One reason space craft may logically appear "aerodynamic" and smoother

[darthgently]

To minimize debris impacts, surface to volume ratio is minimized.  This results in smoother shapes with more curves.  Not the same as aerodynamic, but  when merged with aero requirements for launch, the difference could blur quite a bit. 

If aero fairings also served better as radiation and debris shielding then no need to eject them as their mass is no longer wasted payload.  So rather than ejectable separate things they'd simply be incorporated into the outer layer.  

If all extendables, like PVs, are made to be retractable, then they can be protectively pulled back when debris warnings are high.  Better battery tech could make this more viable with an extended no-PV power time. 

Just poking my head outside the box.  I actually like the crazy Einstein hair-do look of real world non-smooth craft in space

Edited December 18, 2022 by darthgently

[Nuke]

i never did like greebled ships. i mean they used that technique because its easy, either in modelcraft or cgi (just start with a poly grid and hit extrude a lot), to generate a lot of detail that would otherwise not be present. but spacecraft are all engineered surfaces where  they are designed for re-entry or atmospheric flight, or as radiative surfaces, etc.  so they tend to be a lot more ordered. pressure hulls are always more efficient when in spheres or cylinders (sphers more so because you dont have to bulk up the flanges at the ends).  spheres tend to be harder to manufacture (unless you use explosives) and its easier to stick cylinders in your rocket, so that is the preferred station module profile. laying out a station with spheres would also be an awkward affair.

i think my favorite designs are the spartan "dont bring anything you dont need" configuration, where its all girders and tanks, with equipment and habitation in isolated clustered modules as required. such ships would be quasi-modular, with bigger structures manufactured in space or on low gravity bodies with the more complicated modules shipped from earth. a fully integrated ship may actually be the most efficient as far as material usage (and thus overall mass) goes, but i dont think we will see stuff like that until the supporting infrastructure is established. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

i dont think we will see stuff like that until

...KSP2 'Interstellar' update