Why ufo's are round

[Guest Guest]

I personally like the ideas of T.B.Pawlicki (not a joke name suprisingly) in his paper, How to Build a Flying Saucer After

So Many Amateurs Have Failed

An essay in Speculative Engineering[/b]

[VonHelton]

The size of the mirror determines how much light will be reflected, which determines how much additional energy for heating and photosynthesis is available.

 

I'm not saying the mirror is the size of a woman's purse mirror!

 

LOL!

 

:)

 

 

[vystral]

If they weren't round, they couldn't call 'em saucers...lol

[werecow]

i agree if they werent round we wouldnt call them flying saucers...on the other hand if they were square and spinning wouldnt they look round???? they might really be square........

[Gamer98]

I think what ever the shape is they and who ever made them thinks that the shape is the best to reduce friction.

[vystral]

Yes. Aerodynamics. Then again, there is little need for aerodnyamics in spacecraft, since there is no atmosphere to create friction. The only need for spacecraft to be aerodynamic is when they are within nebulae.

[elderbear]

Yes. Aerodynamics. Then again' date=' there is little need for aerodnyamics in spacecraft, since there is no atmosphere to create friction. The only need for spacecraft to be aerodynamic is when they are within nebulae.[/quote']

 

Most nebulae are too rarified for aerodynamics to make a significant difference. But, travelling through an atmosphere ... which is where "flying saucers" reports generally originate! B)

[guardianfox]

Can't say I've ever seen a round ufo. Now, a couple other shapes... si. No, not up close... No I dont claim to be carrying an alien baby (which I'd rather not anyway, since I'm a man).

 

}> One was kind of wedge shaped like a Nasa shuttle except it's tail end was almost spherical.

 

}> One was an equilateral triangle, with a yellow light traveling a triangular path on the visible side, scribing a smaller equilateral triangle.

[vystral]

Yes, but starcraft aren't made to travel through atmosphere. That's why they're called STARcraft. Sure, any ship should be able to travel through atmosphere, but it is not their primary function and should therefore not dictate overall design. Imagine how much more space can be used if a starship is square. Simple geometry. The bulkier the shape, the more room. Effiniency of vital systems may have to be compromised in order to create a more aerodynamic design that is not a necessity.

[elderbear]

Yes' date=' but starcraft aren't made to travel through atmosphere. That's why they're called STARcraft. Sure, any ship should be able to travel through atmosphere, but it is not their primary function and should therefore not dictate overall design. Imagine how much more space can be used if a starship is square. Simple geometry. The bulkier the shape, the more room. Effiniency of vital systems may have to be compromised in order to create a more aerodynamic design that is not a necessity.[/quote']

 

I think for a starship, you would want to minimize surface area for maximum volume.

 

A cube, with unit 1 (whatever size it is) will have a surface area of 6 u^2 and a volume of 1 u^3, giving it a ratio of 6/u.

 

A sphere, with unit 1 radius will have a surface area of 4*pi*u^2 and a volume of 4/3 *pi u^3, giving it a ratio of 1/3u.

 

Clearly, the sphere minimizes the area/volume ratio better than the cube.

 

I remember watching a Hardcopy episode about home videos of "UFO"s over Roswell, NM. The first "UFO" they saw, I already had video of. It was a jimsphere - a radar calibration balloon. A few years prior, I'd been involved in launching a number of these to calibrate a radar at White Sands. That home video was exactly what we saw with our video camera. I guess that makes it an IFO ...