In the vacuum of space does a spaceship really need to be aerodynamic?

Question

I see the need for lift off, but in space would there be a need?

Answer 1

Not at all...aerodynamics is making the vehicle efficent to cut through air, so with the absence of air it could be a bowl moving forwards (the least aerodynamic shape) and it will go just as fast and efficent as a dart.....good question

Answer 2

For a spacecraft that exists only in space and never enters an atmosphere, there is no need for streamlining. A good example of this is the ISS, which is certainly not streamlined! However, if it operates in an atmosphere at ANY point — takeoff or re-entry — that it needs to survive, then streamlining is imperative.

A manned deep-space craft would probably have a fairly streamlined appearance, but not for aerodynamic reasons. Rather, the crew modules would need robust radiation shielding to protect the crew from cosmic rays. The ISS does not need this because it's protected by Earth's magnetosphere. A manned Mars mission could probably manage with a small radiation shelter since the mission would be reasonably short, but a longer trip would require robust shielding to prevent radiation sickness.

Now, if you look at a spacecraft like Cassini, it's cylindrical and, while not really aerodynamic, is kind of sleek in appearance. That is because it was launched from Earth with an aerodynamic fairing that dictated the maximum dimensions of the craft itself. Once it was in space the fairing was ejected and the long antennae were deployed.

Answer 3

In the vacuum of space does a spaceship really need to be aerodynamic?
A very smart question.
To answer you straight out, No, You don't need an aerodynamic shape for the spaceship if you consider just ideal vacuum of space.

in real life: Of course yes
Now if you consider a spacecraft that is being deployed into space from the earth you do need to attain the escape velocity(speed required to escape the earth's atmosphere).
In order to reduce cost and and also speed up the process aerodynamic shapes will reduce surface friction. and also plays a major role in reducing this friction during re entry into the earth's atmosphere. This is the reason why on 1 February 2003 the space shuttle Columbia exploded due to a defective tile that broke away during re-entry.

But in the future when our systems are advanced beyond a level at which wh will be manufacturing spacecraft in space itself then we can avoid the very big factor of aerodynamic structures and construct something that is Spherical in space as they have the highest volume(1.752 times greater than a cube)
Also spheres also help in reducing the damages due to oncoming debris and rocks that are floating in space.

Answer 4

In theory wise, there's no need to be aerodynamic because as we all know a vacuum doesn't have any air compression but even though it is a vacuum, it still has the slightest bit of air. If you are an astronaut, when your spacecraft is travelling at a fast speed open a small gap of the window and put your hands out. You will feel a little bit of wind blowing your hands. Becareful because things in the spacecraft might be sucked out into space!

Answer 5

Aerodynamic? no

However, unless you can find a way to separately accelerate all the components at exactly the same rate, then the structure has to be shaped so that the thrust from the engine(s) gets distributed to the entire ship without causing too much strain on the connectors.

Imagine two ships each consisting of two spheres held together by a long, narrow cylinder.

Ship A has the engine placed halfway along the cylinder and pushing perpendicularly:

0
I<<
0

The other has the engine placed on one sphere, pushing along the axis of the cylinder:

0-0<<

The second ship will be able to resist greater thrust than the first one.

Therefore, the shape may still be important, even if not for reasons connected with aerodynamics.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. In space, there is no need for aerodynamic design, as there is no air. True spaceships like the lunar lander are not streamlined and do not even have smooth surfaces. A smooth skin is expensive and heavy, don't need one to travel is space without an atmosphere. They're useful to get off the ground however.

Answer 7

Hello there...

In the atmosphere of Earth aerodynamic shape is needed to reduce friction, but in Outer Space there is no atmosphere, and aerodynamics are not a problem. That is why you will see huge solar panels extended from various satellites, and complex structures of braces and living quarters on the International Space Station. None of those things are aerodynamic shapes.

Answer 8

No, the vacuum in space is very high, there may be a few stray molecules but not enough to have "aerodynamic" significance. Streamlining is only needed on TV where ships have to look "cool" and sometimes not even then.
By the way, you also can't hear the engines or weapons fire of other ships in space , something TV producers choose to ignore.

Answer 9

Not at all.

Science fiction writers are often tempted to streamline spaceships to enhance the dramatic effect, but this is not necessary in outer space. The best shape for some vehicle which is permenantly in space would probably be a sphere. It has the least amount of surface area in relation to its volume. Space is filled with tiny objects which can be traveling very fast. A round shape minimuzes the chance of impact. There are also cosmic rays in space. These are high energy gamma rays and can penetrate even lead. Again, a round shape minimizes impacts.

The "enterprise" in Gene Roddenberry's science fiction series "star trek" is clearly designed to exist in space, but its flat shape gives it a great amount of surface area. Of course, the ship has a "deflector field" and this eliminates impacts. Arthur C. Clark's "discovery" in the novel "2001" is probably the best approximation of a real space ship. The ship was a perfect sphere with a long series of cargo containers behind it. It was designed to make a trip to Jupiter.

Answer 10

It need not be aerodynamic in space but is absolutely necessary if the space craft is to re-enter the atmosphere. The Apollo space craft were packed aerodynamically for lift off, but once in orbit the command module and the LEM were docked nose to nose until they were separated for the moon landing. On the return to Earth the entire space craft except for the Descent module was abandoned as they would have burned up on re-entry.

Answer 11

The ans lies beneath your question. If you waste most of the energy in lift off only while making the spaceship non aerodynamic It could lead you to a huge cost.

Space ships out in space could be as ugly as possible but to put that ship in space the carrier have to be aerodynamic

do you think that the startrek one is aerodynamic ?/