Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetical design question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:30:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
562 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.
Although you still would need to deal with the ones that hit the ship.
|
Along those lines, you might as well just simply make your ship with the
dimensions of a pencil, to minimize cross-section. The degree of
electromagnetic radiation reflected back to a transmitter (radar) by an aircraft
is primarily based upon absorbtion and deflection of the waves. In space, at
near-light speed the only thing of importance is how many square meters
constitute the cross-section of the ship, perpendicular to the line of motion.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
