Subject:
|
Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:10:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
464 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
snip
| |
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?
|
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 use a cone to focus the explosion into a
thin jet, allowing the missile to pierce greater thicknesses of armor.
And there’s the issue of loading, where a domed top might assist your crew in
readying the missile tubes. I guess it does boil down to aesthetics in the
end...
Take care,
Soren
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
| Theoretically speaking, or is it hypothetically, what would an ideal space missile look like? concerning my picture here: (URL) i've got one big missile and several smaller ones that feature fins. fins, of course, help control direction in an (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
