are fairings used in this series?

I am curious do drones, missiles or other things of that sort having aerodynamic fairings? Because it seems that all of them are intended for use in space so if they are not covered in armor why bother making them aerodynamic because there is no drag in space so do those types of vessels waste mass on fairings or do those fairings serve some practical purpose other than to make them look cool?

captinjoehenry wrote:I am curious do drones, missiles or other things of that sort having aerodynamic fairings? Because it seems that all of them are intended for use in space so if they are not covered in armor why bother making them aerodynamic because there is no drag in space so do those types of vessels waste mass on fairings or do those fairings serve some practical purpose other than to make them look cool?

Because of the speed they are moving. Outer-space is not empty, it has things like micro-meteoroids, space junk, high-energy particles from nearby stars.

saber964 wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am curious do drones, missiles or other things of that sort having aerodynamic fairings? Because it seems that all of them are intended for use in space so if they are not covered in armor why bother making them aerodynamic because there is no drag in space so do those types of vessels waste mass on fairings or do those fairings serve some practical purpose other than to make them look cool?

Because of the speed they are moving. Outer-space is not empty, it has things like micro-meteoroids, space junk, high-energy particles from nearby stars.

fair enough i just feel like there it would be less mass intensive to use a simple whipple shield in front of the missile to deal with the micro meteoroids as that would be lighter and do a better job than a fairing.

captinjoehenry wrote:I am curious do drones, missiles or other things of that sort having aerodynamic fairings? Because it seems that all of them are intended for use in space so if they are not covered in armor why bother making them aerodynamic because there is no drag in space so do those types of vessels waste mass on fairings or do those fairings serve some practical purpose other than to make them look cool?

No they do not have fairings.

Missile shape along with warship geometry is dictated by impeller drive. It must cylindrical. For packing density, this means by definition the most efficient form factor is.... Cylindrical.

The real question is: Once fired out of the missile tube, can fairings pop out? Answer is maybe. We know the compensator field can extend out further than the minimum geometry shape dictated by the impellers. Now how much finageling has to happen for this to occur on the other hand is a tum-te-tum-te-tum

Relax wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am curious do drones, missiles or other things of that sort having aerodynamic fairings? Because it seems that all of them are intended for use in space so if they are not covered in armor why bother making them aerodynamic because there is no drag in space so do those types of vessels waste mass on fairings or do those fairings serve some practical purpose other than to make them look cool?

No they do not have fairings.

Missile shape along with warship geometry is dictated by impeller drive. It must cylindrical. For packing density, this means by definition the most efficient form factor is.... Cylindrical.

The real question is: Once fired out of the missile tube, can fairings pop out? Answer is maybe. We know the compensator field can extend out further than the minimum geometry shape dictated by the impellers. Now how much finageling has to happen for this to occur on the other hand is a tum-te-tum-te-tum

what i am talking about is not so much the shape of the missile because the missile would need to be cylindrical but does it need to have covers all around it so its outside surface is also cylindrical which does not appear to be the case because ships have so many things sticking out of them so what i mean is does the missile need to look like this (http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/M ... -465723605) or can you just let it look like this (http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/M ... -465723662) these are both MK.9 Vipers just with and without fairings.

captinjoehenry wrote:what i am talking about is not so much the shape of the missile because the missile would need to be cylindrical but does it need to have covers all around it so its outside surface is also cylindrical which does not appear to be the case because ships have so many things sticking out of them...

It strikes me that no matter how an un-faired missile might perform in vacuum, it isn't in vacuum in the magazine or missile loading queue. Perhaps the fairings aren't for drag reduction in-flight, but to protect components from handling damage?

Weird Harold wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:what i am talking about is not so much the shape of the missile because the missile would need to be cylindrical but does it need to have covers all around it so its outside surface is also cylindrical which does not appear to be the case because ships have so many things sticking out of them...

It strikes me that no matter how an un-faired missile might perform in vacuum, it isn't in vacuum in the magazine or missile loading queue. Perhaps the fairings aren't for drag reduction in-flight, but to protect components from handling damage?

Fairings are very light. MaxxQ I am sure has those "fairings" there by the simple fact that when drawing in 'y' program, it probably start with exterior dimensions and then he goes back and "cuts" away to place interior stuff. At least that is how all 3d CAD programs have worked when I have used them. Otherwise, no reason for fairings at all on missiles unless needed for the grav drivers for some reason.

Relax wrote:Fairings are very light. MaxxQ I am sure has those "fairings" there by the simple fact that when drawing in 'y' program, it probably start with exterior dimensions and then he goes back and "cuts" away to place interior stuff.

That may be true, but if the "actual" missiles don't have fairings, he would have no reason to put the fairings back in the final images.

Weird Harold wrote:

Relax wrote:Fairings are very light. MaxxQ I am sure has those "fairings" there by the simple fact that when drawing in 'y' program, it probably start with exterior dimensions and then he goes back and "cuts" away to place interior stuff.

That may be true, but if the "actual" missiles don't have fairings, he would have no reason to put the fairings back in the final images.

We're given a partial reason for the "covers" (which I guess might be similar to an aerodynamic fairing) in a tactical simulation that Henke's 10th fleet came up with on the way to Spindle, first time:

Storm from the Shadows wrote:"Jettisoning the shrouds now," Diego reported as the first pod's missiles reached Point Alpha.
"Acknowledged," Adenauer replied.

The shroud-jettisoning maneuver had been programmed into the missiles before launch. Unlike any previous attack missile, the Mark 23s in an Apollo pod were fitted with protective shrouds intended to shield their sensors from the particle erosion of extended ballistic flight profiles at relativistic speeds. Most missiles didn't really need anything of the sort, since their impeller wedges incorporated particle screening. They were capable of maintaining a separate particle screen—briefly, at least—as long as they retained on-board power, even after the wedge went down, but that screening was far less efficient than a starship's particle screens. For the most part, that hadn't mattered, since any ballistic component of a "standard" attack profile was going to be brief, at best. But with Apollo, very long-range attacks, with lengthy ballistic components built into them, had suddenly become feasible. That capability, however, would be of limited usefulness if particle erosion had blinded the missiles before they ever got a chance to see their targets.

Possibly a connection?

I think that several plausible reasons for having a skin-covered missile and fairings have been mentioned here already - protection from particle erosion, shape required for impeller drive, handling protection, and so on.

But it could also be for a reason as simple as: because it's how missiles have always been done, even back in the Old Earth days of air-breathing jet fighters and ICBMs.

TBH, I'm going with the handling protection myself, as these things mass quite a few tons, and the handling equipment can probably get a bit rough, especially when at max rate of fire. Note that in the naked images of the missiles, there's nothing for the loading clamps to attach to, and even if you put mounting points on a nude missile, they would be bulkier than necessary, whereas with a thick skin around everything, loading stresses would be distributed over a greater area.

Of course, there's also the possibility of another "Silver Spanner" klutz maintenance dude that might drop something into the innards - goodness knows I saw enough of that when I was loading bombs on F-111s in the Air Force... even did it myself once or twice.

Could also be for protection from battle damage while they're still in the magazine or loading queues.