To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 31502
31501  |  31503
Subject: 
Re: Peether T-8 (Lightning contest entry)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.space
Date: 
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:25:27 GMT
Viewed: 
567 times
  
   THERE BE SNIPPING HERE

I personally don’t get offended by winged spacecraft since I am generally predisposed to finding aerodynamic looking shapes aesthetically pleasing. However, wings in space can serve legitimate functional purposes.

I agree. In the end, it’s all about looking good. (Like Hernando says: “It’s more important to look good than to feel good, darling.”) Note, though, that in most of the cases you mentioned, we aren’t talking literally about wings so much as support structures, mounting points, solar panels, etc. -- all of which are sound reasons to incorporate winglike structures on a spacecraft. Two obvious and well-conceived examples are the X-Wing and TIE fighters, which incorporate rationales #5 and #8 respectively:

   5. Wings make a good place to mount weapons. They expand a ships surface area & volume to provide mounting points for weapons. They also can help limit interference to other ships systems by mounting the weapon further away from the main body of the ship. The wings can also house radiators to help cool high power weapons systems.

   8. Wings could also be a good place to put high-efficiency solar panels for those who prefer to fly an emissions-friendly spacecraft.

To #5, I would add that placing weapons away from the ship increase its field of fire (which in the case of the X-Wing is increased exponentially when the wings are “deployed” in “attack position”).

However, when I look at the hyperaerodynamic Naboo spacecraft, I can see no purpose for those streamlined control surfaces other than aesthetics (which is rationale enough, isn’t it?).

So here’s a question: If we take aesthetics, aerodynamics, and mechanical/electronic limitiations completely out of the equation, what’s the most functional (i.e. “perfect”) design for a spacecraft? The cube? The sphere? The saucer? The Spiff saucer-and-bubble?

Matt



Message has 1 Reply:
  Space-craft design; was Re: Peether T-8 (Lightning contest entry)
 
(...) If I remember correctly, I read something about the episode I design philosophy that stated something along the lines that technological evolution in the starwars universe has been at a plateau for several hundred/thousand years?? In that (...) (20 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Peether T-8 (Lightning contest entry)
 
(...) I personally don’t get offended by winged spacecraft since I am generally predisposed to finding aerodynamic looking shapes aesthetically pleasing. However, wings in space can serve legitimate functional purposes. I generally rationalize (...) (20 years ago, 25-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)

6 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR