Talk:Egret Spaceliner

Size
Any indication on the size of this thing in terms of length? I don't have access to Reach at the moment so I couldn't hazard a guess. I'm assuming more ship-sized than aircraft, seeing as it has room for 600 passengers... Diaboy 14:55, 25 December 2010 (EST)
 * My bad, 600 passengers is the approximate capacity of 747 and Antonov 225 sized aircraft. I'm assuming this is similar - but Halopedia is no place for guestimates, was just for a personal project. 79.160.40.41 16:53, 26 December 2010 (EST) (sorry, this was me, forgot to sign in!) Diaboy 16:54, 26 December 2010 (EST)

Proposed Article Change: Unidentified civilian transport ship
While this article refers to this type of starship as a "craft", as if it were an unidentified sort of craft, when clearly, in the game, they are designed for interstellar travel, thereby making them an advanced type of spacecraft, "spaceships", or preferably, "starships". I think that in light of this analysis, I'm proposing that the name of this article be changed to "Unidentified civilian transport ship", which would make things better to understand what these vessels are exactly. Anyone agree with this? Xamikaze330 15:32, 12 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
 * The problem is we don't know if they are capable of interstellar travel. The game does not show any evidence of this, other than it is capable of flying in-atmosphere and crash. Since this cannot be proven, thus it should be not be considered as a ship. It is best to stay ambiguous with "craft".— subtank  13:58, 24 November 2011 (EST)

The infobox for this page also says it has a Slipspace engine, but I don't know where that information comes from. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:02, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * Could be copy+paste error by whoever created the article...— subtank  14:06, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * So...— subtank  14:08, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * Yeah, we have no idea if they're just large shuttles intended to carry passengers to ships in orbit (though given their size, I'd say they're more likely to be capable of slipspace travel). Besides, superluminal craft are still spacecraft. "Starship" is just another way to say the same thing. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 14:18, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * I agree with Jugus. It seems to me that most starships this size are equipped with engines powerful enough to leave atmosphere and be able to "fly" through space, and also, these transports would have to evacuate elsewhere not on Reach, like out in space to another UNSC planet that isn't compromised by the Covenant as of yet, for which they would definitely have to have some kind of Faster-Than-Light or FTL stardrive to reach another planet in time, and also to have at least a fighting chance of outrunning any Covenant warships. Of course, there is the Cole Protocol to consider...but that's different discussion for another time. --Xamikaze330 14:23, 24 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Possibly, but it's not proof until there's a mention or observation of space flight. To me it just looks like a vertical takeoff airplane. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * VTOL?? These ships clearly are not VTOL. I mean, if they did, they'd have some kind of downward-facing turbine, rotor blade, or something! Those engines are like the engines on a jet cargo/passenger liner, or a space shuttle of sorts. A jet liner needs a runway to take off; a space shuttle is a little bit different in that it must "blast off" vertically into space, but aesthetically almost same configuration. These ships probably use Reach's gravity to "slingshot" through the atmosphere and into space, all while horizontal. Backwards thrust, not downwards. --Xamikaze330 15:05, 24 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Watch the scene again. It clearly rises into the air without the need of a runway. And without propellors, just like UNSC frigates. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:48, 24 November 2011 (EST)


 * I can see that. But just as you said, they are like UNSC frigates, which is definitely a starship. If they have specialized VTOL engines like on the UNSC Frigate, then they must use them only, and I stress only, for take-off. And it seems to me that these ships have certain starship characteristics common in most human-designed starships in Halo. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I very much doubt, but it does seem to me that it does have a somewhat thicker hull, indication of what suggests an internal pressurized atmosphere that would be used for most starships, not just spacecraft in general. Besides, Halo is science fiction, so therefore spacecraft become spaceships or starships. --Xamikaze330 13:15, 28 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Not always. The Vulture appears to float similarly like a Frigate (minus the propellors it uses for turning), and can exit out of the atmosphere to a limited extent, but that doesn't make it capable of slipspace travel, or even intended for long distance out-of-atmosphere travel. Whether the hull looks thicker or not is hard to tell from the outside, so again we can not assume what its capabilities are without any kind of proof of them. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:11, 28 November 2011 (EST)


 * It's a starship. There is no other logical explanation. I mean, where else would those ships go? The entire planet Reach has been compromised by the Covenant. No place planetside is considered "safe" from the Covenant. So logically, the ships would have to leave Reach orbit and head out-system to another uncompromised UNSC-controlled planet, after following the Cole Protocol. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: gravitational slingshot trajectory. It all makes sense. A ship doesn't necessarily need a bulky rocket booster pack to break planetary gravity, they can just use the planet's gravity to do it for them, to help them. Their fusion drive engines are powerful enough, the hull thick enough to withstand the burning atmospheric friction, what else could it be except a civilian starship? Did I mention that the ships seemed to be heading out-of-atmosphere, out-of-orbit? --Xamikaze330 14:27, 28 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

As of August 23rd, the Fleet of Particular Justice had not arrived and most of the Covenant fighting was still relegated to the Viery Territory. So there were still plenty safe places of Reach as the full battle had not emerged yet. Can you prove that "the ships seemed to be heading out-of-atmosphere, out-of-orbit"? It doesn't look it, there's no proof of that. And just because something looks like it can exit the atmosphere doesn't make it capable of interplanetary travel. Look at the Pelican, it can exit into space, and attempt a slingshot orbit but that doesn't make it slipspace travel capable. One can interepret that they might be spaceships, but there's no proof of that, only interpretation. Until you have proof that "their fusion drive engines are powerful enough, the hull thick enough to withstand the burning atmospheric friction", then it can not be legitimately claimed that it is a spacecraft and that there is "no other logical explanation". "VTOL Airplane" works just fine. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (EST)


 * I prefer to reason rather than rely on logic. Expanding upon Tuckers' comment, while the entirety of Reach is indeed compromised by the Covenant fleet's presence compromised, it does not mean that the UNSC on Reach has not secured a safe location to vacate the civilian populace safely. Additionally, we know nothing about their propulsion, other than their engines are capable of VTOL; thus, to assume that they have either slipspace drive or even a fusion drive would be merely speculation since there is no evidence of this.— subtank  15:05, 28 November 2011 (EST)


 * Maybe so, but let's keep in mind that the Covenant often glass the planets of their enemies, and when they do, they glass every square inch, except for the one location of the Forerunner facility underneath Castle Base, underneath Menachite Mountain. Aside from that, they glassed every other square meter and mile of Reach's surface. Not that I'm saying that what you're saying isn't possible. In any case, must it remain being called a "craft"? Can it be renamed a "ship"? --Xamikaze330 18:30, 28 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330


 * Thorough glassing, as you described above, does not occur until August 30th, when the Covenant has effectively removed the strong UNSC presence from the planet. Ship is synonymous with craft; there's no point of changing it since they are the same.— subtank  18:43, 28 November 2011 (EST)


 * "Craft" is also an all-encompassing term, "ship" referring more directly to a water or space vessel, hence "spacecraft", "watercraft", or "aircraft". This transport is at least an aircraft, therefore the term "craft" in the title remains. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 19:28, 28 November 2011 (EST)


 * I Just remembered something I saw in the article itself. It says that these "craft" are seen in New Alexandria Starport. Note that it says "Starport" and not "Airport". Because of this, I suspect this means that these actually are, as I have always suspected, transport starships. Otherwise, why would these be grounded at a starport if they were not starships? If they were some kind of aircraft, then wouldn't they be grounded at an airport? And I saw that you, Tuckerscreator, noted that today's commercial airplanes are designed to float for a period of time when landing (or rather, crashing) in the water to allow passengers to safely evacuate, and yet, you also noted that the "craft" immediately sank right after hitting the water. So, if this were an aircraft, as it seems to me you are suggesting it may be, then logically, the UNSC or CMA or whatever organization would have kept something that still worked from the 21st century to the 26th century and used it for these crafts. But it's possible these really are some kind of starship...Need I go on? I would also add that FatalSnipe117 noted something similar about the hull being made of Titanium-A, which is not buoyant according to scientific tests, and of course not to mention the part where it did get hit by a plasma torpedo impact, causing a major hull breach. But that's beside the point. Point is, why are they seen at New Alexandria Starport if they are not starships? --Xamikaze330 11:32, 17 February 2012 (EST)Xamikaze330


 * The consensus was that the reason the craft sank was because the plasma torpedo breached its hull. Modern airplanes are also made of titanium, which is actually lighter than steel, and still float. It'd be a terrible idea to build such a sinkable vehicles next to a bay. It's also dramatic effect: "Oh no, plane full of innocents has been shot down!" "Just pick them up from the lifeboats, they'll be fine." "Starport"'s a good point, though. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Intro Image Removed: Why?
Hey, why was removed as the introductory image? This is a great image! Why did someone remove it? --Xamikaze330 15:16, 24 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330
 * UPDATE: Thanks, Jugus, for putting the image back where it rightfully belongs. Maybe add it to the 6 Echo 2 article as well? --Xamikaze330 15:19, 24 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Buoyancy
Today's commercial airplanes are designed to float for a period when landing in water, naturally so passengers can evacuate, so how come this transport craft, despite being more advanced, immediately sank upon hitting the water? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Not really sure. I guess it could be because it's a spacecraft, and made of titanium A, which I am fairly certain isn't buoyant. I doubt if it was designed with emergency water landings in mind so much as emergency atmospheric landings/space disasters. Also, it had just taken a large hit from a covenant corvette, which would have created a massive hull breech. pestilence   Phil,  pestilence!  19:48, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree. It's intended to go into space, not fly horizontally for sustained periods. I suppose the usage of powerful thrusters capable of taking off, and maybe whatever makes frigates float, led to design changes; it was safe to make it bigger and heavier as long as the propulsion system could support it.--  Fore  run  ner '' 20:11, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * To me, the hull breach seems the most likely; after all, if the ship couldn't float in water, then it seems unsafe to put the loading dock right next to a harbor. Anyway, should it be noted in the article? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)