I think this can also already be seen in the Galnet pictures. There are few pictures of atmospheric planets with our ship on it, including the Anaconda.
is atmospheric landing even possible with either of the 38 playable ships???
- Thread starter CMDR_LS
- Start date
You don't reenter atmospheres at high speed any more than your ship goes faster than light. You enter atmospheres in super cruise. Your relative speed when exiting sc is magically only a couple hundred mph, limited by the max safe speed your ship allows.
Exiting supercruise at a couple of hundred km/h isn't unusual itself though. In supercruise we're actually not fast, but decreasing the distance to the target by folding space. The speed given is a calculated number relative to how rapidly we are skipping space.
The technicalities of entering atmosphere in supercruise are pure fiction anyway.
Exiting supercruise at a couple of hundred km/h isn't unusual itself though. In supercruise we're actually not fast, but decreasing the distance to the target by folding space. The speed given is a calculated number relative to how rapidly we are skipping space.
The technicalities of entering atmosphere in supercruise are pure fiction anyway.
Yeah, I know how sc works. That's the point. You don't ever move fast against the atmo when approaching a planet. There is no super heated reentry, no hyper velocity collision with a dense atmosphere.
There is exactly no big problem with atmo flight with any elite ships because fdev already decided that all ships can escape any gravity well and all ships have all directional thrusters... Meaning lift isn't required.
Sorry I don't agree I any respect. There is Sci-Fi, there is Fantasy , never the twain shall meet.
" indeed, fantasy genre is usually associated to the use of magic,"
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C Clake.
Last edited:
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
I'd say no, because ships's paint degrades as it seems shields allow small particles to pass through. Now that we have science out of the way
, I think making ships handle differently in atmospheric flight would be just cool thing to do. Make space planes fly better than bricks.I'd say no, because ships's paint degrades as it seems shields allow small particles to pass through. Now that we have science out of the way
The biggest degrader of paint would be heat and light, you know from those stars we fly through the corona of?
If it can deflect a bullet from a cannon, pushing a wee bit of air in a particular manner won't be an issue.
Based on experience, paint degrade is proportional to the time and speed only, the latter to be achieved by flying straight out into deep space. I.e. apparently paint does not degrade because we fly close to the stars.
My initial reaction was about shield deflecting air therefore aerodynamics doesn't count. I'm just on the opinion that in game 'science' may not allow that, but most importantly, making ships handle differently in atmo conditions would be an exciting thing to do.
Plus, everyone's dream is seeing raindrops on the canopy, which shouldn't happen with shields up either in that case.
Then you can decelerate from orbital velocity to landing with your nigh-unlimited delta-v without any problems.
If a small metal tin can can de-orbit, our ships can too.
As far as I know, the paint doesn't actually degrade. It's a hologram that simulates wear and tear (to appease those who enjoy worn looking ships). That was FDev's in-game explanation for the ability to change paintjobs on-the-fly.
But then again, it costs money to "repair" it, which would basically be hitting F5 in the ship's holo-paint settings
You must be kidding, right?
Sorry, the dry Australian sarcasm slips by other Aussies at times..
Hehe, having played Orbiter, I know how aerodynamic the Shuttle was.. Landing that thing was like flying a brick that you have marginal control of. Deviate outside the envelope and there's a good chance your having a dirt nap. I did blow a few reentries early enough to go for the alternate, but I blew it badly once and ended up at Baikonur. Color the Russians surprised. Launch and return to Woomera was interesting too - almost too much fuel. The Delta Glider IV, however, had a ridiculous amount of thrust and would lift to orbit on its vertical thrusters.. It was vaguely a lifting body, but outrageous delta-v was its secret. Like the DGIV, the ships in ED have buckets of thrust, certainly enough to deal with a pesky atmosphere..
On the whole, I suspect the bonus to atmos planets will be pretty visuals rather than a vigorous flight model. And as long as some effort is made to match flight conditions with the pretty visuals, I'd be OK with that.
Last edited:
Lithobraking is possible in any ship. If anything the drag will help us pancake a bit more gracefully.
I'm afraid not.
I can't remember this explanation - I've always thought our ships were covered in small polychromatic tiles that can change when the future-DRMed paint jobs are applied, it explains the ripple effect when you're browsing the available PJs. They get peeled off from the edges of our ships due to wear & tear and get replaced when you select repair. Nicely explains the pixelisation I see on my worn Cobra when I start the game in VR
First, you're mixing 2 opposite methods: verifiability and falsifiability. Verifiability asks for observations (not necessarily empirical) that confirm a theory, while falsifiability asks for the opposite: at least one observation that contradicts a theory. If one finds an observation that does not contradict a theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is true, a verification has no value in itself. Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognize that such a theory may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.
Unfortunately, falsifiability is inadequate as a separator of (empirical) science and nonscience, as Popper himself recognized. Astrology is falsifiable and has been falsified ad nauseam, and yet it isn't science. Many other theories weren't falsifiable when they were conceived. In today's science Popperian falsificationism is supplanted by Bayesianism. Falsification itself is “decidably unempirical”; it belongs not to science but to philosophy, or “meta-science,” and it does not even apply to all of science.
We know sc works in atmo because we fuel scoop in it around stars. To the tune of kg's per second.
This thread is chasing a problem that doesn't and will not exist
This thread is chasing a problem that doesn't and will not exist
Falsifiability and verifiability go hand in hand. If there is no conceivable observation that could contradict a hypothesis, that hypothesis isn't going anywhere.
I wasn't claiming that everything that was falsifiable was science, just that falsifiability was a critical aspect of the application of scientific method.
Astrology cannot make useful predictions about anything and we know this because we can test the predictions it does make against history.
They weren't scientific theories then either.
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?
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.
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.