U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2019, 02:32 PM
 
6,926 posts, read 6,765,038 times
Reputation: 3263

Advertisements

What shape should space ships be?

If you a fan of sci-fi, we have been bombarded with various shapes. Saucer shape like Millennium falcon, dart shape like star Destroyer, or spherical like Death Stars.

Our space shuttles look like planes flying through atmosphere, but that probably not necessary in outer space. Then we have the Star Trek style with saucer on top, curved neck, and stromboli on bottom but with pontoons sticking out or up. That is probably even less necessary. Just too much material with little funtionality.

Will there even be individual fighter craft like F-16s in space? Babylon 5 has interesting take on that. The Earthforces had an X shape individual fighter and the pilot just stood inside, no seat since no gravity.

I think the most efficient has to be the Borg Cubes. Square is always best since even our terrestrial RE is rectangular in shape. But a Cube will have trouble landing quickly on a planet unless they use parachutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2019, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Seattle
2,396 posts, read 506,465 times
Reputation: 2212
A spherical shape provides the minimum surface area to volume ratio, which yields better radiation protection, reduced odds of micrometeor impact, lower moment of inertia when turning, and a lower rate of heat loss. But if you're going to spin it for gravity, cylindrical would be better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2019, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Here
1,502 posts, read 371,394 times
Reputation: 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
A spherical shape provides the minimum surface area to volume ratio, which yields better radiation protection, reduced odds of micrometeor impact, lower moment of inertia when turning, and a lower rate of heat loss. But if you're going to spin it for gravity, cylindrical would be better.
This depends on the mission.

For example, an interstellar craft travelling at even 1% light speed means that the vast majority of intersections with whatever lies in the interstellar medium are going to occur at the front of the craft, so cylindrical with a high ratio of length-to-diameter would be optimal in such a case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
18,547 posts, read 55,485,543 times
Reputation: 32304
For anything interstellar, a hollowed out asteroid would have advantages. OTOH, "Cities In Flight" was a fun idea - just take NYC and turn it into a spaceship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 11:09 AM
 
6,140 posts, read 2,782,175 times
Reputation: 17453
The right shape for the purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:48 PM
 
2,960 posts, read 1,127,390 times
Reputation: 2006
There's this article that goes over some concepts. There are a couple of sections talking about design considerations and misconceptions from pop culture.

Misconceptions - Atomic Rockets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
18,547 posts, read 55,485,543 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
There's this article that goes over some concepts. There are a couple of sections talking about design considerations and misconceptions from pop culture.

Misconceptions - Atomic Rockets
Except the author made the error of thinking the starship Enterprise had bathrooms. It infamously did NOT, leading to speculation that crew members pooed on the floor and set phasers to disintegrate. Mildy entertaining otherwise.

Oh yeah, and rocket propulsion mass/propellant issues only pertain to gravity wells. Once in space, it becomes a time vs. mass issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 12:17 AM
Status: "WeDid" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
5,855 posts, read 2,610,291 times
Reputation: 18770
The object I saw in 2015 (witnessed by many) in Colorado Springs appeared to be multi-faceted & it tumbled & spun.

When the F-16s started to pursue, I hate to say this but there was no contest at all. It was ... toying with our fighter jets. They'd close in & the tumble ball would dart faster than the eye could see; straight up or side to side & the jets would criss-cross & double back while it would just hover & spin & 'wait' for them to get close & then it would do it again!

This was broad daylight; at about 11 am. It 'could' have been experimental; Colorado Springs is surrounded by 5 military installations. One of them to the east is the top-secret Shriver AFB & to the southwest, is NORAD.

The shimmering tumble-ball was reflective; making it almost appear translucent & as I said, could have been a military experiment but those F-16s were clearly trying to 'herd' it away from NORAD, which is restricted airspace.

Would there be an advantage to being a spinning, tumbling ball? I suppose there must be, as it definitely seemed to already have the advantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 09:16 AM
 
12,333 posts, read 3,249,816 times
Reputation: 8207
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
The object I saw in 2015 (witnessed by many) in Colorado Springs appeared to be multi-faceted & it tumbled & spun.

When the F-16s started to pursue, I hate to say this but there was no contest at all. It was ... toying with our fighter jets. They'd close in & the tumble ball would dart faster than the eye could see; straight up or side to side & the jets would criss-cross & double back while it would just hover & spin & 'wait' for them to get close & then it would do it again!

This was broad daylight; at about 11 am. It 'could' have been experimental; Colorado Springs is surrounded by 5 military installations. One of them to the east is the top-secret Shriver AFB & to the southwest, is NORAD.

The shimmering tumble-ball was reflective; making it almost appear translucent & as I said, could have been a military experiment but those F-16s were clearly trying to 'herd' it away from NORAD, which is restricted airspace.

Would there be an advantage to being a spinning, tumbling ball? I suppose there must be, as it definitely seemed to already have the advantage.
People have been reporting that same tumbling and wobbling in relation to UFOs for many many years...if this was some experimental aircraft, Id think we would see some evidence of that by now, there would be known aircraft that use it by now.(aircraft doesnt stay

'experimental' forever).


NORAD knows what these things are, its fairly common to see military aircraft being sent up when a UAP is in the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 09:56 AM
 
656 posts, read 159,261 times
Reputation: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
A spherical shape provides the minimum surface area to volume ratio, which yields better radiation protection, reduced odds of micrometeor impact, lower moment of inertia when turning, and a lower rate of heat loss. But if you're going to spin it for gravity, cylindrical would be better.
No need to spin the living area, simply split the ship into two parts...perhaps by breaking off the storage and/or power generation areas, and connect them with a tether. Spin away. One good side effect is that the radius of the circle is a lot larger. This implies coasting.

Problem is that it makes a poor visual for movies. It's like you'll never see a an Orion-based idea for propulsion in film since putt-putting around the universe makes for a less-then-optimal dramatic experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top