Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

space ship design


danielost
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course the ships appearance would be determined by the nature of the mission. As this is a mission to mars, a perilous destination with moons that shoot lasers at probes and mysterious rock people we would need a ship capable of handling that sort of situation.

Something like this would be optimal

eric-chu-concept-designer-battlestar-galactica-6.jpg

my point is the ship would be generalized so it can carry out multiple missions not just one. just as the enterprise is designed to do. any ship built in space is to big just to throw away. the battle star is built around an asteroid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point is the ship would be generalized so it can carry out multiple missions not just one. just as the enterprise is designed to do. any ship built in space is to big just to throw away. the battle star is built around an asteroid.

The Enterprise and the Battle Star aren't real!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Enterprise and the Battle Star aren't real!

I am not stupid. I know the ships aren't real. but the designs are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the shuttle engines (...) the fuel pod on the shuttle is big (...). but both are large warehouses. nothing inside.

The Space Shuttle External Tank holds around 800 tons of propellant so there is something inside.

..the center of mass on the shuttle is on the shuttle. (...). the struts to the engine pods would be built to keep the center of

mass with the engine thrust.

It isnt the center of mass of the orbiter thats important here, important is the center of the mass of the complete STS device

which contains the orbiter, the ET and the SRBs. Within this system, the center of mass isnt on the shuttle/orbiter, its near to

the ET. And thats the reason for that the SSMEs nozzles turn offset (directed to the vertical fin of the orbiter) right after ignition

and that the STS does not lift up rectangular to the surface, but offset to balance the complete system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not stupid. I know the ships aren't real. but the designs are.

No they are not. They were made up by science fiction writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Space Shuttle External Tank holds around 800 tons of propellant so there is something inside.

It isnt the center of mass of the orbiter thats important here, important is the center of the mass of the complete STS device

which contains the orbiter, the ET and the SRBs. Within this system, the center of mass isnt on the shuttle/orbiter, its near to

the ET. And thats the reason for that the SSMEs nozzles turn offset (directed to the vertical fin of the orbiter) right after ignition

and that the STS does not lift up rectangular to the surface, but offset to balance the complete system.

actually it is on the shuttle. not saying it is the center of the shuttle. just as the center of mass between earth and the sun is some where on the sun.

the actual conection between the shuttle and fuel pod is probable the center of mass at luanch. but as the fuel is used up it moves into the shuttle when all pods are dropped the center of mass is close to the middle of the shuttle.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they are not. They were made up by science fiction writers.

they were designed by science fiction writers. the ships aren't real, but the designs are. the design for any non-real ship is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they were designed by science fiction writers. the ships aren't real, but the designs are. the design for any non-real ship is real.

Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the design for any non-real ship is real.

:blink:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk: "Warp factor three, Mister Sulu".

Sulu: "Aye, Aye, captain."

The Enterprise starts spinning round. Kirk hits the intercom button.

Kirk: "Scotty, what the hell is happening?"

Scotty: "Dinna blame me, captain. The idiot who designed the Enterprise didna have a clue aboot moments of inertia, force couples, centers of gravity and thrust axes."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I know the ships aren't real. but the designs are.

What part of the concept of science FICTION are you having difficulty with?

These are fictional designs for fictional ships. As such they do not have to obey the rules of science and engineering.

The Enterprise uses ward drive. In the real world there is no such thing as warp drive yet. Basing a ship designed to go to Mars on a totally fictionAl design would only be suggested by someone with no concept of real science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of the concept of science FICTION are you having difficulty with?

These are fictional designs for fictional ships. As such they do not have to obey the rules of science and engineering.

The Enterprise uses ward drive. In the real world there is no such thing as warp drive yet. Basing a ship designed to go to Mars on a totally fictionAl design would only be suggested by someone with no concept of real science.

what part of designs are put down on PAPER, called blue prints, don't you understand. a design is always real if it is put down on paper. just because a design is on paper doesn't mean it can or will be built. I am not saying we should build the enterprise just a ship that looks like and has the mission profile that that ship has. the difference is you put a crew on it to do a mars mission, or a crew to do a Jupiter mission. said crews would not be the same, except perhaps for the operation crew.

the shuttle was such a ship. reusable.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danielost

With the greatest of respect, what you seem to be missing is that, when it comes to spacecraft design, form follows function. That is, the rocket engineers work out what they want the spacecraft to do, and then they design it. How it looks will be a result of what it's intended to do and where it's going to do it.

The ultimate expression of that was the Apollo Lunar Module. It had angles and sharp edges everywhere because its shape didn't really matter in the vacuum of space, which was where it operated. It had uneven, lop-sided bulges on each side of the Ascent Stage because those bulges contained the fuel and oxidiser tanks. Their sizes were determined by the amount of liquid required, and their distances from the LM's centreline determined by their relative masses.

Now Star Trek's Enterprise may look aesthetically pleasing, but its smoothness and roundness, for a spacecraft likewise theoretically intended to operate only in a vacuum, was entirely unnecessary.

And the same goes for just about every other spacecraft in fiction. Virtually all are designed by artists, not engineers, so their appearance can only be judged on aesthetic grounds, not practical grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point is the ship would be generalized so it can carry out multiple missions not just one. just as the enterprise is designed to do.

In your OP you said you were designing a Mars ship. How many types of missions are there for a Mars ship? Just one. So why the need for a generalised design?

For a Mars mission it seems fairly likely there would be three spacecraft needed: one for the crew to occupy while they travel to and from Mars, one for the crew to use to travel from Mars orbit to the surface and back again, and one for the crew to return from space to the surface of the Earth. The first spacecraft would be staying in space, so doesn't need to be streamlined. It would include crew quarters, engines, and whatever else is considered necessary to keep the crew alive for the duration of the mission. The second spacecraft would need to be streamlined for entry into Mars's atmosphere, and presumably have whatever is needed to keep the crew alive on the surface. The third would also need to be streamlined, but wouldn't need much in the way of an energy budget, as it would likely be occupied only at the end of the mission.

any ship built in space is to big just to throw away.

That depends entirely on exactly how it's intended to be used, and the mission profile.

the battle star is built around an asteroid.

So what? We're not going to be turning asteroids into spacecraft any time soon.

(And before you go challenging that, we've just succeeded in orbiting and touching down on asteroids. We haven't demonstrated asteroid mining techniques, nor the business of integrating spacecraft construction with an asteroid, nor in-space refueling. In fact, why bother with an asteroid - it's a lot of extra dead mass to accelerate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the ship you talking about is the lunar lander. it was designed to land on the moon. Apollo was the same design as mercury just larger. mercury carried two people Apollo carried three. it also was designed to carry those people for 6 to 9 days for a trip to the moon. but before any of these ships were built they were designed on paper. which according to white dwarf they were only science fiction.

the shuttle was a generalized designed ship. it was designed and built with no mission in mind. we are beyond the need for a single mission ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your OP you said you were designing a Mars ship. How many types of missions are there for a Mars ship? Just one. So why the need for a generalised design?

For a Mars mission it seems fairly likely there would be three spacecraft needed: one for the crew to occupy while they travel to and from Mars, one for the crew to use to travel from Mars orbit to the surface and back again, and one for the crew to return from space to the surface of the Earth. The first spacecraft would be staying in space, so doesn't need to be streamlined. It would include crew quarters, engines, and whatever else is considered necessary to keep the crew alive for the duration of the mission. The second spacecraft would need to be streamlined for entry into Mars's atmosphere, and presumably have whatever is needed to keep the crew alive on the surface. The third would also need to be streamlined, but wouldn't need much in the way of an energy budget, as it would likely be occupied only at the end of the mission.

That depends entirely on exactly how it's intended to be used, and the mission profile.

So what? We're not going to be turning asteroids into spacecraft any time soon.

(And before you go challenging that, we've just succeeded in orbiting and touching down on asteroids. We haven't demonstrated asteroid mining techniques, nor the business of integrating spacecraft construction with an asteroid, nor in-space refueling. In fact, why bother with an asteroid - it's a lot of extra dead mass to accelerate.)

there are several different science, building and colony missions a mars ship could be used for. each one would need a mission crew and a command crew. in the case of the colony missions would also need colonists. it could also be used to build colonies on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the ship you talking about is the lunar lander. it was designed to land on the moon. Apollo was the same design as mercury just larger.

The Apollo spacecraft consisted of three parts: The Command Module (the conical capsule for the astronauts), the Service Module (the cylindrical unit containing engine, propellant and so on) and the Lunar Excursion Module (the two-stage spidery craft that landed on the Moon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the ship you talking about is the lunar lander.

No, it was called the Lunar Module, which is why I called it the Lunar Module.

it was designed to land on the moon.

I know.

As I pointed out, it was designed to operate purely in the vacuum of space. As a result it had an irregular shape. There was no need for it to be aesthetically pleasing.

Apollo was the same design as mercury just larger.

No. Apollo was the name of the program. The spacecraft you appear to be referring to was called the Command Module. With the cylindrical Service Module attached, the combined arrangement was called the Command and Service Module.

mercury carried two people Apollo carried three.

No. Mercury carried one astronaut. Gemini carried two. But yes, the Command Module carried three.

it also was designed to carry those people for 6 to 9 days for a trip to the moon.

Try closer to 15 days for a complete mission.

but before any of these ships were built they were designed on paper. which according to white dwarf they were only science fiction.

Talk about completely missing the point. Waspie Dwarf was pointing out that fictional spacecraft "...do not have to obey the rules of science and engineering..."

This is what we're trying to point out to you. In fiction spacecraft can generally be whatever the author or artist wants them to look like. In the real world, their appearance is determined by where they'll be operating and what they'll be doing. So the Lunar Module could be all angles and jutting bits because it only operated in the vacuum of space, while the Command Module had to be streamlined to survive passage through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed.

the shuttle was a generalized designed ship. it was designed and built with no mission in mind. we are beyond the need for a single mission ship.

Yes, the shuttles could undertake a variety of missions. But your OP was about designing a Mars ship. That is a single mission. By your own definition. I simply don't see how any ship designed for a Mars mission could be designed with any other type of mission in mind. What else would you want it to do?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are several different science, building and colony missions a mars ship could be used for. each one would need a mission crew and a command crew. in the case of the colony missions would also need colonists. it could also be used to build colonies on the moon.

Then you'd design a different ship for each mission. After all, an unmanned spacecraft taking materials to Mars wouldn't need any sort of life support system, while a colony ship would need a lot. That alone would justify two completely different designs. About the only need for generalisation would be in the boosters.

And as for going to the Moon, you need completely different landers for Mars and the Moon, thanks to the Moon's lack of atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking?

Dont do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really: In fiction one can design any kind of ship with any technology one chooses. In reality one has to deal with the Laws of Physics and the constraints of available technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you'd design a different ship for each mission. After all, an unmanned spacecraft taking materials to Mars wouldn't need any sort of life support system, while a colony ship would need a lot. That alone would justify two completely different designs. About the only need for generalisation would be in the boosters.

And as for going to the Moon, you need completely different landers for Mars and the Moon, thanks to the Moon's lack of atmosphere.

who said anything about an unmanned mission. we already have those. I was talking manned. I don't like na

sa's current design for a mars mission. which is just Apollo on steroids.

It's pretty simple really: In fiction one can design any kind of ship with any technology one chooses. In reality one has to deal with the Laws of Physics and the constraints of available technology.

I agree we can't build the enterprise due to lack of tech. does not make the design any less real.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you'd design a different ship for each mission. After all, an unmanned spacecraft taking materials to Mars wouldn't need any sort of life support system, while a colony ship would need a lot. That alone would justify two completely different designs. About the only need for generalisation would be in the boosters.

And as for going to the Moon, you need completely different landers for Mars and the Moon, thanks to the Moon's lack of atmosphere.

true, but the main ship can be the same. the main reason to building the ship in orbit is radiation shielding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who said anything about an unmanned mission.

You did: "there are several different science, building and colony missions a mars ship could be used for."

Sorry, my mistake for thinking it was an unmanned mission carrying stuff to be built.

we already have those. I was talking manned. I don't like nasa's current design for a mars mission. which is just Apollo on steroids.

Who cares what you think? There's a reason NASA might go for "Apollo on steroids": because it works for the mission profile. As I said earlier, form follows function - rocket engineers design a spacecraft to undertake a mission. They don't start with a rockin' appearance and then try to shoehorn the required material into the spacecraft.

I agree we can't build the enterprise due to lack of tech. does not make the design any less real.

Dear Lord, please pay attention. The fact that the design is real is irrelevant. The point is that the design is impractical for a Mars mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.