How to be shipshape?!?

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2002-12-21 09:02am

From the multitude of possible shapes ships can take in space, where there are no aerodynamic requirements, what is the most efficient shape for a ship of a certain mass to take, all other factors considered equal(tech, etc)?

Let's just have a few uh... candidates first.

The Sphere. (Death Star, nuff said!)

The Cube.(Borg cubes, anyone?)

The long phallic thingy.(The elongated shapes, more or less, that seems most prevalent in sci-fi).

Other weird shapes like tetrahedrons, octahedrons, flying fin(Sharlins) etc can also be suggested.

Also take into consideration whether the tech allows reaction propulsion in normal space, or reactionless drives.

Discuss!

The Nice Guy
PS. How did the Death Star move around? I don't remember that it had big thrusters of any sort like the SDs in the film, so fdid it get around by reactionless drives?

The Nomad · Post by **The Nomad** » 2002-12-21 09:12am

ICS mentions that DS has ion drives, a big belt of ones.
Acceleration min : 50 m/s² IIRC according to MW.

Vejut · Post by **Vejut** » 2002-12-21 09:17am

Fancy seeing you here Nice Guy....

I would think it's the sphere...minimal external target area for a given mass, nice and symetrical.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2002-12-21 09:17am

Ahhh... so that explains it. Too bad they never showed us a shot of the DS's backside. It was always the front or side profile.

The Nice Guy

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-21 09:22am

There's probably thee gargantuan holes in the back .... arranged like a bowling ball.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2002-12-21 09:25am

Vejut wrote:Fancy seeing you here Nice Guy....

I would think it's the sphere...minimal external target area for a given mass, nice and symetrical.

To be a bit of a devil's advocate...

Wouldn't the smaller surface area available mean less surface area for placing weapons? Unless, of course, you're talking about big weapons like a planet killer which requires a lot of depth.

The Nice Guy

Vejut · Post by **Vejut** » 2002-12-21 09:27am

Yes, but unless you're going to coat the entire surface of the ship with weapons (or several large guns with questionably sized support systems...), it shouldn't be that much of a problem...

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2002-12-21 12:06pm

less need for armor...nuff said

Vejut · Post by **Vejut** » 2002-12-21 12:07pm

And for cargo ships, less material needed in general to get the same cargo space.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2002-12-21 12:39pm

Thje most effient shape from a combat standard would be whatever shape can bring the most guns to bare on a target. The ISD does a fairly good job of this, save from the back, being its weakness. The a sphere can bring most guns to bare up to a 1/2 way point in its circumfrence/diameter on any one object. And a cube shape can bring bring most guns to bear on 1/4 unless the enemy comes in from an angle, in which case it could be much more.

Most efficient combat design? I'd say the sphere. But of coure this "bringing guns to bare on the target" problem could all be eliminated using physical objects instead of energy ones, but supposedly these projectiles could only carry a fraction of the power of energy weapons (hence their use).

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2002-12-21 12:44pm

It is time for a smaller ship when you can't have all your big guns pointing one way....

Vejut · Post by **Vejut** » 2002-12-21 12:51pm

You mean a bigger ship?
Or smaller guns?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-12-21 01:42pm

Bigger ship with fighter screens.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2002-12-21 02:55pm

Woah! Let's stick to equal masses first!

For the same mass, which shape is better?

Admittedly, what is the rationale for phallic shapes in space that we see so often? Is it simply a holdover of our naval tradition, or are there reasons that we have not thought of?

The Star Destroyer's layout actually leaves a bit to be desired, but the larger surface area of the dagger shape does mean more overall firepower, even if each arc has less corresponding firepower and less suppportive fire from the other arcs compared to say... a sphere.

The Nice Guy

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-12-21 03:41pm

The most effient shape from a combat standard would be whatever shape can bring the most guns to bare on a target. The ISD does a fairly good job of this, save from the back, being its weakness.

The back has shielding and huge thrusters.
There's no reason to have a heavily armed backside on a ship like the ISD, you don't want to expose your ass to the enemy anyway, you always try to engage him closing or abeam. The ISD's shape is optimized for that style of combat.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-12-22 01:39am

The_Nice_Guy wrote:Admittedly, what is the rationale for phallic shapes in space that we see so often? Is it simply a holdover of our naval tradition, or are there reasons that we have not thought of?

IMO it's more of a holdover from the early days of modern SF, back in the 1950s, where all spacecraft resembled the real-world missiles and expendable launchers of the day. In SF of that era many spacecraft resembled the (rather phallic) V-2 and the tradition has, to some extent, stuck.

There are, however, rational design benefits to be derived from mostly linear spacecraft designs. Reduction in target profile when head-on to the enemy is one, as is separation between the crew and the likely radioactive--and very hot--propulsion system.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2002-12-22 02:08am

Depends if you use say old shuttle ful tanks for a ship it will look phallic and it has the added benefit of in a lower tech setting placing more shit between you and the largest radiation producer in the solar system

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-22 03:02am

Surface area does not define firepower for most sci tech. You could find more places for guns on almost every ship we see in Sci fi. It's a matter of how much recoil the hull can take and how much energy the power system has to give.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-12-22 04:51am

Wouldn't a disc shape also be quite useful, as a "flying saucer" type spaceship theoretically can make a 180-degree turn on the spot.... and if can have equal amount of prow and stern weapons.

(The engines should then be placed on the underside of the ship, which however, would make the underside of my imaginary "flying saucer" rather vulnerable)

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » 2002-12-22 12:55pm

One very good reason for the long "phallic" shape we see in many sci-fi vessels is the simple fact that it allows them to handle accelerative stresses from their usually rear-mounted reaction-based drives better, and makes it easier to "balance" the ship during acceleration.