[Turnsky]

Presumably though it takes more energy to oppose a strong gravitic pull as opposed to a small one. Which would means a Sharin would find it more difficult to fly in an atmosphere than a Nial because it is bigger and thus the gravitic pull on the ship is greater. Bearing in mind here that 1) I failed physics at school. 2) I don't know how gravitic drives work. Actually come to think of it the likelyhood of me being right here is pretty low

exactly, but it's capable of doing it, ion engines and whatnot are inefficient in an atmosphere also, but for different reasons.
a Sharlin would not only be more difficult to fly because of the gravity of the planet, but the mass of the ship itself, and this may vary due to local conditions and whatnot.

(i didn't do physics either, i just go with what sounds logical and such... what makes sense, and all)

[IPAndrews]

My typing is terrible today. I must have made 3, 4, possibly a million spelling mistakes in those last few messages. I am ashamed. 

[Wobble73]

Presumably though it takes more energy to oppose a strong gravitic pull as opposed to a small one. Which would means a Sharin would find it more difficult to fly in an atmosphere than a Nial because it is bigger and thus the gravitic pull on the ship is greater. Bearing in mind here that 1) I failed physics at school. 2) I don't know how gravitic drives work. Actually come to think of it the likelyhood of me being right here is pretty low

exactly, but it's capable of doing it, ion engines and whatnot are inefficient in an atmosphere also, but for different reasons.
a Sharlin would not only be more difficult to fly because of the gravity of the planet, but the mass of the ship itself, and this may vary due to local conditions and whatnot.

(i didn't do physics either, i just go with what sounds logical and such... what makes sense, and all)

Taht would also depend on the strength of gravity of the planet in whose atmosphere you wish to fly in, "and this may vary due to local conditions " as Turnsky said

[-Norbert-]

Sky Serpents may not be which is supported by the fact that Marcus' Sky Serpent was attached to a Fire-/Sunhawk and then launched after they had cleared the planet's vicinity.

That the capship kept Marcus docked even after they where out of the atmosphere showed clearly, that he kept him in to increase the fighters chance of getting through the minefield alive. So this isn't any indication of the Sky Serpents ability to fly in anmospheres.

And while it's true that in the Centauri Trilogy, there is a whole fleet landed on a planet, those where all ships of a new design. Their technology was based on Drakh technology, even though the Centauri didn't know that.

[Trivial Psychic]

We know for certain that the Centauri Vorchan is atmosphere-capable, as several were seen flying through the air above the Centauri capital late in Season 5.  However, unless its ventral fin folds in some way, or it has very long landing gear, I doubt that it can land, without any prepared landing site with support struts.  I believe I also saw some Sentris flying among the Vorchans.

The shape of the Narn Frazi suggests that it could be atmosphere-capable, in a lifting-body sense, but I doubt that it would be able to maneuver well.

[predator82]

Isn't there a scene when some monbari are "beamed up" into the grey councils ship? They stand in a beam of light and then the scene changes.... or have i just dreamed that?
Because IF they get beamed this way it could indicate atm. capability. (who would project a beam of light down right from space? (expecially it you want to go unnoticed)

[Prophet]

A dude was beamed up in to a minbari transport of sort howering over him. Possibly an athmospheric shuttle or a small freighter. Watch In the Beginning.

[Herra Tohtori]

I think what we need to have separate is

1. aerodynamically atmospheric ships and

2. ships that can operate near planets without a need to be on orbit (ie. free fall state).

Aerodynamically atmospheric ships function as airplanes and they compensate the gravitational pull by aerodynamic lift.

On the other hand, ships that have gravimetric drives powerful enough, they can just create a compensating gravitational field that effectively creates a zero sum of vertical forces affecting the ship, in which case the ship can keep altitude. Both categories of ships can be seen as atmospheric-capable ships, but there are many factors that limit both classes.

1. Atmospheric flight capabilities require, well, an atmosphere. Furthermore, it can't be any kind of atmosphere. Too dense, and it'll be like trying to fly an airplane underwater. Too low pressure, and the airplane will fall right out of the sky, effectively forming a beautiful ballistic parabolic trajectory. Also, too high a pressure will crush any space craft, as is demonstrated by that poor Shadow bugger in [insert episode name here].

2. The only things limiting the capabilities of the second class ships are structural integrity and the abilities of gravimetric drive.

For example, close earth gravitational acceleration is 9,80665 m s^-2. If the gravimetric drive can generate an acceleration of this magnitude, the ship does have an ability to keep static altitude above earth. Maneuvers require more thrust-equivalent capacity.

Generally, any ship is able to fly near any planet that has gravitational acceleration smaller than ship's ability to produce thrust. Theoretically it would be possible to operate an Aurora  Star Fury in an atmosphere, but it would require constant thrust generating 1 g thrust upwards, so it wouldn't be very feasible. Re-entry is a different thing altogether. But again, if gravitational acceleration exceeds ship's abilities to counter, the ship will be pulled deeper and deeper into atmo, until the pressure crushes it.

There is a big difference in usage and purpose for these classes. Firstly, aerodynamic atmo capabilities are a great asset for a fighter that is supposed to be fast and nimble. Even atmospheric fighter craft with gravimetric drives would profit from aerodynamic shape. Nial is a good example of this, so is Lintira. Nial is shaped as a raindrop, which is effectively the least drag-inducing shape possible. It also has some lift-proucing surfaces that probably also function as control surfaces, so it can probably glide a bit even with disabled gravimetric drive.

Lintira is even more effective aerodynamically. Relatively large lift-producing area, coupled with obvious control surfaces in the rear, make it quite clear to me that this ship could quite well function as an aeroplane as well as a space ship.

Narn Frazi have a fuselage that certainly generates lift, just like the EA Kestrel shuttle, so I would bet they are atmospherically capable - to some extent. Probably they would consume a lot of fuel due to their non-ideal aerodynamic build.

Anyway - the old saying holds true even on this matter: "Give me an engine powerful enough, and I can fly with a barn door."

[Prophet]

Ships without gravimetric engines do not nessecarily need that much wings and fins. Since they are primaralily space craft, they have manouvering jets around the hull that should work just as well in athmosphere. This removes the need for control surfaces and other such mechanics that would take space, and add weigh. And would be useless in space combat. Ofcourse any lif producing area would be beneficial when gliding.

I do not agree tha Frazi being atm cabable. It doesn't have any lift producing surfaces to speak of. Just reasonably aerodynamic form. One could just easily claim that Aurora would be atm cabable because it has four wings. If there is a book or episode I have forgotten that indicates Frazi to be atm cabable, then I belive it. But so far there isn't anything that indicates such action would be possible.

[Herra Tohtori]

Yeah, but my point was more like that if you fit a gravimetric drive onto a cube-shaped space ship and then you put similar gravi-drive onto a ship that has similar mass but is aerodynamically effective, the one ship with better aerodynamic qualities will triumph in atmosphere. In space it will not matter. So, if I designed a ship that was supposed to be widely used on atmosphere, I would make it aerodynamic even though it would be equipped with gravimetric drive. That's because it would achieve greater performance than the cube-shaped. In other words, if there is supposed to be wide usage on atmosphere, an aerodynamically shaped ship will have an advantage over non-aerodynamic, even if they had completely similar gravimetric propulsion systems.

So... on fighters or shuttles that are planned for atmospheric abilities, I would expect to see some aerodynamic planning. Like we see on Lintira, Whitestar and Nial, and Kestrel and Thunderbolt... and Valkyrie, too. And actually also Vorchan, Frazi, and many other ships, to lesser extent. I can also imagine a Sharlin or Tinashi being able to operate on atmospheres, just like the Shadow vessels can. Actually I suppose they could also glide at least to some extent, by banking the ship 90 degrees to either direction. That doesn't mean they are good at it, or that they are planned to do it, or that they would ever do it if they could avoid it.

If the Shadows had need for a craft that should be able to operate great deal of time in atmospheres, they would most likely make it aerodynamically lift-providing.

Another reason is that if gravi-drive goes kaputt, the ship that has aerodynamic stability and lift-producing area has *better* chances of survival than the cube-shaped craft that solely relies on its gravi-drive.

But this is proceeding towards pseudo-technical debate, and the point of this thread was to pick out atmospheric-capable ships from non-capable. So, my list of these ships would be divided into two sections: Ships that are have a role and design that makes them atmospheric-capable, and ships that are not supposed to operate on atmospheres but are capable of doing it, should it be absolute necessity.

[Prophet]

...aerodynamic planning...

Being aerodynamic doesn't mean athmospheric capabilities. It could mean the designer wanted to make them cool and scifi looking.

I can also imagine a Sharlin or Tinashi being able to operate on atmospheres,

No friggin way. They are too big to operate effectively in athmosphere. And they are clearly unable to do anykind of landing when things go badly.

If the Shadows had need for a craft that should be able to operate great deal of time in atmospheres, they would most likely make it aerodynamically lift-providing.

I'd say shadows have no need for aerodynamics. So numerous are the times we have seen battlecrabs in athmosphere. And they are living ships, and it is clear that they don't mind a bit for being in different kinds of athmosphere.

But this is proceeding towards pseudo-technical debate, and the point of this thread was to pick out atmospheric-capable ships from non-capable. So, my list of these ships would be divided into two sections: Ships that are have a role and design that makes them atmospheric-capable, and ships that are not supposed to operate on atmospheres but are capable of doing it, should it be absolute necessity.

The second group is wrong. You seem to be thinking are the ships theoretically capapble of athmospherig operation. Theoretically Omega can "fly" in athmosphere when you put it in standing position so that main engines point downwards. "Are not supposed to but are capable"? Does that mean like "Titanic wasn't suppose to submerge, but did it anyway"?
Can a ship survive re-entry? Does a ship have sufficent drive technology? What size the ship is? Can it land safely on the ground? Those should be the questions we should think about. Not aerodynamics.

Sharlin, for example, is huge. Even *if* the drives could support its weight in athmposphere. It cannot land anywhere safely because of the shape. It cannot crashland safely when something goes wrong. Vorchan on the other hand is smaller. I would imagine it might very well survive a mild crashlanding in more or less one piece. It is small enought that it could be feasible to build docking structures for it. It is small enought to even have landing gear. And most importantly there is canon evidence of its capabilities.

I wont accept "remotely aerodynamic" shape as evidence of atm capabilities. There is much more to it. Or, I want canon evidence (or at least semicanon).

[madaboutgames]

As well as atmospheric missions, i will be rendering some high altitude (low orbit) renders which should spice up the action a bit more

[NGTM-1R]

Being aerodynamic doesn't mean athmospheric capabilities. It could mean the designer wanted to make them cool and scifi looking.

It could. See, you just shot yourself in the foot there. It could also mean they are capable. Innocent until proven otherwise, as it were. Given the very paltry number of atmospheric-capable ships specified by the canon, we need more. It's that simple.

No friggin way. They are too big to operate effectively in athmosphere. And they are clearly unable to do anykind of landing when things go badly.

Size really proves nothing. Nor, for that matter, does the ability to land. The obvious analogy is fire-support warships for an amphibious landing. They can't land. But they can get very close.

The second group is wrong. You seem to be thinking are the ships theoretically capapble of athmospherig operation. Theoretically Omega can "fly" in athmosphere when you put it in standing position so that main engines point downwards. "Are not supposed to but are capable"? Does that mean like "Titanic wasn't suppose to submerge, but did it anyway"?

Logical fallacy; weak analogy. There are countless much better ones. Consider: the vast majority of armored vehicles in service today are capable of being sealed airtight and driving across a large river underwater. But they don't like to do it. They can, but they don't like to. Most two-engine aircraft can fly on one engine. But they don't like to. There are lots of capablities called for in the design of a weapon that don't get used much in practice, either because of a lack of call for them or because it's not a happy weapon when it's doing it.

Also the Omega isn't theoritically capable. It would lose its balance and fall over.

Can a ship survive re-entry? Does a ship have sufficent drive technology? What size the ship is? Can it land safely on the ground? Those should be the questions we should think about. Not aerodynamics.

Size, to a great extent with gravitic drives, matters not. As I've observed above, nor does the ability to land. Re-entry...now, this is a fun one. B5 ships do not seem to practice the same form of reentry we do. We just head in and stand the heat; they, with the exception of some EA ships which seem designed to handle our style, would have to come in slowly. This is entirely reasonable, as they have the drive power and the fuel to sort of back in at very low speeds, saving themselves the trouble of all that heat-shielding.

And of course those races with gravitic shields capable of stopping a plasma bolt could probably just reenter the old-fashioned way and trust to their shields.

Sharlin, for example, is huge. Even *if* the drives could support its weight in athmposphere. It cannot land anywhere safely because of the shape. It cannot crashland safely when something goes wrong.

The Sharlin can sustain more then 1g acceleration; it can therefore hold itself up in the atmosphere of an Earth-like planet and still manuver, though its performance would be greatly decreased. And you're wrong, it can land. Think back, to the classic approach to landing a spacecraft...in the water. Whether or not the Sharlin's bouyant is a big question mark, but regardless of that it would be able to float with at least a decreased stress on the drives. Similarly being watertight (it's vacuumtight, of course it's watertight) it could crashland in any available large body of water and be relatively happy there.

[Prophet]

Well you did a good job proving every one of my opinions is wrong and I could do the same to your post. But I won't.
I just repeat my previous statements.

Space is, claim what you want, very much different enviroment than athmosphere (that differs from planet to planet), not to mention water or any other liquid. Thus I consider safety to be very inportant issue here. We both have brought up modern armour and their reluctance to get themselves wet. But taking a big warship in to athmosphere a bit different, while at the same time very similar action. You have to be incredibly careful, do all kinds pressure checks. And remember that space is cold, athmosphere is often not so much cold as space. That brings up heat issues. So risking hundreds, if not thousands of crewmembers is a bit different than the risk that those six jaegers at the backseat might get wet. BTW, when you crash a Sharlin, that weights more than you or I can imagine, in to water... It will go straight to the bottom (controlled landing might work in theory, but thus far I consider the issue irrelevant).

The designers of the ship will have to take these things in to consideration and decide if it is worth building the warship to be both air and space worthy. Especially when a warship (sharlin or similar sized) has very few reasons to go in to atmosphere. It would be at a disadvantage to anyone in space. It very would voulnerable to ground based threats. And when something goes wrong, it would be like dropping a car from a rooftop (exept that a car has the advantage in tires)

All I see is lots and lots of risks. But no benefits that have military value. Thus, apart from canon evidence, I need one helluva lot convincing before I belive any ship is athospheric capable

[Herra Tohtori]

Physically, every single ship that has a gravimetric drive has atmospheric capability, simply because they can in most cases generate greater acceleration than the gravity acceleration, in which case the ship won't fall. That's the physics.

Also, their abilities WOULD be greatly impaired, compared to space. This is because the air friction slows the ships down and they constantly need to pour huge amounts of energy into the gravi-drive to counter the effects of gravity. In an orbit, ie. a free fall situation, much more energy is saved for other functions.

So, any gravimetric vessel has ability to get into atmosphere and get out of there in one piece - as long as the gravimetric drive works and gets enough energy. Therefore the planet size (gravitational acceleration) is ctually the only limiting factor in gravimetric ships' ability to operate inside atmospheres. A Sharlin could operate in atmosphere, but it wouldn't. That's because it would really serve no military purpose for a warship to enter atmosphere - except in a clever plan to destroy a Shadow vessel - but the fact that it doesn't want to do that doesn't mean that it can't do that.

On the other hand, Thunderbolt and Kestrel are model examples of ships that have clearly atmospheric functions apart from space flight. They are craft that are genuinely atmospheric-capable. Then there are ships that are planned to operate in vacuum, but they could operate in atmospheres - poorly, perhaps, but it wouldn't be lethal to them. Then there are ships like practically every EA ship that are planned exclusively for space, like Aurora and Omega... They couldn't survive atmospheric operations in any conditions.

So. For example, every gravimetric ship that has ability to generate a>g accelerations are capable of operating upon Earth atmosphere. That requisite, I daresay, is pretty much fulfilled by any gravimetric ship in B5 verse.

BTW, landing is not really an issue. They can just stop and float in the air, say, 0,5 m from grounf until they run out of energy or the gravi-drives fail.

In a way, a gravimetric vessel would function just as well as a Zeppelin does. Except that instead of lighter-than-air gas it would use gravimetric drive as source of the lift. But otherwise, it woulr work just as well. It would be a ridiculous thing to do, but a Sharlin could get to the surface and get away if it were an absolute necessity.

And, actually heat issues wouldn't be as big a problem as one would think. Typical temperature difference between deep space and atmosphere is about 270 Kelvins. That's a fart of a fly compared to definitely huge temperatures caused by the ships' generators, at least one would think so. Besides, air flow would actually boost the radiator systems since it leads heat much better than vacuum. Also, the ships would have no problems withstanding normal atmo pressure. Water, however, would be different case. While it is true that the ships must be waterproof as they are vacuum proof, and despite the fact that most ships would float, water is not a good element for a spaceship of any kind. Mainly due to corrosion. Other thing is that space ships are designed to keep air inside, while in water the pressure is inverted and the hull needs to keep the water out from flooding the insides of ship. In space, small leaks on door packings can easily be replaced by attitional air coming from the pressurization system; however, when water tries to come in from those little holes, the internal atmosphere cannot simply block its way - it would require as big a pressure as it is in outside water, or preferably slightly bigger. In any depths above 15 metres depht (in earth gravity, and presuming that the fluid has density of one) the pressures needed to keep the water out would be big enough to cause divers' disease on humans. Many ships are bigger than 15 metres. And on deeper, you get all kinds of fun stuff such as nitrogen poisoning (which would require the nitrogen in the air being replaced with, say, Helium or other inert gas...).

Of course I'm talking about human fysiology here, I can't know what issues the Minbari would have under great physical pressure from surrounding atmosphere.  What I'm saying is that while a ship might be completely able to fly in atmosphere and vacuum, it might not be *ideal* for underwater ops.

And, of course, if a gravimetric vessel is designed to move on atmosphere, it should be aerodynamically designed too. Just like a Lintira or Nial. So, if a gravimetric ship has lift producing areas and aerodynamic control surfaces, it's quite certain that it has a role that involves operations in atmospheres. Any gravimetric ship can, of course, operate in atmosphere even without aerodynamic shape, but that would be inefficient and in case of gravimetric drive failure they would become literally ballistic bricks, whereas a ship aerodynamically designed would be able to glide.


IF the ship has no gravimetric drives, it needs to be aerodynamically designed to operate in atmospheric conditions, ie. it needs to be aerodynamically stable and it needs to be able to convert air speed into lift force. Practically only fighters, bombers and shuttle-class ships are small enough to effectively operate as air planes. Bigger ships need greater air speed to produce great enough lift, and that of course adds to structural stress and heating of the surface...

[starfox]

The Drazi shuttle/transport seen  in the "The Ragged Edge" In Season 5 was atmosphere capable.