 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> > It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> > Clunky. Old-fashioned.
>
> Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
using parts from 928.
Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
remove"?
> It's very nostalgic to build with just the original Space specialised
> pieces, though.
I think that nostalgia is a prime factor in the way that AFOLs' favour old
sets so much.... which is not to say that older sets weren't fantastic, a
great many of them were.
Hey - isn't it a bit naughty to refer to pre-1980 Lego elements as
"specialised"? ;-)
On another note, I'd love to see a newer version of 367 Lunar Module done
with Technic figure astronauts. With the newer specialised pieces made in
the last 25 years, it would be an awesome model.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET Member 164
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Paul Baulch (<FpIGtJ.FvA@lugnet.com>) wrote at
01:41:06
>
> Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> >
> > Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> > it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
>
>
> Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
> set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
> using parts from 928.
I don't own 924 either. Wish I did, though.
> Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
> compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Sounds a bit mathematical/philosophical to me. Not at all baroque :-)
>
> > It's very nostalgic to build with just the original Space specialised
> > pieces, though.
>
>
> I think that nostalgia is a prime factor in the way that AFOLs' favour old
> sets so much.... which is not to say that older sets weren't fantastic, a
> great many of them were.
Absolutely. But 928 just doesn't have any new ideas in it. I think we
AFOLs tend to appreciate the design of sets as much as the sets
themselves as pieces.
>
> Hey - isn't it a bit naughty to refer to pre-1980 Lego elements as
> "specialised"? ;-)
When the Space stuff first came out in the UK, it was 1979, and I had
never seen a radar dish, a 2x1 plate with prongs, various wing pieces &
rocket bits, amongst others. At that time, they were *definitely*
special :-)
>
> On another note, I'd love to see a newer version of 367 Lunar Module done
> with Technic figure astronauts. With the newer specialised pieces made in
> the last 25 years, it would be an awesome model.
What an absolutely brilliant idea! With the additional challenge, for
those with the bricks, of building the delivery system :-)
I've just had a vision of a Saturn V moving backwards into the ground,
as the plastic melts with the heat of the engines :-)
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Paul Baulch wrote:
> Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Dunno, but it's a great saying. Paraphrasing a famous CS type: "Inside
every large, clunky program there is a small, elegant one struggling to
escape..."
> Paul
> LUGNET Member 164
Hmm, I thought this posting of member numbers was something Todd kinda
was trying not to have get started... but if you insist:
Larry
LUGNET Member 5
That's the only time I'll do it.
(Number 5 is alive! ...and I'm not even a robotics buff!)
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<389D9C09.F2F4CF16@voyager.net>)
wrote at 16:06:33
> Paul Baulch wrote:
> > Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> > when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> > remove"?
>
> Dunno, but it's a great saying. Paraphrasing a famous CS type: "Inside
> every large, clunky program there is a small, elegant one struggling to
> escape..."
Call me a tired old cynic, but no, sometimes there isn't :-)
(it's already five years old, and frolicking on a mountain pasture
somewhere)
Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
'there is nothing new'?
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
> 'there is nothing new'?
Wasn't it Solomon (Nihil novi sub sola)?
And wasn't he a bit not Ancient Greek ;-)
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't listen to me at all - let's not forget
that I'm the guy who spells river with an f from time to time, on top of
discussing the 'relspective meruts' of something or other recently.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tony Priestman wrote:
> Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
> 'there is nothing new'?
Hebrew. The author of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes. Generally attributed
to Solomon, but that's not for sure certain.
Of course, someone probably said it before him.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
x-post added to .space
Paul Baulch wrote:
> Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> > > It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> > > Clunky. Old-fashioned.
> >
> > Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> > it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
>
> Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
> set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
> using parts from 928.
> Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
> compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Hey, what's wrong with 918? It's the only one I had of the original
trinity of spaceships, and it's great, although I've just noticed that
if you put too much in the storage space at the back and swoosh too much
it clobbers the pilot on the head...
I think that's what's great about the original 1978/9 space sets- a
cohesive colour scheme, all grey, blue and trans yellow, except for the
white and black rockets. Just look at some of the catalogues from 1979:
-> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1979/c79us/c79us-12.html
-> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1979/c79us/c79us-13.html
You can imagine that 918, 924 and 928 are easily part of a single,
cohesive fleet, along with their bases; I expect that's why I like
Futuron so much- it reclaimed the idea of fixed colour schemes after
years of multicoloured 'things' that worked fine on their own but didn't
really work together. Admittedly, the single-year themes got a bit
wearing after that.
The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized spaceships.
:: paul
:: http://www.songtwo.demon.co.uk/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Paul Mison" <lego@songtwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk...
> The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized
spaceships.
Those "open air" space craft *really* bug me too.
--
---D M Garcia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
In lugnet.general, Damian Garcia writes:
>
> "Paul Mison" <lego@songtwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk...
> > The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> > about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> > something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized
> spaceships.
>
> Those "open air" space craft *really* bug me too.
>
>
> --
> ---D M Garcia
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I love these 'type' space LEGO. they always seem to remind me of what sci fi
was like in the fifties...
:)
EC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeffrey,
Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
> How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
(Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
prized sets is the 487:
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
Anyway, I love these ships and I would love to see a continuation of
some type to these sets, even though I am not holding my breath! :)
Scott S., climbing off his Space soapbox, and getting back to work!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
<snip>
>
> My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
>
> My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
</snip>
I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
like
airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
~Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mark,
Mark Sandlin wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> <snip>
> >
> > My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
> >
> > My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
>
> </snip>
>
> I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
> going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
> like
> airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
>
> ~Mark
Thank you, Mark. When I built my ADF-800, I was trying to figure out how
to have some kind of wing, and I just built the sides on it. These ships
can go through atmospheres, but only because of the shields they run.
A lot of ships look really sleek, like you said, but in space, it really
does not matter. The Enterprise may look sleek, but the Borg cube does
not perform any worse.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I'm with Jeffrey. I think a lot of people get very nostalgic for Classic Space,
and rate it higher because of their history with the line.
Personally, I get nostalgic for the Explorien Starship, because it was the first
big set I bought completely for myself, without pretending I was just buying it
for the kids. Now, a lot of people don't care for this set, because of numerous
deficencies, but I think it is awesome. :)
Every LEGO set needs somebody to love it. (did I just write that? Blech!)
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Realistic? Take another look at that set. The engines are mounted on the cargo
doors! How realistic is that? ;)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi there,
My two cents... followups set to lugnet.space only.
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I never thought of the 928 (in the U.S., 497) as plain. Actually, it's a rather
busy model, what with those big engines hanging out over the wings.
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
>
> Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
> has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
> plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
> testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
I have to agree with Scott. If you look in my profile, you'll see that 487 is
one of my two all-time favorite sets. (The other is 375, the yellow castle...)
It's neither too little, nor too much. A friend of mine owned the 497/928, and
at first I was lusting to have one. It wore off. I'm not sure why. Somehow
the 487 is a more "balanced" model.
It's interesting that the Lego movie just posted by Marc Leidy also features the
487.
http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=1134
Long ago, I also experimented with Lego stop-action filming, using the this same
model. Seeing the film made me nostalgic, so I reassembled mine. It was like
saying hello to an old friend. My three-year old, Spencer, has been playing
with it for a few days. A few nights ago he was leafing through my early 80's
Idea Book (Cat. No. 6000, if you're wondering), looking for something to build.
This, too, has a section that features the 487. When he saw this, he pointed
excitedly and said, "Hey, that's the spaceship you built!"
Another one hooked.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
Secretary, Californians for Renewable Energy <http://www.calfree.com>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
>
> How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
--
---D M Garcia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, D M Garcia wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
> >
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
>
> I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
> thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
> functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
> Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
> is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
spaceheads.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, D M Garcia wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
> > >
> > > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
> >
> > I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
> > thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
> > functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
> > Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
> > is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
>
> We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> spaceheads.
>
> Steve
It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > spaceheads.
> It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
:)
That's assuming re-entry is achieved using the historic method of falling until
the atmosphere is thick enough to support wings or parachutes. In fantastic
settings, ships could use some more-controlled method of descent.
Or have some protective energy shielding.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Duane Hess wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > > spaceheads.
>
> > It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> > atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
>
> :)
>
> That's assuming re-entry is achieved using the historic method of falling until
> the atmosphere is thick enough to support wings or parachutes. In fantastic
> settings, ships could use some more-controlled method of descent.
>
> Or have some protective energy shielding.
>
> Steve
Actually, it's because LEGO people have really, really thick spacesuits.
They're actually normally proportioned people, it's just the thick suits
that make
them look that way. The thick helmet visor distorts their features into the
smileys you see now.
;^)
~Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > spaceheads.
> >
> > Steve
>
> It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
>
> -Duane
In the interest of providing a sense of realism, I always build fully-enclosed
spacecraft. Even in a spacecraft the never enters the atmosphere, the crew
needs to be protected from radiation. Our atmosphere, and Earth's
electromagnetic field, screen out alpha and gamma rays that are bad news for
DNA.
Now, for those spacecraft that DO enter the atmosphere, I have always wanted to
build the entire underside in a color that suggests a heat shield -- in other
words, black. Until recently, I haven't had enough pieces to do this for any
but the smallest models.
One might imagine a spacecraft that can slow down from orbital speeds (on the
order of 7.5 km/sec) BEFORE hitting the air. But a spacecraft that did that
would immediately be fighting the effects of gravity, or else drop like a stone.
So, we're talking fanciful high-tech here.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
Secretary, Californians for Renewable Energy <http://www.calfree.com>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Paul Mison wrote in message <389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Hey, what's wrong with 918? It's the only one I had of the original
> trinity of spaceships, and it's great, although I've just noticed that
> if you put too much in the storage space at the back and swoosh too much
> it clobbers the pilot on the head...
[...]
>
> The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized • spaceships.
>
Hey Paul, I love 918!!! It and 462 Rocket Launcher were my very first ever
Space sets, way back when I was about seven. I can still remember whooshing
it around the backyard in joyous rapture. That is, until I lost the antenna
about five minutes later. *sob*
A few years later I managed to pick another one up when I bought a friend's
Lego collection. It was many, many years after that, just a few months ago,
when I rummaged through the old Lego bin and reconstructed both 918s from
memory. Holding them in my hands (as I am right now in between typing this),
the look of the spaceship from various angles brings all those childhood
memories flooding back. The things you've mentioned about this set are what
I love about this set too. 918 is my all-time favourite Classic Space set,
and why? Nostalgia. Ah, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy. *sigh* :-)
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
P.S. Todd, if you're reading this, is Larry right about you not really
wanting people to post their member numbers? Is it because they're temporary
or something? If you say so I'll refrain. "You da boss"...
| | | | | | |
