Would thrust vectoring on rear thrusters be enough to navigate in space or would you need an array of thrusters around your ship to maneuver properly?
Basically could a F35 navigate in space assuming the engines would work out of atmosphere?
Would thrust vectoring on rear thrusters be enough to navigate in space or would you need an array of thrusters around...
Aiden Johnson
Other urls found in this thread:
dfrc.nasa.gov
twitter.com
Wyatt Brooks
Good thread.
Cooper Moore
Firstly, an engine that works outside of the atmosphere is called a "rocket." Secondly, no it wouldn't work the way you would want it to because it would only impart rotation on the craft. Thrust vectoring works on jet fighters in the atmosphere because they have control surfaces that keep the craft straight as they move through the air. If you fired a thrust vectored rocket in space, you would just start spinning until you offset the rotation with an equal force in the opposite vector of spin
Oliver Diaz
/thread
Aaron Williams
As long as the thrust vector is still through the center of mass, then the rocket won't spin out of control. Most rocket engines have a form of an engine gimbal but is limited to like 15 degrees.
Logan Stewart
Thrust vectoring on a rocket is referred to as gimballing, and is a thing. It's main use is to provide stability during first stage ascent.
In space you could certainly do all your minor course corrections and attitude adjustments by gimbaling the main engine and letting off small burns, but it wouldn't be efficient.
Spacecraft generally use RCS, Reaction Control Systems. They consist of small nozzles that let off small bursts of thrust (usually monopropellent or compressed gas). Since there isn't any atmosphere in space, and amount of thrust will eventually turn the spacecraft in the direction you need it pointed. RCS nozzles are therefore always good enough. Gimbaling the main engine would just be overkill.
William Murphy
Independent thusters would be more controllable and precise because output wouldn't need to be reliant on a single thruster that would take time to switch directions. It is certainly possible but unless you have some sort of mass or dimension constraint, multiple thrusters would be better. The F-35 with magic engines would be able to maneuver, but it would have to be slow and careful movement compared to atmospheric flight.
Wyatt Gutierrez
Ok this is more of what I was wondering, whether you would want a spread out system of thrusters or a dedicated powerhouse that can direct its thrust all over. IIRC jet nozzles can go up to 90°
Joseph Price
>Firstly, an engine that works outside of the atmosphere is called a "rocket."
Incorrect.
Rockets are engines that expel carried matter through a nozzle to generate thrust in a single axial direction.
Nuclear pulse drives are arguably not rockets as the impulse is generated outside the engine.
>Secondly, no it wouldn't work the way you would want it to because it would only impart rotation on the craft.
Assuming the vectoring system has an even deflection angle through all 360 degrees, any rotational effect can be countered by vectoring the thrust in the opposite direction.
>Thrust vectoring works on jet fighters in the atmosphere because they have control surfaces that keep the craft straight as they move through the air.
Thrust vectoring on modern fight craft is used to increase the control response and stability of the aircraft without increasing the control surface size. The only thing close to what you described is the utterly combat ineffective cobra maneuver.
Andrew Jenkins
>Firstly, an engine that works outside of the atmosphere is called a "rocket."
Thanks for putting something stupid at the start of your thread so i know how to treat the rest of it.
>Thrust vectoring works on jet fighters in the atmosphere because they have control surfaces that keep the craft straight as they move through the air.
No they work because they provide thrust off axis.
>If you fired a thrust vectored rocket in space, you would just start spinning until you offset the rotation with an equal force in the opposite vector of spin
you would use the thrust vectoring to rotate around your centre of gravity to point in the desired direction, you would then thrust through your centre of gravity in the direction you want.
Having control thrusters makes this job easier though since you dont have to fire your main engine in order to change direction.
Spacecraft already have thrust vectoring OP, they just call it gimbal.
Zachary Collins
>to maneuver properly?
Therein lies the crux of the issue. What is proper maneuvering? Can a ship with just thrust vectoring point itself and propel itself from point A to point B - yes. Is it an efficient way to do things? No.
Xavier Adams
Playing KSP for 10 minutes would answer this for you.
Ian Davis
>ITT:KSP Players
Im not saying yall wrong though
Grayson Allen
Im actually a huge fan of space engineers, but theres no vectoring in the game so you have to rely on thrusters all around your ship. Instead they have 'gyroscopes' that you can place to allow the same rotation
Alexander Hernandez
no when your nozzle only works on up and down how on earth you gonna navigate on a 3d space since there is no air to provide friction?
you need a 3d setup for it and a really good one for this that each actuator has a servo sensitive enough...which we dont have
Brody Baker
by "rocket" I meant "holy shit you have never encountered sarcasm how have you survived this long in the world without forgetting to breathe"
Also, intentionally taking the most literal interpretation of my original statement and then rephrasing it to try and sound smarter is pathetic.
I guess it's inevitable, I'm not going to cover every detail and caveat for the sake of preventing another idiot from seizing the chance to "correct" me by stating the obvious
Kevin Baker
You want a spread out system of thrusters for fine maneuvering and a large engine for efficient main thrust. Look at Soyuz for a good example.
Seriously go play Kerbal Space Program and this'll make much more sense
Josiah Young
No, it would need a full RCS. dfrc.nasa.gov
Jonathan Gray
space engineers had such fucking potential, pissed away. From the depths is in the right direction, but lacks the immediate gratification/ deep creation of moving parts. I am thankful there are new games coming to pick up the pieces.
Nolan Kelly
>I was only pretending to be retarded.
Justin Young
>Basically could a F35 navigate in space assuming the engines would work out of atmosphere?
You'd run out of fuel before you gained enough velocity to get to anywhere without running out of oxygen or being irradiated beyond recovery.. I think
Tyler Turner
In real life they use a gimbaled engine to maneuver. You'd want at least 2 so you can control your roll.
Thrust vectoring is similar and maybe you could find some roll control methods and do fine with one engine.
Zachary Collins
Cockpit is shielded against radiation including the canopy.
Hunter Sanchez
>I was merely pretendering
Jackson Robinson
It """""could""""" but not well. In, space using only thrust vectoring would yield a very slow turn. And by the time youve turned around, depending on which way youre facing, you might have boosted in the opposite direction of your orbit, and accidentally deorbited yourself. Or accidentally gained enough velocity towards your orbit direction to escape earths gravity and be stuck in space. And thats IF you have enough fuel to do either. The goal would be to have the capability of orrienting in any direction without changing your orbit speed. So you would need an rcs system like the space shuttle does. IE little multi-directional thrusters placed on key centers of mass around the vessel.
Tldr; no.