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

[Morbad]

Science has never proceeded by falsification anyway.

I don't agree with that at all. Falsification of one hypothesis, theory, or model has quite often made room for better ones.

you can't refute just one part of a theory as unscientific, it's either-or.

Says who?

Einstein's 'cosmological constant' was originally a fudge factor based on a thoroughly unscientific presumption. It was also no reason to throw out general relativity.

I thought we already covered that.

We did and I went off on a tangent that muddled my own clarification. I'll try to streamline things.

My apologies, 2 days ago I didn't have the whole text and I was quoting a quotation. Here's more:
"In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable, or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. ... If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are." (Popper, “Difficulties of the Demarcation Proposal", 1974)

"There is a legitimate place for dogmatism, though a very limited place. He who gives up his theory too easily in the faceof apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory. There is room in science for debate: for attack and therefore also for defence. Only if we try to defend them can we learn all the different possibilities inherent in our theories. As always, science is conjecture. You have to conjecture when to stop defending a favourite theory, and when to try a new one." (ibid.)

In his autobiography he wrote: "I also realized that we must not exclude all immunizations, not even all which introduce ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. ... All this shows not only that some degree of dogmatism is fruitful, even in science, but also that logically speaking falsifiability, or testability, cannot be regarded as a very sharp criterion.”

In an interview 2 years before his death he said that his principle doesn't apply to all sciences, but he didn't say to which ones.

I don't really know all that much about Poppler. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking of him when I first mentioned falsifiability. He's just another guy whose stuff I skimmed over at some point.

The core premise of falsifiability--that something vague enough that it will pass any conceivable test cannot be science--that I find to be a useful dividing line. The specific history of Poppler is neither here nor there. The idea would remain just as useful no matter who it was attributed to.

It's like when I use one of my favorite quotes to illustrate my stance on individual freedom, "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" -- it doesn't matter one whit that it was Thomas Jefferson that said it, or that he was a total hypocrite (pontificating on rightful liberty while he sat in his mansion his slaves). The statement can stand on it's own itself doesn't need the authority of a weighty name behind it to ring just as true.

because of your difficulties to accept theoretical physics as science

It's not that I don't accept theoretical physics as science, it's that most theoretical physics claiming to be science still satisfies falsifiability, as Greastrap42 mentions.

 

[peteuplink]

They'll be able to land on atmospheric worlds in the same way the ships in Star Wars do, through the power of science fiction and fantasy.

 

[Morbad]

Since, as stated by many, our ships can land and lift-off on multi-g worlds (up to 10 g reportedly) on non-atmospheric worlds, they would have no problem on atmospheric ones. In fact the atmosphere will help even on ships with the worst aerodynamics.

If there is any actual limit on how much extra thrust our thrusters/planetary landing suite/atmospheric flight doohickey can apply, then the densest of atmospheres will present a much greater barrier than gravity.

Even if we had balast tanks, the buoyancy of those mulit-MPa or thicker atmospheres will quickly exceed the force of double digit gravity.

 

[Midian Cabal]

I don't agree with that at all. Falsification of one hypothesis, theory, or model has quite often made room for better ones.

My bad formulation. Scientists don't proclaim a theory as unscientific, throw it in garbage and wash their hands of it if it's been disproven. If a theory has real explanatory power, scientists don't abandon it just because if it's disproven by an anomalous action. Falsification alone isn't enough.


One of the most often offered examples is Newton's theory of gravity. It failed to correctly predict Mercury's orbit in 1843 and according to you and Popper, it should've been forgotten, because it was falsified. But that didn't happen. We use his theory even today in our calculations although it's been falsified, because of it's simplicity and prediction power. Construction engineers don't use Einstein's theory of relativity when they construct bridges and buildings.

Says who?


Einstein's 'cosmological constant' was originally a fudge factor based on a thoroughly unscientific presumption. It was also no reason to throw out general relativity.

Glad that you mention Einstein, whose theory was the inspiration for Popper, because Einstein specified in which cases his theory should fail and that thoroughly impressed Popper.

Popper obviously didn't have problems with Einstein's "greatest blunder" as he himself said.

His general theory of relativity also allows the existence of Gödel's round universum, in which time travel is possible and the arrow of time can go in both directions.

Einstein's theory needed 1 fudge factor, the opponents of the theory of inflation claim that it has 26 such fudge factors that need to be finely tuned in order to predict our universe and that otherwise it can predict anything and everything.

If we allowed 1 such factor, why not 26?

Is reingeneering allowed in physics?

When I was (much) younger, I tried to train a neural network to predict lottery numbers and after enough training it could correctly predict every step except the next one. Are their models doing the same, correctly predicting only our universe, but failing in correctly predicting other universes? Dunno man, that greatly exceeds my knowledge. I'll have to leave that question to scientists.

If we need a cyclotron big 400000 light years in order to be able to prove existence of multiverses or strings, then yeah, we might have to wait a few years. We might even get funding from €U, I just don't believe we'll be able to squeeze it in Switzerland.

But in principle that's falsifiable.

Don't forget that Carl Sagan put us at 0.7 on Kardashev scale. We're still wearing diapers.

Atomists, Giordano Bruno, Einstein, Boltzmann - they all had to wait as well.

I don't really know all that much about Popper. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking of him when I first mentioned falsifiability. He's just another guy whose stuff I skimmed over at some point.

I read him almost 30 years ago so almost everything is forgotten. Having reread everthing in the last few days, I might finally pass that philosophy of science exam.

You can't really understand some thought without understanding its history and motives.

Popper had his grudges with marxism, psychoanalysis and astrology and according to him they're all pseudo-sciences. He also had a few other personal grudges, but I'll skip them.

Marxism still didn't say his final words so I won't say anything about it.

Psychoanalysis can never be wrong because it explained contradictive statements with the same causes.
Analyst: "Did you hate your mother?"
Patient: "Ummmm, well no."
Analyst: "Ahaaaaa it's Oedipus complex!"

Analyst: "Did you like your mother?"
Patient: "Ummmm, well yeah."
Analyst: "Ahaaaaa it's Oedipus complex!"

Astrology always adds ad-hoc hypothesis.
Astrologer: "Your Sun is in Leo, you're extrovert."
Person: "No, I'm not."
Astrologer: "Ah yes, your ascendent is in Pisces, that's why you're very shy."

The core premise of falsifiability--that something vague enough that it will pass any conceivable test cannot be science--that I find to be a useful dividing line. The specific history of Poppler is neither here nor there. The idea would remain just as useful no matter who it was attributed to.


It's like when I use one of my favorite quotes to illustrate my stance on individual freedom, "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" -- it doesn't matter one whit that it was Thomas Jefferson that said it, or that he was a total hypocrite (pontificating on rightful liberty while he sat in his mansion his slaves). The statement can stand on it's own itself doesn't need the authority of a weighty name behind it to ring just as true.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to undermine his authority by showing that he changed his thought over time. I already agreed that his falsifiability is very valuable, but I disagree that it's the ultimate and only test if some theory is empirical science.

I did some digging and found why he didn't think Atomists are scientists - because they didn't have a theoretical system based on experimental observations. So yeah, to Popper falsifiability isn't enough.

It's not that I don't accept theoretical physics as science, it's that most theoretical physics claiming to be science still satisfies falsifiability, as Greastrap42 mentions.

It is worth noting that according to Popper, the big bang theory isn't science: "I once wasan enthusiastic admirer of (Friedmann’s) Big Bang. I am nowa disgusted opponent." and further: " And my present view is that the number of auxiliary hypotheses is simply intolerable: according to my theory of science, this is not science. It is (1) introducing a new auxiliary hypothesis every time the theory is refuted; and (2), it is mutual supportof cosmological theoryand particle theory–but criticism, and critical experiments (= attempted refutations) are ignored out of hand. And not only is it notstressed by the upholders of the theory that it is all speculation without tests, but it is presented as if the theory were a proven fact. This is horrid; impermissible; against scientific ethics"

To all that I can only quote Big Lebowski: "Yeah, well... You know, that's just like... Your opinion man." And judging by today's acceptance of the big bang theory, other scientists think the same.

It's interesting to note that falsifiability became an ad hominem attack coming from scientists that came up with a losing theory (steady state theory, eternal bounce theory).

I know very well that science is a very cruel mistress, that's one of the reasons why I strayed away from it.

I understand that research needs funding and it's difficult to get it if your theory is the losing one. It's even more devastating to invest your whole life into something that will only be remembered as a failed attempt.

 

[Midian Cabal]

Theoretical physicists use mathematics and models to explain or predict things. Theoretical physics follows the same underlying methods for acceptance as other branches of science. Primarily that the mathematics & models can be reproduced and verified by other scientists. In some ways it is similar to a democracy: other credible physicists will analyze proposed ideas and the evidence provided and proceed to agree or disagree. If a proposed theory does not hold up to the scrutiny of other credible experts it is disregarded. In the modern world of science the scrutiny of credible experts is based on established mathematics and science, which we generally believe in and has allowed the development of cars, cell phones, and electric toothbrushes.

It's not a democracy, because scientists don't cast votes, they dispute models by counterarguments or simply by pointing at methodological errors. But according to Popper, it's not empirical science because the set of empirically falsifiable statements is empty.

In "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" he talks about empirical science, not about science in general. I agree with you that mathematics and logic are valid scientific methods, which can easily be disproven.

I don't think that theoretical physics is metaphysics.

In this context "theoretical" does not mean cool ideas that popped into my head while I was drunk at a party. Pseudo-science and speculative science tend to not follow principles of modern science, but rather the "hey, this might be the explanation" route for explaining and predicting the world around them.

Admittedly the more abstract elements of science are usually made more "simple" for non-scientists like myself to understand. Which is why pseudo-science can be easily confused with actual science by general public.

Note:
It should also be noted that credible modern scientists can have ideas that are not intended to be taken as a formal proposals of scientific theory. It is easy to take things out of context. They can have working hypothesis, as well as non-scientific personal beliefs. These things should not be confused.

Oh by all means! Popper is a very good example of how non-scientific beliefs influence scientific research. And again, I'm not undermining the value of his research. I'm pointing out how the analysis of such beliefs can give us much better understanding of

 

[Vasco Sapien]

I am by no mean an aerospace engineer but after reading NASA's articles on their space shuttle , in particular the STS-120, I learned that it was built like a spaceplane.
What that means is, it can orbit Earth like a spaceship but when entering the Earth atmosphere, it glides down using its wings , taking advantage of basic aerodynamics.

Now, looking at some of the 38 playable ships we have today, some of them are literally a flying brick , (type 9, python, anaconda etc etc) , how on Earth are they going to land on an Earth like planet with a gravitational force of -9.41g and having no WINGS whatsoever?? the moment they enter an Earth-like planet atmosphere they will fall down like a bird high on cocaine.
Now I know this is year 3036 or whatever and technology is far more advanced but think about it, even today, when you try to land on a low gravity planet , you can feel the ship being pulled down so an Earth like planet with super high gravity AND atmosphere - there is no way those behemoths can safely land. Unless Frontier is cooking up some new guardian technology that upon entering an atmosphere, a set of wings come out and you can glide down like an airplane. I just hope it's not going to be as fake as No Man's Sky with like zero realism...

if there are any real aerospace engineers or real-life pilots here, feel free to comment. I am really curious what options they have in terms of allowing those monster ships to land on an Earth like planet and yet keep the game as realistic as possible.

cheers

What if.... and this is just headcanon.

The in game shields can deflect various forms of energy from thermal to kenetic. The shields would then therefore make the aerodynamic form of the ship when passing through atmosphere. Now we all know these shields are typically shaped around the vessel like an Egg. But maybe when passing through an atmosphere they are able to reshape to adjust the aerodynamic loading, Become the form of a lifting body and assist in the flight of the more brick shaped ships.

Could be an interesting gameplay mechanic that a ship with damaged or broken shields has more trouble landing on an atmosphereic world than one that is fully charged.

 

[Morbad]

Maybe you misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to undermine his authority by showing that he changed his thought over time.

I was saying that no one has authority over an idea or it's application. Popper may have elaborated on and codified much of the falsifiability argument, but it's been around, in some form, as long as the scientific method and wouldn't depend on Popper even if it was his wholly original idea.

I already agreed that his falsifiability is very valuable, but I disagree that it's the ultimate and only test if some theory is empirical science.

I don't even agree that it's the ultimate or only test whether an idea is scientific, I just think it's a very good front-line discriminator. I also struggle to think of anything that claims to be empirical scientific supposition, hypothesis, or theory that doesn't have relatively clear criteria by which it could potentially be falsifiable; generally by good data simply not matching predictions.

Non-empirical theory or implications have some more leeway, but are correspondingly less certain.

One of the most often offered examples is Newton's theory of gravity. It failed to correctly predict Mercury's orbit in 1843 and according to you and Popper, it should've been forgotten, because it was falsified.

Certainly not according to me and probably not according to Popper.

Newton had the best model available at the time, even if it wasn't perfect. The fact that it could be falsified means it passed that first discriminator. A scientific theory that still needs work is a lot better than a theory that can't have problems because there are no possible observations that could contradict it.

I think the discussion of Popper and theoretical physics has side-trekked away from what falsifiability means in a scientific context. To clarify, a theory is wrong if it is falsified, but if it cannot be falsified (and not just because the tools or even ideas to test it aren't available) because it would be supported by any observation, then it's probably not science.

So, with regard to the multiverse, what piece of evidence could be put forth that would contraindicate the existence of multiple universes? If there is no answer to that question, if they remain just as possible no matter what, I'm going to be doubtful that the multiverse is valid as a scientific topic, in and of itself.

 

[Noddie]

Well, the speed of sound on earth is around 350ms (sea level, typical conditions etc) Most ships can boost close to this, some a lot more. At that point air stops being compressible, and behaves more like a liquid. This is why jet fighters are shaped like they are.

I don't know what the effect of hitting air at mach1+ with something with the aerodynamics of a T7 would be. But I'm guessing it would be noisy, bumpy and very short lived.

It's always rankled me that I can boost in a station and I should hear a sonic boom. At least even at 100ms (220mph) I should hear howling winds around the ship. But, no, nothing. The ship doesn't even handle weirdly in the earth like atmosphere.

 

[Morbad]

The in game shields can deflect various forms of energy from thermal to kenetic. The shields would then therefore make the aerodynamic form of the ship when passing through atmosphere. Now we all know these shields are typically shaped around the vessel like an Egg. But maybe when passing through an atmosphere they are able reshape to adjust aerodynamic loading, Become the form of a lifting body and assist in the flight of the more brick shaped ships.

Most larger ship in Elite have extremely low densities (a fully loaded Type-9 is around 15 times the mass of a Viper, but about 80 times the volume), and already have thrusters that can counter any gravity, so lift isn't going to be an issue. Drag could probably be helped by using the shields like this, which could allow higher speeds, better stability, and more control.

I don't know what the effect of hitting air at mach1+ with something with the aerodynamics of a T7 would be.

A radical increase in drag.

 

[peteuplink]

I think a lot of you are taking this far too seriously and have fallen into the thinking that ED is a realistic space flight simulation. The galaxy is a reasonable approximation of the Milky Way, but most of this is made up and the game is not realistic... it's about as far removed from real space flight mechanics (or atmospheric ones for that matter) as Mario Kart is from Formula 1 racing.

 

[Synthia]

Something I noticed the other day, when exploring some planets, was that my ship (A Cobra III) felt like it was being buffeted by something when on a particular planet. It was near a volcanic gas vent, and my ship was wobbling a bit. Compared to other bits of the planet, where my ship felt completely solid, and always stayed where I had it pointed.

 

[aRJay]

If you can make a KFC bucket fly, you can make anything fly.

View attachment 173739

Just imagine KFC powers everything and problems just vanish.

Fletner? effect rotor last time I saw a picture of that concept it was for a "sailing" cargo ship but that was many decades ago.

 

[aRJay]

Perhaps instead of a fighter bay you will be able to equip a shuttle bay. Then you could leave your ship in orbit and shuttle down in a little bus. If its good enough for Star Trek.....View attachment 173741

Cheers, GD

Only available after the budget got increased to build that model.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fletner? effect rotor last time I saw a picture of that concept it was for a "sailing" cargo ship but that was many decades ago.

Magnus effect- its been used in both aircraft and ships.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

Current planetary approaches happen at 2,500m/s which is ~ mach 7.35 - properly fast, not even as slow as supersonic, but full on hypersonic. Assuming we get past the re-entry heat speed to atmospheric friction to heat paradigm, which has already been dismissed by some contributors as being a non issue to a ship that can loiter in and scoop up material from a stars corona, atmospheric planetary flight of unaerodynamic vehicles has been covered for a long long time, like since the sixties, by the Lunar Lanting Training Vehicle.

LLTV was essentially a climbing frame built around a jet engine which was gimballed to always point downwards, and had its thrust adjusted to counter 5/6ths of earth gravity (moon is 1/6th earth's gravity) leaving ascent/descent/traversing to be done by the other thrusters on the frame. LLTV was as far as I know the first airborne vehicle to ignore areodynamic theory and its effects.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ezcY-mkU

 

[Noddie]

I agree it's ridiculous to argue over what "should" or "would" happen to a fictional craft. But needing to deal with reentry temperatures, radical changes in handling and performance, weaponry behavioural changes (like blast effects and - what happens if you fire a railgun in a dense atmosphere?? - these could all add to the game. How about the the need to replace ablative shields? Or continually pop heatsinks during re-entry?

It's all good stuff.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

I've written tomes on atmospheric entry (and legs) in other threads, but the following quotes were from earlier this year in one of the "why..[item]..?" threads on thsi topic, the quotes are worth a read, partiularly in contexyt as I was debating with the much esteemed (genuinely coomplimenthing them) @Max Factor and I used my IRL enigneering background to thrashout numbers and technicalities of elite style reentry. Maybe worth a read for the technically minded?

OK... you might want to grab a beer for the time its going to take to read this reply. BTW @Max Factor I am if it seems like I'm picking on you, I'm not, its just you have put in most of the recent content of this thread, and your maths and units are all over the place, and being a slightly autistic engineer so I'm going to correct your numbers/harmonize your units and explain why you are wrong when you stated that:



While you could say that in a game with Faster Than Light travel, that pyhsics can be damned, however you know as well as I do there is only so much handwavium FDev are willing to apply to bend the laws of physics for gameplay reasons.


It would be hell of a slow descent, and I genuinely don't think you appreciate how slow it would have to be to avoid heat build up, this supposition is supported by the fact you keep mixing up your units in subsequent posts with huge ramifications for the maths underpinning the illustration you are trying to present.

For example, that 800mph you mention is around 357m/s - you are aware that ships speeds are measured in metres per second (m/s) in this game?
View attachment 162477

So assuming you start to "De-Orbit" or Enter the atmosphere at say the orbit of the international space station you are looking at ~400,000 metres altitude, and an orbital speed of 7,660m/s, about 17,000miles per hour. So lets handwavium the orbital speed requirement and say you do the re-entry at the current airless moons approach "glide mode" speed, 2,500m/s, you are hitting an atmosphere at mach 7.35, 2.23 times faster than the SR71 blackbird. Remember the SR71 had to be seriously high to achieve those speeds, in the words of one of the SR71 pilots:


Yeah that was a bit anecdotal as in context the pilot was lording it up in the officers club with a rake of fighter jocks, but we do know that at mach3 at altitude where the atmosphere is thinner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#cite_note-johnson_bio-33

I knw the SR71 is 60's/70's cold war tech, but the physics is still the same. Skimming along the atmosphere at even 2,500m/s "glide mode" is 2.23 times those extrodrinary thermal loadings.


As I mentioned its 2,500 Metres Per Second, 9million metres per hour or 9,000kph,3.6 times as fast as you are currently thinking it would be. Remember all that jazz about the SR71 pulling mach 3 at stratospheric altitudes, and remember the current glide mechanic brings you to about ten km from the surface, where the atmosphereis going to be way thicker offering more drag and thus thermal loads, and you come in at mach 7.35.

At the 85,000ft, I'm sorry for mixing my units but american, 25,908m, atmospheric pressure is roughly 0.02bar, its 0.24bar. Twelve times the aerodrag at 2.3 times the speed = 27.6 times the thermal loading. Remember that the SR71 was designed for and thus optimally shaped for such speeds but could only do them in 0.02bar atmosphere and even then its titanium skin grew so hot it expanded the plane in every dimension, Hows a type 9 going to fair at 27.6 times the aero loading of a SR71?



The first part of this post pertaining to gas giants, I totally agree with, the descent into a gasgiant would be more akin to playing submarines where there is a definite crush strength. Knowing frontier they will probably put a crush depth exclusion zone in place, like they have for stars and black holes etc, whereas I'd really like to see hapless CMDR's getting crushed.

The aerodrag Vt thing, as you can see from the workings above, those numbers will need somewhat adjusted.

Your final point, no Escape Velocity requirements with the propulsion we have, totally agree, if we can clear a 6g airless moon with those thrusters, we can clear a 6g atmospheric planet with those thursters, however it would be done a lot more slowly.

As I say bud, I'm not meaning to pick on you, but you had posted wuite a lot of content that was wrong, and I didn't want others to be misled by it, so I've taken quite a lot of time to go through this with you as I figure it is something you are obviously very interested in, just slightly misinformed about.

Going back to the glide slope, the glide window for a space shuttle re entry was about 20-22°, take that as roughly 4:1 ratio, as in you have to travel 4 times the altitude in horizontal distance. We know the typical effects of atmospheric drag are initially felt at a little under 400km, so to approach an earthlike world without special shielding / handwavium, you are looking at travelling 1.6MegaMetres / 1,600km, Even travelling at the current glide speed of 2,500m/s that is still going to take 10 minutes and forty seconds. And thats assuming the space ship can handle bulldozing its way through an atmosphere at 7.35 times the speed of sound.



The part I've put in orange text is "correct", a in compatible with real world physics, would you mind rethinking the rest of that post to take into consideration th physics I've outlined in the post before this post, and balance that with gameplay as 10m:40s glide isn't fun, but even that "quick" a re-entry is headbutting the laws of physics by travelling at mach 7.35. Bare in mind that 7,800ms is like mach 22.9.

I'm not meaning to say atmospheric landings are impossible, just that it will need some serious game mechanic tweaks laced with some serious handwavium to make it work. I'm thinking along the lines of a special supplemental shield generator that would in lore atleast create a teardropped kinetic forcefield shield bubble around the ship to deflect the atmosphere? Current shields cannot do that as well, limpets pass through them as if they arent there, and certain weapons passs right through them.

Really sharp debating move there, +1 like from me.

But... with FTL and top speed is space, and the inherent drag in vacum that slows us down even with flight assist off after boosting, space flight i already handwavium'ed to heck. Even with the handwavium our ships can only really sustain scooping at a distance lest they take thermal damage. Thing that annoys me is when you drop out if you get too close to the star, even though in Supercruise you'd be taking massive thermal damage, you can site there in "slow space" inside the corona indefinitely, yet try that in a neutron star and it wont end so well?

I'm one of the first to admit that there is a lot of handwavium, even so, I think you are massively underestimating the thermal load a fast re-entry would create. Remember drag squares with speed, so going 2.3 times as fast as an SR71 creates 5.29 times the drag. 5.29 times the drag in 12 times the atmospheric pressure = 63.48 times the air resistance.

[EDIT: Forgot to ad this bit] Our suns photosphere, as in where we scoop from, is about 10,000°C, SR71 was about 238°C at
around mach 3 in 0.02bar stratosphere, times that by the 63.48 from above for doing 2500m/s in 0.24bar armosphere, and the resultant temperature would be... wait for it.... drumroll... 15,108.24°C, better have asbestos gloves in the hands that wave over that issue.

When they do atmospheres it will be a handwavium bonanza, most likely something along the lines of what I described as QD-Atmospherics in a post on the previous page of this thread, but its still nice to know how much handwavium there is at play. If nothing else, quantifying the challenges now will give players the opportunity to consider how realistic or handwavium they want their atmospheric experience to be.





Thanks, it was just my suggestion on how it could be plausibly done regarding lore and implementation. Heres that quote about QD-Atomspheres so called QD as its a Quick and Dirty solution to doing atmospheres:

Why atmospheric landings?

Would make it even more interesting if they restricted ships by mass from atmospheric flight completely. That would greatly simplify a lot of the physics modeling/design. That shouldn't really happen because, fundamentally, gravity is the only thing that dictates whether or not our ships can...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Which would at a stroke handwavium the reentry issues we've crunched numbers on today and actually be pretty easy to implement with things already in the cobra engine.

The shuttle enters the very top layers of our atmosphere at those speeds, but we are talking like 0.002bar atmosphere at those speeds, as it descends it slows down because as it burns in its initial 29000kph approach, it bleeds off massive ammounts of speed due to drag. By the time it is in atmosphere it is flying like an aeroplane at much more sensible speeds, "The orbiter's main landing gear touches down on the runway at 214 to 226 miles per hour, followed by the nose gear."

As I understand it, from deorbit burn to touchdown it was roughly about an hour and a half for a shuttle returning, but for game play reasons we calculated it out based on maintaining 2500m/s constant speed, without any aero braking, all the way down to ~10km altitude as current planetary glide does, then decelerate from 10km altitude at 2,500m/s, downwards to ships normal speed at probably 7KM altitude. Reason I calculated it this way was one to prove the point about the ammount of energy invovled in reentry, and to keep the speed up as an attempt to try and keep the ammount of time an Elite Re-entry would take the.

If you wanted to get really persnickety you could crunch the following factors in a spreadsheet, 29,000kph = 8055.55m/s @ 400,000 metres altitude, as one data point, 220mph = 98.35m/s @ sea level. Assuming simple linear deceleration you could put those two datapoints on a graph, then overlay another series on the chart with datapoints you'd generate by plugging altitudes into this caculator: http://www.endmemo.com/physics/pressurealtitude.php
View attachment 162499

To give you a graph with two lines on it one denoting altitude vs pressure, other denoting speed vs altitude, and you'd see by the time it hits any kind of worth while pressure, the 2,500m/s constant velocity ship in my mathematical model above is ging way faster than a shuttle is, and thats why my model's ship is a lot hotter than the shuttle was on re entry.

Yes the above is a simplistic way of calculating it and it wouldn't be remotely accurate as the decelleration of the craft would not be linear like that, it would be much more complicated to calculate out incorporating factors such as its Cd, angle of attack, speed, altitude and thus atmospheric pressure. As such the notional speed from those charts above would be out of whack, but it would let you see that at no point would the shuttle be doing mach 7.35 in an atmosphere.

I'm sorry bro, but I'm not going to put together something with that level of detail for a debate on this forum.

You might find this insightful,

Re-entry, the final most dangerous hour

A space shuttle is both lifeboat and death trap. Every launch is a potential explosion, every orbit a flight through a shooting gallery. But the real hazard has always been on the way down.

www.theguardian.com

But yeah, I'm onside, its a narrow tightline between unplayable hard, and dumbed down to the point of disinteresting, hence my suggestion of the handwavium plated atmospheric reentry shield generator, and reusing glide mechanics as is with flames instead of the blue lights that looks like cerenkov radiation. I think there needs to be some more buffeting to make the pilot have to work hard to keep his ship in the glideslope, kind of like interdiction minigame?

What I'm calling QDA, Quick and Dirty Atmospheres, is very likely to bare a strong resemblence to how atmospheres end up getting implemented. Not necessarily a bad thing, as by virtue of not having to rewrite the game to dovetail it in it means we will expereince that content sooner. I'd still like atmosphere reentry to be a skilled process requiring player agency, but gamified to the point it takes five to ten minutes of concentration, not an hour from orbit to landing pad like a shuttle used to take. I also want it to have potential consequences of getting it wrong, including damage to and even potential loss of the ship.

Just had an image in my head, a noob-aconda goofing its planetary reentry so badly it explodes like that airburst meteor over chelyabinsk.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Imagine the sonic booms....