Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:40:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6642 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
>
> Wings are necessary for vehicles that travel in an atmosphere. The
> air pressure difference in air flowing above and below the wing
> generates lift, which keeps the vehicle from crashing into the ground
> due to the pull of gravity. However this is not relevant or required
> in outer space. For example, the Space Shuttle has wings only becuase
> it is needed for re-entry. If you look at the Apollo spacecraft that
> went to the moon and back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they
> have no streamlining or wings, and did not disintegrate.
>
> You may find that wings are good from a visual point of view, and I
> won't argue with that. Also, they provide useful mounting points for
> weapons or for maneuvering jets. However, the purpose of wings on
> aircraft is to provide lift - to use the flow of air over and under
> the wings in order to fight the pull of gravity. However, in outer
> space there is neither air nor gravity to fight, so it is not
> necessary to put wings on space-only ships. Of course, like the Space
> Shuttle, it may be desirable to allow your ships to land on Earth, in
> which case wings would be useful.
>
> --Bill.
The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
die from your trip to the moon. The comment on the antennas is still true
because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
asteroids hurtle through space? The only way that I know of in my mind that
gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory. Space has less
gravity than a planet, star, galaxy, asteroid, or comet and space does not
nave a lack of gravity inside that realm of the universe.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| Hi Jesse: (...) A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry. In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still intense, but (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes: (snipped some stuff) (...) (snipped the rest of the scientific discussion) I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) It's more complicated than that. The rocket was a several-stage affair; the first few stages would drop off and burn up as you head up through the atmosphere; by the time you reach orbit only a small amount of rocket is left. The Lunar Module (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes: [...] (...) [...] Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no friction and thus no need for wings or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
