Talk:Egret Spaceliner

It has been suggested that this page be renamed {{{Unidentified civilian transport ship}}}. Please see the talk page for more details. The reason given was: {{{Not a spacecraft, but starship.}}}

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... --14:21, 24 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330Xamikaze330

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.-- Forerunner 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)