Why did the Star Destroyers look so big from the surface of the planet when they aren't

Did you miss Rogue One where a destroyer just hung out over a city for a half the film?

I thought so too, then I didn't realize what I was thinking...

A Star Destroyer is 1600 meters long, that's a few hundred feet less than a mile.


Mountains are over a mile in diameter and are much smaller at closer distances than the Star Destroyers were.

Maybe whatever planet they were on is much much smaller than Earth, so even out of the atmosphere the star destroyers were a lot closer than you think?

quote:

---

Mountains are over a mile in diameter and are much smaller at closer distances than the Star Destroyers were.

---

That’s a shakey comparison because the bulk of that mass is covered by the curvature of the planet and surface features.

Compare it instead to the ISS.

At just 100 meters and being hundreds of miles away, you can just discern the I shape of the primary panels with a sharp eye and the right angle.

Look at my equation above

I thought it was cool to see the ships like that.

Guys

It's a movie

quote:

---

I thought it was a cool shot.

---

Is why they did it

I get annoyed too when the suspension of disbelief is shattered (Mary Poppins), but how big the star destroyer looks from the planet surface is not anywhere near that level.

1600 meters is a mile...

quote:

---

or why the rebel ships that ran out of fuel started falling down like an airplane out of fuel

---

That was frustrating.

But the way Star Wars works is that something dumb is done/overlooked in writing, so the Community finds an answer.

In this case, there were multiple engines. The ones on the bottom failed first, the engine on top burned the longest. This caused an angular momentum that looked like "falling."


Did the writers realize that the only way the entire premise works is if the ships thrusters had limitless acceleration which they had to continuously use where they couldn't reach a maximum velocity but couldn't accelerate any faster without a "jump" which would overshoot the group that is in front of them that had to also constantly accelerate? If they were accelerating like this, did they just all have really good "sea legs" and every object designed with a mass or magnetic-ness so that it wouldn't go flying if dropped or left sitting on a counter?
Does Star Wars space have friction or "Space Resistance" which forces thrusters to be used for constant speed (rather than constant acceleration)? Is it because of the presence of matter in "space" that caused Leia to not be torn apart/implode/whatever the proposed mechanism of humans in space would do nearly immediately?
Is it similar to real space where matter is thought to be sparse rather than absent and we are dealing with speeds fast enough that the friction is present?


But really, why the constant thruster burning and why does the Resistance ship have a sub-jump max acceleration higher than the larger First Order ships which can also get to light speed ? It's as if the Resistance ship can go from 1-10 and then also 20 while the FO ship can only go 1-9 and also 20, but for some reason was also not getting farther away?


SW Logically, I think they required fuel to maintain constant speed. It's the only thing that makes sense. Therefore, either their space has matter with Resistance or they are at speeds where the minimal to no Resistance of space matters. Or they don't understand physics.

quote:

---

Besides, when a ship comes out of light speed, how are the occupants not tossed around?

---

Inertial compensaters exist in the universe.


I started to reply with "force springs" but decided to ask my brother who read a few books. That was his answer.