Space is full of gravity. It is literally engulfed in gravity. It’s just differently strong depending on where you are and what’s around you.
Also: cinematic effect. Just like sounds of explosions etc which are usually not really hearable in space.
Because there is gravity in space.
“orbit” is just what we call the sweet spot between moving fast enough to not hit the planet or mooon or whatever and not so fast that you escape it’s gravity (even though it still affects you. just not enough to make kissy noises as you fall back to it.)
But the ships would still be continuing on their current trajectory even when destroyed. Gravity doesn’t affect them more just because their reactor blew up…
So SD’s, etc- the big ships- aren’t technically in orbit. they’re using repulsors to stay up and float above a specific point. So when they start falling… yeah. They’re still going the way they were going before.
It always makes me happy to see someone who is head deep into the star wars kool-aid punch bowl. None of your explanations matter because Star Wars is filmed like in-atmosphere dog fights, on purpose. Lucas wanted the esthetics of old aerial battles action flicks. Gravity, orbits, physics matters not at all. It became part of the visual language. None of the space battles in any Star Wars product make any logical sense in a world that has physics even slightly similar to our universe. But you know what? it doesn’t matter, you keep defending it. It is more entertaining that way.
Without the acceleration of the engines the gravity well takes over.
Where are the Moon’s engines?
Not many space battles are taking place in stable orbit dude.
So the reason the moon has a curved path is because of the earth’s gravity. Its velocity relative to earth is high enough that as the earth pulls the moon
at 9.8 m/s2, it misses the earth entirely. This pulls the moon into a circular trajectory, and that’s what we call an orbit.Big ships in Star Wars are not “in orbit” in this sense. They’re relying on technobabble and dohickeys to stay up in the sky- above a specific part of the planet.
So when those engines stop providing power, they fa ll to the planet.
The physics you presented is very off.
First, 9.8 m/s/s is the acceleration of things that fall near Earth’s surface, so the Earth is not pulling the moon with that acceleration, it’s far less. A basic model predicts the moons acceleration to be GM/r^2 where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the Earth’s mass, and r is the distance between the Earth’s and Moon’s centers of mass.
Second, you have presented a misconception that “orbiting” does not include hovering over the same position relative to a point on a planet. The thing is the planet is not still, it is both spinning and translating. This means in order for the big ship to view the planet as not moving, it also needs to be orbiting around the planet at the same speed that the planet is spinning while translating at the same speed as the planet.
Uh, you’re right about the acceleration.
I’m not sure what you’re on about with the second point?
Are you suggesting that because geosynchronous orbits exist they’re always in geosynchronous? We see big ships (imperials 2’s) in all sorts of different elevations. They’re very clearly not orbiting- anything other than geosynchronous for that planet is going to require some kind of lift to keep it at elevation- and probably some amount of lateral/tangential speed to keep above a city.
Their repulsors could do the job (but probably bring in the engines for some reason… but we won’t get into that.)
Or are you suggesting that the orbit around the sun is somehow significant enough to affect the position of a ship able to transit most systems within hours?
It might be in a heliocentric orbit (along with the planet) but it’s still not orbiting the planet unless it’s moving with a tangential velocity roughly equal to the orbital velocity.
My general point is that people’s arguments regarding how star wars simplifies space flight into pseudo-atmospheric flight mechanics is generally correct. It’s not an awful thing though. Space is so foreign to almost everyone on Earth that trying to model realistic outcomes in the movie would probably not make sense to most viewers; so it’s being greatly simplified in order to cause less cognitive dissonance to the viewers.
Also, a lot of battles are taking place as ships come out of hyperspace in relation to the gravity well, so they are accelerating across or into the planet. They aren’t even in “orbit” at all.
Yes they don’t decelerate, but that’s an entire other thing.
I always envision that they’re burning velocity while in hyperspace to come out in a zero-zero rendezvous with whatever they’re meeting so that they come out “just right”
My head cannon is that the hyperdrive is like sliding into a blister on the edge of space and the drive is pushing that blister. Your momentum is preserved, start and stop but you can shift it so you’re always coming out “stopped” or advancing at a useful direction.
(Otherwise we’d see them making long-ass RV burns.)
That’s no moon
(I see what you did there)
Whenever you notice something like that, a
wizardjedi did it.Yeah that never sat well with me but I could imagine some kind of reason for a the Super Star Destroyer falling out of orbit.
Don’t get me started on the arching fire of turbo lasers and the way they abused light speed in the latest trilogy.
I’ve given up on thinking of Star Wars as sci-fi and now just consider it WWII in space.
now just consider it WWII in space.
Always has been.
IIRC, it’s actually the Vietnam War in space.
Yes, complete with the colors of the ships’ laser fire correlating with the colors of tracers used by the US and Eastern Bloc forces, respectively. This is also why all the X-Wing battles are dogfights in space; they are literally thematic recreations of terrestrial fighter plane dogfights as Lucas saw them depicted on TV and in movies.
And why are they all upside ? Space battle in star wars don’t take full advantage of the verticality
That’s a failure of human psychology. I bet that pilots from species with natural flying ability do better. In fact, I would expect Ackbar to be a real fiend in this regard.
Imagine you’re a fighter pilot, and you’re going to do a hull run to blow up some important part of some giant space ship. You have a mental map of the ship’s structure, and it’s probably “right side up”, so while navigating along the hull you’re probably going to orient your fighter to your mental model to take that much off your very heavy cognitive load.
“The enemy’s gate is down.”
The enemy’s gate is down
Movies and TV shows starting with “Star…” are not known for their hard-science fiction.
Star Wars is just a western, set in spaaaaace.
That’s why the good guys wore white and the bad guys wore black.
Ah, but Luke was considering joining the dark side at that point, and the white inside of his outfit showed at the end. (He was always truly good on the inside)
And the storm troopers were shiny and bright looking on the surface only. Their body suits are black underneath.
It’s almost like there’s some sort of intentional visual language of symbolism in films or something.
/s
Alllllmost like old westerns
I feel like Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica series had the most realistic ideas about how battles would be fought in space and doesn’t get enough recognition for it.
No. That honor goes to The Expanse. After that, all other space shows are unwatchable from a physics reality POV.
+1 for the expanse! the story isn’t extraordinary but their take on space faring was so good. now all sci-fi looks dumb :( i wish there were more series like that
The story isn’t what? Get out! :)
Up until the green space magic, anyway…
green space magic
naw. still just super advanced tech indistinguishable from magic. But I also know that’s a bit of a contentious topic.
There is no defined “down” in space
The enemy gate is down.
they don’t
Well you clearly haven’t watched that documentary about the return of the jedi
Uhm, sounds, flames, laser swords, the shape of spaceships
