are fairings used in this series?

captinjoehenry wrote:Well if mass has no real impact on impeller driven ships then I also see no real reason not to have missile with fairings / covers it is just I am so used to wanting to remove as much mass as possible from space ships because every gram counts for reaction powered ships so I guess if impeller powered vessels do not care about mass then impeller ships should really use the best equipment with no concern for mass.

Impeller powered ships are much more sensitive to volume than to mass.

It's possible there is some mass at which that starts changing but, for example, cargo ships running empty don't seem to gain acceleration and nor do pod-layers that have shot off their pod loads. In both those cases the 'cargo' should be a significant percentage of the total ship mass. But dropping it doesn't improve acceleration.

OTOH if you loaded up a 4 mton freighter up with 24 mtons of tunsten (roughly 50m x 50m x 1/2 km) I'd assume that'd do bad things to its acceleration - despite not changing it's volume at all.

I think there's another reason which is that many of the descriptions in the series bring to mind images in our head, and it's been known since early in the series that "space naval warfare" even with SD(p)s is still more like submarine warfare than anything resembling surface fleet ops. All of the "impeller ships" are cylindrical like a sub, so gee, an impeller drive missile is cylindrical as well, like say, torpedoes, though in the Honorverse the missile has all sorts of interesting choices for the bang at the front end of the torp.

It might be arguable that you could design a square missile for future upgrades, fit in more of whatever you need (fuel, avionics, warheads, etc.) in the "greater area than a circle" in the same "stackable space" etc. Volume for fuel -wise that would just about get a Mark 16-G to mid-Mark 23 distances, if I've figured it right, even without a ballistic phase.

SharkHunter wrote:I think there's another reason which is that many of the descriptions in the series bring to mind images in our head, and it's been known since early in the series that "space naval warfare" even with SD(p)s is still more like submarine warfare than anything resembling surface fleet ops. All of the "impeller ships" are cylindrical like a sub, so gee, an impeller drive missile is cylindrical as well, like say, torpedoes, though in the Honorverse the missile has all sorts of interesting choices for the bang at the front end of the torp.

It might be arguable that you could design a square missile for future upgrades, fit in more of whatever you need (fuel, avionics, warheads, etc.) in the "greater area than a circle" in the same "stackable space" etc. Volume for fuel -wise that would just about get a Mark 16-G to mid-Mark 23 distances, if I've figured it right, even without a ballistic phase.

Two things.
1) cylindrical shapes tend to be easier to load and move through tubes; you don't have to worry about aligning the corners or that twisting will cause them to bind. So high-speed missile feed tubes are probably easier to design for cylinders than for boxes.

2) reactor fuel won't affect missile run times/distances. That's controlled by node burnout. After no more than 360 seconds of powered time both of the drive rings of a Mk16 have burned out. You could have power for another hour and it wouldn't affect their max powered range by even a centimeter.
Getting increased range requires
a) additional drive rings (like the 3rd on the Mk23 or the 4th on the new system-defense Mk23F)
b) longer lasting drive nodes (like the ERM, LERM, and Mk31 CM)
c) by a much more marginal amount; by increasing acceleration.

SharkHunter wrote:It might be arguable that you could design a square missile for future upgrades, fit in more of whatever you need (fuel, avionics, warheads, etc.) in the "greater area than a circle" in the same "stackable space" etc. Volume for fuel -wise that would just about get a Mark 16-G to mid-Mark 23 distances, if I've figured it right, even without a ballistic phase.

Impeller nodes and inertial compensators appear to require cylindrical or spindle shapes.

SWM wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:It might be arguable that you could design a square missile for future upgrades, fit in more of whatever you need (fuel, avionics, warheads, etc.) in the "greater area than a circle" in the same "stackable space" etc. Volume for fuel -wise that would just about get a Mark 16-G to mid-Mark 23 distances, if I've figured it right, even without a ballistic phase.

Impeller nodes and inertial compensators appear to require cylindrical or spindle shapes.

Just to nitpick, that appears to be less true for designs that use a just single beta (or beta squared) ring.

Forts apparently differ significantly (in some not clearly spelled out way) from the double-tapered spindle hull form of a true starship. Pinnaces and shuttles have big variable geometry wings and also tail surfaces that deviate significantly from the basic cylindrical shape.


I can't recall anything about whether the single drive ring of a missile (or the single currently powered-up ring; in the case of an MDM) has the same freedom of geometry that the single pinnace, or shuttle, or fort ring does.

Jonathan_S wrote:

SWM wrote:Impeller nodes and inertial compensators appear to require cylindrical or spindle shapes.

Just to nitpick, that appears to be less true for designs that use a just single beta (or beta squared) ring.

Forts apparently differ significantly (in some not clearly spelled out way) ...

I have the impression that Forts are nearly spherical -- a shape mentioned as possible for a freighter, but impractical because of control issues.

I also have the impression that the double tapered spindle shape is a matter of efficiency and control, rather than a matter of other shapes being non-functional. IOW, a Borg Cube with impeller drives would be possible, but very inefficient and hard to control -- i.e. not as fast or stable as a more conventional cylindrical or spindle shape

Jonathan_S wrote:

SWM wrote:Impeller nodes and inertial compensators appear to require cylindrical or spindle shapes.

Just to nitpick, that appears to be less true for designs that use a just single beta (or beta squared) ring.

Forts apparently differ significantly (in some not clearly spelled out way) from the double-tapered spindle hull form of a true starship. Pinnaces and shuttles have big variable geometry wings and also tail surfaces that deviate significantly from the basic cylindrical shape.


I can't recall anything about whether the single drive ring of a missile (or the single currently powered-up ring; in the case of an MDM) has the same freedom of geometry that the single pinnace, or shuttle, or fort ring does.

You're right--it's really the alpha nodes which require a spindle shape, so forts don't have to be spindles. Beta nodes generally seem to be arranged in rings, but you are correct that small craft frequently have things sticking off of the approximately cylindrical shape.

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:
Just to nitpick, that appears to be less true for designs that use a just single beta (or beta squared) ring.

Forts apparently differ significantly (in some not clearly spelled out way) ...

I have the impression that Forts are nearly spherical -- a shape mentioned as possible for a freighter, but impractical because of control issues.

I also have the impression that the double tapered spindle shape is a matter of efficiency and control, rather than a matter of other shapes being non-functional. IOW, a Borg Cube with impeller drives would be possible, but very inefficient and hard to control -- i.e. not as fast or stable as a more conventional cylindrical or spindle shape

Well if you're talking about a starship the nodes need to be fairly precisely placed within a certain distance from the extreme ends and well within the maximum beam. Oh and the tapered shape of the hull is because the wedge startup would shred anything outside of that.

You could fit up a full starship set of node to a Borg cube, but you'd have to put scaffolding to put the nodes in the right geometric possition. (And it'd be an inefficient disposition of volume)

Jonathan_S wrote:You could fit up a full starship set of node to a Borg cube, but you'd have to put scaffolding to put the nodes in the right geometric possition. (And it'd be an inefficient disposition of volume)

Isn't that what I said? You could but it would be inefficient and uneconomical.

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:You could fit up a full starship set of node to a Borg cube, but you'd have to put scaffolding to put the nodes in the right geometric possition. (And it'd be an inefficient disposition of volume)

Isn't that what I said? You could but it would be inefficient and uneconomical.

Yeah, on second reading it pretty much is.

I was thinking of it more that you had to wrap any other shape inside a sufficiently large double spindle scaffold to put the nodes in the right place; so they'd ultimately be that shape (with a bunch of wasted space). But I guess that's just an explanation for why they're so inefficient -- rather than a refuting the idea that other shapes could be forced to more or less work.