Subject:
|
Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jun 2003 02:35:14 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
Theoretically speaking, or is it hypothetically, what would an ideal space
missile look like?
|
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 react. If you want a big payload and you’re going after slow targets that
can’t really do anything to avoid them, you go with a fat bomb that also uses
constant-burn. If you want highly manouverable to go chasing after highly
manouverable spacecraft, you go with one that has pop-out thruster wings that
are mounted close to the center of gravity, similar to a B5 Starfury (long
skinny missiles would jack-knife when trying to execute a high-speed turn in
space), and which would use timed thrusts to control its flight. Remember,
though, that the spacecraft that you’re shooting at will have to deal with all
the same problems that the missiles have to overcome, so it’s not like a
Starfury missile has to worry about being dusted by an X-Wing fightercraft,
since they don’t obey the same laws of physics.
The one other option is to declare that they have artificial gravity-based
propulsion, and that they can latch onto a specific ships gravitic presences and
draw themselves towards it.
| |
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?
|
Not unless they have thrusters mounted on the ends. How many fins does the
Titan rocket have? Zero, because they do jack diddly squat in space. The Space
Shuttle only has wings for reentry.
| |
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.
|
Sound physics for the thrusters, but no so much for the guns. While a wide
field of fire makes it easier to hit small targets, having the guns located
close to the pilot’s POV makes them a lot easier to aim. If you want proof, fly
the various ships in the Lucasarts X-Wing game. The X-Wing with the 4-shot
configuration is great for targetting small fast-moving objects because you can
usually get at least one gun lined up correctly, but it’s really hard to line up
a shot on a stationary mine. Conversely the A-Wing is better for doing pinpoint
shots, especially when you lose your targetting computer, but it’s a lot harder
to score on a ship that zips through your targetting reticle. The two other
things that are clearly obvious are that a good targetting computer needs to be
able to calculate theoretical flightpaths to figure out where the shop will be
when the shots arrive, and the B-Wing gun configuration sucks hosewater.
| |
but my problem is more than just should i use fins: if i lose fins because
they aren’t important in an atmosphere,
|
Don’t you mean outside of 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?
|
Newton’s three laws of physics.
| |
i guess popular scifi is so filled with aerodynamic designs in spacecraft,
|
Remember, however, that most spacecraft that are designed to be aerodynamic are
also intended to be usable in atmosphere. The various SW snubfighters are all
used in atmospheres (though how the TIE series survive is beyond me). The
Thunderbolt Starfury is used in atmospheres while the original Starfury is
pointedly stated to be unable to do so. The various ST shuttles are specificall
designed for atmospheric entry (and so are some of the smaller capital ships).
| |
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?
|
Cube. Just like the Borg. The cube is the most efficent way to construct and
fill space, and aerodynamics are irrelevant in space.
| |
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.
|
The only reason to keep a round shape is because it would be universally
loadable in a round missile tube, where a square cross-section would only load
in four specific orientations. During the heat of battle, you don’t want to
have to be concerned with lining up the corners on your boomsticks. Round,
however, isn’t very efficient for packing space (fill a bucket with marbles and
see how much water you can pour in afterwards). The most efficient way to fill
any space is a square, and the most efficient way to fill space with non-square
stuff is a hexagon (hence the reason for hexagonal honeycomb). Round is just
easier to load, and less likely to jam while hurtling down the tube. In a
non-vacuum, it can also be rifled, which can help stabilize the flight path.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
