20

In Episode III, you see that Venator-class Star Destroyers can land, load troops and perform other logistical operations and in Episode II, you see the same with Acclamator-class cruisers.

Does this apply to the Imperial-class Star Destroyers too? They are bigger than both the Venator and Acclamator classes - is there any appearance of a landed Imperial-class Star Destroyer?

Chris B. Behrens
  • 25,226
  • 21
  • 102
  • 155
Andrew P.
  • 669
  • 1
  • 5
  • 13
  • 12
    Real question can you land a Super star destroyer. – Himarm Aug 22 '14 at 14:53
  • 7
    With a length of 14 km would the curviture of the planet the star destroyer's landing on become an issue? – queeg Aug 22 '14 at 15:36
  • 11
    @queeg That depends on the diameter of the planet. – Xantec Aug 22 '14 at 17:03
  • 1
    Without any canon sources to back me up, it's reasonable to suppose a SSD could gently lower itself through an earthlike planet's atmosphere using its repulsors and then nudge the ground with its ventral surface (so as not to damage the bridge superstructure). Turning off the repulsors & shields would mean the SSD might tip over and suffer some structural damage. – RobertF Aug 22 '14 at 17:11
  • 12
    @Himarm: Oh yes. Executor landed on the Death Star pretty hard in ROTJ. – James Sheridan Aug 23 '14 at 05:38
  • Anything can land once... taking off again is the harder part. – T.J.L. Jul 08 '20 at 20:14

5 Answers5

24

I don't have a source at hand to confirm, but Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections showed ANH-era ISDs having no landing gear. That isn't 100% conclusive since Naboo starfighters used repulsors for landing gear.

Somewhat orthogonally, the Lusankya (SSD of Isard from X-Wing series) flew UP from the surface of Coruscant - but it was built there, so that neither supports nor disproves the theory.

Conclusion: We don't have firm proof either way from canon, but the vague indication (lack of landing gear) points to "They can't land. Or rather, they can land but only once :)"

Chris B. Behrens
  • 25,226
  • 21
  • 102
  • 155
DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
5

It seems likely

In Rogue One, the Dauntless, an Imperial-1 class Star Destroyer, hovers what appears to be a mere few thousand feet over Jedha, presumably using its repulsors.

enter image description here

While strictly speaking it hasn’t landed, it is hovering very close to the surface of the planet. Given the repulsor-based vertical takeoff abilities of Star Wars ships, and given that the Star Destroyer has sufficient repulsor capabilities to hover very close to the ground (and presumably attain orbit thereafter), it seems very likely that it would be able to physically land on a planet.

Adamant
  • 116,314
  • 35
  • 473
  • 648
  • 1
    The movie's novelisation mentions that hovering this close to the planet put gigantic strain on the engines, and staying afloat basicly took all energy ship's reactors could produce. – Petersaber Jan 01 '17 at 20:15
  • 1
    @Petersaber - Quite true. However, they presumably had enough power to leave and attain orbit. I can’t imagine that descending another few thousand feet would change that. – Adamant Jan 01 '17 at 20:19
  • 1
    Still though from looking at teh underside without dedicated landing gears they will have QUITE some damage on their underbelly once they decide to land (voluntarily or not) – Thomas Jan 01 '17 at 20:42
  • @Thomas - Why wouldn’t they? They can descend slowly with repulsors, so they’re not going to crash. They’re made of state-of-art materials from GFFA, so they won’t collapse (otherwise the smaller ones would be in trouble too). They’ve got shields, too. – Adamant Jan 01 '17 at 20:47
  • 1
    @Adamant the problem I see is when they REALLY land they shut off their repulsors as they are on ground then. And that means the small raisings you see on the underbelly are getting all the weight of the star destroyer pushed onto them....and in all honesty if they survive that I can't see ANY star destroyer be damaged by the impact of a hammerhead corvette at all. (they meaning the superstructure raisings on the underbelly) – Thomas Jan 01 '17 at 23:01
  • @Thomas - There’s probably some shield interaction going on, frankly. – Adamant Jan 01 '17 at 23:48
  • 1
    @Adamant ability to withstand structural strain doesn't raise with mass if not designed for it. Stack a structure of 100 pencils. They'll hold. Now stack 1 ton of pencils the same way. They won't hold. – Petersaber Jan 02 '17 at 10:03
  • 1
    @adamant shields would have to be in between the ship and the ground thus lifting it off the ground the whole time. And honestly if they manage that......a small corvette would bounce off shields of that strength instead of doing any damage at all. – Thomas Jan 02 '17 at 11:04
  • The Dautless is clearly not landed; granted, it is inside the atmosphere and, relatively, very close to the surface, but this would qualify as being not in orbit, which does not mean being landed, just like an helicopter hovering over a sigle spot is not landed. – Sekhemty May 03 '20 at 13:05
3

The Super Star Destroyer proves that, at least in Legends, much larger ships can outright land on a planetary surface. The lead ship of the Executor-class was built twice; construction began at Kuat simultaneously, both then named Executor. One of the ships was transferred to the Fondor shipyards for completion, and pressed into service as Darth Vader's flagship, retaining the codename as its official designation. The other was, upon completion, secretly moved to Coruscant and hidden as part of the surface, rechristened Lusankya. It was used as a secret prison for a while before being launched by Ysanne Isard, its commanding officer, during the Bacta War. Ultimately, it would be captured by the New Republic.

According to Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections, the Acclamator only used landing gear to provide a more stable ground connection, with the repulsors bearing the weight of the ship. If this is reasonably considered canon, then that means there is nothing stopping an Imperial-class Star Destroyer from doing essentially the same thing.

From straight-up canonical sources, there is nothing showing that the Imperial Star Destroyer can touch down on the ground, nor is there anything showing that it can't. However, the design of the ship doesn't appear to lend itself to deploying forces while landed. Given the positioning of the hangar bay, all landing the ship would do is make getting out of the ship harder. For deployment of ground forces, the ISD would probably hover above the landing zone, which we know it can do from Rogue One, and deploy drop-ships.

Adamant
  • 116,314
  • 35
  • 473
  • 648
RebelDroideka
  • 31
  • 2
0

Victory class were the last to be able to enter the atmosphere(I think) and even they could not 'land'.

Corellian Corvettes can land, I believe, but anything bigger uses dropships. Even Nebulon-B frigates don't land.

Pobrecita
  • 8,019
  • 8
  • 42
  • 75
Jeff
  • 1
  • According to starwars wikia, Imperial-class SD can enter atmosphere: "Like most other Star Destroyer models, the Imperial-class was capable of entering atmospheres and supporting ground operations directly". I also remember seeing one in Kashyyyk when you play as Vader in Force Unleashed. – Andrew P. Aug 25 '14 at 08:10
-2

No. For star destroyers in general, Depends on the model.

  • Acclamator (Not a true model): Yes, for purpose of landing planetary assault forces
  • Venator: Yes
  • Imperial: No, no landing gear expressed or shown in blue prints
  • Executor: Impossible, the vessels length would be incompatible with the planets natural curvature
  • Victory: Yes, capable of landing on platforms (the circumstance of which lead to the Ghorman Massacre)
LazyReader
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12