Why do spacecraft have wings?

[yondyr]

Just curious...

[TheLastMohican]

Short answer: They don't.

If you are referring to craft like the space shuttle, it is because they are not only spacecraft; the must navigate in the atmosphere as well when reentering for landing. The craft that remain in space, like the International Space Station, have no wings.

[yondyr]

ok, to clarify. I chose entertainment section over science section because I was directing my question at gamers, movies, etc.

[Uberfuhrer]

Well, when spacecraft land on planets, they need something, or else they'll crash! ;)

And I wasn't reading TheLastMohican's post when I posted this. So it's in my own words.

[rahdam]

style points

[Moriarty]

Well, the Borg mothership is just pretty darn boring and unremarkable.

[Airfire]

Remember, gravity is not just a good idea; it's the law, and it's not subject to repeal. Until then, everything that flies must have wings.

[rahdam]

Well, the Borg mothership is just pretty darn boring and unremarkable.


touche. But this seems like the exception, not the rule.

[Mogura]

ok, to clarify. I chose entertainment section over science section because I was directing my question at gamers, movies, etc.

I suppose your question could be expanded to "why are spacecraft aerodynamic?"

My answer is because it looks cool, pure and simple.

Which would you choose to pick up your prom date in, the Millenium Falcon or the Starship Enterprise?

I rest my case...

[yondyr]

yayy Mogura, exactly.. just having fun with you all.

[Jakalwarrior]

What we refer to as aero dynamic may help deflect dust, debris, etc... while traveling at high speed. Wings though are useless unless you plan to be traveling in some type of gaseous enviornment. Not that I am a starwars freak but watching it the Milenium Falcon made sense, it was pure utility. X-Wings also made sense. No real wings, just long pieces to get the weapons and engines away from the main body (Were both on there? I didnt pay that much attention). Weapons I would assume need to be away for safety or heat reasons?, engines need to be a bit away for agility.

If you are scooting your weapons and engines away from the main body out on pontoons, then comes the question of "why not make the pontoons shaped like a wing so this sucker can land on a planet that has atmosphere?". Of course there would be a lot more involved.

[Uberfuhrer]

Well, the Borg mothership is just pretty darn boring and unremarkable.

What about the Death Star?

I find that the most boring ship designs (ships with basic shapes such as the Borg Cube and the Death Star) are the most fun to watch blow up, especially when they're extremely large.

[Moriarty]

Good point. Bigger is better when it comes to cataclysmic events.

My fave spaceship disaster still has to be the two Star Destroyers running into each other. That was epic enough to make the Valdez look like a tipped over canoe.

[thod]

I find that the most boring ship designs (ships with basic shapes such as the Borg Cube and the Death Star) are the most fun to watch blow up, especially when they're extremely large.

The optimal shape for a ship is a sphere. It minimizes the distance between parts and requires the least construction material. You would only deviate from this if there was a good reason. For example you may choose a cylinder if you used rotation for gravity. You may choose to place things away from the main structure for other reasons, starship enterprises nacelles presumably give off radiation.

The pointy ships you see in sci fi are not realistic in that there is no medium they need to cut through. If they were worm hole ships then they would be long needle shaped to fit through the worm hole without projections.

[yondyr]

And should they be reflective, absorbtive or..? (I'm truly NOT trying to ruin the pretty creations of SF artists ;D )

[athenian200]

Just curious...

My guess is so that they can take off from the planet they were built on, and land on it for repairs or any other kind of emergency landing. Or else because the Science fiction writers are subconsciously influlenced by modern aircraft in their designs. It's also possible that there's enough debris in their conception of space for the aerodynamic shape to make sense.

[notoppings]

I always found it amazing when I would see a spaceship in a movie with wings and a rocket at the bottom then the interior would take up all the space, I always wondered where is the propellant stored. They would take off burning something but you never saw any external or internal tanks.

[Monte314]

It must be the same reason that many American cars built between 1956 and 1959 had wings... whatever that was.

[Fej]

They have wings because they're fueled with Red Bull.

[zoophilia]

People tend to interpret the future in terms that they are already familiar with + atmosphere.

[Doppelbock]

"Real" spacecraft have wings only if they are going to fly (i.e., aerodynamically maneuver) within an atmosphere.

"Fictional" spacecraft have wings only because Hollywood producers are fucking ignorant.

[TheLastMohican]

"Fictional" spacecraft have wings only because Hollywood producers are f***ing ignorant.

Not really. It's just that the Hollywood producers are aware that the general population is ignorant, so they can get away with pretty much anything.

[tyrantofthought]

style points

Bingo.
I must say though, a lot of them that do have wings use them for decking into gravity areas/land on planets/whatever. And that a lot of the space craft i've seen lately don't have wings unless their needed for landing/taking off or for holding things(such as guns)