Square thrusters on spaceships
Edit: I ask this because I am hoping to illustrate my ship designs and I love squares on spaceships. Also I feel it would make the ships more distinct.
My question is pretty basic, would square thrusters and RCS ports have any real drawbacks over round ones? I know that angles on windows for airplanes is a problem because of the pressure, so I don't know if the pressure of a thruster would have the same problems.
space-travel hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
add a comment |
Edit: I ask this because I am hoping to illustrate my ship designs and I love squares on spaceships. Also I feel it would make the ships more distinct.
My question is pretty basic, would square thrusters and RCS ports have any real drawbacks over round ones? I know that angles on windows for airplanes is a problem because of the pressure, so I don't know if the pressure of a thruster would have the same problems.
space-travel hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Edit: I ask this because I am hoping to illustrate my ship designs and I love squares on spaceships. Also I feel it would make the ships more distinct.
My question is pretty basic, would square thrusters and RCS ports have any real drawbacks over round ones? I know that angles on windows for airplanes is a problem because of the pressure, so I don't know if the pressure of a thruster would have the same problems.
space-travel hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
Edit: I ask this because I am hoping to illustrate my ship designs and I love squares on spaceships. Also I feel it would make the ships more distinct.
My question is pretty basic, would square thrusters and RCS ports have any real drawbacks over round ones? I know that angles on windows for airplanes is a problem because of the pressure, so I don't know if the pressure of a thruster would have the same problems.
space-travel hard-science
space-travel hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
edited 1 hour ago
Snydwell
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
asked 2 hours ago
SnydwellSnydwell
2708
2708
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Short answer is yes, they would. Longer version as follows. It's a simplification, but functionally correct.
A rocket engine basically works through gas expanding and being thrown out the back of the engine at high speed. What that means in practice is that as the gas expands as a result of the fuel being burned, it pushes out in all directions pretty much equally. What the bell housing on the back of the engine does is give the gas one direction to escape in, pretty much pushing the engine forward. Trouble is, not all the gas going out that hole in the back is going straight back. If it's gas that has been released to the side of the reaction chamber for instance, it will push out the hole at an angle.
What the bell housing does is shape the exhaust as it escapes, guiding all the angled releases so that they go backwards in pretty much a uniform direction. As such it keeps the engine thrust directed cleanly and increases the efficiency of the engine by minimising the amount of gas that pushes in an oblique direction to the desired thrust angle.
A square housing won't do that as efficiently because the sides of the housing won't be 'normal' to the direction of all gas that escapes on an oblique angle. Because all gas escapes from the centre of the bell housing, a round housing just automatically shapes the errant vectors in all cases. A square one will only do so in some instances, namely in the middle of the sides and in the corners. In all other cases, the side of the housing is tangental to the oblique gas vectors, creating inefficiency and (potentially) misaligned spurts of thrust from the engine output, making it less accurate as well.
As has been pointed out by Mark, the other issue that manifests when you have tangental vectors being generated is that the the gas can be directed into those corners in slightly higher concentrations, and corners are a natural stress point as you highlighted above. This means that your thruster is less likely to survive the stresses of engine burn than a round bell housing is, pure and simple.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136496%2fsquare-thrusters-on-spaceships%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Short answer is yes, they would. Longer version as follows. It's a simplification, but functionally correct.
A rocket engine basically works through gas expanding and being thrown out the back of the engine at high speed. What that means in practice is that as the gas expands as a result of the fuel being burned, it pushes out in all directions pretty much equally. What the bell housing on the back of the engine does is give the gas one direction to escape in, pretty much pushing the engine forward. Trouble is, not all the gas going out that hole in the back is going straight back. If it's gas that has been released to the side of the reaction chamber for instance, it will push out the hole at an angle.
What the bell housing does is shape the exhaust as it escapes, guiding all the angled releases so that they go backwards in pretty much a uniform direction. As such it keeps the engine thrust directed cleanly and increases the efficiency of the engine by minimising the amount of gas that pushes in an oblique direction to the desired thrust angle.
A square housing won't do that as efficiently because the sides of the housing won't be 'normal' to the direction of all gas that escapes on an oblique angle. Because all gas escapes from the centre of the bell housing, a round housing just automatically shapes the errant vectors in all cases. A square one will only do so in some instances, namely in the middle of the sides and in the corners. In all other cases, the side of the housing is tangental to the oblique gas vectors, creating inefficiency and (potentially) misaligned spurts of thrust from the engine output, making it less accurate as well.
As has been pointed out by Mark, the other issue that manifests when you have tangental vectors being generated is that the the gas can be directed into those corners in slightly higher concentrations, and corners are a natural stress point as you highlighted above. This means that your thruster is less likely to survive the stresses of engine burn than a round bell housing is, pure and simple.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Short answer is yes, they would. Longer version as follows. It's a simplification, but functionally correct.
A rocket engine basically works through gas expanding and being thrown out the back of the engine at high speed. What that means in practice is that as the gas expands as a result of the fuel being burned, it pushes out in all directions pretty much equally. What the bell housing on the back of the engine does is give the gas one direction to escape in, pretty much pushing the engine forward. Trouble is, not all the gas going out that hole in the back is going straight back. If it's gas that has been released to the side of the reaction chamber for instance, it will push out the hole at an angle.
What the bell housing does is shape the exhaust as it escapes, guiding all the angled releases so that they go backwards in pretty much a uniform direction. As such it keeps the engine thrust directed cleanly and increases the efficiency of the engine by minimising the amount of gas that pushes in an oblique direction to the desired thrust angle.
A square housing won't do that as efficiently because the sides of the housing won't be 'normal' to the direction of all gas that escapes on an oblique angle. Because all gas escapes from the centre of the bell housing, a round housing just automatically shapes the errant vectors in all cases. A square one will only do so in some instances, namely in the middle of the sides and in the corners. In all other cases, the side of the housing is tangental to the oblique gas vectors, creating inefficiency and (potentially) misaligned spurts of thrust from the engine output, making it less accurate as well.
As has been pointed out by Mark, the other issue that manifests when you have tangental vectors being generated is that the the gas can be directed into those corners in slightly higher concentrations, and corners are a natural stress point as you highlighted above. This means that your thruster is less likely to survive the stresses of engine burn than a round bell housing is, pure and simple.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Short answer is yes, they would. Longer version as follows. It's a simplification, but functionally correct.
A rocket engine basically works through gas expanding and being thrown out the back of the engine at high speed. What that means in practice is that as the gas expands as a result of the fuel being burned, it pushes out in all directions pretty much equally. What the bell housing on the back of the engine does is give the gas one direction to escape in, pretty much pushing the engine forward. Trouble is, not all the gas going out that hole in the back is going straight back. If it's gas that has been released to the side of the reaction chamber for instance, it will push out the hole at an angle.
What the bell housing does is shape the exhaust as it escapes, guiding all the angled releases so that they go backwards in pretty much a uniform direction. As such it keeps the engine thrust directed cleanly and increases the efficiency of the engine by minimising the amount of gas that pushes in an oblique direction to the desired thrust angle.
A square housing won't do that as efficiently because the sides of the housing won't be 'normal' to the direction of all gas that escapes on an oblique angle. Because all gas escapes from the centre of the bell housing, a round housing just automatically shapes the errant vectors in all cases. A square one will only do so in some instances, namely in the middle of the sides and in the corners. In all other cases, the side of the housing is tangental to the oblique gas vectors, creating inefficiency and (potentially) misaligned spurts of thrust from the engine output, making it less accurate as well.
As has been pointed out by Mark, the other issue that manifests when you have tangental vectors being generated is that the the gas can be directed into those corners in slightly higher concentrations, and corners are a natural stress point as you highlighted above. This means that your thruster is less likely to survive the stresses of engine burn than a round bell housing is, pure and simple.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
Short answer is yes, they would. Longer version as follows. It's a simplification, but functionally correct.
A rocket engine basically works through gas expanding and being thrown out the back of the engine at high speed. What that means in practice is that as the gas expands as a result of the fuel being burned, it pushes out in all directions pretty much equally. What the bell housing on the back of the engine does is give the gas one direction to escape in, pretty much pushing the engine forward. Trouble is, not all the gas going out that hole in the back is going straight back. If it's gas that has been released to the side of the reaction chamber for instance, it will push out the hole at an angle.
What the bell housing does is shape the exhaust as it escapes, guiding all the angled releases so that they go backwards in pretty much a uniform direction. As such it keeps the engine thrust directed cleanly and increases the efficiency of the engine by minimising the amount of gas that pushes in an oblique direction to the desired thrust angle.
A square housing won't do that as efficiently because the sides of the housing won't be 'normal' to the direction of all gas that escapes on an oblique angle. Because all gas escapes from the centre of the bell housing, a round housing just automatically shapes the errant vectors in all cases. A square one will only do so in some instances, namely in the middle of the sides and in the corners. In all other cases, the side of the housing is tangental to the oblique gas vectors, creating inefficiency and (potentially) misaligned spurts of thrust from the engine output, making it less accurate as well.
As has been pointed out by Mark, the other issue that manifests when you have tangental vectors being generated is that the the gas can be directed into those corners in slightly higher concentrations, and corners are a natural stress point as you highlighted above. This means that your thruster is less likely to survive the stresses of engine burn than a round bell housing is, pure and simple.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
answered 2 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
26.1k656109
26.1k656109
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
1
1
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
There's also the little fact that square corners create stress concentrations, which will tend to lead to exploding thrusters.
– Mark
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
@Mark very true. I think I'll add that into my answer as I've glossed over that obvious point a little.
– Tim B II
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136496%2fsquare-thrusters-on-spaceships%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Are you trying to build a world with square thrusters?
– Renan
2 hours ago
Yes, I'll edit the post to explain better
– Snydwell
1 hour ago