Proposed System For Interatmospher Flight

Posted by azmulder4 on May 31, 2015 at 12:35 AM

STARDATE 05.30.15



Most starships are just not structurally designed with inter-atmospheric flight intended. Since Aerodynamics is not a concern in space flight most larger starships are not designed and built with the idea that they will be entering a planet's atmosphere let a lone landing on a planet's surface. Most of the time teleporters and shuttles do the work of getting to and from a planet. However, there are some rare circumstances where a Captain may be forced with having to navigate his ship through an atmosphere or even putting down planet side. Here are some ideas on how to approach atmospheric entry and flight. (Please see my previous post on hull classifications for an explanation of terms used here).


Additional Power will have to be routed from the Hyperdrive to reinforce structural integrity and inertia dampening fields of a starship entering a planet's atmosphere. The Cost is calculated for the entire day but it is the same cost whether ship is in atmosphere for only an hour or the entire day. If a ship leaves the atmosphere into orbit or space and decides to re-enter the atmosphere they will have to pay the atmospheric flight cost again (Plus the cost for entering or leaving orbit)


Gravity Difficulty

Low Gravity X1

Medium Gravity x2 (Earth-Like Gravity)

Heavy Gravity x3

Extreme Gravity x4

10 EU per Hull Class Size x Gravity Difficulty = Energy Cost Per Day


Class 1: Low Gravity 10 EU, Medium Gravity 20 EU, Heavy Gravity 30 EU, Extreme Gravity 40 EU

Class 2: Low Gravity 20 EU, Medium Gravity 40 EU, Heavy Gravity 60 EU, Extreme Gravity 80 EU

Class 3: Low Gravity 30 EU, Medium Gravity 60 EU, Heavy Gravity 90 EU, Extreme Gravity 120 EU

Class 4: Low Gravity 40 EU, Medium Gravity 80 EU, Heavy Gravity 120 EU, Extreme Gravity 160 EU

Class 5: Low Gravity 50 EU, Medium Gravity 100 EU, Heavy Gravity 150 EU, Extreme Gravity 200 EU


So obviously a class one ship with only 50 ppb would not want to enter the atmosphere of an planet with extreme gravity because the cost in terms of energy would be too high.


The same table above could be applied as damage EU for a ship attempting atmospheric flight without paying the EU Cost to cancel out said damage.

Landing on a planet's surface with a starship is never a great thing as you are taking the ship out of its intended modality of travel. It  would not require any additional energy expenditure but it would require a starship to be designed for it with some kind of landing gear and or/vtol system. As a general consideration I would suggest that anything larger than a Class III Hull can not safely land on a planets surface without damage. Not to mention that a starship on the ground would be far more vulnerable then one in space. Obviously any ship not equipped with a surface landing gear system would be makind a controlled crash landing and which could result in substantial damage to the ship. Water landings (deliberate or accidental) would have to be handled differently but could also result in ship damage but not as severe as a controlled crash landing on the ground.

Categories: None

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In