 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
supersonic speeds.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
teardrop shape instead?
And, is the piriform shape a good one to use? See here:
http://csi.chemie.tu-darmstadt.de/ak/immel/script/redirect.cgi?filename=http://csi.chemie.tu-darmstadt.de/ak/immel/graphics/povray35/teardrop.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/02/2015 03:53, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
> supersonic speeds.
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>
> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
> teardrop shape instead?
Imho, the shape is proportionally relevant to the pressure and its
differential (between front and rear). if the spaceship never has to
experience an atmosphere, the shape is irrelevant, only the
cross-section might give a resistance to the solar-wind: it can be a
brick or a sphere, the difference would be in the generated torque, and
hopefully the engine(s) have far enough power to make that influence
negligible.
The density of hydrogen atom in outer space is variable, but the
pressure is in the nano-pascal ( 10^-9 ) range, and we live in
kilohecto-pascal ( 10^5 ), so the influence of the drag is to be
corrected by at least something like a 10^-14 factor.
The far more concerning problem is the difference of temperature between
sunlighted and non-sunlighted surfaces. Ask a comet about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/15 02:53, Mike Horvath wrote:
> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
> supersonic speeds.
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>
> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
> teardrop shape instead?
>
> And, is the piriform shape a good one to use? See here:
>
>
http://csi.chemie.tu-darmstadt.de/ak/immel/script/redirect.cgi?filename=http://csi.chemie.tu-darmstadt.de/ak/immel/graphics/povray35/teardrop.html
>
My immediate reaction is none of the above ;-)
We are not talking aerodynamics here - take a look at the ISS [pretty
picture here
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/nasa-iss-03-10-2011.jpg].
It is not travelling in interstellar space but neither is it travelling
in (what we define as) an atmosphere.
I would suggest that you concentrate on protecting your craft from
particles travelling with a relative kinetic energy large enough to
cause significant damage.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The density of hydrogen atom in outer space is variable, but the
> pressure is in the nano-pascal ( 10^-9 ) range, and we live in
> kilohecto-pascal ( 10^5 ), so the influence of the drag is to be
> corrected by at least something like a 10^-14 factor.
Drag depends on velocity squared, so that would mean if your velocity
was 10^7 times higher than on earth, you would experience a similar
level of drag.
I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or more? :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
> supersonic speeds.
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>
> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
> teardrop shape instead?
What is the speed of sound in space... I don't think any "supersonic"
designs are necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2015 6:48, Doctor John wrote:
>
> We are not talking aerodynamics here - take a look at the ISS [pretty
> picture here
> http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/nasa-iss-03-10-2011.jpg].
> It is not travelling in interstellar space but neither is it travelling
> in (what we define as) an atmosphere.
And consider Voyager 1 & 2. They are (almost). Their speed is far
superior to ISS's and yet have no protection of any kind.
in addition to John's comment, remember that what we are shown in SF
films are constructions that have very little to do with the necessities
of interstellar space. They need to appeal to (and be recognised by) the
average public which is used to airplanes in daily life ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or more?
> :-)
The speed of light times a whole lot if you wanna get anywhere in a
reasonable amount of time
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or more?
>> :-)
>
> The speed of light times a whole lot if you wanna get anywhere in a
> reasonable amount of time
So we should be talking about superluminal designs, not supersonic. Now
let me go and dig out my text book on superluminal design to see what it
says...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2015 11:19, scott wrote:
>>> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or more?
>>> :-)
>>
>> The speed of light times a whole lot if you wanna get anywhere in a
>> reasonable amount of time
>
> So we should be talking about superluminal designs, not supersonic. Now
> let me go and dig out my text book on superluminal design to see what it
> says...
>
According to the Lensmen textbooks of the Galactic Patrol, a teardrop
design is favourite with the habitants of Tellus, while Velantians may
use different shapes; needle shapes for instance. It should be noted
that Boskone had a preference for teardrop shapes until their final
demise. Possibly, those textbooks are obsolete by now ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-02-19 03:22, scott a écrit :
>> The density of hydrogen atom in outer space is variable, but the
>> pressure is in the nano-pascal ( 10^-9 ) range, and we live in
>> kilohecto-pascal ( 10^5 ), so the influence of the drag is to be
>> corrected by at least something like a 10^-14 factor.
>
> Drag depends on velocity squared, so that would mean if your velocity
> was 10^7 times higher than on earth, you would experience a similar
> level of drag.
>
> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or more? :-)
>
The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-02-19 03:37, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 19-2-2015 6:48, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> We are not talking aerodynamics here - take a look at the ISS [pretty
>> picture here
>> http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/nasa-iss-03-10-2011.jpg].
>>
>> It is not travelling in interstellar space but neither is it travelling
>> in (what we define as) an atmosphere.
>
> And consider Voyager 1 & 2. They are (almost). Their speed is far
> superior to ISS's and yet have no protection of any kind.
>
> in addition to John's comment, remember that what we are shown in SF
> films are constructions that have very little to do with the necessities
> of interstellar space. They need to appeal to (and be recognised by) the
> average public which is used to airplanes in daily life ;-)
>
The most realistic space fighter I ever saw was the Fury from Babylon 5.
NO wings. No profiling. Just bone dry design with a canopy designed only
to provide the largest view field as possible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/02/15 19:28, Alain wrote:
>
> The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
> star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
> Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
>
> In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
> 10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
> 000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
> light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
>
>
>
> Alain
How the hell did you calculate that? I'm not saying you're wrong -
you're probably right - but can I see the equations?
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/22/2015 2:34 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 15-02-19 03:37, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> On 19-2-2015 6:48, Doctor John wrote:
>>>
>>> We are not talking aerodynamics here - take a look at the ISS [pretty
>>> picture here
>>> http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/nasa-iss-03-10-2011.jpg].
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not travelling in interstellar space but neither is it travelling
>>> in (what we define as) an atmosphere.
>>
>> And consider Voyager 1 & 2. They are (almost). Their speed is far
>> superior to ISS's and yet have no protection of any kind.
>>
>> in addition to John's comment, remember that what we are shown in SF
>> films are constructions that have very little to do with the necessities
>> of interstellar space. They need to appeal to (and be recognised by) the
>> average public which is used to airplanes in daily life ;-)
>>
>
> The most realistic space fighter I ever saw was the Fury from Babylon 5.
> NO wings. No profiling. Just bone dry design with a canopy designed only
> to provide the largest view field as possible.
I thought the corvettes from Independence War were pretty cool.
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/4/48222/1130546-independencewaruscoverxt6.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/22/2015 2:28 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 15-02-19 03:22, scott a écrit :
>>> The density of hydrogen atom in outer space is variable, but the
>>> pressure is in the nano-pascal ( 10^-9 ) range, and we live in
>>> kilohecto-pascal ( 10^5 ), so the influence of the drag is to be
>>> corrected by at least something like a 10^-14 factor.
>>
>> Drag depends on velocity squared, so that would mean if your velocity
>> was 10^7 times higher than on earth, you would experience a similar
>> level of drag.
>>
>> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or
>> more? :-)
>>
>
> The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
> star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
> Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
>
> In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
> 10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
> 000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
> light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
>
>
>
> Alain
What about within nebulae?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-2-2015 5:11, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 2/22/2015 2:34 PM, Alain wrote:
>> The most realistic space fighter I ever saw was the Fury from Babylon 5.
>> NO wings. No profiling. Just bone dry design with a canopy designed only
>> to provide the largest view field as possible.
>
> I thought the corvettes from Independence War were pretty cool.
>
>
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/4/48222/1130546-independencewaruscoverxt6.jpg
>
Yes, both models exemplify the road taken by more modern (and
realistic?) design.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/02/2015 21:09, Doctor John wrote:
> On 22/02/15 19:28, Alain wrote:
>>
>> The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
>> star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
>> Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
>>
>> In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
>> 10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
>> 000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
>> light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
>>
>>
>>
>> Alain
>
> How the hell did you calculate that? I'm not saying you're wrong -
> you're probably right - but can I see the equations?
Drag force is directly proportional to the fluid density, and velocity
*squared*. So if the density is 10^14 times lower, the velocity "only"
needs to be 10^7 times higher to get the same force. I don't know where
Alain got the 10^16 km/hr from.
But it gets worse, the power (rate of doing work) required to maintain
the velocity against drag equals the drag force times the velocity. So
if you want the same *power* requirement as on Earth, the velocity only
needs to be about 50000 times higher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.02.2015 um 20:34 schrieb Alain:
> The most realistic space fighter I ever saw was the Fury from Babylon 5.
> NO wings. No profiling. Just bone dry design with a canopy designed only
> to provide the largest view field as possible.
Well, the struts for the Fury's engines sort of /look/ like wings, with
their somewhat horizontal arrangement.
For a space fighter, I guess it would be more reasonable to arrange the
engines in an orthogonal X shape: Both for safety (if one engine fails
catastrophically, you want a maximum distance to the nearest other
engine(s)) and for the sake of being able to effect attitude corrections
by means of variable engine thrust (with an orthogonal arrangement, both
pitch and yaw can be affected equally well, while the "flat" X shape
strongly favors yaw).
Possibly the best compromise between reasonable arrangement and viewer
expectations would be a 3-engine design with an upside-down Y configuration.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.02.2015 um 09:25 schrieb scott:
>> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
>> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
>> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
>> supersonic speeds.
>>
>> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>>
>> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
>> teardrop shape instead?
>
> What is the speed of sound in space... I don't think any "supersonic"
> designs are necessary.
In an ideal gas, the speed of sound is proportional to the square root
of the pressure... until relativistic effects kick in, I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.02.2015 um 09:25 schrieb scott:
>>> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
>>> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
>>> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
>>> supersonic speeds.
>>>
>>> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>>>
>>> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
>>> teardrop shape instead?
>>
>> What is the speed of sound in space... I don't think any "supersonic"
>> designs are necessary.
>
> In an ideal gas, the speed of sound is proportional to the square root
> of the pressure... until relativistic effects kick in, I guess.
In numbers: Speed of sound in hydrogen and helium is roughly 10^3 m/s at
atmospheric pressure. With the pressure in outer space being lower by a
factor of about 10^14, according to Newtonian mechanics the speed of
sound in this medium would be about 10^7 times higher, i.e. 10^10 m/s -
exceeding the speed of light by about 1.5 magnitudes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-02-22 16:09, Doctor John a écrit :
> On 22/02/15 19:28, Alain wrote:
>>
>> The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
>> star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
>> Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
>>
>> In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
>> 10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
>> 000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
>> light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
>>
>>
>>
>> Alain
>
> How the hell did you calculate that? I'm not saying you're wrong -
> you're probably right - but can I see the equations?
>
> John
>
The speed of light is a little under 300 000 Km/s. Multiply that by
3600, the number of seconds in an hour, gives about 1 080 000 000 Km/h
whitch is somewhat larger than the true speed of light in a vacuum, that
I rounded down: 10^9
Next, I used the appriximative presure ratio between sea level and space
"vacuum" in Earth vicinity: 10^14 to 1.
Finaly, I multiplied that with a speed of 100 Km/h (about 60 Miles per
hour), or highway speed: 10^16
That's around 10 000 000 times the speed of light! In StarTreck second
generation universe, that's warp 7, or a ludicrous warp 10 millions in
the original.
As I'm only concerned with the order of magnitude, the approximations
are acceptable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-02-22 23:12, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 2/22/2015 2:28 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Le 15-02-19 03:22, scott a écrit :
>>>> The density of hydrogen atom in outer space is variable, but the
>>>> pressure is in the nano-pascal ( 10^-9 ) range, and we live in
>>>> kilohecto-pascal ( 10^5 ), so the influence of the drag is to be
>>>> corrected by at least something like a 10^-14 factor.
>>>
>>> Drag depends on velocity squared, so that would mean if your velocity
>>> was 10^7 times higher than on earth, you would experience a similar
>>> level of drag.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what "interstellar velocities are" though, 10^7 or
>>> more? :-)
>>>
>>
>> The 10^-9 range is for our spacial neigourhood, or relatively close to a
>> star. As you travel farther, it drops conciderably. Between the Sun and
>> Proxima Centaury, the vacuum around the moon looks like high pressure.
>>
>> In space, to have a drag equivalent to 100 Km/h on a road, using the
>> 10^14 factor for Earth region, you would need to travel at over 100 000
>> 000 000 000 Km/h (10^16 Km/h). That's /way/ faster than the speed of
>> light ! (about 10^9 Km/h)
>>
>>
>>
>> Alain
>
>
> What about within nebulae?
Compared to most nebulaes, the best vacuum attained in the most advanced
laboratories looks like medium to high presure.
So, when traveling at non-relativistic speed, you can normaly totaly
ignore their presence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-02-24 11:53, clipka a écrit :
> Am 24.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb clipka:
>> Am 19.02.2015 um 09:25 schrieb scott:
>>>> I'm building a bubble around my spaceship to protect from "drag" at
>>>> interstellar velocities. This site says that for subsonic craft a
>>>> parabola is a better shape for the nose. However, an ogive is better at
>>>> supersonic speeds.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Which applies in outer space? Or, should I not use either and use a
>>>> teardrop shape instead?
>>>
>>> What is the speed of sound in space... I don't think any "supersonic"
>>> designs are necessary.
>>
>> In an ideal gas, the speed of sound is proportional to the square root
>> of the pressure... until relativistic effects kick in, I guess.
>
> In numbers: Speed of sound in hydrogen and helium is roughly 10^3 m/s at
> atmospheric pressure. With the pressure in outer space being lower by a
> factor of about 10^14, according to Newtonian mechanics the speed of
> sound in this medium would be about 10^7 times higher, i.e. 10^10 m/s -
> exceeding the speed of light by about 1.5 magnitudes.
>
That would be inversly proportional.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2015 um 23:04 schrieb Alain:
>>> In an ideal gas, the speed of sound is proportional to the square root
>>> of the pressure... until relativistic effects kick in, I guess.
>>
>> In numbers: Speed of sound in hydrogen and helium is roughly 10^3 m/s at
>> atmospheric pressure. With the pressure in outer space being lower by a
>> factor of about 10^14, according to Newtonian mechanics the speed of
>> sound in this medium would be about 10^7 times higher, i.e. 10^10 m/s -
>> exceeding the speed of light by about 1.5 magnitudes.
>>
>
> That would be inversly proportional.
Whoops - yes. Consider it a typo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
