3 ms·
My physics knowledge is pretty weak. Wouldn't you want a space ship to be closer to something like an oblate spheroid? Less surface area <-> volume ratio builds
by sargun 10y ago
My physics knowledge is pretty weak. Wouldn't you want a space ship to be closer to something like an oblate spheroid? Less surface area <-> volume ratio builds cheaper, lighter space ships presumably? The primary thing I'm unsure of is steering, but how much of a problem can that be?
- kwekly 10y agoPure speculation, but I think heat dissipation is probably the more important bottleneck of spaceship design -- no convective cooling, so you potentially want more surface area to increase radiation. I think aerodynamics (both lift to weight and streamlining) are the reason for the compact design of aircraft and submarines (also perhaps reducing the profile for military vehicles). Weight maybe an issue for maneuvering in combat, but there's tons of structural material literally floating around in space, so I'd wager that base material cost would not a limiting constraint.
- prewett 10y agoSteering is no problem; in space everything rotates about the center of gravity, regardless of shape. You probably would have boxy starships for the same reason you have boxy houses: more usable space. The same arguments apply for spherish houses, but those never caught on. Given the distance that the starship is going to travel, the main cost is probably not the materials so much as the time, so you'd want to maximize the amount of stuff you could ship back and forth.