Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Rated for Atmosphere
  • Subject: Rated for Atmosphere
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Rated for Atmosphere

Ok, so what does "rated for atmosphere" actually mean? Do we even really know, it would seem obvious that it doesn't mean that ships like the PoA can't fly in atmosphere, as the Autumn could land on Reach and take off again (granted with heavy booster/rocket tugships) and land on Halo without knocking itself all to pieces. I'm not entirely sure what it means what're your opinions on the matter?

  • 04.09.2011 10:36 AM PDT

I would guess 'rated for atmosphere' means it has the structural strength, aerodynamics, landing engines, so it can safely enter and exit a planetary atmosphere. it is one aspect of the Halo Universe I hate with passion, how they somehow expect what is easily MILLIONS of tons of ship (Pillar of Autumn) to somehow land under its own power on Reach, also Forward Unto Dawn in Halo III, just hovering there with no visible engines or anything, that sort of stuff sucks so bad, tried to get around the problem personally by sketching a Frigate with swivelling engines, like those on a V-22 Osprey or a Harrier, so it can be kept aloft for a short time in atmosphere.

wish they would just say 'look these ships are too huge to enter atmosphere safely unless they are crashing...' and leave it at that, using dropships and such to deploy instead.

  • 04.09.2011 10:40 AM PDT


Posted by: Sigma617
I agree with the above.

The Autumn being drydocked (and ability to lift off) is such a hideously ridiculous notion, as is that entire ship breaking yard. The UNSC builds it's warships in space not well within the Gravity well and atmospheric shell of a High G planet.

Reach's ship building (and breaking) yard should have been Anchor 9.

As for the Dawn and it's inexplicable hovering...
That always bugged me too.


I don't see a problem with a ship breaking yard being planet side at all, it's not like they're building ships there or anything. I'll bet even the frigates are built in space, even though they can hover like Covie ships can.

Anchor 9 probably was one of the ship building yards Reach has, it's at least a repair yard.

As for frigates hovering, IIRC, they have the beginnings of the same tech the Covenant has that allows all their ships to hover in atmosphere.

  • 04.09.2011 10:58 AM PDT

The problem with your "The PoA should not even be able to enter atmosphere cause of size."

CSS class battlecruisers, assault carriers, the supercarrier, the UNSC colony ships. All could go into atmosphere. All are just as, if not bigger.

My opinion is "rated for atmosphere" means the ship can be in atmosphere but retain maneuverability. Aka, it's not limited to landing or taking off.

  • 04.09.2011 11:01 AM PDT


Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Sigma617
I agree with the above.

The Autumn being drydocked (and ability to lift off) is such a hideously ridiculous notion, as is that entire ship breaking yard. The UNSC builds it's warships in space not well within the Gravity well and atmospheric shell of a High G planet.

Reach's ship building (and breaking) yard should have been Anchor 9.

As for the Dawn and it's inexplicable hovering...
That always bugged me too.


I don't see a problem with a ship breaking yard being planet side at all, it's not like they're building ships there or anything. I'll bet even the frigates are built in space, even though they can hover like Covie ships can.

Anchor 9 probably was one of the ship building yards Reach has, it's at least a repair yard.

As for frigates hovering, IIRC, they have the beginnings of the same tech the Covenant has that allows all their ships to hover in atmosphere.


Anchor Nine, as we saw it, was right next to a frigate construction zone.

Oh, I though Reach's gravity was not that different from Earths? Not enough to consider it a 'high gravity' planet.

  • 04.09.2011 11:07 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Sigma617
I agree with the above.

The Autumn being drydocked (and ability to lift off) is such a hideously ridiculous notion, as is that entire ship breaking yard. The UNSC builds it's warships in space not well within the Gravity well and atmospheric shell of a High G planet.

Reach's ship building (and breaking) yard should have been Anchor 9.

As for the Dawn and it's inexplicable hovering...
That always bugged me too.


I don't see a problem with a ship breaking yard being planet side at all, it's not like they're building ships there or anything. I'll bet even the frigates are built in space, even though they can hover like Covie ships can.

Anchor 9 probably was one of the ship building yards Reach has, it's at least a repair yard.

As for frigates hovering, IIRC, they have the beginnings of the same tech the Covenant has that allows all their ships to hover in atmosphere.


Anchor Nine, as we saw it, was right next to a frigate construction zone.

Oh, I though Reach's gravity was not that different from Earths? Not enough to consider it a 'high gravity' planet.


I thought the same, I always heard that it was very similar in size to Earth. It's only very slightly bigger, or so I've heard.

  • 04.09.2011 11:10 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
The problem with your "The PoA should not even be able to enter atmosphere cause of size."

CSS class battlecruisers, assault carriers, the supercarrier, the UNSC colony ships. All could go into atmosphere. All are just as, if not bigger.

My opinion is "rated for atmosphere" means the ship can be in atmosphere but retain maneuverability. Aka, it's not limited to landing or taking off.


The way I'm beginning to imagine it is that ships that are like the Autumn or other large UNSC ships "not rated for atmosphere" are like, sharks I think it is? Anyway, the way I'm seeing it is like whatever fish or larger sea creature it is that has to keep moving or it will basically drown. Translating that to UNSC ships I see them as constantly having to be moving or they'll crash to the ground.

  • 04.09.2011 11:14 AM PDT

What people forget is the Marines even asked if the Dawn was rated for atmosphere, implying not all frigates are.

I suggest "rated for atmosphere" is a ship that has been inspected and has the necessary technology aboard to engage in ship-to-ship combat within a gravity well of a planet.

I also suggest that such technology is reserved for frigates only, due to size and cost constraints. Larger ships can, as shown in Reach, enter and leave an atmosphere of 1G, but require significant "disposable" conventional rockets that it is not viable on a routine basis.

The counter-argument to this is that the PoA was a one-off case due to the advanced systems it had at hand.

  • 04.09.2011 11:16 AM PDT


Posted by: dr spartan32

Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
I would guess 'rated for atmosphere' means it has the structural strength, aerodynamics, landing engines, so it can safely enter and exit a planetary atmosphere. it is one aspect of the Halo Universe I hate with passion, how they somehow expect what is easily MILLIONS of tons of ship (Pillar of Autumn) to somehow land under its own power on Reach, also Forward Unto Dawn in Halo III, just hovering there with no visible engines or anything, that sort of stuff sucks so bad, tried to get around the problem personally by sketching a Frigate with swivelling engines, like those on a V-22 Osprey or a Harrier, so it can be kept aloft for a short time in atmosphere.

wish they would just say 'look these ships are too huge to enter atmosphere safely unless they are crashing...' and leave it at that, using dropships and such to deploy instead.
Well, the UNSC frigates only weigh around 4000 tons or so, IIRC. Meaning it has about the same density as air, given the proportions of the ship.


Yeeaaahhh... I think somebody somewhere hadn't sobered up when they thought that one up. XD

  • 04.09.2011 11:31 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie
What people forget is the Marines even asked if the Dawn was rated for atmosphere, implying not all frigates are.

I suggest "rated for atmosphere" is a ship that has been inspected and has the necessary technology aboard to engage in ship-to-ship combat within a gravity well of a planet.

I also suggest that such technology is reserved for frigates only, due to size and cost constraints. Larger ships can, as shown in Reach, enter and leave an atmosphere of 1G, but require significant "disposable" conventional rockets that it is not viable on a routine basis.

The counter-argument to this is that the PoA was a one-off case due to the advanced systems it had at hand.


Sounds plausible. Me and my brother were talking about while a ship landing is tough, it's far easier then taking off. Larger ships, with effort could land, but they'd have to be careful in not doing a nosedive or going to fast, or breaching the hull on landing.

Getting power to launch back into orbit is the toughy.

  • 04.09.2011 11:42 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie
What people forget is the Marines even asked if the Dawn was rated for atmosphere, implying not all frigates are.

I suggest "rated for atmosphere" is a ship that has been inspected and has the necessary technology aboard to engage in ship-to-ship combat within a gravity well of a planet.

I also suggest that such technology is reserved for frigates only, due to size and cost constraints. Larger ships can, as shown in Reach, enter and leave an atmosphere of 1G, but require significant "disposable" conventional rockets that it is not viable on a routine basis.

The counter-argument to this is that the PoA was a one-off case due to the advanced systems it had at hand.


I never even heard that, haha XD

Sounds like a plausible idea to me, just out of curiousity, did it even say anywhere that the Autumn isn't rated for atmosphere? I don't ever remember reading/hearing that anywhere.

  • 04.09.2011 11:50 AM PDT

who the balls comes up with these 'weights' as well, 4000 tons, get the blam! away! the problem for human ships is the fact they are about as aerodynamic as a brick, at least Covenant ships are sleek and look like they might be able to fly in atmosphere, but I equally don't like that, science fiction and its 'oh they use anti-gravity...' is so beyond bull its hilarious. imagine how much that super carrier tips the scale at, and its hanging, effortlessly in the air, seriously? that is why I vote for the Halo Universe to have a huge rethink, and get rid of all this stuff about millions of tons of ship just hanging in the sky and turn it back into a gritty, realism-grounded science fiction masterpiece.

  • 04.09.2011 11:54 AM PDT


Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
who the balls comes up with these 'weights' as well, 4000 tons, get the blam! away! the problem for human ships is the fact they are about as aerodynamic as a brick, at least Covenant ships are sleek and look like they might be able to fly in atmosphere, but I equally don't like that, science fiction and its 'oh they use anti-gravity...' is so beyond bull its hilarious. imagine how much that super carrier tips the scale at, and its hanging, effortlessly in the air, seriously? that is why I vote for the Halo Universe to have a huge rethink, and get rid of all this stuff about millions of tons of ship just hanging in the sky and turn it back into a gritty, realism-grounded science fiction masterpiece.


Actually "Anti-gravity" as it were is quite simple. While we don't have the technology to manipulate gravity on that scale, or at all for that matter, once we do hovering will be quite simple provided with enough power.

Say the Earth has a gravitation pull of 1, and the frigate projects a field of -1, only half a milimetre around it's external frame. That frigate can float without anything else being affected by it (minus air displacement). Computers automatically change the field as is required.

  • 04.09.2011 12:03 PM PDT


Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
who the balls comes up with these 'weights' as well, 4000 tons, get the blam! away! the problem for human ships is the fact they are about as aerodynamic as a brick, at least Covenant ships are sleek and look like they might be able to fly in atmosphere, but I equally don't like that, science fiction and its 'oh they use anti-gravity...' is so beyond bull its hilarious. imagine how much that super carrier tips the scale at, and its hanging, effortlessly in the air, seriously? that is why I vote for the Halo Universe to have a huge rethink, and get rid of all this stuff about millions of tons of ship just hanging in the sky and turn it back into a gritty, realism-grounded science fiction masterpiece.


Huge rethink? Turn it back into a gritty, realism grounded science fiction?

Realism grounded... science fiction?

Lol?

So what, whenever a ship enter atmosphere it does this? *KERSLAM CRASH INTO GROUND!*

Feel free to post a topic about all your ideas to return it to a "realistic science fiction."

  • 04.09.2011 12:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: PLUT0NIUM 235
who the balls comes up with these 'weights' as well, 4000 tons, get the blam! away! the problem for human ships is the fact they are about as aerodynamic as a brick, at least Covenant ships are sleek and look like they might be able to fly in atmosphere, but I equally don't like that, science fiction and its 'oh they use anti-gravity...' is so beyond bull its hilarious. imagine how much that super carrier tips the scale at, and its hanging, effortlessly in the air, seriously? that is why I vote for the Halo Universe to have a huge rethink, and get rid of all this stuff about millions of tons of ship just hanging in the sky and turn it back into a gritty, realism-grounded science fiction masterpiece.


Huge rethink? Turn it back into a gritty, realism grounded science fiction?

Realism grounded... science fiction?

Lol?

So what, whenever a ship enter atmosphere it does this? *KERSLAM CRASH INTO GROUND!*

Feel free to post a topic about all your ideas to return it to a "realistic science fiction."


O_o I think we are thinking the same thing, Sci-fi grounded completely in realism? That's like trying to make a story filled with magic grounded in realism, it just defies the whole spirit of the genre, there can be realism in a Sci-fi or Fantasy story can be realistic, but they cannot be completely grounded in realism as that defies the very idea behind their genres.

  • 04.09.2011 7:27 PM PDT

I think what he means is that it should atleast be a pseudo-scientific explanation of hovering metal mountains, or no hovering at all.

Personally I just bite my teeth together and intensely think "Forerunner tech, forerunner tech, forerunner tech" when I see something utterly idiotic in Halo.

  • 04.09.2011 7:57 PM PDT

I believe "rated for atmosphere" means whether a ship has the kind of reactionless drive system needed to just float there above ground all day, opposed to having to use boosters like the POA did to get off the ground.

Could have something to do with superstructure strength aswell, but the halcyon classes were knows as being built like tanks.

  • 04.17.2011 9:16 AM PDT

the point I was trying to get across is anti-gravity doesn't fit into the human technology in the Halo Universe, Hornets have engines to keep them in the air, Pelicans have engines to keep them in the air, why do Orbital Drop Shock Trooper pods fall and hit the ground really hard, why do they need Albatross' to take things down to planets, why are they still using 'ancient' low-technology Falcons, which are basically helicopters...? Longsword' have wings, actual aerodynamic lift, why if they possess this miraculous anti-gravity technology.

serious question, why can't science fiction writers who go to so much trouble to make things seem realistic (be honest they do, weapon designations, military talk, military branches, everything!) not have million ton warships floating effortlessly in the air, if they have anti-gravity then everything in Halo is stupid and makes no sense, has no purpose, what is the point in things like the Pelican if the ship can just land...?

  • 04.17.2011 1:36 PM PDT

I take it youre cool with artificial gravity inside the ships then? Thats atleast equally (im)plausible as reactionless drives, which is also equally as plausible as a slipspace engine. infact the SF engine is much more implausible i think.

Also worth noting that a reactionless drive is not the same as anti-gravity generator......i dont think anyway. Im gonna look that up now.

  • 04.18.2011 11:57 AM PDT

Considering pelicans must have a higher than 4:1 thrust to weight ratio in order to hover and move quickly with a 60 ton tank attached I don't think it's too far fetched to believe a Frigate could land on a planet and make orbit again.

With the super-strong material available to the UNSC, I think it is also plausible to give a Frigate a "landing-gear" of sorts.

Aren't the runways at SWORD base for Frigates to land on?

  • 04.18.2011 12:50 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

The Autumn may not be rated for atmosphere, but it did have a landing sequence as mentioned by Cortana.

  • 04.18.2011 1:04 PM PDT

Posted by: RotaryCookie


Aren't the runways at SWORD base for Frigates to land on?


Just a guess, but I think its more likely that they are for Longswords and/or cargo freighters.

  • 04.18.2011 2:00 PM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
The Autumn may not be rated for atmosphere, but it did have a landing sequence as mentioned by Cortana.


good catch!

  • 04.18.2011 2:51 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2