Ship Aerodynamics as Compared to a Ferry

[Obnoxious_Gamer]

I'm tired. I wanted to make a thread because I'm speshul. so, I decided that I should see if anyone wants to compare the aerodynamic profile of Elite's ships to the world's least aerodynamically-efficient ship, the Washington Ferry.

For reference:



That's the front!

Anyway, discuss. I'm going to go pass out. I'll bet the Type 7 is less aerodynamic.

 

[PuffyEichhorst]

You're sure that this is the front...?!.!?

 

[Hellakitty]

No idea until we can fly in a planet that has atmosphere.

 

[Nick Sticks]

You'll probably find that the bit under the water is as "aerodynamic" as it needs to be for the speed it goes.

 

[Xyience]

Aerodynamics are not a problem, because ships wont be going supersonic speeds in atmospheric flight. The only fast thing happening will be the burn into the atmosphere, but all that is is controlled falling until the air becomes dense enough to slow down the ship until it reaches terminal velocity, which then the thrusters will take over. The fastest ships in the game can go 800+ m/s and they are very aerodynamic. Ships like the T7 with an average speed of 200 m/s is not very fast to begin with. Although in Earth atmosphere supersonic is achieved at 343 m/s, these are ships designed to operate in zero atmosphere. Could you imagine a Cutter moving at mach 1.2? It would create shockwaves causing massive widespread damage. I would be surprised if any ship comes even close to operating at peak performance in atmospheric setting compared to no atmosphere zero g.

Also a grim reminder of how slow atmospheric flight will be. (if we ever get it)

 

[Sentenza]

Spaceships do not need any aerodynamic profile.

 

[MickyG1982]

You're sure that this is the front...?!.!?

R.O.R.O. (Roll On Roll Off) ferry, the back will be similar...

Though in space one has no need for aerodynamics, there is almost always no atmosphere to slow you down...

 

[Sapyx]

Neither that ferry, nor the ships of Elite, are aerodynamic - and neither of them need to be. Or rather, there are more important aspects to their design than aerodynamics.

For the ferry, the most important characteristics are: fast efficient loading and unloading, and stability under typical water conditions the ferry is likely to find itself in. Aerodynamics are a low priority because it simply doesn't move fast enough for aerodynamics to make much difference to its fuel efficiency.

For the ships of Elite, the most important characteristics are: keeping all the cargo, passengers, air etc inside the ship during high-G manoeuvring and while under weapons fire, and being able to fit through the mailslot of a standard space station. Aerodynamics are a low priority because landing on atmospheric planets is both avoidable and unnecessary (in my head-canon, our ships are already perfectly capable of landing on atmospheric planets - we're just all choosing not to do so at the moment) and we live in an age when "fuel efficiency" itself is unnecessary; fuel is cheap and our fusion-powered thrusters are more than powerful enough to overcome wind resistance at any speed we choose to travel at.

 

[kmwmtd]

I decided that I should see if anyone wants to compare the aerodynamic profile of Elite's ships to the world's least aerodynamically-efficient ship, the Washington Ferry.

As various people have commented, in space, aerodynamics don't make any difference.

I suppose, when (if?) atmospheric flight becomes a thing, aerodynamics might be taken into account, but if they want to keep life simple for themselves, FD could ignore the problem altogether and adopt the "every ship has built in atmospheric shields which give them all the aerodynamics of a greased pig" defence

 

[aRJay]

As various people have commented, in space, aerodynamics don't make any difference.

I suppose, when (if?) atmospheric flight becomes a thing, aerodynamics might be taken into account, but if they want to keep life simple for themselves, FD could ignore the problem altogether and adopt the "every ship has built in atmospheric shields which give them all the aerodynamics of a greased pig" defence

Or they could run with the idea that with enough thrust you can make anything fly, just remember to carry enough heatsinks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Neither that ferry, nor the ships of Elite, are aerodynamic - and neither of them need to be. Or rather, there are more important aspects to their design than aerodynamics.

For the ferry, the most important characteristics are: fast efficient loading and unloading, and stability under typical water conditions the ferry is likely to find itself in. Aerodynamics are a low priority because it simply doesn't move fast enough for aerodynamics to make much difference to its fuel efficiency.

The projected area of a ship with respect to beam winds is a significant consideration when evaluating the severe wind & rolling stability criteria. Wind forces are also significant in terms of dynamic positioning capability.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Aerodynamics mean nothing in space, where there is no aero - a brick is just as Vacuu-dynamic as the sleekest design.

 

[Shadowdancer]

You'll probably find that the bit under the water is as "aerodynamic" as it needs to be for the speed it goes.

Hydrodynamic?

Hey, why be a dumb-butt when you can be a smrt-butt?

- - - Updated - - -

just remember to carry enough heatsinks.

I would love to see the heatsinks on E:⁠D ships exposed to an oxidising atmosphere.

 

[insanephoton]

The importance of aerodynamics is sometimes overstated

As for ships not going supersonic, I'll just say this, according to Wikipedia the speed of sound in dry air at 20 degrees Celsius is 343 m/s. Most of my ship are capable of at least boosting to that speed if not cruising at that speed.

 

[-=Rapidfire=-]

That topic instantly brought back some memorys...

In reference to its layout and allegedly also to its atmospheric handling, the Leopard is widely known by its nickname, "Brick".

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Leopard

 

[MickyG1982]

Hell, the space shape worked well for both the Starship Enterprise (See the newer movies) & for the Battlestar Galactica both were able to operate on atmospheric worlds despte their shape - admittedly the BSG struggled mind...

 

[Bounder]

Spaceships do not need any aerodynamic profile.

Ahh but in ED "space" is a viscous fluid, hence the absurd "space speed limit", the buffeting under what paltry "acceleration" is allowed, and why the "nitro boost" decays despite thrusters remaining off etc.

 

[CapuchinSeven]

In a universe where things like shields can be created which clearly have solid form, I don't see any reason why they couldn't be shaped and angled to give ships better aerodynamic proprieties.

 

[Ashnak]

A ship that has sufficient spare power to jump to another star xx lightyears distant, is sufficiently heat resistant to grab hydrogen fuel out of a star's atmosphere and can deploy a force shield that stops a shell which will otherwise pick it up and spin it around like a top in dryer needs about as much aerodynamics as half a brick.

However, since having at least some control about which way up you run into the ground can make a big difference when it comes to digging you out again, I appreciate the presence of aerofoils. And I still think that going supersonic inside a space station should carry a special kind of fine

 

[Rubbernuke]

What ferry though?

More on topic, as CapuchinSeven points out energy barriers could make aerodynamic surfaces so even bricks could glide.

I suppose then you would have to ask, what happens if your shields go pop? And what does that landing package thingy do?