Why do sci-fi artists design aerodynamic spaceships like mother ships that are never going to land? Aerodynamics really doesn't matter a whole lot in space.
Also, why would these ships need a discernable top and bottom? There is no real up or down for most of your interstellar travel.
Personally, I blame Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
Theory: aerodynamic-appearing is strongly correlated with "visually attractive".
It's visual language for "we can spend money on excitingly curved hull plates and unnecessary fairings, etc., just so we don't have to look at a starship that looks like a boiler factory had a terrible accident when attempting to mate with a steamroller".
(Which in turn is symbolic language for "we are rich and have a high culture, unlike you primitive savages from beyond the Marches".)
Today, for example, we put curved, as anti-industrial/functional-as-possible-looking cases on all manner of things that aren't intended to ever move, because good-looking can sell a million units.
Apple spent _decades_ beating the entire market and turning Everything Is An iPod In The Future into a trope by turning "humans are basically magpies where sleek, shiny things are concerned" into their core marketing strategy.
Side note: one factor in naval architecture is trying to minimize the number of curved hull plates needed, because they're more expensive than flat, and increasing the number of curve dimensions increases the cost disproportionately.
In the #eldraeverse, the IN uses sweepingly curved hulls and elaborate brightwork to make a deliberate statement of "If we had budget to spare for *this*, just imagine what the working parts are like."
Naked frames and greebles look cheap.
@cerebrate @nyrath @JeremyMallin thinking back to wooden ships, straight beams and planks are a lot easier to cut from a tree than curved ones.
@SkipHuffman @nyrath @JeremyMallin
Same with steel ships. I believe the current standard is to try to keep the percentage of curved hull plates required down to 15% of the total or less; and within that percentage, to strongly prefer simple curves (i.e., those which can be made through line heating and rolling) over complex, multi-dimensional curves, which are much harder technically to achieve.
@cerebrate @nyrath @JeremyMallin At this point we don't really know what the economics of space/microgravity industry will be. I suspect "optimize for low mass" is going to be an overwhelming consideration.
@SkipHuffman @nyrath @cerebrate @JeremyMallin I’d guess that “optimize for durability/reusability” will be the priority — new ships are costly, and propellant should be relatively cheap. (This is an extension of the SpaceX strategy — their launchers aren’t optimized for mass, but for reusability.)
@michaelgemar @nyrath @cerebrate @JeremyMallin
Launchers/landers are a special category. They need to operate in several environments and all the transition points in between.
@SkipHuffman @nyrath @cerebrate @JeremyMallin Good point, but generally any vehicle that is reused is going to prioritize durability (especially in an environment where breakdowns can be fatal). Cars are not as light as they can be, they are light while prioritizing durability and safety.
@michaelgemar @SkipHuffman @nyrath @JeremyMallin
Or aircraft, for that matter.
But also, not all optimizations are orthogonal. You can optimize for mass by making a nice aerogel outer hull that is also near-optimal as Whipple shielding, and then using patterned variants of it in your company livery need not add more'n a few grams here and there (molecular weight of dye may vary, but probably not *that* much).
