is atmospheric landing even possible with either of the 38 playable ships???

One could utilize their own personal ability to toss a ball in the air, or attach said ball to a rocket and send it into the air. At no point in either case would the process be considered flight. Though one can, could utilize the word "Flight" in their description of the process.

The word 'freefall' just wandered through my mind. Could be related?


ETA my Grandad worked on the flying bedstead. That sentence is the sum total of what I know about his time at Rolls Royce in Derby :)
 
No stellar corona we can scoop from is particularly dense and all of those stars also have exclusion zones that prevent us from taking our ships to areas that would be more analogous to some of the harsher planetary atmospheres.

SC already ends on airless worlds significantly above the surface, and I think it would be pretty silly to extend the the ability of SC to the surface to bypass atmosphere, as that would defeat much of the purpose of adding atmospheres in the first place, as well as inject yet more inconsistency into the setting.

The density of the atmosphere we scoop from (and it is still the star's atmosphere) is enough to acquire KG's of hydrogen going less than 500mph. Our ships never travel faster than normal travelling speed. Sea level on earth is 1.2kg/m^3. If you're going 200m/s that means you cross around 240kg/s of air at sea level. The best fuel scoops can acquire about that much. So we're effectively already traveling in density that is equal to earth sea level when travelling around stars.

Glide ends at around 20km (edit: sorry, 1/5 the distance to space) which is half the distance to space on earth. Glide is still supercruise.

Your argument has no space legs.
 
30km/s (minimum speed in supercruise) is over 10,000km/h.

That's relative speed ....not the speed of your ship thru space (which is all of the space it can actually interact with).. which never exceeds normal flight speeds. That's the whole point of supercrcuise/warp drive.
 
The density of the atmosphere we scoop from (and it is still the star's atmosphere) is enough to acquire KG's of hydrogen going less than 500mph. Our ships never travel faster than normal travelling speed. Sea level on earth is 1.2kg/m^3. If you're going 200m/s that means you cross around 240kg/s of air at sea level. The best fuel scoops can acquire about that much. So we're effectively already traveling in density that is equal to earth sea level when travelling around stars.

Glide ends at around 20km which is half the distance to space on earth. Glide is still supercruise.

Your argument has no space legs.

The holes in your argument:

- The density of most real stars at the exclusion zone is vastly less than what you're stating. Using our sun as an example, gasses in Sol's corona, or even chromosphere, are millions of times less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level, and the exclusion zone probably doesn't even reach down to the chromosphere. You'd have to be inside the photosphere of the sun (which is the actual surface shown in the game) to see the densities you are claiming.

- Your math seems to be assuming a one square meter scoop. This would be very small, even if the scoop were purely mechanical, which is not likely to be the case, because it's scooping ionized gas (making an electromagnetic collector the obvious choice) and has significant power consumption.

- Since fuel scooping can only work in SC, it's seems pretty clear that SC velocities are what's enabling such a collection rate. I suspect the surface of the 'warp bubble' itself, is the scoop.

- Glide takes place in the same instance as normal travel, not in the SC instance, and glide still ends several kilometers above the surface.
 
We have shields that can absorb the kinetic energy of a relativistic projectile.

In terms of lore, I guess that the atmospheric landing module could manipulate the projectors to provide an aerodynamic shape or somesuch.
 
- Since fuel scooping can only work in SC, it's seems pretty clear that SC velocities are what's enabling such a collection rate. I suspect the surface of the 'warp bubble' itself, is the scoop.

Plus the rate varies based on the ship's velocity vector (the direction it's pointing) too.

I think glide is a transition added for the same of gameplay (to get the player down to the surface more quickly), I don't think I'd make a hard call on whether it was SC or normal space. On the way down it behaves as normal space, on the way back out of the gravity well it's clearly SC.
 
We have shields that can absorb the kinetic energy of a relativistic projectile.

In terms of lore, I guess that the atmospheric landing module could manipulate the projectors to provide an aerodynamic shape or somesuch.

It seems an obvious & simple way to handwavium it away :)

Glide is a directionally stable approach; hand off the ship tends to stabilise. In an interdiction the ship is directionally unstable, it tends to veer away from the target reticule. I'm hoping the glide phase of an atmospheric entry will be directionally unstable requiring constant course correction.
 
That's relative speed ....not the speed of your ship thru space (which is all of the space it can actually interact with).. which never exceeds normal flight speeds. That's the whole point of supercrcuise/warp drive.

I think that fuel scoops are bussard type scoops. Their cross section is immensely larger than the ship cross section.

I would refrain from deriving densities from the mass flow.

Plus space near stars is still pretty close to vacuum.
 
Regarding flight, the Flying Beadstead, and the original topic of this discussion:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0wsN_jzGg

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o


Plenty of other examples, from drones, to spacecraft prototypes, that fly without relying on aerodynamic lift or control surfaces.

Even the least aerodynamic of Elite's craft would have no trouble flying through Earth's atmosphere, as it has ample thrust in any vector required to overcome the drag of it's shape and gravity, for as long as it can power it's thruster module.

This is not to say that atmosphere can be ignored, as the forces it would apply would be non-zero. Denser atmospheres may even reach a point where drag or buoyancy could overwhelm even the fantastic power of thrusters on Elite's ships.

Sure, Frontier could handwave any of this away, but that would be an enormous waste of gameplay.

I think glide is a transition added for the same of gameplay (to get the player down to the surface more quickly), I don't think I'd make a hard call on whether it was SC or normal space. On the way down it behaves as normal space, on the way back out of the gravity well it's clearly SC.

On the way out it's technically not glide, just SC.

Glide is technically in the normal space instance (if you are in SC and I'm in normal space, I will never see your ship, no matter how close you approach, but ships in glide are visible to, and can even interact with, normal space objects). Glide also doesn't end if one disables the FSD during it.

Contextually glide appears to be an alternate normal-space speed cap to facilitate getting to one's surface destination, with more severe restrictions on maneuver to compensate.

I'm sure it could be depicted as a way to bypass some atmosphere using some form of assistance from the FSD, but I don't think that jives well with it's current depiction.
 
The holes in your argument:

- The density of most real stars at the exclusion zone is vastly less than what you're stating. Using our sun as an example, gasses in Sol's corona, or even chromosphere, are millions of times less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level, and the exclusion zone probably doesn't even reach down to the chromosphere. You'd have to be inside the photosphere of the sun (which is the actual surface shown in the game) to see the densities you are claiming.

That's not holes in my argument, it's holes in how fdev implemented things. I'm going by the numbers and how SC is described as working and how it actually behaves in the game. You're applying reality to elite dangerous and it doesn't work.

[
- Your math seems to be assuming a one square meter scoop. This would be very small, even if the scoop were purely mechanical, which is not likely to be the case, because it's scooping ionized gas (making an electromagnetic collector the obvious choice) and has significant power consumption.

Any reduction in size of the scoop only increases the density of the atmosphere around the star we must be going thru to scoop at the speed we are traveling. We know absolutely for sure what speed we move in, based on how SC is described as working. Thus the unknowns such as density of the space we are moving thru must be implied from the numbers we have available.

If they dont agree with reality, get mad at Fdev. They have stars that glow and are colder than ice too.

- Since fuel scooping can only work in SC, it's seems pretty clear that SC velocities are what's enabling such a collection rate. I suspect the surface of the 'warp bubble' itself, is the scoop.

There is no such thing as supercruise velocity. You're never moving any faster than your normal space speeds. You have an effective velocity due to the compression of space around you. Not due to moving fast. If your fuel scoop extended into this compression, it too would become compressed and the overall effect would be at best, no difference than if it had been on the surface of your ship experiencing no compression at original size, and at worst it would be permanently destroyed or collapse the SC field.

- Glide takes place in the same instance as normal travel, not in the SC instance, and glide still ends several kilometers above the surface.


Instancing doesn't define supercruise. The effect it has does. What do you think stops you when "glide" is over? Your thrusters? no. the FSD does. Glide is a gameplay function that exists to minimize the de-instancing effect of leaving supercruise and being near surfaces of planets to make them more interactive. You're still using supercruise.
 
That's not holes in my argument, it's holes in how fdev implemented things.

They are holes in your interpretation of what FDev has implemented.

You're applying reality to elite dangerous and it doesn't work.

It does in the case of the density of matter around stars, and there is zero reason to presume something differs from reality when it does not need to in order to be reflective of what the game is depicting.

We do not need higher density stellar corona to explain fuel scoop rates, and such density does nothing to help explain other aspects of fuel scooping, therefore it is a bad explanation. The existence of wholly unrelated violations of reality do not mandate worse than necessary explanation for fuel scooping.

Any reduction in size of the scoop only increases the density of the atmosphere around the star we must be going thru to scoop at the speed we are traveling.

Your proposed scoop size is already way too small. Even in normal space the collecting area of any reasonably inferred scoop would be much, much, higher.

There is no such thing as supercruise velocity. You're never moving any faster than your normal space speeds. You have an effective velocity due to the compression of space around you. Not due to moving fast. If your fuel scoop extended into this compression, it too would become compressed and the overall effect would be at best, no difference than if it had been on the surface of your ship experiencing no compression at original size, and at worst it would be permanently destroyed or collapse the SC field.

Even if the ship inside is supposed to be stationary, the SC field (or whatever) is still being moved/displaced and is still coming into physical proximity with the matter to be scooped.

The scoop itself is also not a physical object. The scoop module is almost certainly supposed to be a magnetic field generator of some kind and wouldn't be destroyed by the SC field that it requires to even function.

Instancing doesn't define supercrise. The effect it has does.

And the effect doesn't match supercruise.

What do you think stops you when "glide" is over? Your thrusters? no.

Yes. It's why you overheat when you abort a glide early and why you need a planetary landing suite to enter glide in the first place.

the FSD does.

Turning off the FSD doesn't end glide and several effects that cannot be done in SC (disabling flight assist, deploying hardpoints, etc) can be done in glide.

Glide is a gameplay function that exists to minimize the de-instancing effect of leaving supercruise and being near surfaces of planets to make them more interactive.

Yes.

You're still using supercruise.

No.
 
Last edited:
14E22E6B-7545-4019-A3D2-16AD64A54B52.jpeg
 
Falsifiability and verifiability go hand in hand. If there is no conceivable observation that could contradict a hypothesis, that hypothesis isn't going anywhere.
On the contrary, for Popper falsification is the only proper scientific method, he doesn't allow verification.

Verification has the form of:
If T, then O
O
T
and that is for Popper unacceptable. He insists that:
If T, then O
Not-O
Not-T

Popper doesn't accept inductive reasoning and verification. "The theory to be developed in the following pages stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic. It might be described as the theory of the deductive method of testing, or as the view that a hypothesis can only be empirically tested-and only after it has been advanced." (Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery)

I wasn't claiming that everything that was falsifiable was science, just that falsifiability was a critical aspect of the application of scientific method.

Falsifiability is not a critical aspect, because it puts immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. It is important, but if it's applied too rigorously and too early, it can be very stifling.

They weren't scientific theories then either.
Copernicus' heliocentric theory initially yielded no potentially falsifying predictions and was unfalsifiable until Galilei and Kepler.

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories." [Popper, 1976, p. 168] (He later revisited his view.)

Mendeleev's predictions were also unfalsifiable when he came out with them.

When Pauli postulated the existence of neutrino in order to preserve the law of conversation of energy, that postulation stayed unfalsifiable for more than 20 years.

Boltzmann, Maxwell and Clausius were convinced that atoms can explain many results in thermal physics and chemistry, yet their theory was unfalsifiable until the existence of electron was discovered.

Einstein proposed the existence of photons in 1905, and yet again it was unfalsifiable for nearly 20 years.
I could go on and on with "unfalsifiable" theories in science.

Falsifiability doesn't accurately describe the way science really works and therefore it can't be accepted as the only criteria for scientific method. (Steven Weinberg, Alan Sokal)

Expanding science beyond what can conceivably be tested with the scientific method leads to a uselessly broad definition of science.

How is the Type V civilization more scientific than, say, the divine?

Because the Type V civilization is potentially non-falsifiable.
 
Sure, Frontier could handwave any of this away, but that would be an enormous waste of gameplay.

Damn. Up to the very moment I read this, I was hoping for what you described: that FD would of course go the easy way of allowing all ships to fly through atmosphere, but that weather and turbulences would have an impact and that ships might have different handling in atmosphere.

Then I read that sentence you wrote. Now I am convinced that none of it will ever happen. :(
 
Copernicus' heliocentric theory initially yielded no potentially falsifying predictions and was unfalsifiable until Galilei and Kepler.

A key point in Copernicus' hypothesis was that orbits were circular, and that claim in and of itself was enough to satisfy the need for falsifiability, because any observation of a definitively non-circular orbit could disprove it...and this is precisely what happened with Galileo and Kepler's observations.

If Copernicus had said something tautological that automatically negated any future contradictory observations, then he'd be violating falsifiability and excluding his work from science. This is essentially what happened with the idea 'luminiferous aether'; proponents kept adding things to nullify observations that weren't inconsistent with it, and it became absurd through unfalsifiability. The idea of aether was displaced not because anyone directly proved it wrong, but because other theories that could potentially be proven wrong produced better results.

I could go on and on with "unfalsifiable" theories in science.

None of these violated Popper's ideas about falsifiability. There were always criteria by which any of these hypotheses and theories could have been contradicted, always room for evidence to disprove them. That's the sort of falisfiability I'm talking about, the allotment for potential falsifiers that was part of Popper's definition.

Because the Type V civilization is potentially non-falsifiable.

How does that distinguish it from the non-falsifiability of the divine?

There is no test we can even conceive of that would tell us anything one way or the other about the existence of a Type V civilization, just as there is no test that could prove or disprove existence of the divine.

Any observation we can make is consistent with both the existence of a Type V civilization and of God, therefore neither is scientific.
 
A key point in Copernicus' hypothesis was that orbits were circular, and that claim in and of itself was enough to satisfy the need for falsifiability, because any observation of a definitively non-circular orbit could disprove it...and this is precisely what happened with Galileo and Kepler's observations.

If Copernicus had said something tautological that automatically negated any future contradictory observations, then he'd be violating falsifiability and excluding his work from science. This is essentially what happened with the idea 'luminiferous aether'; proponents kept adding things to nullify observations that weren't inconsistent with it, and it became absurd through unfalsifiability. The idea of aether was displaced not because anyone directly proved it wrong, but because other theories that could potentially be proven wrong produced better results.

None of these violated Popper's ideas about falsifiability. There were always criteria by which any of these hypotheses and theories could have been contradicted, always room for evidence to disprove them. That's the sort of falsifiability I'm talking about, the allotment for potential falsifiers that was part of Popper's definition.

How does that distinguish it from the non-falsifiability of the divine?

There is no test we can even conceive of that would tell us anything one way or the other about the existence of a Type V civilization, just as there is no test that could prove or disprove existence of the divine.

Any observation we can make is consistent with both the existence of a Type V civilization and of God, therefore neither is scientific.
All those theories posited something unobservable and therefore unfalsifiable and because of that violated Popper's ideas about falsifiability.

General relativity also makes predictions about things that are untestable by definition, like how particles move inside the event horizon of a black hole, no information about these trajectories can be determined by experiment. Yet no knowledgeable physicist or philosopher of science would argue that general relativity is unscientific.

The difference between God and multiverses is that multiverses are potentially detectable, just like electrons, neutrinos, photons etc. were potentially detectable, unlike God. Theism is not falsifiable, since God is a transcendental being that per definition escapes the realm of observable and thus completely escapes any possible falsification.
 
It does in the case of the density of matter around stars, and there is zero reason to presume something differs from reality when it does not need to in order to be reflective of what the game is depicting.

We do not need higher density stellar corona to explain fuel scoop rates, and such density does nothing to help explain other aspects of fuel scooping, therefore it is a bad explanation. The existence of wholly unrelated violations of reality do not mandate worse than necessary explanation for fuel scooping.

The real physics of what is comes second to what the game has provided us. It has provided us that SC works like warp drive does as it is currently theorized for the most part. As such, your ship doesn't interact with space any faster than it does in normal space. The scoop would fall under that situation and not be subject to any effects of the SC warping of space. Neither would the immediate space around the ship. All your scoop can acquire is what it would have been able to acquire in normal space. We're just not allowed to use the systems in normal space for gameplay reasons.


Your proposed scoop size is already way too small. Even in normal space the collecting area of any reasonably inferred scoop would be much, much, higher.

What's more likely, that the scoop is bigger than the ship or that the reality the situation is being ignored? They have no problem ignoring reality for other situations so in lieu of a massive scoop, I'd assume they are just skipping reality.

Even if the ship inside is supposed to be stationary, the SC field (or whatever) is still being moved/displaced and is still coming into physical proximity with the matter to be scooped.

The scoop itself is also not a physical object. The scoop module is almost certainly supposed to be a magnetic field generator of some kind and wouldn't be destroyed by the SC field that it requires to even function.

You can't interact with what is going on outside of compressed space without also being compressed. Scaling the effect down so that it's energy/size/field/etc is preserved.

In other words, you can't take advantage of warped space without also being warped if you're interacting with the warped state. That's why the thing traveling needs to be wrapped in a bubble of normal space. A scoop, energy or not, would be subject to those rules. Your net result is at best the same as normal space scooping because total energy is preserved and space it operates in would be compressed - compressing it as well.

And the effect doesn't match supercruise.


It does, because you decelerate massively without thruster use.

Yes. It's why you overheat when you abort a glide early and why you need a planetary landing suite to enter glide in the first place.

You overheat due to a collapse of the field instantly instead of planned. That field energy is what causes the heat. Did you think you overheat due to space friction?

Turning off the FSD doesn't end glide and several effects that cannot be done in SC (disabling flight assist, deploying hardpoints, etc) can be done in glide.

Game play reasons. Half of those things are safety reasons why something can be changed or not, and has nothing to do with the physical constraints of the in-lore FSD system. Being able to turn off the FSD sounds like a longstanding bug that just nobody has cared about.

It's supercruise because nothing else can explain how it works. There's nothing on your ship that would accelerate you to those speeds, nothing that can decelerate you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom