Subject:
|
Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:00:27 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
Theoretically speaking, or is it hypothetically, what would an ideal space
missile look like?
concerning my picture here:
i’ve got one big missile and several smaller ones that feature fins. fins, of
course, help control direction in an atmosphere. but would they be useful in
space?
i ask because on my fighters i often use “wings” which i call stabilizers. The
idea is that having engines farther away from the central axis would make the
fighter more maneuverable and stable. “wings” also work well in mounting guns
on the wings with that they create an ‘X’ with their gunfire, which makes aiming
and hitting enemies easier.
but my problem is more than just should i use fins: if i lose fins because they
aren’t important in an atmosphere, shouldn’t i also lose the cylinder and
cone/dome top? it seems the entire design of a missile is to make it
aerodynamic, but what if you remove aerodynamics? what’s left?
i guess popular scifi is so filled with aerodynamic designs in spacecraft, that
we tend to want to view our space creations along the same line: in aerodynamic
forms. i like to try to break out of that preconception, but what would
something look like then?
i’m guessing a space missile would retain a circular/cylindrical design, because
it maximizes internal volume, thus allowing for more explosive. maybe something
like the giant pills of ST:TNG photon torpedos.
hmm... just thinking.
- jr.mar.l.hoffman
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| (...) Hmm, well, having the engines farther away from the central axis might make it more manoeuverable (as you could steer in certain directions merely by applying differential thrust), I'm pretty sure it would also cause the ship to be less stable (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| In lugnet.space, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <Big snip> (...) Warhead dynamics, for one. You'd need different shapes for different types of projectile, depending on the desired type of impact. Just as an example, HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) missiles (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| (...) It depends on what you're trying to do. If you want fast and furious, and you don't care much about accuracy, you go with a tube-shaped missile with centrally located thrusters that use constant-burn to crank up the speed before the target can (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| "leonard hoffman" <glencaer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HG2vor.1EK5@lugnet.com... (...) fins, of (...) in (...) Well, if you're borg, probably cubic or spherical would be "perfection." But besides the structural uses of wings and fins for (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| (...) Placing the engines far from the central axis wouldn't do anything, but placing them far from the center of mass would give them some mechanical advantage. (...) As others have said, a sphere would be the ideal, though in practice probably (...) (21 years ago, 12-Aug-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
