1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Aerodyamics of Rocket Shapes

  1. Feb 10, 2009 #1
    When looking at the design of the both the U.S. Saturn V rocket, and the Soviet N1 rocket, there is an obvious design difference between the basic overall rocket body shape.

    n1-saturnv.jpg

    The Saturn V shows several conical regions, with a straight body design throughout.

    The N1 shows more of a conical design, progressively expanding towards the wide base.


    My belief is that the Saturn V shape is aerodynamically more logical, as it allows less drag along more consistent regions, whereas the N1 provides less area where there would be increased atmospheric friction, but I would like feedback on this, as I'd love to truly know which body design is aerodynamically superior.

    (It also seems that more modern rocket body designs follow more similarity to that of the Saturn V, which supports my thinking as well.)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 10, 2009 #2

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Keep in mind that rockets are not designed solely to be the most aerodynamically sound vehicles possible. For example, the N1 has a larger cross-sectional area at the bottom in order to accommodate the massive number of thrusters at the bottom.
     
  4. Feb 10, 2009 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One also must consider the speed which the vehicles will be traveling as a function of altitude, and the thrust to weight/mass ratio.
     
  5. Feb 10, 2009 #4
    Yes, though I'm basically asking which basic shape contains a more optimal aerodynamic flow, regardless of optimization for internal component housing.
     
  6. Feb 12, 2009 #5
    "Optimal aerodynamic flow", for what velocity and altitude? (amongst other things).

    I think the flight envelope on this vehicle is soooo large, it is a game of "trade offs"

    Alter the payload and all of a sudden, the problem is different. Now the altitude where shock waves form is different.

    They both work, perhaps one is only better than the other given a specific set of variables.
     
  7. Feb 12, 2009 #6

    cjl

    User Avatar

    Actually, they don't both work. The N1 failed rather spectacularly, and was never successfully flown as designed. As for the drag though, I would imagine that the Saturn V would be the lower drag design, although as stated above, neither was designed with drag as the primary consideration.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Aerodyamics of Rocket Shapes
  1. Shape of light? (Replies: 37)

  2. Name of Shape (Replies: 1)

  3. Gravity and shapes (Replies: 2)

  4. Shape of Projectile (Replies: 1)

Loading...