8

You would think that with the quest for aerodynamic efficiency in current spacecraft that the nose-cones at the pointy end of the launch-vehicle would have a sharp taper, more so for craft that aren't going to re-enter the atmosphere.

However this doesn't appear to be the case. Why?

My Other Head
  • 1,506
  • 10
  • 30
  • Uh... don't you mean more so for craft that are going to re-enter the atmosphere? – Everyone Jan 17 '16 at 18:13
  • @Everyone For a craft re-entering the atmosphere, don't you want as blunt as possible to increase drag and bleed speed as efficiently as possible? – My Other Head Jan 17 '16 at 18:16
  • That works both ways - atmospheric density falls as the craft gains altitude. It makes a nose cone - and fairing dead payload. Similarly once in space that nose cone doesn't really serve a purpose - except perhaps some protection from oncoming debris – Everyone Jan 17 '16 at 18:21
  • @Everyone, So don't you want to get as much speed as you can at the beginning of your launch, while you are still in the lower, denser part of the atmosphere, and hence a sharp cone is more suitable? Or is your 1st stage max. speed capped because of your greater mass, so it doesn't make any difference anyway? – My Other Head Jan 17 '16 at 19:14
  • 1
    There are other considerations: a sharp cone needs to be much longer to fit over the spacecraft, so you get more drag and weight from the extra area. – Hobbes Jan 17 '16 at 19:37
  • 1
    I believe there is also an issue with shockwaves once the rocket goes supersonic. I don't recall details, though. – Loren Pechtel Jan 17 '16 at 19:51
  • 3
    I believe guys at aviation.SE could explain it in details, but sharp nose cone is not always optimal aerodynamically. In particular, IIRC, when you create a smooth flow along a smooth slope of the nose, it creates a vacuum area after the nose straightens out into the main hull. This vacuum was known to literally rip the coating off airplanes, but besides the structural concerns it creates more drag than a blunt nose cone that forces the air around the rocket evenly. – SF. Jan 18 '16 at 00:51
  • 2
    ...in particular, http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24414/why-when-is-the-blunt-nose-better – SF. Jan 18 '16 at 02:48
  • 1
    @SF. With 100% certainty, there are no smooth ("laminar") supersonic flows. – Everyday Astronaut Dec 10 '18 at 21:01

1 Answers1

3

The blunt nose produces a shock wave which diverts heat away. The sharp tip you envisage would stick out in the hypersonic air stream and melt right off.

MSalters
  • 1,644
  • 10
  • 11
  • This is true for reentry vehicles that have to withstand much higher dynamic pressure, not so much for launch vehicles with max q at a bit over Mach 1, as the question asks about. – TildalWave Jan 18 '16 at 05:21
  • Where demands are lower (no high velocity reentry), there's probably a four-way balance between drag, heating, cost, and strength. The final shape is a compromise of many variables. – Saiboogu Dec 10 '18 at 20:43
  • 1
    @Saiboogu add weight to the list – Everyday Astronaut Dec 10 '18 at 21:02
  • Thanks for that reference. It explains the case for re-entry vehicles. There are so many more points that are important to a complete answer, not only those addressing expendable spacecraft, that I somehow feel this answer is incomplete at the moment. – Everyday Astronaut Dec 10 '18 at 21:07