Subject:
|
Re: Theoretical Question: Missile Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:27:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
406 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Tom Sciortino wrote:
> For a missile, solar panels are probably pretty useless
Pretty much. In space, only physical exhaust and gravity really do
anything to generate propulsion, and solar energy isn't going to help much with
either. Besides, solar energy is much better suited to long-term energy
production, which is useless to a missile that's going to be operating for maybe
30 seconds.
> but having heat radiating fins is probably practical. I would think most
> missiles would have very big engines that need to dissipate a lot of heat.
Not really, unless you want them to be able to operate for extended periods
of time. Heat dissipation is a usually a concern only if you have to worry
about long-term part stress caused by heat build-up, and missiles tend to blow
up pretty soon after they're launched. Besides, physics works differently in
space, and heat radiation panels are typically large and fragile. You wouldn't
get much good you'd get out of small fins like on a normal atmospheric missile,
and you'd basically just be better off making sure you have enough heat
shielding between the engines and the controls. Alternately, you could use a
means of propulsion that does not generate heat inside the missile, like mixing
and combusting gases inside the thruster cone, or just using pressurized
non-flammable gas as a propellent.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
