapons, and the capability to jump from system to system, and refuel fighters..


Look at their 21st century contemporary, the aircraft carrier,
we have the technology to design amphibious vehicles, everything from treaded boats, to hovercraft, and aircraft carriers already have nuclear reactors, so the power requirements are met..
..yet I don't see anyone suggesting that there's this great need to turn an aircraft carrier into an amphibious carrier,
I mean, what would be the point, a carrier exists to provide services otherwise only available from ground based sights, but over water instead, an aircraft carrier that could go on land, would be redundant, there are already ground based facilities to launch aircraft from..
..they're called airfields, and they can be made with a few thousand dollars worth of concrete



A star destroyer that could land, would be a waste of resources, in the event that a planet actually has the facilities to build a large enough field to land a SD in, they may as well just launch their fighters from there

it would be like designing a zeppelin, then trying to design a "better" zeppelin, that can be attached directly to the ground and used as a house..


..to sum it all up, designing a star destroyer that can land, and act as an effective ground based platform, makes about as much sense, as ordering a cheeseburger, hold the cheese

 

I like theN00_Jedi's analogy... except I have to point out that Star Destroyers are quite heavily armed themselves - and for proof of that, I point to the line "we won't last long against those Star Destroyers". They were already fighting the fighters (no pun intended), so he had to be talking about the destroyers themselves, not the TIEs. Theres also numerous EU sources on how heavily armed SDs are, for those interested.

 

No, you're not the only one.

 

maby in those times of war the star destoyer would attract alot of atention to the rebel so they use shuttles to realse platoons and stuff.

But thats just me
Enjoy i one time traded three cards for a chikin, Bak ah!

 

Yes, you are the only one. Firstly, it's impractical. The ship is too big. It would take too long to unload thousands of soldiers through a single opening. Secondly, I doubt there are repulsor lifts strong enough to keep a ship of that size from crashing into a planet's surface. Thirdly, the ship does not feature anyway for troopers to enter/leave the ship. No ramps. No nothing. Only two hangars.

 

I don't know about landing on a planet, but we know from the X-Wing books that they can take off from planets. Wedge finds out that the Emperor secretly built a Super Star Destroyer (same size as the Executor, Vaders ship, that dwarfs regular size Star Destroyers. The fact that the Emperor built one means nothing...however, its WHERE it was built that is important. It was secretly built on Coruscant, disguised as buildings. It takes off, and the New Republic uses it...but the point is, we at least know they can launch from the ground.

 

I do not doubt that it can enter a planet's atmosphere.

 

Maybe the Imperial Star Destroyers can land on specially created landing struts that are built on the ground? Eventually they would have to dry dock these things for some reason or another on a planet somewhere.

 

All Star Destroyers can land...


Once.

 

That was a one-time launch, and it had a specially designed lift cradle. Standard Star Destroyers cannot take off or land.

 

If the designers wanted to make it capable of landing, i'm sure they could do it. I guess the imperial didn't think it would be cost effective to build the capitial ships to land on planet.

No point in landing a battleship when you can just chill in orbit, pick your target from a safe distance and fire over and over.

 

Think about it in defense terms: Star Destroyers are military assets. They must be defended, and to accomplish this in space, they have turbolasers, heavy shields, and swarms of fighters. If a SD were to land planetside (assuming they were capable of it) imagine how many assets must be expended to guard the thing. As was mentioned earlier, those ships are kilometers long. You can't exactly use the turbolasers unless you want to risk blowing out the ground beneath you and harming the ship. And the use of personal shields as large as a SD carries makes no sense in the atmosphere. Any small group of people could infiltrate the area, plant bombs, and/or disable the ship. Then it, and all the people inside, become a sitting target. That's loads of money down the drain when you tally up the expenses required to build a landing field, fuel to land and lift off, security measures to defend the ship groundside, etc.


The risks far outweigh the benefits...




Actually, there are no benefits to landing a SD. So why expend more money outfitting a SD with landing capabilities that it will never use?

 

Yet, we see the Galactic Transports and Venators landing. What is the difference??

 

The difference is that they had 20 years to come up with better ways to do things.

 

ISDs are 400 meters longer.

 

Why could they not drydock them in spacedocks? They have them all over the Imperial Core, specifically Coruscant and Byss.

As for the Venators landing, not only was there all the other stuff previously mentioned (400 meters shorter), but if I recall correctly, we see effective ways for troops to enter/exit the ships. As pointed out, the ISD has no such luxury, no loading ramps, just a docking bay.

 

If they can land a 1,130 meter long ship without any problems, they could probably land a 1600 meter long ship just the same.

 

There are mechanical limitations to how large a ship can safely land. The ISD obviously exceeds those limitations.

 

There might be other reasons.

Maybe they just don't need it to land.

 

An SD probably cannot touch down on the ground, landing gears are not mentioned anywhere. But they have more than enough power to get in and out of a planets atmosphere, from even very close to the surface. Otherwise they have no real purpose to touch the ground.
Even without repulsorlifts the engines could easily achieve escape velocity from any world. Saying that SD's cannot get on and off world is just neglecting their power levels.