How Bombs Can "Fall" in Space (The Last Jedi)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2018
- In a surprisingly contentious moment of The Last Jedi, bombs appear fall downward in space the way they would in the atmosphere. How is this possible?
------------------------------------------------------
The limited use of the copyrighted clips and music in this video for analysis and commentary are in line with fair use principles in US copyright law.
------------------------------------------------------
CREDITS:
Brought to you in part by patrons on Patreon! / echenry
9kos
Arran Essex
Ben Pfeifer
Brandon Highland
Chris Orris
Daniel Day
Dominick LaLicata
GlassBoxTesting
Håkon Nilsen
Heinz Wiegand
James McKay
James Sledge
Joe White
Joseph Jonathan Marcus
Josh Nesmith
Mark Branson
Nonstop Pop!
Olaf van Waart
Oli Beutler
Patrick Kelley
Phil
PyBroBot
Ryan Olsen
Sam Williamson
Stephan Strasser
TK2 Films
Music: Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - Розваги
Honestly I assumed the bombs fell due to artificial gravity from the dreadnought or bomber as he said
The problem with that is that the bombs at the top would get more acceleration than the ones at the bottom, and they'd all collide mid air
@@sebastiaomendonca1477 No they wouldn't, they'd have more time to accelerate and therefor get closer to their maximum velocity but they'd all have the same amount of acceleration. That is a moot point though since OP said "from the dreadnought".
@@hedgehog3180 Bombs at the bottom get just a few cm of artificial gravity while the ones at the top get several metres
I'd always thought that since Star Wars craft don't orbit to maintain altitude the gravity would be noticable
@@sebastiaomendonca1477 same issiue with the canon explainatin of magnetic rails
An interesting point to note is that whenever a large ship like a destoryer is about to exploid, even in dead space, they always seen to start to "sink" in that they move down, as if they were being pulled down by gravity
Yeah, either all bombs have nanotechnology to turn the engines on to fire upwards to propel the craft downwards 🙄 🥱- or it’s horiffic universe/physics building/contradictions.
I always just figured it was the artificial gravity of the bomber and the bombs just kept that momentum once they left
Same here. I can't believe so many people don't see that as a possibility, given that we see that the bombers do have their own artificial gravity.
exactly if something is thrown in space it will travel with that same momentum until it hits something
@@kylezhang77 why is that a problem
@@Shoobybuhdooby They don't have to fly above the dreadnought to drop the bombs. Instead they can fly "upward" and point the hatch at the dreadnought and release the bombs. The bombs will fly toward their target due to momentum. Or they can redesign the bomber and make it fire all the bombs forward, like a regular fighter.
@@kylezhang77 O gotcha I see what you meant, who knows I mean the rebels as well as resistance have been using salvaged parts for their fleet since the beginning so who knows but obviously the main reason is the script that had a brain fart for artsie fartsie scenes
I think the main question is "How could this replace the Y-wing?"
When you're a ragtag group of freedom fighters, you take whatever you can get. If it flies, it can work.
How many Y-wings would it take to carry that many bombs?
@@Flint_Inferno the y wings will only disable it
I see the Y wing as a fighter bomber and this thing as a super heavy bomber.
It didn't. The B/SF-100 was designed at the end of the Galactic Civil War as a strategic bomber for cracking open Imperial fortress worlds without having to dedicate a capital ship to orbital bombardment-- their application in TLJ is not their manufacturer purpose and they noticeably suffer _horribly_ because this isn't how they're supposed to be used, but they're all the Resistance have.
Well, that and we already know bombs fall downwards in space in Star Wars, since the TIE bombers dropped bombs on the asteroid in Empire.
BattleUp Saber i always figured they just fired torpedoes...
Generation Tech mentioned the Tie Bombers to vindicate the bomb dropping scene in TLJ.
BattleUp Saber That's.... a really good point, actually. I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. This whole "issue" is a bit silly. Picking apart physics and science in Star Wars is just dumb. There are so many things that would not work in real life, and it doesn't matter. People don't come to Star Wars to see science fiction, and so when folks make an issue over stupid stuff like this, it just makes it seem like they're looking for things to complain about.
An asteroid of sufficient size and mass would have gravity. Not Earth like gravity but there would still be some pull. So the bombs falling from the Tie Bombers wasn't really a problem from a physics standpoint to begin with. .Also it's a Star Wars movie, a fantasy set against outer space and not at all the franchise to get nit picky when it comes to scientific reality . If you want scientific realism go watch the Expanse which is awesome and I highly recommend.
The TIE Bombers were literally in the atmosphere of the asteroids. Which do have an atmosphere.
In return of the jedi, a super star destroyer falls towards the death star, and it sets up...on fire. In space.
It should be ok for space fantasy.
It's because of the leaking air
It’s probably because the Death Star is so big it produces its own gravitational pull
@Domenick Masiello I always figured that "space" was somehow denser in the Star Wars galaxy considering that asteroids are way closer together, and the odds of randomly hitting a star are way higher. Why couldn't there be some unseen gas or aether to push off of?
@Domenick Masiello My childhood headcanon for the sounds was that they are being created by the ship to help pilots know when they are being shot at or when their targets are destroyed. I also firmly believe that the characters can actually hear the imperial march because imperial ships blare it out like a warning siren
@@ajh3461 I simply love this explanation
So, the bombs are pretty much just being fired from a super-low velocity rail gun? Cool. That makes a lot of sense.(Not to be mistaken with sarcasm)
Kappa
Not even remotely being fired.
Literally a Lucasfilm art director said that there was an artificial gravity well in the bomber, causing the bombs to fall even in the complete emptiness of space.
Here's the link to the quote: ua-cam.com/video/LPPLCkIhxt0/v-deo.html
And let's not forget that Episode 3 is a good example. When the one seperatist ship got disabled for a short moment in the beginning, it falled vertically. The ships appear to stay at the place relating to the surface (Geostationary Orbit) aswell, and it should not be enough for an Orbit, so it floats there from it's own power
Just now seeing this video. When I first saw this scene, I figured that the bombs were being guided by a mechanism. I didn't think anything else of it... just that a mechanism had to be involved. It just seemed pretty evident that's what it was.
Space Engineers using artificial gravity to create engines and guns:
Are we a joke to you?
I love the spring idea. It makes the most sense out of all the other explanations and it really is the kind of cheap-ass innovation any military would come up with.
1min 14 seconds onwards, finally good to hear someobody saying this on the internet! i find the 'scientific' criticism of the bomber scene utterly bizarre.
Selective appeals to science to critique "soft" science fiction tend to conceal other motives, usually poorly.
I still don't get why, with all the other flaws of the movie, why this is still a sticking point with a lot of people.
Some people are petty.
Same. I absolutely hate this film, but this one part is so easy to explain that it really shouldn't be a problem. Just chalk it up to any sci-fi mumbo-jumbo and be done with it.
Matthew Stryletz Because it is socially acceptable to be hypercritical about the ST but not the OT.
Lord Krius no, that's because the OT wasn't an inconsistent mess of idiotic plot holes.... The last jedi is
Dean Waller It is fine if you have problems with the narrative, but the people complaining about the nature of these bombs exhibit a level of cynicism that they don't apply to the OT. There are plenty of people who hate TLJ and accept that science in Star Wars something to be scoffed at.
Regardless of what the reason actually is, a simple in-universe question is: "If your mechanism doesn't work, then why would you build it?"
What's the point of AT-ATs having legs?😂
@@owensanfordstuff Why do _you_ have legs? Ever think about that?
@@YIIMM there are wheels in this universe. Anti gravity hover stuff? All the rebels had to do was use a long wire. Considering the resistance was relying on scraps, shitty bombers makes sense
Remember:
1. when the at-at blows by speeders gun when it falls despite saying the armour is too strong for blaster
2. how alderaan explodes too quickly
3. how the superstar destroyer falls on death star 2 when its bridge exploded.
_"when the at-at blows by speeders gun when it falls despite saying the armour is too strong for blaster."_
ua-cam.com/video/FkV65vOQxGM/v-deo.htmlm23s (Battle of Hoth)
The armor got loose ; they aimed at the joint between the head and the main body. It is coherent, though it doesn't change the fact that it indeed was a contradiction. Had even just one of the Snowspeeders pilots saying _"The armor got loose : aim at the joint",_ everything would've add up perfectly.
_"how alderaan explodes too quickly"_
Planetary destroying super-laser powered by anti-matter reactor with the power output of a Star of a similar scale to our Sun. Albeit too fast of an explosion, it is still coherent.
_"how the superstar destroyer falls on death star 2 when its bridge exploded."_
The Death Star two is significantly bigger than the Death Star 1, which itself had a gravitationnal pull. Additionnaly, the Executor's reactors were still active and propelling it forward - the destruction of the main bridge deprived the ship of directionnal flight correction, leading him straight toward crashing onto the 2nd Death Star.
UMMMM. i was pointing out how the OT had the same things but no one had problem with that. really hate it when people are blind towards the OT
I do not deny that the OT had it's flaws in regard of "combat" scenes - all movies have. However those flaws were noticeably harder to notice in the OT (the AT-AT being the exception confirming the rule), whereas in "The Last Jedi" they're blatant on a near constant basic.
i dont care. neither in any other movie that is fiction. what i dont get why people are soo close minded when it comes to physics in fiction. if i made a movie i wouldnt follow the physics of our world.
Murtaza Rizvi , exactly my friend. Why have a fantasy, and limit yourself to the constraints of real world physics...especially when that fantasy is the Star Wars universe? Laser swords!
Scientifically inaccurate star wars? yeah cos ships making "pew pew" noises when they fire in space is accurate....
Even that was explained at some point. =)
Right, but there's a difference: Space battle ain't fun without pew pew
sounds. Which is why even otherwise hard(ish) sci-fi movies/series like The Expanse do it, and that's a completely acceptable trade-off. WW II - like bomb runs that feel extremely awkward in space, however, are absolutely not necessary for a space movie to be fun - on the contrary.
The sound in space is non-diegetic. The characters can’t hear it, since they never acknowledge it at all.
Oh and don't forget burning ships.....IN SPACE.
Thorin II Oakenshield There is an explanation for that too. The atmosphere in the ship vents out the fire is fed by it. Easy enough to understand.
I've seen it pointed out elsewhere - given how ubiquitous antigrav tech is, its very likely that most star wars ships don't travel at orbital velocities, and this actually explains a lot of star wars ship combat. In particular any time they're fighting near a planet, the ships appear relatively stationary until one of them takes sufficient damage. At that point they'll start 'falling' towards the planet.
This makes perfect sense if star wars ships are never actually in orbit, but held in place by their repulsors -as soon as the power cuts out they'll drop like a stone.
And it explains a lot of the relatively slow combat speeds.
Really the only problem is that they do appear to be able to cross systems relatively quickly without entering hyperspace but...ehhh, I'm willing to overlook that. :D
How can bombs fall in space? The same way that starfighters can maneuver like atmospheric WW II (or modern day) fighters. Space fantasy. 😊
Right? I'm not exactly a star wars superfan but ffs this is a series with wizards and completely unrealistic spaceflight physics from the very first film. Many, many things in star wars are unrealistic. People only care now because the stories aren't as fun.
@@jokerzwild00 I will agree with that. If the stories and characters aren't compelling and fun, yes, the whole house of cards can fall. Goes back to the old notion that visuals will only carry a movie/ show so far.
the same way that an astronaught can fall from a high orbit balloon, technically he was in space but he still fell under the effects of gravity of the planet below...
The goal was to recreate a WWII-era bomber/dogfight scene in space. Without explaining why they were doing what they were doing, it came off like complete dogshit. These are supposed to be highly advanced spacecraft, but the thinking behind it was from the 1930s. This is why we fire long range, stand-off antiship missiles as shit now, instead of flying up a ship's nostrils to drop something on it. Fucking stupid scene, fucking terrible writing.
@@Booyaka9000 They definitely could have handled it better.
I also think a big problem with space fantasy actioners that open with the big space battle is that the audience is left with "Holy frak, where do they go from here?"... and then end up finding the rest of the film wanting. Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith at least delivered.
remember that star wars happens "in a galaxy far far away..." xD
cheers!
Makes sense. Now explain why those kludges pretending to be bombers were moving so slow. Based on the time it took one to travel from the bow of the ship to the target amidships, one could drive a scooter faster....and probably avoid the TIE Fighters, too.
It is 7.7 kilometres long though. Although they were still slow in comparison.
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. These slow, primarily atmospheric bombers (that could operate in space for limited periods of time) were all the Resistance could afford.
Jay Kilbourne Hum.... The bombers are bigger and have more materials to be put in place than the Y-Wings.... How could it be cheaper?
Older, more easily made technology and materials. Same way for an old B-17 vs an A-10.
Jay Kilbourne Ah you are sating the bombers in the movie are older than y-wings then.
My issue with the bombers is why use them? I can see groups in the Star Wars Universe using bombers to carpet bomb a planet, and I can see how the Resistance would repurpose them to bomb ships, but why put their resources into bombers when they could get ships that fire missiles? Wouldn't these bombers have been useful during the attack on Starkiller Base? Probably not since they seemed slow and prone to explode. So are they just lemons that the Resistance got really cheap and they just threw an idea together on how to use them, since nobody would expect bombers? That seems like that could be explained a couple lines of dialogue I don't remember from the movie.
It was explained: the Resistance was nearly destroyed, and they were working with whatever half-assed crap ships they had left. In short, the explanation is extreme poverty and not having anything else to use. They made quite a point of this, that the loss of even one bomber was a major blow to the entirety of what was left of the Resistance. They were just that weak.
they are more broke then when the rebellion was fighting the empire?
Well they don't seem like lemons because we only learned about this ships now which means they are new. Y wing would be lemon and those are better. While space combat looks like ww2 and borrows some elements from it. It is also modern combat as well because of technology.
In 1978 a man had the idea that having realistic space fights would be boring, so he made the ships fight ww2 style, he also realized that bombs would be boring so he added missiles and torpedos and created a nice genre of spaceship fights with a targetlock beeping. In 2018 a guy without any idea thoght he would be smart ...he wasnt.
Realistic space battle would not be boring tho
I'm more bothered about the woman not being blown into open space coz there is no shield.
Also when Leia floats in and opens the door with everyone stood on the other side, still no space vacuum..
I figured there were two sets of doors that acted like a airlock
I think the actual flaw is the ship design. Extremely wide lower body, easy to target and hit with missiles and fighters.
They could've taken out the bombers without them getting anywhere near the large Dreadnaught's.
Too easy to hit. The B and Y-Wings were supposed to be extremely fast moving if I remember right, like Warthog fighter/bombers we have today.
It's a frickin' _minelayer_ rather than the "bomber" they're trying to bill it as. It would be more at home with the original Rebel Alliance to fill a space with bombs, rather than a close-range bomber craft used by a respected politician's national guard force. Tell me you couldn't see it, the docking platform drops out of hyperspace with its four minelayers, and they undock in position to drop off hundreds of little black spheres right in the path of a couple Star Destroyers before popping back out again
The B-Wing can get fast, but the Y-Wing is famously the slowest fighter in the Rebel Alliance. That's why it was phased out (and why it's so interesting to see show up in the newest trailer)
These ships actually tank a few good hits and are flying from VERY far away (out of the Dreadnoughts range) to RIGHT over it without any guidance for positioning. They're a heavy bomber, they shouldn't be expected to endure several minutes of dogfight all in the open.
Half the width of most fighters. Not that wide.
I would like to think that the star fortress was initially designed as a heavy space to ground bomber, hence the downwards bomb bay to drop bombs on a planets´surface after air superiority was already established. It´s surely not the best ship to use in space combat, but don´t forget that the resistance was down on their luck and these were probably the only ships with enough firepower that they had left.
Gravity in the ship. Keeps falling with momentum. I actually tweeted this at Ryan and Pablo and got verification. It’s pretty obvious, and the wind has Star Wars ever even come close to having accurate physics? There are a lot of things wrong with this movie by to pick apart the scientific realism of it is absolutely absurd.
David Jones My only problem is that the velocity of the bombs on the bottom row would be noticeably different from those at the top which had more time to accelerate. Especially given the ridiculous vertical presence of the bomber's pay load. I'm no physicist but I would imagine that this would result in collisions between the bombs if they all have, even if only marginally, different velocities and are all moving in the same direction.
My PARTICULAR problem is that Paige falls down onto a catwalk, and grabs the remote control, all whilst the doors are open. Yes, the atmosphere can be contained with a shield, but where is the gravity projected FROM for her to stick to the catwalk?
Dylan Murphy I've had the same thought myself; this would definitely be a problem if the bombs are just freefalling from their initial position and the ship's artificial gravity is self-contained, but if the ship projects its artificial gravity downwards, the bombs would continue to accelerate until they hit their target, and wouldn't hit each other. Barring that, if the bombs were moved downwards at a constant velocity for most of the time they were still in the ship, and only released into freefall once they were in the bottom-most position, they would all have the same velocity, and wouldn't collide.
Ian Wesley That would only work if the propulsive affects of the ship's artificial gravity extended beyond the interior which I don't see why it would.
Ian Wesley And the only way to create a constant velocity downwards is to have the force acting downwards on the bombs be equal to the force acting upwards. Essentially, you'd need to have an upward force with an acceleration of roughly 9.81m/s^2, assuming the ship's force of gravity similar to Earth's which it seems to be in the movie. But, at that point, it probably wouldn't succeed at simulating the effects of gravity for the crew.
Earths Gravity extends way beyond the atmosphere, you just dont feel it in orbit (which is not the same thing as just being high up) so if the ships are hovering above the planet instead of orbiting it, that works fine.
Well, the ship does have its own artificial gravity too right? I dont need to be an expert to know that if something has artificial gravity, things will drop, even if they stop accelerating once out.
+KK You're in the hole. Stop digging. Real world physics supports the space bomb dropping scene.
Artificial gravity work to keep things from falling out of the ship. So the bombs won't be going anywhere if that ship has gravity. The way you are thinking is that gravity always act downwards which is wrong. Force of Gravity directs toward the center mass (on a planet) while on a ship with artificial gravity, it would pull mass towards the gravity generator.
Nope, it is stupidity that made the scene worked.
Thats not how we ever see Gravity represented in Star Wars though. I mean, Gravity generators would be pretty much useless if you couldnt make uniform gravity with it. Besides, how far does a ships gravity extend beyond the hull then? Afterall, if thats how gravity generators work in Star Wars, there would be at least 1 sphere of gravity around it. But we just never see that happen.
All good ideas and it still absolutely floors me that THIS, this was the thing that didn't make sense to so many people in Star Wars.
I would love to see you do a redesign of the Star Fortress that put it in line with the already established tech of the Star Wars universe but also addressed some of its short comings all while maintaining the same general cross section. For example, what if the big vertical bay opened at the front and was like 100+ proton torpedoes ready to launch at the same time at the target ship or an arrangement of the guns on the ship that made sense for it being the Star Wars equivalent of the B-17.
So basically a starfighter-sized Torpedo Sphere?
@@williamnixon3994 a bit more one-shot than a sphere but ya
While watching the movie it never even occurred to me that this was an issue and when people brought it up later stating “that’s not how space works” I just assumed it was the internal gravity thing. The magnetic propulsion explanation is perfectly fine too. I just don’t get why certain things bother everyone when other instances don’t.
Planets in Star Wars are ridiculously small. That's why they are all one biome.
Not all. Naboo is one example of a diverse biome planet in Star Wars.
Besides, in our solar system, there are several single biome planets.
still small enough that they could take a Bongo through the planet core. ;)
It doesn't explain how they all conveniently have Earth gravity though.
I bet they don't have Earth gravity and that's why everything can hover. A Jedi coming to Earth would be crushed by our larger gravity and Earthings would be like Kryptonians flying around their low gravity planetoids. Bwaa ahhh ahhhh
Also, many planets IRL have singular environments (not using the term biome cause we're not sure about the bio part yet), and even in reality, planets with multiple environments are pretty rare.
Plus single biome planets are only common from the planets we've actually seen. Imagine the trillions and trillions of other planets out there in star wars that are just lifeless balls, or don't have intelligent life so are largely ignored.
What we should be getting anal over is how seemingly every planet in the Galaxy, including planets with zero plant life like mustafar have oxygen rich, breathable atmospheres
You're gonna trigger so many haters.
The existence of this movie does it better than that one scene alone.
Sam Clam Or the statements expressed in this video will be incongruent to the opinions of those who do not immediately agree with his hypothesis.
SO ******* TRIGGERED !!!
Sam Clam 0.25¢ have been deposited into your bank account, Sam.
Thanks for the support against the misogynistic racist all right Trolls and haters.
Love: Disney™
Razgriz Knight Y’all just assume that Disney pays people every time you run out of counter-arguments and can’t prove that the movie sucks, unless you’re joking of course.
All it takes is for the ship to not move forward. Gravity still affects ships in orbit. This isn't rocket science. No pun intended...
This is a really good point. We already know anti gravity exists in the Star Wars universe, so the ships aren’t necessarily in orbit/freefall.
except that doesn't explain that the bombs fall faster than the ship itself, can't have it both ways. Either they are both in orbit, or not. To let them fall like in this scene you would have to actively push them in that direction.
If the ship isn't moving, it will free fall at the same speed as the bombs. So the bombs don't fall relative to the ship. *Have another go.*
Beleshanel did you watch the video? They're magnetically propelled.
Beleshanel The ships appear to have some technology that stops them from falling in gravity. As long as you resist the temptation to put the same technology in the bombs, they can fall just fine when the ships do not fall.
Short answer: Almost every (I dont know any exceptions) ship in Star Wars has gravity whereever they are, so they must have some kind of gravity-generator. And since there is gravity the bombs will fall down and when they leave the gravitational field they keep their momentum in Space and continiue “falling“.
My problem with the bombers is they’re horrible compared to b-wings and the second is the visual lack of a protection shield to keep the air in. It wouldn’t have been to hard to show a blue shield or better yet just use the more technologically advanced bombers, the b-wings.
Those bombers have the best shielding in the galaxy, a nice thick layer of plot armor.
But yes, you do bring up a very good point. I think it would have been cool to see B-wings in action
That's how I felt too. Ponderous bombers in space just doesn't make enough sense to me. Also, carpet bombing a shit makes no sense. It should have more than enough shields on top to withstand the blasts, and I'm not sure the dampening effect of being in space. A single bomb that bores into the ship would have been much more effective and realistic.
Even if the resistance had B-wings they would likely not have enough to be effective against that warship in such short amount of time due to their smaller payloads, remember this important fact, it only took the payload of one Star Fortress to destroy the dreadnought.
or a Y-wing MKII
Star Wars: The Last Damage Control
They still coming xD
As a physics major, I naturally assumed the last bit is what was happening.
If I remember right from the old stuff from Legends, there were bombs that were useable via air compression. Basically enough to point the bomb on its way without much need for things.
It's one of the reasons why the Missile Boat was so effective. The air pressure added just a bit more momentum over the power of the thrusters to get it away, meaning that your bombs launched from going full tilt combined with SLAMs kicked in pushed them a whole lot faster.
Same reason why it was a bad idea to accelerate in a straight line after you launch your bombs or you might ram them and bad things happened.
It also displays the same effects when in the atmosphere or in places where there is a lot of gravity such as bombs being quite useful against Interdictors because those same gravity wells that mess with your hyperdrive makes the ships easier to hit with bombs...
I've always been a fan of the 'the bomb bay has gravity, dumbass' explanation. It's short, it's simple, and absolutely nothing on screen contradicts it.
Even without having a planet nearby, the bombs would still keep going. Momentum is a thing and the lack of gravity outside of the bomber doesn't mean that their momentum suddenly vanishes. So the bombs would continue to move in the same direction and the same speed.
Exactly
The bombs can be explained in a lot of ways, but for me the most obvious mistake is that those bombers are so absurdly slow, that they always would get trapped by the explosion of his own bombs. What a stupid concept. Awesome Rian.
Those bombs would be much more effective thrown from a distance.....
Algunos Cuenticos
A tiny puff of air from above would also cause a downward motion. Add that into an explanation and it doesn't not work. :)
Did you want rian to do an Expanse battle or a Star Wars battle cos this is STar Wars after all. THEY ARE ALL STUPID SPACE BATTLES. Yavin 4, Endor, ALL stupid all silly.
Hyper missiles? Hell you don't need anything but bomblets slung out of a catapult travelling at 30KM a second launched froma ship travelling 100 KM a second, Endor could have been done and dust in seconds, but woudl have taken a year to prepare for.
Sorry, you watch Star Wars for the spectacle. Not the reality. Doesn' tmatte rhow stupid it is.
I mean is nobody bothered by how the death star, doesn't collapse under its own mass? Or how it would effect everything around it like a real moon would?
And its uses lasers when all it really needs it some solid lumps of metal slung at incredible velocities to cuase destruction.
Why wouldn't they just use the kinetic force of a huge object like an asteroid to destroy a target (Aka planet).
SKd Hammer Station from the Old Republic did just that.
That makes little sense. How would the explosion hurt the bomber? There is no atmosphere for the pressure wave be transfered through.
The whole upper stratosphere argument falls apart when you realize all the ships are oriented the same way, but they’re not oriented to point down at D’Qar. The ships are at an angle. If the planet’s gravity reached that high, the bombs would fall diagonally backwards, so the Starfortresses would’ve had to fly even further in order to drop their payload. The explanation that makes sense to me is, of course, MAGNETS!
There's gravity inside the ship, and when the bombs go from the gravity of the ship to a zero-g environment with no friction, they keep the momentum they had when they were falling inside the ship. There's no need for magnets, just basic physics.
Andy i wonder why the fuck have no one realized dis
Exactly what I thought
Also the only problem I have with this is the last bombs dropped would have a larger momentum due to being in free fall for a longer time there is a huge risk for them to collide with the bombs that were launched ahead of them.
so how is the ship holding itself up if you have a "gravity" that push things OUTSIDE the ship?
" That's not how ~the force~ gravity works! "
Daily Cup of Justin Since when did the top bombs get launched first? Oh yeah, they didn’t...
Honestly that whole scene was just to pay homage to the fact Star Wars is mainly based off of WW2 films,as pointed out in this video.
The bombers are basically B17s
+KK Ironically, real world physics vindicates George Lucas and Rian Johnson for including space bomb dropping scenes.
Do a Pacific 201 update, please!
They continued in the direction the artificial garavity sent them when they exceeded the artificial gravity field... like the loadey would have done if she had missed the grate or like the whole control pad falling inside the ship.
Honestly I always assumed there was some sort of launching system by how they deployed in that one shot so the actual explanation makes perfect sense to me.
I wanna know how the atmosphere stays in the bomber.
Chaosnaut. Have you not seen the many force fields in use throughout the franchise?
DrewLSsix Aren't force fields illuminated? If there was a force field, would it keep in the atmosphere but let the remote "fall" through? Does the artificial gravity extend beyond the force field?
I found the force field issue far more distracting than the gravity issue.
Chaosnaut. Starwars has shown force fields that allow ships through while retaining atmosphere. The FX used to demonstrate their function has changed several times since first seen in 77, in the original movie the field was invisible with an illuminated border, while other shields have been shown to have different properties. That these ships have yet another variation isnt really an issue.
Atmospheric containment fields are an existing detail, yes. I wonder how the GRAVITY still works with the doors open though.
Chris sonofPear. Why wouldnt it? We see this all the time in all the starwars movies. All the bays on the deathstar were wide open and the gravity was fine.
I am getting sick and tired of people with zero understanding of physics criticizing these bombers. This is Star Wars we are talking about. Is anyone asking why there is gravity on the falcon? why the gravity on the death star has a universal down instead of a more "sensible" "inwards"?
This is Star Wars. Do we really need to ask about stuff falling down in star Wars? Where they had artificial gravity since day one and have to have inertial dampening? There is Gravity in the flippin bomb shaft. It has ladders. it is designed for gravity. Infact, the damn remote FALLING is a plot point of that very scene!
The planet in the background does not matter, this would have worked in deep space. Sir Isaac Newton is groaning in his grave whenever someone speaks out against these bombers. FFS....
Agreed. Seriously I know near to *nothing* about physics, and I'll admit that without problem. And even I came up with the 2nd theory. Just made sense to me. Whenever I say it though, they call *me* the idiot lol. Seriously, most people are just... ugh.
There's a limit to how much you're supposed to disband your disbelief. "Because it's Star Wars" isn't an excuse for shitty writing.
@@eightball6219 Are you an idiot? The bombs falling out of a bomber is "shitty writing" but artificial gravity itself isn't? The complete lack of any form of acceleration when entering and exciting hyperspeed isn't? I don't know what to say to that because it's clear that you're just a complete idiot if this is really what bothers you and you call shitty writing, it is at no point inconsistent with the established rules of the Star Wars universe. I think you're just selectively deciding to suddenly start caring about physics in fucking Star Wars because you decided you hate the movie for some other reason.
I just figured they used the artificial gravity of the dreadnought itself.
And why did a dreadnought have a gravity field twice its height? Also... A large surface area such as the dreadnought gravity field would definitely pulls the bomb with the reassurance bomber.
@@delasierra9067 I'm not really sure I just mostly took it as that. I never really learned about how individual ship gravity works in Star Wars. Maybe I should
@@ImNtDead sorry about that, i didnt meant to hurt anyones feelings.
@@delasierra9067 No feeling's hurt I was just saying I should probably figure it out is all.
I was thinking the same way when I saw it in theaters, that it's actually just the artificial gravity letting them "fall"/launching them into space. Like you said, the film does a pretty good job conveying that there's gravity in that area, and I would imagine that there's shielding on the opening that contains everything (ie. life support, air conditioning, artificial gravity, etc.) that other vehicles in the Star Wars universe seemingly has, because how else would that person be breathing, and not freezing to death. Also, something else that's interesting to think about is that the down vector of this artificial gravity isn't toward the center of the ship, but is always pointing down in terms of the ship's original orientation, meaning that it isn't a source that generates gravity as much as a magical gravity. Examples being when ships are turning/sinking, and all of a sudden all the objects in the hangars start sliding in what would be a downward slope according to the initial down vector of the ship.
only if they could have found a way to transport these bombs over a greate distance, without exposing the crew to an inevitable death...mayby something like photon torpedoes?
LOL. Thank you.
They have shields.
Proton torpedoes*
This ain't Star Trek boi
@@WwZa7 Same goes fore the Bombs
@@simond6050
Bombers and fighters can pass through the standard shields. Armed projectiles can't. It's just a rule in SW
The bomber scene was the least controversial issue in TLJ...
yeah, the everything after was a bigger issue.
That depended on who you talked to. I know some people who found this to be the biggest plot hole.
Didn’t even watch the vid yet but I’m saying, basically the dreadnaught was massive enough to create low gravity to pull something small like a few bombs towards it. Everything in space has its own mass, the largest object in the area draws smaller ones towards it.
I’m more concerned about how the hell they were breathing in the bomb bay
One of my explanations is the artificial gravity generators aboard the capital ships, able to create a field that extends out of the vessel itself.
We just not gonna ask how they are able to breath while dropping the bombs, with the doors open?
The Last Jedi retconned the concept of vacuum in Star Wars. It just doesn't exist.
Dude have you watched the films before? Hangerbays with big gaping holes into outer space. Han and Leia walking through the vaccum of space on an asteroid using just plastic oxygen masks. They played super fast and loose with the vaccum before. They went a bit far with Leia but it's hardly unprecendented either and it did nearly kill her. It isn't like 30 seconds of a vaccum is necessarily fatal to a real person either (though they'd be very unlikely to survive that explosion).
You know all those hangers in the death star? How they open into the vaccum of space? How no one but the storm troopers wear any kind of masks? Yeah, force fields. You don't see them in the original movies, you don't see them here either. I'd maybe have put a bit of a blue glow there to signify it, but the existance of invisible air-barriers has been in the series for all of the films.
Carter Brown dude our current technology can even do that. Its called a plasma window. We have made them before. It is basically an energy shield for keeping the air in.
no, there is a shield screen on the hangar door of the death star and any hangar bay on any ship ... but thoses ww2 "space" bomber do not ...
Let's be honest, the answer is: Rian Johnson thought it looked cool.
I really like the explanation that the ships are just hovering on their antigravs, it explains so much about how things work in Star Wars. You probably never see a ship in obbit because there's no need. The lack of orbits explains why the ships are moving at such low relative velocities, and why they go so close to each other. Also, why they can have such a complex spacefaring civilisation when a lot of their technology actually seems quite antiquated. I like to think that most of the time ships aren't using artificial gravity, the things inside them are just using the gravity of the planet they're over.
If we invented anti gravity technology now, or even had invented it some time ago, our technology may well end up looking a lot like we see in Star Wars.
I had problems with the last Jedi, but this wasn't one of them, and i actually doubt anyone really had too, the just wanted to bandwagon more excuses to hate it.
You just summed up the majority of TLJ criticism. There are some legitimate criticisms, e.g. the Canto Bight side plot and, but 99% of the criticism online boils down to ridiculous things like this.
LOL, no. This exact scene almost made me walk out of the theater. This was utter garbage. There is no way a space-faring society is going to get their ships holding the bombs as close as possible to a capital ship before dropping the bombs. The bomber is absolutely a sitting duck. They should be so far away that the other ship can't even see them with the naked eye and send thousands of small fast missiles at the capital ships.
I am so glad that I found your channel. I’ve been besieged on all sides of UA-cam by extreme negativity towards Star Wars these days. It’s nice to find someone that has well thought out commentary with a lot of common sense thrown in for good measure. You’re an oasis of good in the sour sea that UA-cam floats in. Keep it coming and may the Force be with you.
Comments like this make my day. Thanks!
1:09 I just realized one of the bombs had a smiley face on it
Special delivery
I believe there's also one that says "Hi snoke" in Aurebesh, and another that says something like "Han says hi"
I was thinking artificial gravity too.
Also the dreadnought is as big of a ship that it probably has a serious own gravity field
Its too small and would need to be redesigned with shape and size
@@wellsilver3972 We literally see people walk around inside of it did you even watch the movie?
@@hedgehog3180 I watched it but my brain is too dumb to store any information
@@hedgehog3180 also it was seven months ago
While I hated the last Jedi. I do remember the opening battle of ROTS took place in Coruscant's upper atmosphere. That's why the buzz droids slid off the wings of Anakins star fighter after R2 zapped them.
+KK Once again, I refer to Because Science, which reminds people how a planet's gravity affects objects THOUSANDS of kilometers from its surfaces. So, space bomb dropping is rational:
m.ua-cam.com/video/CPTIjLPPdIM/v-deo.html
+KK
Did you watch the Because Science video?
They slide of because Aniken is accelerating
Anakin was moving, these bombers not, still a weird point todo ha te this, and i hate it
Black lizard my source comes from something George Lucas said about the battle. Because originally people were saying there in the vaccume of space they shouldn't have slid off.
I was kinda thinking the ravager was so big that it had its own gravitational field (albeit a weak one) which attracted the bombs along with the help of some initial momentum.
But why is no one talking about how Rose's sister is in the open bomb bay and not suffocating without a mask on?
You know, the resistance could have just magnetically launched them from a distance. Something like a rail gun. That or just used an x-wing to HYPERSPACE RAM the enemy ship. HYPERSPACE RAM... The best way to destroy or disable a large enemy ship. Even a Death Star is vulnerable to a....... HYPERSPACE RAM!!
Hyperspace drives are really expensive, which is why nobody uses Hyperspace rams unless they need to.
RESOURCE STRAPPED=THE REBEL ALLIANCE.
Dennis Alfonso , maybe, but they were in a hurry to get away before being destroyed by the more powerful First Order fleet.
Dennis Alfonso yeah 1 xwing per ship. Aim at engines or bridge. Remote piloted.
more expensive than building a gigantic capital ship up to the size of a moon - which also has hyperspace drives?
AWESOME idea here!
When it comes to Star Wars universe canon, it is indeed important to remember that we're not watching a real war documentary, we're watching science-*fiction* space opera, hehehe
Great content, man!
itwontcomeout5678 agreed however, even these bombers and universe can't ignore basic universal laws or physics.
What I really don’t get about criticism for dropping bombs in space is that in empire strikes back, the tie bomber did the EXACT same thing, but nobody questioned it.
The artificial gravity doesn't quite work, sadly. However you imagine the artificial gravity working, it seems pretty clear that as you leave the ship, at some point you leave the artificial gravity and are out in "normal" space. Whether it stops at the walls of the ship or maybe is a bubble, or even whether is has a sharp boundary or just fades away doesn't matter here.
But look at the arrangement of the bombs. Clearly the bombs at the bottom of the rack have a shorter distance to fall before they leave your gravity field. As something falls, gravity accellerates it and it moves faster and faster. So the longer the bomb is in the gravity field, the more time it has to pick up speed.
Thing is, the bombs at the top of the rack fell further before leaving the field, so they will be going faster by the point they exit the gravity field. They'll catch up and crash into the back of the slower moving bombs from the bottom!
Now they could have some sort of break mechanism to keep the top bombs from speeding up too much, but it seems more likely that they'd want to get the bottom bombs moving faster instead. The faster they move, the easier it is to hit your target, the less time it has to potentially maneuver and dodge, and so you can drop them from further away.
It might also be possible to move a secondary gravity field down with the falling bombs, then shut it off when they're all clear of the ship. This way all the bombs are all in gravity for the same length of time and can be traveling at the same speed. Seems like an unnecessarily complicated way of doing it, though.
gravity would work if the dreadnought (what ship is being bombed) if the ship was between planet and the bomber, but in the movie they show the planet to the side of both ship and the bomber. The ships also not parallel to a tangent directly over the planet, but angle instead. The bombs would be dropping close to a parallel to a tangent rather than fall in the direction of gravity
Killiaka Kinnet how about the fact that the dreadnought is a massive object, meaning its gravitational pull on other objects would be relatively large in this "free space" scenario. Why is everyone assuming only planets have gravitational attractions.
yes all matter has gravity, but it takes a lot of mass to get to get large pull. even as big as the moon is it only has 1/6 th the gravity of Earth. a large ship could be 1/500 gravity or smaller of earth normal gravity.
I know im late but why are we assuming the artificial gravity of the bomber stops right on the bottom of the rails i would think it would be sort of diminishing gravity the further away you got and the bombs are clearly spaced out so they wouldnt collide as well as the bomber is moving so each bomb that comes of the rail is at a different location then the last that coupled with the fact the bombs were spaced out means it would work even if the artificial gravity stops at the end of the rails.
Good video Henry. No dumb assessment, no bias. Only logic. You're right, the bombs are not a problem at all. The bombers are. Because they look like 10.000 years older than Y-Wing tech.
Yet, we could make an argument about how demilitarization act could have forced the Resistance to go for those bombers. But, this act is not mentioned in the movies... And that does not fit with the fact the Resistance salvaged X-Wings and the Raddus. No matter how they work, the bombers are dumb. Remember, Rogue One already showed us Y-wing taking out Star Destroyers. The dreadnought would have been toast without all those losses. So yeah, at best, the bombers look silly. At worse, they are so impractical that they belong in Spaceballs 2. Oh wait... TLJ is kind of a comedy already... Now I get it !
Agreed
Luc Fauvarque
Why do you think that these are comparable to Y wings? If a Y wing had the ability to take out an entire star destroyer, don't you think the rebels would have used that capability? These are clearly larger, higher-payload vehicles.
Edit: the Y wings in Rogue one used ion bombs to disable a star destroyer. They did not destroy it.
B-wings had the ability to assault and disable or destroy capital ships, they were highly maneuverable and fast, and 30 years older then these POS bombers in Last Jedi
Surt Two
A single Y-Wing could not, yes. And yes again, they did not out right destroyed it, they disabled not just the shields, but the entire ship... Which would have worked to allow them to escape.
But, a single Star Fortress could not take out this dreadnought either. It doesn't matter how big your payload is, if you can't deliver it on target. Look how many go (8), how many died (8). They should have failed, if it was not for standard movie soldier plot armor : when you do the job, you survive ten times longer than your companions for no reasons. Look at how much steps were needed to allow them to strike. Watch the damn thing again. Y-Wings are not comparable you're right, they are a million times better.
Killiaka Kinnet that wasn't a weak point ,some bombers where going to begin the bombing run at the peek of the mandator iv
It looks intuitively right. Even without gravity, in space object need only minimal acceleration to fly in direction of said acceleration. And there is an artificial gravity. IDK why ppl complain about that.
Even 3600 kilometers above Earth's surface, the pull of gravity is still around 4.01 m/s^2, since gravity operates on inverse square law. It's why the Invisible Hand fell to Coruscant's surface in "Revenge of the Sith". The ships at the battle of Coruscant weren't maintaining orbital velocities, and instead depending upon repulsor tech to keep them above planet and 'in orbit'. This is seen whenever any major vessel is flying in an atmosphere.
I came to the exact same reason about the artificial gravity so it baffled me that people considered this a plot hole.
Then I found out there were other reasons AS WELL.
I am in no way science minded but I got it. People need to stop being so picky; there are a number of other things in the movie to complain about.
Kyle Hill of Because Science did a video of this scene and came to the same conclusion as EC that it obeys real physics.
How have we gotten to the point to where the way objects fall downwards in a movie is a "plot hole"...
@Star Trek Theory
Yeah, let's ignore the Empire's TIE Bombers that drop bombs in space:
ua-cam.com/video/phGlo_TNDp0/v-deo.html
Sorry KK, but several real world physicists have demonstrated the hyperspace ram is scientifically plausible. Here are a few articles on the topic:
* The Physics Behind The Last Jedi's Coolest Scene! (Because Science w/ Kyle Hill)
ua-cam.com/video/i1M95njhovw/v-deo.html
* Physicists Say the Epic Hyperdrive Scene in 'The Last Jedi' Is Plausible
www.inverse.com/article/39544-the-last-jedi-laura-dern-admiral-holdo-supremacy-crash-hyperdrive
* The Science Of 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'
ua-cam.com/video/amXHVehSeNw/v-deo.html
* The Science of Silence in ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-silence-star-wars-last-jedi-180967692/
I personally came to the Electromagnets conclusion when I saw the movie.
Still makes no sense that she isn't flying out of that ship due to the vacuum of space (shown to exist in the Leia Poppins scene). You can argue that there are force fields, but the film makes no effort to convey that.
Most force fields in Star Wars are invisible. It’s the visible ones that are the outliers.
The Action Brick There was no forcefield conveyed in the hangar of the death star, but we all grasped it because we have basic intelligence.
The only thing you could probably go with is that in New Hope and ROTJ the field is implied when ships land in hangars of Death Star...... But then they had a Light Barrier around hangar edge to indicate this was what was happening.
i thought liea standing before the explosion was to show her being able to conjure a sheild.
I think people only pointed this out because their whole suspended disbelief was destroyed by the sheer inconvenience of the bomber's design. Like, it's slow, unarmoured and shielded, it's payload delivery is slow which requires it to be close to deliver it. It's just bad, especially when you consider they had things like Y-wings. In Rogue One they show a small squadron of Y-wings take out a star destroyer with EMPs. Sure, it only too 1 Bomber to kill the dreadnought but at the cost of 10 to get within range and even then it was lucky.
The artificial gravity explanation was what I thought when I first watched the movie.
I agree with most the video, but the Star Wars universe may not completely agree with this universe’s psychics. But have almost the same concepts and there is lore behind how things like lightsabers work. There is technology behind it, the only main non explainable thing in the universe is the Force. Everything else has been developed, and such. I can’t agree with the point that because it’s Star Wars, anything can work. But people did over exaggerate over the fact of how these bombs dropped.
Edit: also that’s what makes Star Wars even more interesting to understand the lore of the technology in the universe And how they have what they have, everything has an explanation that is technology based one way or another. Unless you’re something that’s the Vong. I don’t complete understand that idea of technology since I haven’t read the material yet
Killiaka Kinnet yes, I know that. I said technology not machinery. And I specified the Vong as a different thing.
+RS Builds
Real worlds physics supports "dropping bombs in space" as explained by Because Science. It does seem weird at first:
m.ua-cam.com/video/CPTIjLPPdIM/v-deo.html
TheVeritas1 I think you misread my comment. I never even said that bombs dropping in space was impossible. I was disagreeing with the fact that just becuase its Star Wars anything can happen without explanation. And I already have watched that video but before I did, I knew the canon answer
True, I completely agree with this
I completely agree with the hyperslam and I completely agree with Luke's ghost projection
BUT I CAN'T AGREE WITH THE ARCHING TURBOLASERS OF THE SUPREMACY
I just can't.
It crosses the line
That's some Doctor Who-level BULLSHIT
Why not arcing turbolasers?
W4lhalla because no !
In all star wars, including TFA laser bolts travel straight even on a planet's surface
You're okay with lasers moving way slower than the speed of light, but not with them arcing? I see your point, but that sort of falls under "It's Star Wars."
Well those "Turbolasers" are not shooting with lasers. The bolts that are fired are plasma bolts and those bolts can be manipulated to arc.
W4lhalla From a straight barrel with no gravitational field? I think not. Missles make far more sense in this case.
And don't forget the gravity generators on the capital ships. How far outwards do those extend? It'd be in their interest for the fields to be as tight as hell, but... Leveraging an opponent's attributes against them would be a nice poetic touch.
It's been a while since the concept has been explained to me, but when I was in school a few years back I belive we were taught that all objects regardless of their size or mass have a gravitational pull. This affect is increased by mass which is why world later than earth are thought to have a stronger pull and make you feel heavier on those planets and vice versa. The Dreadnought being a gargantuan ship compared to the relatively small and light bombs would attract them to its surface in zero gravity simply by virtue of the fact that it's mass is producing gravity independent of any propulsion system used to launch the bombs or it artificial gravity generators which it wouldn't need in space.
Again, all of this completely misses the point, which is: The way this scene is orchestrated just feels too frickin' awkward. When a fantasy movie makes you stop and think about the plausibility of it, i.e. breaks suspension of disbelief, it's simply not a great fantasy movie.
Seeing her fall downward and then the remote fall downward made it extremely clear. Seriously I can't possibly imagine a more clear way of demonstrating how the bombs fall, so what made you suspend your disbelief?
magnetic guide rails?
Exactly. Doesn't matter if it the scene had a perfectly rational real world reason, if it feels bad its not good cinema. The x-wing dog fights are fast and feel good but totally unrealistic. This bomb run was slow and awkward, not fun and felt clunky.
No the top ones on the top travel at the same speed because they hit the lower ones so they slow down
MezzoForteAural That's a fair point, although I still found it fun watching all the chaos ensuing around the slow bombers. I thought it provided nice contrast.
I wonder if the Dreadnought itself had some sort of gravity well generator. While it's used to prevent ships from escaping to hyperspace, could it also generate a sort of gravity of its own? That would pull the bombs towards it.
Most ships in Star Wars have some sort of artificial gravity anyways, hence why somebody can walk inside a Star Destroyer the same way they would on a planet.
Killiaka Kinnet And that would be cool in the old canon, where interdictors actually worked because gravity wells screwed with hyperdrive calculations. In the new Disney canon, Han Solo can hyperdrive into a planet's atmosphere, and Cassian Andor can hyperspace out from a planet's atmosphere, so gravity-well interdictor cruisers are quite impossible now. This is how you break suspension of disbelief, not by contradicting the rules of _our_ reality, that is to be expected, but by contradicting their own universe's rules.
Reality Rejection Service only interdictor ships had gravity wells
Backdeckpro Xbox one I know THAT- but those were strictly Imperial ships. Does the First Order have specially dedicated interdictors, or did they just integrate the tech into their Resurgent-class ships?
Actually your explanation is the only one I'd think of as correct since simply accelerating stuff towards earth in orbit is actually LESS efficient than simply accelerating it backwards.
Scott Manley did a wonderful video on that I think.
The artificial gravity propulsion idea is the first thing that came to mind for me.
Girl falls toward bottom of ship.
Audience: "Works for me."
Remote control falls toward bottom of ship.
Audience: "Works for me."
Bombs fall toward bottom of ship.
Audience: "That makes no sense!"
"I sleep."
"I sleep."
"Real shit."
People have a problem with this? Really?
I really disliked the movie alot but i never saw a problem in any of the visuals or physics because both of these in SW are always fantastic (in both the fastasy meaning and the good looking meaning) and illogical (compared to reality).
There are honestly far worse things in this movie to complain about lmao
For me, it was the medical frigate falling back when out of fuel...
Oh, and can I forget skipping past all the lighter guns on the Mandator to take out exposed and generally useless flak guns?
Well, the First order is just as incompetent when it comes to navies like the empire.
I mean, why would you have your capital ship frontlining with your battleships as backup anyways? AND NO SCREENING SHIPS OR INTERCEPTORS??? Why only build TIE fighters if the Empire even had far superior TIE Interceptors and TIE Defenders?
Atleast they had SOME form of flak. Although it did its job very poorly. Admiral Kennedy and his crew (they even had lady Arryn from GoT) looked like promising new foes but they were killed off immediately sadly
I don't QUITE believe they are the only guns. Only published ones, yes. But I thought I saw a few brief shots from the side trenches as the bombers approached. Much lighter guns, possibly.
Hey, remember that the First Order was supposed to be some kind of splinter faction who needed to hide for decades with low ressources and manpower? Guess the writers didn't remember and just made them an Empire 2.0 lol.
If I was them I would've built a shitton of cheap droid fighters and screening ships because The Republic/Resistance apparantly still uses civil war time ships and relies on fighters, thus you wouldn't even need highly advanced capital ships yourself.
Just swarm them with droid fighter and/or shoot one of your lasor thingies (the one they used at the gate) at them.
There is no sound in space yet the awesome seismic charges make noise and no one complains about that. People just nitpick this movie because they don’t want to like it and fail to find valid criticisms
The artificial gravity theory has 1 issue, mainly the lower bombs colliding with the upper bombs. The lower bombs aren’t going to gain much velocity and (if the gravity source is near the bottoms of the ship) they may even fall slower than they would on earth. The upper bombs however would definitely gain quite a bit of speed. This means the upper bombs would collide with the lower bombs due to them being faster, causing the ship to explode with them.
a bit late, but what if the gravity source is located at the top of the ship? invert its direction so that it is pushing instead of pulling and youd have perfectly fine gravity effects that even extend downward out of the ship. and bombs dont go off just because they touch each other, just set a timer of a second and then activate the impact ignition
@@zeux5583, I see where you’re coming from though I don’t think it really matters where the source is located. The high ones are going to move faster just because they have further to fall, pulling or pushing.
While I’m not saying timing the bombs wouldn’t be possible, it would require things to be much more precise and in the actual scene the bombs appear to explode on contact.
@@ballisticblocker9163 the high ones cant move faster because there are bombs below them. and a one second timer for the detonator isnt magic, it just activates the bomb and doesnt explode them. then the now live bombs get pushed out by the gravity generator and would drift towards the target
Is this movie really worth all the nitpicky defenses you make on its behalf?
Rising Horizon Gaming I just don’t see the point, though. Maybe some of the nitpicks are unfair, but illustrating this point doesn’t change anything essential about the movie. Its plotting is still glacial, its tone still inconsistent, its characters still unsympathetic, its comic relief still badly out of place, its climax still unsatisfying. Finn and that awful fat chick still waste forty-five minutes going on a wild goose chase to Space Montecarlo. No one has said “That would have been a great movie if only the bombs hadn’t dropped straight down in what’s supposed to be Zero G.”
The only nitpickiness (it's a word! :P) going on is on the haters side...
I mean, really? People complain about this, but not about star fighters in space moving like they were airplanes flying in atmosphere or that planets only have one biome?
Oddball_E8 Again, you're missing the point. Things like this do nothing to improve the film. No one said "That would have been a great movie, but the bombs falling straight down in zero G completely ruined it for me."
No, you're missing the point. There are TONS of people nitpicking and complaining about things like this. And yes, they ARE saying that it completely ruined it for them.
Very few people actually complain about the lack of pacing or other actually valid complaints.
Instead, they're nitpicking about things that happened even in the old films.
Oddball_E8 That’s a silly waste of time. I’d ignore them and fire off the big guns of why Ep VIII failed.
Please do a video defending the giant monster breast next.
all they need is a little push vertically down and they would basically "fall" like they did in the movie, but you cant just let go and let the planet do the gravity pull. Remember, in order to orbit you need to be moving quite fast around the planet, but so does the bombs, so simply detatching em wont do a thing as they move at the same velocity as the ship.
There actually a reason that so many vehicles can resist, or seemingly resist gravity. In Star Wars a lot of vehicles, like speeders use what's called repulsorlift tech to defy gravity. So larger ships might have them to navigate in gravity. I don't know how it works exactly, but it does.
It’s possible but it’s still an incredibly stupid design. The resistance wasted their funding on those worthless, horribly designed garbage ships. The only explanation I would accept is that no one was selling Y-wings on the black market so they bought those because it was all they could find that they could afford.
I don't think the black market was the factor, the Resistance were just working with what they could mobilize against the First Order that was outmatching them.
In other words: By the time the movie begins they had already thrown the Y-wings at the enemy but the enemy just kept rolling out bigger ships!
Y-wings were obsolete by the time of the battle of Yavin anyway ,but the real question is why are there no b-wings?! or even K-wings? or the next gen of the y-wing? any 3 of these would have been superior to that slow piece of junk bomber.
@DejaVoodooDoll BS they had Snow speeders when they were the Rebellion to restore the republic what happened to those?! and those 'snow speeders' are modified Civlian towing speeders..
@@Mansplainer2099-jy8ps I think Disney is just trying to destroy Star wars...
Okay... HERE IS THE ANSWER:
For you to have the micro-gravity effect in space you need to be in orbit, therefore you will be falling around the planet, is what every spaceship, space station and satelite do on earth to stay in space.
But, star wars ships can hover above the ground, therefore they are not in orbit, they are suspended and preaty much get affected the same way by gravity like they were on the surface.
How can we be sure they are not in orbit?
Simple, if you are above your ground base in a stationary position (hovering) you can defend the incoming ships and not having to worry about a small window of aproach every orbit, since you would be going around the planet to stay in orbit, you would only have a few minutes close to the ground base to get your personel.
ITS SO FUCKING SIMPLE.
We never get a scene where a SW ship was in orbit, they are always hovering above the planet.
People who didnt get this and say is scientificaly impossible do not know science nor Star Wars.
Only problem, the ships are not hovering, they are moving. My entire problem is the whole design is flawed from a space warfare standpoint. Away from planets, these things are going to be very ineffective. Which leads to another question, why does the resistance have such ships in the first place. Seems like these would be resource hogs compared to a squadron of y-wings or even b-wings. The entire scene looks like a poorly executed WW2 bombing run over Germany.
@@rizon72 > My entire problem is the whole design is flawed from a space warfare standpoint.
This is the problem and not the fighters that maneuver like WWII props? Budy if you think this part of Star Wars space warfare is flawed then you're in for a rude awakening.
I never even thought about how that was possible until now
Yes! I fully agree. This is Star wars not The Expanse.
People rage about bombs falling in space but no one rages about stuff EXPLODING in space or just making any SOUND at all 🤣
We complain about that too...
How explosions and sound in space affecting the plot ?
launch a nuke into space and watch its explosion...you may not hear it ,but there is still an explosion as a matter of fact there's a HUGE explosion in the sky every day it's called the Sun.
@@RimoArikus91 ''How does falling in space affect the plot?'' We can use that too!
@@yamaslushy9461
Because of this phenomenon which is has been not explained in the movie, the bombing was somehow successful and only because of this the resistance is alive, otherwise the movie would just ended with first order being victorious.
Was there even one mention from characters about sound in space in entire star wars saga ? has someone said in the ship for example "did you hear how loudly the ship exploded next to us" ? if not then, it's not a issue, for the plot at least.
The problem is when they show the dreadnought it is pointing at the planet, not sitting above/tangent to the planet. Therefor if it was the planet's gravity propelling it, it would exit the bomber and then be pulled perpendicular to the dreadnought. The other major problem people had was why did the Resistance switch from effective Y-wings (helped destroy both Death Stars and numerous Star Destroyers) and B-Wings (the cutting edge of fighter bombers) to these bombers (which would have had to be developed with resources/time). Why switch from MISSILES to bombs? I understand the "creative decision" to make a WW2-esque fight scene, but this isn't a WW2-esque movie series its a fantasy-esque sci-fi series.
the death star trench is based on a WWiI bomber movie... but the design of those slow bombers is stupid
Thanks for clarifying this to me!
On ancient, lore, based on the Tie-Fighter space combat simulator, bombs would follow the path and maintain the speed of the vehicle that launched them, the mechanic was: you see the target, trust in your fighter scort, aproach at top speed, get close enough to make your bomb hard to intercept by enemy fighters but no too close to avoid turret fire, fire your bomb and break your fly path, if you are lucky enough you perhaps may go back, resupply and repeat. Little gravity there.... but it seems like al those pieces of lore are now gone, like tears in the rain.