I have another fiction verses reality question for the experts. Rockets are round and aerodynamic, and I understand why, but would a ship designed and constructed IN space be better served by a square / rectangular hull?
Two things come to mind when I think of this. First, constructing anything using flat sheets of metal (assuming ship is made of metal) will be easier than working with rounded, formed metal. That doesn't mean a ship need look like a Borg cube, as we can come up with some interesting shapes using flat panels, like Elite's FGS or iconic Cobra, or RL tanks or even Elon's "truck". But from my own limited construction experience (which is carpentry and amateur hobby-level metalwork), flat is easier than round.
The second benefit of square vs round is internal efficiency. It's easier to live in a square house than a round house, for example. It's also easier to load a square cargo container with boxes than a round fuselage. Thus it would be easier to lay out the interior of a square / rectangular ship like the Type-7 than a skinny wedge like the Cobra or a round fuselage like the Cutter. Server racks in IT are rectangular, not cylinder, and when Apple tried to go with a cylinder computer, putting form over function, they failed miserably.
Now for the potential negatives of a "square" hull over a round fuselage. Again too things come to mind. Round is stronger than square, in that you don't have stress points like corners to be concerned with. Submarines are "round" for hydrodynamic efficiency, but also for the ability to withstand the great pressures of the deep. From a practical standpoint, is the 14.7 psi of a pressurized hull enough to warrant a round shape over rectangular for a spaceship? I'm thinking of a futuristic military craft with welded steel / titanium plates, not these paper-thin things we fly to space today.
The second negative is attack surface area, again thinking of a future military spaceship. A projectile hitting a flat surface will have better penetration than hitting a round surface, mostly based on the angle that the projectile hits. But then again, I'm not sure a realistic space battle will be two ships exchanging gunfire at point-blank range.
Anyway, I'm very curious your thoughts, especially those of you with backgrounds in construction, aerospace, military design, etc. For all the hate the Type-7 gets, might it not be the most realistic and efficiently designed ship in ED? Again, I'm thinking strictly space-based ships, no atmospheres. I'm also thinking more in terms of real science and technologies within our grasp today (say in the next 50-100 years) rather than the pure fiction of ED's game world.
Two things come to mind when I think of this. First, constructing anything using flat sheets of metal (assuming ship is made of metal) will be easier than working with rounded, formed metal. That doesn't mean a ship need look like a Borg cube, as we can come up with some interesting shapes using flat panels, like Elite's FGS or iconic Cobra, or RL tanks or even Elon's "truck". But from my own limited construction experience (which is carpentry and amateur hobby-level metalwork), flat is easier than round.
The second benefit of square vs round is internal efficiency. It's easier to live in a square house than a round house, for example. It's also easier to load a square cargo container with boxes than a round fuselage. Thus it would be easier to lay out the interior of a square / rectangular ship like the Type-7 than a skinny wedge like the Cobra or a round fuselage like the Cutter. Server racks in IT are rectangular, not cylinder, and when Apple tried to go with a cylinder computer, putting form over function, they failed miserably.
Now for the potential negatives of a "square" hull over a round fuselage. Again too things come to mind. Round is stronger than square, in that you don't have stress points like corners to be concerned with. Submarines are "round" for hydrodynamic efficiency, but also for the ability to withstand the great pressures of the deep. From a practical standpoint, is the 14.7 psi of a pressurized hull enough to warrant a round shape over rectangular for a spaceship? I'm thinking of a futuristic military craft with welded steel / titanium plates, not these paper-thin things we fly to space today.
The second negative is attack surface area, again thinking of a future military spaceship. A projectile hitting a flat surface will have better penetration than hitting a round surface, mostly based on the angle that the projectile hits. But then again, I'm not sure a realistic space battle will be two ships exchanging gunfire at point-blank range.
Anyway, I'm very curious your thoughts, especially those of you with backgrounds in construction, aerospace, military design, etc. For all the hate the Type-7 gets, might it not be the most realistic and efficiently designed ship in ED? Again, I'm thinking strictly space-based ships, no atmospheres. I'm also thinking more in terms of real science and technologies within our grasp today (say in the next 50-100 years) rather than the pure fiction of ED's game world.
Last edited:
, and from my valuable experience in the field I can positively affirm that any realistic and efficiently designed ship will have to be cylinders. Count how many non-cylindrical spacecraft we currently have orbiting this cradle of humanity.
