Why do spaceships need wings in space?

[Sampa]

The X-wing "wings" served mostly as radiators to dissipate heat.

Link

Well, the wings also can provide a convenient place to attach weapons...

The klingon bird of prey also incorporates "wings" as a hardpoint for its disruptors

Edited January 28, 2015 by Sampa

[cpast]

Are these levers and hardpoint connectors and solar panels wings, or are they wing like protrusions?

AFAIK, on helicopters similar attachments are called wings, even though they aren't there for lift.

[WestAir]

To be fair, a lot of the "Spaceship with wing" concepts are lifting bodies, not winged spacecraft. (X-24 comes to mind)

[KerbMav]

Perhaps the "wings" are really heat exchangers.

The Starfuries in Babalon 5 didnt have wings, they had long pylons with maneuvering engines at the ends. Gives more leverage to the engine torque.

More attachment surfaces for stuff? Like, some battle space ships may want to arrange their gun batteries horizontally for a devastating forward alpha strike?

Well on the note of wings. More space for hardpoints, more space for radiators, more ability to handle in atmosphere.

In scifi youll note a lot of space craft are also atmospheric. Starwars, macross, BSG, all of those winged craft were also atmospheric.

Case closed? ^^

They do not NEED them, but they do not (usually) hurt from them either.

Also there is always room for a bit of design in multi-billion credit projects.

[KerikBalm]

Though 1 halfassedly decent explanation for banking a spacecraft, your craft has SAS or RCS thrusters to maneuver does it not? Is it not possible that in 1 axis (pitch) there is more torque capability than in others (yaw and roll) perhaps even using some thrust vectoring. Cause often in scifi its treated that craft cant really stop and start their engines instantly (perhaps it wouldnt be too good for the reactor or whatever), which would make those more useful.

Hence when trying to reorient the craft, it might be faster to roll and pitch rather than yaw?

Also theres the point of contention in that the xwing like a real aircraft has the hull of the craft in the way of more than half the pilots vision. Banking into a target would allow the pilot to keep the target in view, as opposed to yawing the craft over.

Of course there are reasons to roll a craft.... that is not the problem, the problem is the craft accelerating perpendcular to the orientation of its engines - like the acceleration you'd get due to the lift vector in atmospheric flight.

To do a smooth curving turn, you'd point the nose of the craft towards the center of the imaginary circle you'r making, not tangent to it as in the films.

If they had shown thrusters at the bottom of the craft firing, that would also be fine.... they show none of this... just engines at the back, and turning as if they were flying in an atmosphere.

[Lukaszenko]

except X-37, X-15, X-23, BOR, Buran, and SS1

Let's not forget this guy!

[KerikBalm]

That picture above was for a craft operating in low orbit, with significant aerodynamic drag. They chose an aerodynamic design, because it was operating in the atmosphere (the delineation of 100km and above and space is arbitrary)

The X-15 hardly counts as a spaceship, most of its flights didn't meet the international standard for space (The US was using a lower limit for what it called "space" when handing out those astronaut wings) - only 2 exceeded 100 km. It was an airplane that breifly reached "space" its quite a stretch to call it a spaceship.

The X-37 -> those wings only used when it "leaves" space.

The X-23 -> Not really wings, it was a lifting body, it did have some fins.... but... It also wasn't really a spaceship. It was intended entirely for testing aerodynamic performance.

SS1, like the space shuttle and Buran.... those wings are useless in space... I also have a hard time considering them spaceships (particularly the suborbital SS1).

The only craft you see with wings, are aircraft. The spaceshuttle is an aircraft (and a spacecraft).

If you look at pure spacecraft, they have no wings - radiators and solar panels don't count.

Soyuz-> no wings

Apollo-> no wings

In fact... both of those are designed to operate within Earth's atmosphere as well (or at least a subset of them, ie, the reentry part).

The only "pure" manned spacecraft ever made... ie operated only outside Earth's atmosphere, was the Apollo Lunar Module.

[FreeThinker]

Actualy some spaceship in Low earth orbit do have wings, lincluding the most famous , international space station. The are use for stability and rotation

[michaelsteele3]

Streetwind (Ironic name for this topic) took the words out of my mouth. You never really see wings on anything that just goes out to space, and it only has wings if it re-enters earth or some other atmospheric planet in the future.

[Whirligig Girl]

I mean in fiction.

Of course I know the space shuttle had wings because it had planned atmospheric re-entry and gliding back to the KSC (the real one).

Thanks for the answers about fiction - rule of cool seems to defy logic and sense and all that.

At least they didn't do that in Interstellar.

EDIT: ninjas, ninjas everywhere.

Spacecraft have things that look like wings sometimes in fiction that are actually heat radiators, which you REALLY need if you're using a high thrust and efficiency engine like fusion or something. As Atomic Rockets puts it, "Spacecraft got wings". And it's not too hard to believe that aerodynamic fins can double as radiators too for large tailsitting SSTO rocketships.

Really, the 50s and 60s was a great time for sci fi. For the most part (at least the most we care to remember), those spacecraft were really well designed, yet still had that wonderful V-2 like shape which is so wonderful. Many designs foreshadowed the development of the Falcon rockets, which can land and orbit.

Really, read ATOMIC ROCKETS

It is incredibly rare when the laws of the universe let you get something for nothing. Give your heartfelt gratitude to Hermann Oberth for uncovering one for you. It will be a lifesafer.

Edited January 28, 2015 by GregroxMun

[Nibb31]

The only "pure" manned spacecraft ever made... ie operated only outside Earth's atmosphere, was the Apollo Lunar Module.

Erm... and the ISS, and Skylab, and Salyut, Mir, etc... There are a whole bunch of spacecraft that don't have atmospheric flight in any part of their nominal flight profile.

[cantab]

Fictional spaceships have wings because they look cool.

Yes, there are ways to handwave it. The "wings" are actually radiators. The spaceship also flies in atmosphere. They "wings" are mounting points for stuff on the end of them. But ultimately for almost all fictional spaceships the wings are really there to look cool.

The Discovery in 2001 is a notable counterexample. The original design had large cooling fins. Kubrick had them removed because he believed his audience would think wings equal atmospheric flight.

[KerikBalm]

Erm... and the ISS, and Skylab, and Salyut, Mir, etc... There are a whole bunch of spacecraft that don't have atmospheric flight in any part of their nominal flight profile.

Ok, well, they are thought of as "stations", they have no propulsion, and aren't designed to really go anywhere or make any maneuvers beyond stationkeeping,

And they don't have wings either.... despite what FreeThinker says

[cpast]

Erm... and the ISS, and Skylab, and Salyut, Mir, etc... There are a whole bunch of spacecraft that don't have atmospheric flight in any part of their nominal flight profile.

Also the Soyuz orbital module (and equivalent bits on Soyuz derivatives); that's not used during ascent or descent, only in space.

[78stonewobble]

o.O

Atleast in star wars, I'd presume the wings are also there, because ie. fighters are also for atmospheric use. Atleast partial reason.

...

Half a question... Isn't part of the reason for wings on real life atmospheric reentry vehicles, in addition to better gliding capabilities, a bigger bring back capability?

[Nibb31]

Ok, well, they are thought of as "stations", they have no propulsion, and aren't designed to really go anywhere or make any maneuvers beyond stationkeeping,

Well, the Salyut stations at least had their own propulsion. The TKS or DOS vehicles are fully-fledged spacecraft with as much dV as a Soyuz or a Progress, since they reach their targets, rendezvous, and dock under their own power. Where do you put the limit ?

[KerikBalm]

Those had reentry capsules, and did not operate without said capsule, did they not?

Maybe I should just call the Apollo Lunar module the first one... as the ISS with a VASMIR engine on it could probably be capable of significant dV

[Alshain]

o.O

Atleast in star wars, I'd presume the wings are also there, because ie. fighters are also for atmospheric use. Atleast partial reason.

For Star Wars, the "winged" craft were actually weapons assemblies. The X-Wing for example had blasters that extended away from the ship and I guess my assumption was the wings contained the necessary parts to make the blasters work. We saw the Millenium Falcon leaving Mos Eisley and it didn't have wings. Very few craft in Star Wars did have wings really, presumably because their engines were so powerful they were more like rockets than spaceplanes.

However, Battlestar Galactica is an example where wings on the Vipers were used in atmospheres. Non-landing craft, including Galactica herself, didn't have wings.

Of course really it's all just fiction so there really isn't a rhyme or reason.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Alshain

[Sampa]

For Star Wars, the "winged" craft were actually weapons assemblies. The X-Wing for example had blasters that extended away from the ship and I guess my assumption was the wings contained the necessary parts to make the blasters work. We saw the Millenium Falcon leaving Mos Eisley and it didn't have wings. Very few craft in Star Wars did have wings really, presumably because their engines were so powerful they were more like rockets than spaceplanes.

However, Battlestar Galactica is an example where wings on the Vipers were used in atmospheres. Non-landing craft, including Galactica herself, didn't have wings.

Of course really it's all just fiction so there really isn't a rhyme or reason.

Also, the larger ships, and fighters as well, had repulsorlifts for use in atmospheres!

[WestAir]

Star Wars wings were flat surfaces on both sides (short of the N-1 Starfighter). The lack of curves and the blunt/flat leading and trailing edges should make them pretty inefficient as an airfoil.

[Nibb31]

Those had reentry capsules, and did not operate without said capsule, did they not?

Talking about modules such as Zarya or Zvezda (or the Mir and Soyuz equivalent). No capsules, 700m/s of dV on their own.

[adsii1970]

I mean in fiction.

Of course I know the space shuttle had wings because it had planned atmospheric re-entry and gliding back to the KSC (the real one).

Thanks for the answers about fiction - rule of cool seems to defy logic and sense and all that.

At least they didn't do that in Interstellar.

EDIT: ninjas, ninjas everywhere.

When you think about the main influences on most people's minds when it comes to spacecraft and wings, contemporary sci-fi promotes their use. If you think of Star Wars, the Imperial shuttle, X-Wing, A-Wing, and a few others are designed to enter the atmosphere and do frequently without much fanfare from the audience. Various rebel ships, the Millennium Falcon, Y-wing, are shown entering and leaving the atmosphere, but are really "in their element" in space. Again, remember this is science-fantasy we are talking about and none of these craft would behave IRL as they do in the movies. Physics will not allow it although I once heard a NASA technician at Stennis Space Center say that if you put enough thrust on it, even a greyhound bus could fly through the atmosphere...

The closest sci-fi to get spacecraft right (and although I love Star Trek, it ain't it...), is actually the Sci-Fi (SyFy) Reboot of Battlestar Galactica. In the early episodes, you can actually hear and see the RCS thrusters being used to change the direction of the Colonial Vipers...

So, yes, the "rule of cool" seems to trump physics... (I prefer "pirated" to "ninja-ed" because pirates are more cool!)

[Temeter]

The closest sci-fi to get spacecraft right (and although I love Star Trek, it ain't it...), is actually the Sci-Fi (SyFy) Reboot of Battlestar Galactica. In the early episodes, you can actually hear and see the RCS thrusters being used to change the direction of the Colonial Vipers...

So, yes, the "rule of cool" seems to trump physics... (I prefer "pirated" to "ninja-ed" because pirates are more cool!)

That said, Vipers were pretty damn cool.^^

[Sampa]

Star Wars wings were flat surfaces on both sides (short of the N-1 Starfighter). The lack of curves and the blunt/flat leading and trailing edges should make them pretty inefficient as an airfoil.

inefficient? Sir, their is NO efficiency at all! no airfoil means no means of creating lift like a conventional aircraft! Even todays helicopters follow this rule!

[Temeter]

inefficient? Sir, their is NO efficiency at all! no airfoil means no means of creating lift like a conventional aircraft! Even todays helicopters follow this rule!

Maybe the wings aren't supposed to generate lift, because the fighter doesn't need it? They might just act as stabilizers.