I am not ‘arguing’, I asked a simple question. ‘Arguing’ is presenting facts or evidence that supports ones opinion in a discussion, thats something clearly different.
So, to ask again (and you can answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’): Can you link in this topic to someone claming that the Moon or Mars has full earth gravity, a beautiful atmosphere or a protecting forcefield? If so, please show us. If not, stop trolling please.
Nope. This is what “playing along” means. I will not speak about the dangers of the moon or Mars anymore. Mars and the moon are future paradises. If you wanted to continue to discuss the dangers of those rocks, you shouldn’t have gotten so triggered.
Hmm, from the wording chosen in your last replies, I somehow doubt it is actually me who is triggered here. 
I have to assume you just made that up too, as a last desperate attempt to score some point by going personal… 
Whatever you say, champ.
I accept your surrender. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Doubt.
Hey, I thought you would be representing the flat Earth theory here?
Let’s not forget that the space shuttle was responsible for allowing the International Space Station to be assembled in orbit and in that capacity it was very much a shuttle. It wasn’t just a “free fall” vehicle, it allowed astronauts to maneuver in orbit as well. It may have been called a “flying brick” but fly it did.
Yes, I am not attempting to belittle NASA or their shuttle. The OP might as well be comparing a 1980 Corvette to a 1980 Tron light cycle and stating the Corvette doesn’t explode by hitting its own light wall. Thus the Corvette is the winner.
Have fun!
@Princess_Rose_Ivory You’re absolutely right, the comparison is difficult to make if not impossible. That is why I stated above “So yes, in a fight? The Shuttle’s toast. But in a battle of raw engineering flex? NASA’s old girl still holds her own.” before the thread was rudely taken over by posters who decided to take it off-topic with a spitting contest that had nothing to do with the original post.
Space Shuttle vs Eve
Speed
Space Shuttle maximum velocity after getting boosts from all of the external tanks and exhausting all of its own fuel: 7.8km/s which is faster than a lot of the ships in EVE. The problem is that this is after burning all of its internal and external fuel while all Eve ships can continue forever (although Warp Engines are limited to a capacitor). Some of the ships can easily win against the shuttle though. After all, since the Shuttle uses external tanks, EVE ships use MWDs and propulsion rigs.
For real world reference, Voyager 1, our fastest ever vehicle, can move at a blazing 17k/s which still isn’t faster than the fastest Eve ship in the game.
Computer Power
Computing power is apples and oranges since the EVE computers can process equipment that’s capable of improving shields, weapons, tractor beams, mining lasers, armor upgrades, etc… Things unheard of in the real world. This is in addition to all of the ship’s other functions and abilities without any additional modules.
Power
If you’re going to add in the external tanks, we’ll have to compare that to the EVE ship’s warp engines. I can’t even begin to calculate how much power is required to accelerate a Gallente battleship (148,000kg) from 0m/s to 4AU/s (598 million km/s). I’m pretty sure the EVE ship wins there in raw power. The acceleration and deceleration are both done in seconds.
The Shuttle was wonderful for reaching orbit and falling back down for a smooth landing. But if I was to choose between the Shuttle and a Kronos, I’d choose the Kronos all day long!
Interesting breakdown @Glenduil but there’s a bit of a mix-up in how you’re comparing things. The Space Shuttle’s 7.8 km/s isn’t its true max velocity—it’s just what’s needed to reach a stable orbit around Earth. If it kept burning, it could go much faster (just like EVE ships under constant propulsion if consent acceleration was a thing in EVE). The real limiting factor isn’t speed, but fuel.
Voyager 1’s 17 km/s is its current speed after decades of acceleration via gravity assists, not its peak burn velocity. If we’re bringing in real-world physics, a ship in space doesn’t stop accelerating until it runs out of fuel or hits resistance—so technically, an EVE ship with infinite cap and no speed limits should be hitting relativistic speeds, which… they don’t.
As for power, you’re right that EVE’s numbers are absurd (148,000 kg battleships going 598 million km/s? Talk about OP). But if we applied that logic fully, the Shuttle wouldn’t even be in the conversation—it would have been warp scrambling the ISS for fun.
So sure, the Kronos is the better pick in-game, but if we’re talking physics, EVE ships play by different (and very generous) rules. I’d still take a Shuttle if I wanted something that actually obeys Newton’s laws!
My Catalyst warps faster than the speed of light.
Well, there is no lore in EVE stating that any of the ships in game ever reach peak velocity. I can throw some rigs on a T3 cruiser and get it up to 10 AUs per second. Yeah… that’s fast. I have already thrown on an MWD and overheated it to 2,250 m/s, but that’s not its peak velocity. I can get it to go faster. Put that in a real world environment (real life space) and it can go even faster since there would be nothing to slow it down. Ever.
EVE ships can reach serious speeds if they were allowed to keep velocity like Voyager has. With their engines on a stable capacitor, there’s no stopping them in real space.
Or better yet, let’s put the shuttle in EVE space. When it runs out of fuel, it stops.
Mine does too, and I have two of them so far 
I love that Catalyst.
I can see you don’t understand Newton’s principles.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm @Glenduil , let’s take a step back and keep things in perspective. Sure, you can get a T3 cruiser to hit some seriously high speeds with rigs and overheating, but the key point is that EVE ships don’t have to worry about fuel limitations like real-world crafts do. EVE ships are designed with mechanics that let them hit these crazy speeds indefinitely as long as their capacitor holds out. In real space, those speeds would need some massive and continuous power sources to sustain them, which is where things get tricky.
Comparing the Space Shuttle to EVE ships directly is a bit of an apples-to-oranges situation. The shuttle’s real-world design was based on the need to operate within the constraints of physics, with fuel and atmospheric drag. EVE ships, however, are set in a universe with technology far beyond anything we could imagine, including warp engines and energy-based propulsion that can continue on indefinitely.
Now, putting the shuttle in EVE space is a fun thought experiment, but remember—it’s also dealing with EVE physics where fuel is irrelevant as long as you manage your capacitor. The shuttle’s reliance on fuel to maintain speed would not be a limitation in that world, but it would certainly have its own challenges. It’s all about the context we’re working with—real world vs. game world.
Just a thought to keep in mind!
In real space, there is no air resistance. That’s why planet Earth is cruising along at 67,800 mph around a sun traveling at 438,000 mph, which orbits a galaxy traveling at 1.3 million mph.
None of these masses have engines other than gravity.
In reality, Space doesnt require continuous thrust in order to maintain velocity.
This means whether you put the shuttle in EVE space or you put the ships in Real space, the Shuttle still loses the race.
@Glenduil Let me make this clear: the argument about real space vs EVE space is pointless here because they’re two completely different universes governed by entirely different sets of rules. You keep trying to apply real-world physics to a game where those rules don’t exist.
Yes, in real space, there’s no resistance, and yes, objects in space maintain their velocities due to inertia. However, EVE ships don’t operate under the same constraints. They’re powered by technology that doesn’t exist in the real world, including warp drives and energy-based propulsion systems, which are beyond the scope of real-world physics.
The shuttle’s design is based on real-world limitations, like fuel and atmospheric resistance. In EVE, there is no fuel limitation—the ships have virtually infinite power sources (capacitors) to keep them going at extreme speeds. So while the shuttle is running out of fuel, EVE ships are still cruising indefinitely, regardless of the laws of physics.
You can continue arguing theoretical scenarios, but the reality is, EVE ships will always outpace anything from the real world because they’re not bound by the same limitations. So, let’s end our discussion here—no need to drag it out. The comparison doesn’t work, and no matter how much you argue, EVE ships will always have the advantage due to their game mechanics.
And just to remind you, the point of this thread isn’t about racing the shuttle against EVE ships. It’s about how the shuttle would handle itself in comparison to EVE ships—something that is a fine line when you factor in the completely different environments and technology.
The ship’s warpdrive remains quantum locked to the celestial mass, and it is this resistance which prevents the capacitor drive from sustaining Newtonian thrust. This was all covered in Astrophysics I at Hedion University.