Other Science Fiction Series

Sci-Fi Spaceship Aerodynamics

POSTED BY: cljohnston108
UPDATED: Friday, July 2, 2010 14:25
VIEWED: 13551
PAGE 1 of 3

CLJOHNSTON108

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:53 AM

I was looking on the Net for info on Sci-Fi spaceship aerodynamics, because while it's common knowledge that the Eagle Transporter from Space: 1999 could never have entered a planet's atmosphere, I've only heard one such complaint about the Firefly design (even though it's got obvious parasitic drag issues).

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/EAGLE%20ONE%20PAGE.htm

Quote:
ABOUT THE DESIGN

The Eagle Transporter was the workhorse vehicle of "Space: 1999's" Moonbase Alpha. Featuring a purely utilitarian, non-aerodynamic form designed to function in the hard vacuum of space, the Eagle could serve as a personnel transporter, cargo carrier, flying infirmary or mobile laboratory, all depending on the customizable service module snapped into its central position.

Heavily influenced by the designs of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and built by special effects whiz Brian Johnson (who had worked -- uncredited -- on that 1968 Stanley Kubrick epic), the Eagle was a credible lunar utility vehicle. But although it was clearly designed to work in a vacuum and the low gravity of the Moon, Eagles were often shown flying through planetary atmospheres and taking off from high gravity worlds -- something only possible through the magic of special effects.

Discovery Channel - Sci Fi Zone - Inspirations - Spaceships
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/sci-files/inspirations/spaceships/in
dex.shtml

Quote:
Nevertheless, Kubrick’s Discovery is more realistic than Star Trek’s USS Enterprise, a needlessly aerodynamic spaceship since vessels only need to be aerodynamic when they enter the earth’s atmosphere, which Enterprise never does.

Now, this irks me a bit, because the original TOS Enterprise was the first Sci-Fi vessel design to take into account the fact that there's NO need for aerodynamics on a non-atmospheric vehicle!

Whoever wrote that page was obviously referring to the Enterprise-D, which was "needlessly aerodynamic"!

Here's what happens when the Enterprise-A is exposed to hypersonic airflow!

Pulsed Laser Imaging @ UQ
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/lp/lasdiag/enterp.php

As I said at the top, I've only heard one complaint about the Firefly design, and that comes from Andrew Probert, designer of the Enterprise-D (although, like me, he loves everything else about the show!)...
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/Questions_ANSWERED.html

Quote:
WHAT'S YOUR THINKING ON SCIENCE FICTION HARDWARE DESIGN?

Frankly, I'm tired of unbelievable space ships. Look at those Vipers from BSG, with their square, flat-front wings that are too short to support the extend nose. And that nose intake? What does it feed,... the pilot's feet? And don't even get me started on the 'Flying Sub'! 'Dark Star' was made for a total budget of $60,000. It had a nice exterior shape but it was a comedy. People laughed when they saw the cockpit because it was UNbelievable. The rest of the rooms were rectangular, not addressing the exterior shape at all.

As much as I love the series 'Firefly', do I think that Serenity is a good design? Not especially, but it is a "fun" design. Then again, studying an interior diagram of the ship, I very much like the way the rooms & other spaces are all laid out. What I really like about the Firefly series, however, is the people and the way they interact along with the stories they play out. The one visual thing that I love about Serenity interior is it's dining-kitchen-common area and the funny wonderful little personal touches provided by Kaylee, her flower-vines painted on the walls and the way she dressed up the entry to her quarters. As visually interesting as I think the ship is, overall, I don't believe that silly whirly engine generates the power a Firefly would need, I don't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ADAMWANKENOBI

Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:58 AM

But Serenity isn't the space shuttle. It doesn't simply "fall" into the atmosphere. It keeps itself at a reasonable decent rate by using its thrusters. Therefore, it wouldn't "melt".

CLJOHNSTON108

Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:50 PM

That's another thing: I'm amazed nobody ever asks, "Where are those jet engines getting air in the vacuum of space?"

I know they're jet/rocket hybrids, but you'd think somebody would ask about it!

REGINAROADIE

Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:26 PM

I wonder what that guy would have to say about the TARDIS? I mean, on the inside it's a huge, fully functioning ship that has an organic slant to it that on the inside looks slightly aerodynamic, but on the outside it's just a rectangular cube. Now, the police box itself isn't the actual design, it's just a malfunctioning cloaking device that The Doctor never got around to fixing.

But when you do actually see it in space, it's always rotating and hovering. It looks as if it has it's own propulsion system. Maybe the TARDIS doesn't really count since we've never seen what it really looks like so we can't see if it is truly fit for space travel.

**************************************************
"Have you ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?"
"No."
"Have you ever fired ONE gun whilst jumping through the air?"

NBZ

Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:37 PM

Serenity could also potentially benefit from the golf ball effect.

A golf ball relies on itself NOT being aerodynamic to go further. The turbulence helps it instead opf hindering it.

Besides it has been mentioned that Serenity is aided and controlled by the thrusters. It does not just drop like a stone.

Would it work? probably not, but not for the reasons mentioned.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:59 PM

For the most part, very few of the spaceships I see in sci-fi make a whole lot of sense to me, including Firefly. What I like about Firefly, though, is the way the crew lives on board the Serenity, which I think is, I don’t want to say realistic, but plausible (except for the gravity thing). Kaylee’s little designs all over the ship, Wash’s dinosaurs, the messy quarters, the art work and old sofa, all generate the image of a spaceship that is lived in. Unlike the Enterprise, which is uninterestingly sterile. That’s even a criticism I have for the original series, which I genuinely find far superior to its predecessors.

As for the aerodynamics of scifi spaceships? Forget it. Few of them would ever survive reentry into an earth dense atmosphere. Firefly class spaceships have some intriguing design characteristics though. The large flat bottom surface of the cargo hold makes for an interesting ablative shield. All modern reentry vehicles, from the space shuttle to ballistic missile payloads, use large ablative surface to slow decent into the atmosphere. What this means is that for the purposes of reentry, you really don’t want an aerodynamic or streamline shape. With an aerodynamics shape, you’ll never slow down enough to prevent break up or impact, neither is good. The problem now becomes the extremities. The nose of a Firefly would be under tremendous pressure, and those side thrusters, I’m not sure they would survive at all. They’re pointed in the wrong direction to be effective jets. A jet doesn’t work like that. So at least Serenity has one character feature for reentry, and based on some of the scenes, its clear this may have actually been intended by the creators.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CLJOHNSTON108

Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:25 AM

Excellent, Finn!
Exactly the response I was lookin' for!

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only Browncoat to have these issues on his mind.

And as for ablative surfaces, I rather liked how the Reavers' Trans-U flopped on its back to present the streamlined aeroshell into the airstream!

CRUITHNE3753

Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:20 AM

Actually, the Shuttle's tiles aren't ablative, they soak up the heat which is radiated away after landing. Ablative heat shields remove heat by being worn away in the process of re-entry, and are used only once. Old-school style capsules such as Soyuz and Shenzhou use ablative shields and are used only once. The Orion capsule currently in development will have a detachable heat shield replaced for each flight.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 30, 2007 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cruithne3753:
Actually, the Shuttle's tiles aren't ablative, they soak up the heat which is radiated away after landing. Ablative heat shields remove heat by being worn away in the process of re-entry, and are used only once. Old-school style capsules such as Soyuz and Shenzhou use ablative shields and are used only once. The Orion capsule currently in development will have a detachable heat shield replaced for each flight.

That’s true. My use of ablative was a very loose term. The general term is TPS, and some form of non-ablating heat resistant material, like in the case of the space shuttle, would be the preferred surface.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 30, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:
And as for ablative surfaces, I rather liked how the Reavers' Trans-U flopped on its back to present the streamlined aeroshell into the airstream!

Yeah, it seems like the cinematographers created the images in Firefly/Serenity with the idea of modern flight dynamics in mind. They clearly understood the notion, if not the science, of reentry inviscid shock layer affects, although they also took many, many liberties.

For instance the final space battle in Serenity, in which dozens of very large ships are entering an unrealistically high atmosphere. I know this was probably done because some higher ups wanted the whole “sound in space” nonsense, and no one could think of any other way to do it. Evidently no attention was given to the shock layer that would have been created by that many huge ships entering the atmosphere at god only knows how fast which might have destroyed the entire Alliance fleet and ended the battle right there.