Talk:Syphoon class light carrier
I've been thinking about this atmospheric flight capability - issue of the bigger capital ships. And in my example I'll use the various carriers. Now, I don't know shit about all this physics-stuff, so that's why I'm asking you about it.
When a capital ship doesn't have the capability for atmospheric flight, what does it lack, exactly ? Some sorts of maneuvering thrusthers? I mean, naturally the carrier could enter the atmosphere, but it couldn't land very successfully, now could it ? But it could still just fly around the atmosphere, right ?
Give me your thoughts on this one.
- Dalleer
Contents
Atmospheric flight
Landing capability and atmospheric flight capability are two different conserns, of course. But the mere act of entering a planetary atmosphere - and we must remember planetary atmospheres vary wildly from planet to planet - is not at all a simple ordeal.
For one, consider the environment the ship is normally required to operate in: space, a microgravity or zero-g environment. A ship entering an atmosphere must constantly fight against the pull of gravity, so it would need some sort of massive anti-gravity engines installed. Anti-gravity exists in PS but consider, is it useful to fit this technology into ships that usually operate in space and can refuel and restock at space stations? The antigrav engines would need to be in operation at all times. Futhermore, the hull will be subjected to forces that are not present in space - think what would happen if the International Space Station would attempt atmospheric flight - it just wouldn't work, the hull would break apart.
The next thing to consider is the maneuvering thrusters you mentioned - obviously maneuvering in vacuum is entirely different from maneuvering in a thick body of gas. Realistically a starship would need several arrays of propulsion systems for travel in different mediums, much like you can't take an airplane and fly it under the sea without some pretty special technology. In short every ship system would need to be designed with atmospheric flight _and_ space flight in mind from the ground up.
As starship sizes grow, the potential hazard they present to planets also grows. A starship several kilometers in length accidentally crashlanding on a planet would trigger an extinction level cataclysmic shockwave on that planet, so this is another thing to keep in mind. Planetary safety regulations might prevent starships from entering atmospheres if they're big enough.
So all in all, atmospheric capability for FTL starships isn't something that's impossible within the setting, but logically it should be a special capability, not something inherent to starships. This is one thing Star Trek got right.
- - Shok 43 21:52, 28 Apr 2007 (EEST)
btw ...
this article is missing a picture.
Copy that.
Alright, this clears it up. Many thanks for all the info.
And I'll upload the picture ASAP.
-Dalleer
I guess the general rule could be that almost any ship can indeed fly in atmosphere, just not maneuver effectively. Gravity isn't so huge factor, unless it's a heavy-G world. Just needs strong enough engines to counter the force generated by gravity. For example the gravity (9.81 m/s^2) here on Earth is not so bad on space flight vessels, considering they can accelerate to several kilometers per second quite fast.
The hull is usually stressed by three forces: G, F(gas) and F(engines). F(gas) and F(engines) are obviously trying to slow it down, while G is pulling it down. If no gas is present then of course there's no force from it. There can be some additional forces involved, depending on the situation, but those are the ones that should be in effect on normal situations.
The lack of wings makes spaceships unideal to maneuver in atmosphere. Atmospheric craft should thus always be equipped with them.
- Mad Gigerdi Jr.
Gravity etc.
You shouldn't assume just any vessel can do it, because gravity is indeed a pretty big factor ... Unless the vessel lands instantly, it needs to stay in flight. PS starships aren't airplanes or the Space Shuttle, they aren't generally designed for aerodynamic flight, which means they need to stay up with an anti-gravity drive ... A kind of floating thing, not aerospace flight as we know it. For this, the antigrav needs to fire around the clock. The power generation levels PS vessels can output (going even beyond anti-matter annihilation in power levels) probably allows this, so that's not the problem.
The problem is a normal interstellar vessel has no reason to be equipped with an anti-gravity drive of this scale (it has to be big to counter the weight of the huge vessel) for the simple fact it takes space from other ship systems. Remember that it is an extranous system _separate_ from the FTL drive and maneuvering engines, since these rely on different principles.
Take the Space Empires model of building starships, although simplified, it is realistic: You don't want useless components in your spaceships, especially if it's a warship. Huge anti-gravity drives in a vessel that spends most of its time in outer space would serve no purpose and therefore it can be expected that they will be left out of a starship design unless the ship absolutely needs to make planetfall. Space wasted with extra systems is space that could've been spent on extra weapons or armor or shields, etc.
All that being said, it would be cool to see a huge carrier vessel enter a planetary atmosphere in a conflict, deploying hundreds of fighters ... Entirely useless, because it could do that from orbit, but cool.
- - Shok 43 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EEST)
On a side note ...
The existence of both near-infinite energy reactors (Quantum Reactor, Singularity Reactor ?) and anti-gravity in the Peace Station Universe means theoretically, you could have freefloating structures in atmospheres that just defy gravity like it ain't no thang. Think the Bespin Cloud City in Star Wars. You could have shit like that floating around, the technology allows it (in fact something like this exists on Dummud presumably) although there isn't much reason to do that realistically when you can just build things on the ground. Theoretically you could also turn these into weapons of war or mobile bases, think the flying aircraft carrier from "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" or the S.H.I.E.L.D. base flying around in Marvel Comics. These are all possible with PS technology. Just thought I'd bring that up ...
- - Shok 43 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EEST)
On physics side the only thing needed to counteract gravity is other force greater or similar to that, which in turn just needs faster acceleration/speed. Engines can produce that speed as well. And once again maneuverability is something that indeed requires the existance of wings. Shuttles could have wings that could then be deployed as needed, similar to Argo on Nemesis and the Enterprise shuttles, thus enabling them to maneuver effectively as well. It depends can space flight engines operate at all in an atmosphere if they can't then obviously the ship can't fly in an atmosphere.
So I'd say that a controlled and steady landing could be possible, at least on good weather conditions. Storms can make it significantly more difficult to fly if the wind speed involved is really high.
So, once again, I'd say that flight is indeed possible, but manueverability isn't, as long as the ship's equipped with engines that function when a lot of gas molecules are present. So, for example, Syphoon could land on a planet if the conditions for it are good, but it wouldn't be a simple walk in a park.
- Mad Gigerdi Jr.
You're not getting it ...
Spaceflight engines alone are not enough to guarantee atmospheric flight capacity, there needs to be something that supplies lift. The Syphoon does not have wings or any other conventional method of supplying this lift (helicopter rotors, hydrogen balloons, etc.) so unless it has been fitted with a massive anti-gravity array, the Syphoon class is not flying in an atmosphere, period.
Unless of course you want to argue the Inertial Dampening systems (they counter G forces after all) work as anti-gravity drives also. This sounds like an unrealistic proposition to me, but then, Inertial Dampening in general is highly unrealistic.
- Shok 43 17:36, 4 May 2007 (EEST)
Well ...
The Syphoon could attempt a controlled crash landing using its energy shield as a heat shield of course, but that's about it. It wouldn't be getting up again after that.
- Shok 43 17:38, 4 May 2007 (EEST)
This comes kinda late, but regarding the atmospheric flight/landing, it is indeed physically possible. That is, if the ship is equipped with, for example, thrusters (what ship ISN'T equipped with those?) or some other type of engine that works in atmosphere it can land on a planet if the terrain is suitable and the ship has landing gear. Atmospheric flight is more than possible, though if the ship isn't designed for it it can be rather difficult to maneuver, depending on the design, but it is more than possible. Though the question is how many ships even need landing capability? And most ships should have some kind of flight capability, though probably not very maneuverable. Some ships might have features like S-foils for better atmospheric flight.
--Mad Gigerdi Jr. (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2013 (EEST)
The Syphoon class, based on its appearance, is basically the equivalent of an Earth submarine operating in space. I fail to see how any kind of thrusters could make this vessel atmosphere-capable. Consider the problems involved with getting a modern Typhoon class submarine to fly in the atmosphere. No known thrusters would provide the kind of thrust required, indeed it would be quite impossible. There is no evidence even PS thrusters could supply this kind of force without some type of anti-gravity booster extension. There is absolutely no way a starship of this kind - basically a giant hunk of metal - could fly in the atmosphere with any kind of capability. It isn't a case of maneuverability - this thing would fall like a brick.
Size or shape is rather irrelevant unless you want an aerodynamic ship, but that isn't needed. Mass and the capability to withstand gravity are the issues. The more massive the ship the greater the force, of course. So to be able to stand on ground the ship needs to be able to handle its own mass. As far as engines are concerned there should be plenty of other types of engines that can operate in atmosphere, all you need is Newton's third law.
I guess there is another alternative. That is utilizing the magnetic fields of planets (this can also be considered anti-gravity) where you change the power of the "magnet" to compensate for the magnetic field lines. So there are certainly possibilities. However, I don't see this as a big issue so for me it's rather irrelevant if we make ships atmo flight capable or not. They can be fit with the story whenever possible. But when it comes to the laws of physics I have studied I don't see it as "impossible" (though no theory can be proven right, but every theory can be proven wrong).
--Mad Gigerdi Jr. (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (EEST)
Well, I guess it's not impossible per se - I suppose you could make a submarine fly if you wanted to, by strapping enough rocket thrusters on it - but why would you do that? The fact remains that space and planetary atmospheres (which vary between planets as well, consider the atmospheres of Jupiter vs. Mars) are entirely different environments, and for a craft to be able to navigate in these environments requires entirely different types of engines. To be able to fly in the atmosphere instead of crash landing the Syphoon class would need an array of engines separate from the one it uses to travel in space.
Of course, antigravity is known to exist in the PS universe, so basically you can float anything in the atmosphere as long as it can generate enough power - but again, you need to have separate anti-gravity drives installed. The Aikon class, for an example, has anti-gravity plates on it by design, seen here emphasized with a red color:
These MGD anti-gravity plates are what provide lift to this enormous craft while operating in a planetary atmosphere. Without them, again, the falling-like-a-brick scenario would take place, since the main thruster only provides forward thrust, and guidance thrusters that work in space are completely useless. Thus the addition of anti-gravity generators is a conscious design choice, allowing the Aikon class to fulfill a dual role.
- (On a side note, there's an episode of Battlestar Galactica that explores this scenario quite well. In this episode, the giant Battlestar, basically a space version of an aircraft carrier, enters a planetary atmosphere and, since it only has engines that work in space, is in a state of free fall and burning with friction. Just before the ship crashes into the planet surface, it engages its FTL drive and jumps out of the atmosphere. Later on it is revealed that this operation caused such stress that the ship's supporting superstructures were severely damaged by metal fatigue.)
There's also a certain Bacterian vessel that hovered - without refueling, no less! - in the atmosphere of Aldaain for decades. Of course, that was a gigantic ship, and thus we can deduce large parts of it were dedicated to anti-gravity generators. This design choice can be justified considering the vessel was a unique mothership-type vessel designed to be a mobile self-contained base of operations, but the same can hardly be said of the Syphoon class.
So, basically, in the PS universe you can make pretty much anything atmosphere-capable, but the thing to consider is, why would you? If the vessel's role is deep space operations, there would be absolutely no need to install such an extraneous system. On the other hand, if the craft is designed to fulfill a dual role, anti-gravity engines are a justified design choice.
Good points and as I said previously I think it should depend on the story. If you have, for example, a great story that needs atmo flight capability from some ship, I say go for it. However, this isn't something that should happen all the time. I guess a final conclusion is that atmo flight can be done if the story demands it, but it's not wise to use it extensively. As far as PSE is concerned it may be wise to remove all those atmo flight and landing capabilities unless the ship is specifically designed for it. The ship guide in general needs a massive overhaul anyway.
--Mad Gigerdi Jr. (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (EEST)
