Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetical design question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:26:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
682 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Rick Hallman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
One of the cool things about space is that you can always rationalize it
with some kind of nifty technology, like navigational shields. :D
I don’t think those micro-particles would care if your ship is aerodynamic,
since there’s no air in space to carry the particles around the aerodynamic
shape. (does that make sense?)
|
Yeah, but also in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, the sleeker it is, the less
resistance it encounters on it’s forward edge. If you minimize the amount of
forward contact on the front, less particles would hit it, causing less
overall damage. Think of it as Radar... a 747 which is big, and not very
aerodynamic, produces a huge Radar image, while the B-2, or the F-22 Raptor,
which are rather sleek and aerodynamic, produce a small radar image.
|
Well, in the space-ish situation, the number of particles you’re hitting will
only come down to size; regardless of its shape, a ship shaped like a perfect
lozenge will hit the same number of particles as a ship shaped like a cube, if
their frontal (projected) areas are the same.
But then, to counter what I just said: Has anybody done any calculations to show
that the density of particles in space is *not* high enough to produce fluidic
interactions at near-light speed? The space between particles is huge in space
... but then again, it’s also huge on the molecular scale in regular air. Could
it be that going fast enough in space allows you to build up boundary layer
effects even with the scanty molecular density, arguing for an aerodynamic
shape?
| |
Although you still would need to deal with the ones that hit the ship.
|
True - though an aerodynamic shape will help you here, I believe. Perpendicular
surfaces receive the whole brunt of the impact perpendicular to the “skin”,
which is it’s weakest orientation (typically - farfetched materials aside). The
particle must undergo a complete loss of momentum with respect to its *relative*
velocity, which is transferred to the impacted surface.
On the other hand, an aerodynamic shape will force most of the impacts to be at
oblique angles ... often, the particle will still have some component of motion
in its original direction (relative to the ship), which means that there has
been less momentum transfer, and consequently less “damage” (however small it
might have been for that one particle.” Additionally, the impact will have
force components in the transverse plane, which would presumably be much
stronger (“pulling” on the metal from the edges, rather than trying to punch
through it in the center).
Fun little puzzle here!
-s
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) It does behave more like a fluid at extremely high speeds. However, have you seen what happens to an airplane when it hits water at mach speeds? It's not pretty, and that's essentially what you'd have to be dealing with in a near vacuum. By (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) Yeah, but also in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, the sleeker it is, the less resistance it encounters on it's forward edge. If you minimize the amount of forward contact on the front, less particles would hit it, causing less overall damage. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
57 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
|
|
|
|
