EVE Search - Atmospheric flight and eve's ships ...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Atmospheric flight and eve's ships ...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nonoffensive Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:05:00 - [31] Edited by: Nonoffensive on 14/11/2006 20:05:45 http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Pg1dzAvL2M Here's the other atmospheric flight vid in case anyone hasn't seen it yet.
spiritfa11 Phantom Squad iPOD Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:26:00 - [32] Originally by: Midshipman Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05 Originally by: Kelkyen Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s. How fast does your ship go? Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want. Maybe I misread what you wrote but I believe you are mistaken... Escape Velocity is relevant to a ship no matter what... if you cant achieve escape velocity you arent leaving any planets gravitational field. You MUST acheive a certain speed to leave a given planets gravity, it is not up to you however fast you feel like going until after you have acheived the minimum escape velocity. Anything less than 11,200 m/s and you arent going anywhere. --------------------- I make sigs, plz evemail me ingame \| Gallery
Kelkyen	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:30:00 - [33] Originally by: Midshipman Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05 Originally by: Kelkyen Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s. How fast does your ship go? Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want. I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one?
Kichae Chandramani Quasar Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:35:00 - [34] Originally by: Kelkyen Originally by: Midshipman Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05 Originally by: Kelkyen Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s. How fast does your ship go? Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want. I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one? Several answers at once: My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage. Escape velocity is relevant regardless of thrust. You need to counter the acceleration due to gravity of whatever body you're leaving. So long as your acceleration is higher than that due to gravity, you will eventually reach the escape velocity. It's just a matter of time. A Raven would require about a billion (US, a thousand million UK) newtons of thrust to lift off, discounting atmospheric pressure or any other forces beyond gravity. That's, uh, a lot.
Bombasy Gallente	Posted - 2006.11.14 21:46:00 - [35] Originally by: Kichae Chandramani Originally by: Kelkyen Originally by: Midshipman Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05 Originally by: Kelkyen Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s. How fast does your ship go? Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want. I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one? Several answers at once: My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage. Escape velocity is relevant regardless of thrust. You need to counter the acceleration due to gravity of whatever body you're leaving. So long as your acceleration is higher than that due to gravity, you will eventually reach the escape velocity. It's just a matter of time. A Raven would require about a billion (US, a thousand million UK) newtons of thrust to lift off, discounting atmospheric pressure or any other forces beyond gravity. That's, uh, a lot. You have it backwards. Escape velocity is utterly irrelevant in this calculation, they way we get escape velocity, g (italic lowercase) is relevant. Approximately: g = G ((m)/(r^2)) where: G= Gravitational Constant m= mass of planetoid r= radius of planetoid g for earth is approximately 9.8something or another m/s^2 But lo and behold, how we get g, Newton's law of universal gravitation: F = G *((m1m2)/(r^2)) Coincidentally that's how you get the amount of force required to pull an object (m1) from another (m2) at distance r. Your signature is inappropriate. If you have any questions, email us at [email protected] Tirg Your signature is inappropriate. Please email [email protected] if you want to know why -Eldo
Zephyr Mallory Limberry Aegis GmbH	Posted - 2006.11.14 21:47:00 - [36] escape velocity is defined as the minimum velocity that a body must attain to escape a gravitational field completely-- that is, escape without ever falling back..you could technically leave earth orbit so long as you were maintaining any velocity away from the center of gravity. If you stopped however, you'd probably going terminal velocity fairly soon. To maintain a near earth orbit requires maintaining a forward velocity of appx 7900 m/s - this means you cover the distance it takes for the curvature of the earth to slope at the same rate gravity would pull you towards teh earth in a given period of time... so if you exceeded 7900 m/s you would be leaving earth's gravity, but not "escaping" it. If gravity's effect is infinite, it wouldn't matter how fast you could go, because the moment you slowed down you'd be caught in gravity again. The goal however is not to go straight away.. but rather simply away.
Kelkyen	Posted - 2006.11.14 22:08:00 - [37] Originally by: Kichae Chandramani My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage. I know our ships go this fast was they warp away, and our ships can take multiple nuke hits, i.e.- bane torps are listed as "An ultra-heavy unguided nuclear missile" in the discription. How does the damage from say a 10 megaton surface nuke compare to the sandpapering the atmosphere would do as you move 4300 times the speed of light through it, if you assume an Earth like atmosphere? What would be the effect on the planets atmosphere, lifeforms, and structures by moving this fast with a huge ship? It looks pretty when the Battlestar Galactica does it, but I'd imagine everyone would be sucked into space behind it. Again, I'm not able to debate the physics, so I'll leave that to those who can. I know it's "just a game" but CCP added the tech info, so I'll question it.
TheMoog Caldari 3240 Inc.	Posted - 2006.11.14 22:13:00 - [38] Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air. The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity. Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity.
Midshipman Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.11.14 23:37:00 - [39] Originally by: TheMoog Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air. The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity. Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity. Thank god someone else has at least a basic understanding of physics. I was beginning to give up hope.
Komen Gallente Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.15 00:42:00 - [40] Edited by: Komen on 15/11/2006 00:45:10 Edited by: Komen on 15/11/2006 00:42:36 I'm not a science wiz or anything (I scraped by in chemistry), but this thing about ships surviving in space because it's so cold is...um...bogus. In direct sunlight, the major problem in space is to get RID of heat. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2002/1015259294.Ph.r.html Edit: How do you linkify things so they can be clicked? I don't actually post anything often enough to know. ___________________________________ Wielder of the Trout of Doom(tm)! ___________________________________

Crumplecorn Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.15 01:57:00 - [41] Originally by: Kelkyen Originally by: Kichae Chandramani My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage. I know our ships go this fast was they warp away, and our ships can take multiple nuke hits, i.e.- bane torps are listed as "An ultra-heavy unguided nuclear missile" in the discription. How does the damage from say a 10 megaton surface nuke compare to the sandpapering the atmosphere would do as you move 4300 times the speed of light through it, if you assume an Earth like atmosphere? What would be the effect on the planets atmosphere, lifeforms, and structures by moving this fast with a huge ship? It looks pretty when the Battlestar Galactica does it, but I'd imagine everyone would be sucked into space behind it. Again, I'm not able to debate the physics, so I'll leave that to those who can. I know it's "just a game" but CCP added the tech info, so I'll question it. The ships already go through planets. The null-vacuum blahdy blah thing that they call a 'warp drive' does its better than frictionless dodah thingy and basically you can fly through anything. ---------- IBTL \o/
Kichae Chandramani Quasar Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:08:00 - [42] Originally by: Bombasy You have it backwards. Escape velocity is utterly irrelevant in this calculation, they way we get escape velocity, g (italic lowercase) is relevant. Approximately: g = G ((m)/(r^2)) where: G= Gravitational Constant m= mass of planetoid r= radius of planetoid g for earth is approximately 9.8something or another m/s^2 But lo and behold, how we get g, Newton's law of universal gravitation: F = G *((m1m2)/(r^2)) Coincidentally that's how you get the amount of force required to pull an object (m1) from another (m2) at distance r. Let me rephrase: Escape velocity is relevant, but only if you intend on shutting your engines off at some point. If you accelerate for an infinite amount of time, it isn't going to mean anything. The escape velocity of a body determines how much time it will take for the kinetic energy of your craft to overcome the gravitational potential of the planetoid. Since, as far as I can tell, ships in EVE never shut off their engines, I'll concede this.
Kichae Chandramani Quasar Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:11:00 - [43] Originally by: TheMoog Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air. The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity. Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity. The Space Shuttle does not require that speed because it doesn't escape the Earth's gravity. It reaches orbital velocity, not escape velocity. And Google tells me that a Raven at m = 1.1E8 kg would require 225 million pounds of thrust. Thank you Google for converting from SI to imperial.
Kichae Chandramani Quasar Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:14:00 - [44] Originally by: Zephyr Mallory If gravity's effect is infinite, it wouldn't matter how fast you could go, because the moment you slowed down you'd be caught in gravity again. The goal however is not to go straight away.. but rather simply away. Actually, speed means everything. The escape velocity is defined as the velocity an object would need to have enough kinetic energy to overcome the gravitational potential of a massive body. Gravity will affect the trajectory of any object, but only objects with kinetic energies lower than the their gravitational potential energies can orbit a body, or "fall" to its surface.
Oedus Caro Caldari Caldari Deep Space Ventures	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:28:00 - [45] I'm fairly certain there is a whole chronicle detailing the relative separation of space and planetary economies, and in it is mentioned the use of small space-planes for standard surface-to-station travel. In any case, it would be a mistake to give the ships we have now atmospheric capability. First of all, a shield would neither act as a heat shield nor streamline a ship's atmospheric profile, because as someone already said our ships maneuver in space by the use of thruster jets (and in at least some cases, mass-impulse main engines). If a shield orb were to prevent gases from entering its confines, as some of you have proposed, it would also prevent thruster gas from exiting, in which case thrusters would have no effect whatsoever. Second, even if the back-story were altered sufficiently to allow the sensible use of current vessels in atmosphere (including anti-gravity devices big enough to support battleships), no planetary government in their right mind would ever allow such monolithic vessels as battleships and freighters to enter their atmospheres. These things are big to a such a degree that no contemporary man-made structure can really be used in a comparison. Were something to go wrong with one of these things in an atmosphere, we'd be talking destruction on the scale of perhaps a mid-sized asteroid...
Crumplecorn Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:40:00 - [46] Originally by: Oedus Caro I'm fairly certain there is a whole chronicle detailing the relative separation of space and planetary economies, and in it is mentioned the use of small space-planes for standard surface-to-station travel. In any case, it would be a mistake to give the ships we have now atmospheric capability. First of all, a shield would neither act as a heat shield nor streamline a ship's atmospheric profile, because as someone already said our ships maneuver in space by the use of thruster jets (and in at least some cases, mass-impulse main engines). If a shield orb were to prevent gases from entering its confines, as some of you have proposed, it would also prevent thruster gas from exiting, in which case thrusters would have no effect whatsoever. Second, even if the back-story were altered sufficiently to allow the sensible use of current vessels in atmosphere (including anti-gravity devices big enough to support battleships), no planetary government in their right mind would ever allow such monolithic vessels as battleships and freighters to enter their atmospheres. These things are big to a such a degree that no contemporary man-made structure can really be used in a comparison. Were something to go wrong with one of these things in an atmosphere, we'd be talking destruction on the scale of perhaps a mid-sized asteroid... Sucking the fun out of a game because of RL concerns is bad mmmkay? Anyway, first eve's physics bear no resemblance to reality, so any arguments based around what would or wouldn't work in RL are irrelveant. Second, pod pilots get hundreds or even thousands of people killed on a daily basis, they are above normal laws. ---------- IBTL \o/
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:42:00 - [47] Would everyone involved in this discussion please read the following wikipedia articles before proceeding: Scalar (Physics) Vector (spatial) Astrodynamics This website also has good information on a variety of first/second year physics topics - It got me through AP Physics and two semesters of university physics (wouldn't take my 5 on the B exam for EE as a major ). If anyone is interested in a simulation with realistic spaceflight, take a look at Orbiter. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Azradok Gallente Recon Above and Beyond	Posted - 2006.11.15 02:43:00 - [48] Edited by: Azradok on 15/11/2006 02:43:50 Escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to have to move indefinitely away from a mass, from a given position in a given gravitational field. Some key words there some of you were missing. As stated earlier, and correctly, F=(Gm1m2)/r^2 is the force that needs to be overcome. Escape velocity from a rotating body makes it a bit different as direction is involved (whether one leave in the direction of rotation or against it). All objects need the same escape velocity. The energy requirement is: E=(.5m1v^2)-(Gm1m2)/r That is: The energy requirement is the kinetic energy of the object minus the gravitational potential energy. Of course the real problem with any of the EVE ships and atmospheric flying is friction, local heating, and the resulting hull failure. Though 'shields' might remove this concern. I don't know what the pretend physics of the shields is. P.S. I have a masters degree in physics and am ~1 year from finishing my Ph.D. in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. :) P.S. Be wary of Wikipedia and scientific topic. There's often a lot of error. ;) ----- -----
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:04:00 - [49] Originally by: Azradok P.S. Be wary of Wikipedia and scientific topic. There's often a lot of error. ;) Articles involving calculus based concepts are generally accurate, and don't seem to change that much. But anyone that doesn't trust wikipedia can instead put their faith in the Georgia State University.... --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Dhaeron Lhun Caldari Eve University	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:05:00 - [50] Assuming that shields solve the problem of friction, most ships in EVE can escape an earth-standard gravity. g=9.82 m/s¦ roughly. Basically, any ship with a higher acceleration can do it. Count the seconds it takes for your ship to reach near maximum velocity, divide maximum velocity by number of seconds and you get acceleration. If it's higher than 9.82 your ship could escape earth's gravity flying straight up.

Zelorise Minmatar Torchwood Institute	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:10:00 - [51] I dont care about the math its gone fare too indepth for me. Atmospheric flying reminds me of Frontier (elite 2) Movie Intro (29.2mb) Shows landing, Planet PVP, lift off leaving Atmosphere is this where its heading?? The Dumber people think you are, The more surprised they are when you kill them!!
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:11:00 - [52] More on topic: If CCP allows player control of fighters, we better be able to do a Thanatos belly flop fighter launch. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
ELECTR0FREAK Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:26:00 - [53] I would love to see a Dominix enter a planet's atmosphere. I'm guessing we'll get some atmospheric craft. See, CCP has to constantly be creating things that create more skills in order to keep us training (otherwise the older characters will run out of interesting things to train and may quit.) Atmospheric craft would allow CCP to drop a whole bunch of new skill books, new ships, and keep ppl interested. Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula
Kichae Chandramani Quasar Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:27:00 - [54] Originally by: Azradok Edited by: Azradok on 15/11/2006 02:43:50 Escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to have to move indefinitely away from a mass, from a given position in a given gravitational field. Some key words there some of you were missing. In all fairness, I mentioned this already: Escape velocity is relevant if you shut your engines off. While you have propulsion, you can accelerate away, but if they cut out, you'd best hope you've reached v_esc, else you'll come tumbling back down. Of course, we seem to be lucky enough to have an infinite fuel supply in EVE, so the game mechanic works. Maybe I'm picking at nits, but I think it's an important distinction to make for those out there not lucky enough to have a BSc or better in physics. Quote: P.S. I have a masters degree in physics and am ~1 year from finishing my Ph.D. in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. :) Cool! Sounds like you work with a lot of lasers. I'm personally just applying to grad school to work on a MSc in observational astrophysics. Have any advice to keep me from shooting myself in the face?
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.11.15 03:57:00 - [55] thing is even an EVE cruiser is too big to reenter without probally breaking up. most scifi anything bigger then a jumbo jet has surface to space shuttles on board.
Taloic Caldari Black Watch Regiment	Posted - 2006.11.15 04:16:00 - [56] I have worked on military aircraft for 12 years now currently im on F-15C's. Escape velocity is irelivent to atmospheric flight in EVE considering it would be achieved through the use of the warp bubble. The issue for these craft would not be aerodynamics. As stated the F-4 which I never got to play with and the F-117 which was a complete pain in the arse to work on have horrid flight characteristics. What they do have is very large engines on the case of the F-4 and very compact and powerful engines in the case of the 117 useing the GE404. But they do have flight controls Flaps, Stabs, Alerions which our ships do not have we have maneuvering jets. What concerns me most is not escape velocity it is the ability to stay in the air and not plummet to the ground. That is achieved by modren aircraft with both lifting surfaces "wings" and a high thrust to weight ratio. Some craft such as the F-15, F-22, and the Eurofighter have a positive thrust to weight ratio which means they can accelerate going vertical. Speaking on the heavier weight classes. Our EVE Battleship classes on up and even some of our Battle-Cruisers are simply massive beast of war. While flight in space for these craft is possible since space has very little density " almost a complete vacume as space is not a perfect vacume " and has a very minsucle ammount of friction. Our drives can push our craft steadily gaining speed much like our deep space probes "Ion Drives". Think of it like rolling a rock down a hill it will steadily gain speed. These current drives we have would not be able to lift our vessels off of the ground let alone keep them from hurteling to the ground like a rock. Even applying Anti-Gav would be combersome and these ships manuverability would be horrid in an atmosphere. Although I guess it can be argued that technology will overcome the theorys of physics by this time but its a bit much in the case of this class of vessels to do anything other then land and possible hover. Speaking on lighter vessels. I can see frigates and possbily cruisers such as the Thorax and Caracal being able to meet the speeds/thrust to weight ratio needed to maintain fight. The problem is again controlling your fights direction. Heavy modifications would be needed to create the flight surfaces needed to direct your ship as manuvering thrusters/jets would create a whiplash effect almost uncontrollable except for basic manuvers. Even todays missles powered by solid propellant have fins to guide them to their targets. So low speed manuvering would be an issue. High speed is a different beast. At certain speeds "I cant remember off hand something like .93 Mach " most flight controls do wash out and are useless this is where Stabalators control your flight and a military fighter becomes a craft with missle like characteristics. The effect is increased tremendiously at speeds of 1.5 - 2 Mach. I probably rambeled on here like I usually do that when I start talking about aircraft. Long story short I dont see how its feasable for anything bigger then a Frigate and posibily Cruisers to be able to make an atmospheric flight as opposed to a slow decent or hover. Btw its late im tired and I tried to proofread this. I ask for forgiveness with my typos. EVE creates the best Debates.
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.15 04:20:00 - [57] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker thing is even an EVE cruiser is too big to reenter without probally breaking up. most scifi anything bigger then a jumbo jet has surface to space shuttles on board. If you throw enough thrust in opposition to your forward motion, and opposing gravity, you could just waltz down into the atmosphere without much heating due to friction. Since our spaceships operate on magic anyways, this is perfectly reasonable. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Taloic Caldari Black Watch Regiment	Posted - 2006.11.15 04:33:00 - [58] I think our shields could easily protect our ships vs the ammount of heat generated by a calculated reentry. And the NASA space shuttles can reenter the atmosphere without breaking apart........ So long as nothing damages its heat shields that is. But they are massive I saw one as a child in Cape Canaveral * spelling *. They have specific windows of oppertunity to land at the specified airstrips. And the timeing and angle of attack have to be percise. Otherwise boom or they would land a few hundred miles off target also probably boom. Uncontrolled no size craft will survive the physical pounding you will recieve no matter how strong your shields are they would fail. Controlled is another story. Like skipping a rock across water or sliceing one under the water as opposed to slamming it into the water.
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.15 04:45:00 - [59] Originally by: Taloic Uncontrolled no size craft will survive the physical pounding you will recieve no matter how strong your shields are they would fail. Controlled is another story. Unless you're in a general products hull. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Oedus Caro Caldari Caldari Deep Space Ventures	Posted - 2006.11.15 05:18:00 - [60] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Oedus Caro Me blah blah blahing... Sucking the fun out of a game because of RL concerns is bad mmmkay? Anyway, first eve's physics bear no resemblance to reality, so any arguments based around what would or wouldn't work in RL are irrelveant. Second, pod pilots get hundreds or even thousands of people killed on a daily basis, they are above normal laws. I don't see how taking my position would suck the fun out of new planetary environments - all that I am really saying is that our current large ships do not belong in an atmosphere. I am perfectly open to there being equally exciting (if somewhat smaller) alternatives. As for EVE's physics, to state categorically that they bear no resemblance to reality is just not fair. For sure there's a lot of make-believe, but it seems there is always some info in the back-story that casts it in such a way as to make it believable. However, stating that a shield seals out the atmosphere but at the same time allows thrusters to adjust vessel attitude is tantamount to saying that a child can lift himself by his own shoelaces, and no matter how you spin that one it will not have the same credibility that the rest of EVE's "physics" generally has. Perhaps you don't care... that's just fine with me. But do not dismiss my point as irrelevant. This is an RPG, and some people, like myself, like to preserve a broad sense of realism.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.