| |
Tom McDonald:
> > > I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
> > > with docking options for other modules.
>
> Wow. You mean establishing a docking standard so that our
> MOC's could actually link/dock assuming we ever meet IRL?
> That's cool and worth a few pictures when it ever happens.
I must admit that I consider Steve's docking ports[1] _the_
standard, but yes.
I would probably build my modules with more than one kind of
docking port, just to make sure a connection is possible.
> We need a cool name for the space equivalent of "Datsville",
> maybe something stupid like "Datlink", "Datcom" or "Datbase".
What about "Duniverse"? :)
Play well,
Jacob
1) <URL:http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/8641/br/br-dport.html>
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Tom McDonald:
>
> > > > I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
> > > > with docking options for other modules.
> >
> > Wow. You mean establishing a docking standard so that our
> > MOC's could actually link/dock assuming we ever meet IRL?
> > That's cool and worth a few pictures when it ever happens.
>
> I must admit that I consider Steve's docking ports[1] _the_
> standard, but yes.
I like Steve's design and must build one and study it. His pocket door is very
nice, though I hafta admit that the pocket door system on the M3 is only 2
studs wide rather than Steve's 3. At www.baylug.org/titan/pw/m3.htm see the
new links at the bottom of the M3 module page where you can download a basic
M3 DAT (and/or the observation module), so you can examine that docking port
which includes a sliding door model and a flip door for those applications
that need it. All doors are currently in a working M3 model.
What might be in order here is maybe a sort of compromise/combination, a new
door entirely, or just a decision one way or the other denoting which is
"official". I don't mind whichever way the wind blows here. I'd love a
discussion of "making the perfect docking port". Of course there can be more
than one kind of docking port too. So far this kind only looks like a
personnel type, and even lighter duty at that.
> I would probably build my modules with more than one kind of
> docking port, just to make sure a connection is possible.
I suppose there should be a small cargo docking port (CDP) standard as well.
Perhaps anything larger would require special construction (and therefore
would be a big deal).
Of course adapter "rings" or segments adapting one docking system to another
could be made, but that's not as neat and tidy.
-Tom McD.
when replying, Hogan's Heroes always bribed Schultz with spamcake.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > Tom McDonald:
> >
> > > > > I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
> > > > > with docking options for other modules.
> > >
> > > Wow. You mean establishing a docking standard so that our
> > > MOC's could actually link/dock assuming we ever meet IRL?
> > > That's cool and worth a few pictures when it ever happens.
> >
> > I must admit that I consider Steve's docking ports[1] _the_
> > standard, but yes.
>
> I like Steve's design and must build one and study it. His pocket door is very
> nice, though I hafta admit that the pocket door system on the M3 is only 2
> studs wide rather than Steve's 3. At www.baylug.org/titan/pw/m3.htm see the
> new links at the bottom of the M3 module page where you can download a basic
> M3 DAT (and/or the observation module), so you can examine that docking port
> which includes a sliding door model and a flip door for those applications
> that need it. All doors are currently in a working M3 model.
I haven't built a fully working model yet, but have played with the mating
slopes on either side of the door. I found that to get a good mate between
the two sides, the female portion must be one plate taller than the male. In
doing so, the alignment of the hole/pin is thrown off by 1/2 a plate.
> What might be in order here is maybe a sort of compromise/combination, a new
> door entirely, or just a decision one way or the other denoting which is
> "official". I don't mind whichever way the wind blows here. I'd love a
> discussion of "making the perfect docking port". Of course there can be more
> than one kind of docking port too. So far this kind only looks like a
> personnel type, and even lighter duty at that.
We might as well start off on the right foot.
> > I would probably build my modules with more than one kind of
> > docking port, just to make sure a connection is possible.
>
> I suppose there should be a small cargo docking port (CDP) standard as well.
> Perhaps anything larger would require special construction (and therefore
> would be a big deal).
How about cargo bays? What size should we look at here? Should they be
accessed by a docking port, or should they be a "fly-in" type?
> Of course adapter "rings" or segments adapting one docking system to another
> could be made, but that's not as neat and tidy.
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, Hogan's Heroes always bribed Schultz with spamcake.
-Duane
|
|
| |
Duane:
> > I suppose there should be a small cargo docking port (CDP)
> > standard as well. Perhaps anything larger would require
> > special construction (and therefore would be a big deal).
>
> How about cargo bays? What size should we look at here? Should they be
> accessed by a docking port, or should they be a "fly-in" type?
Why not both kinds. I don't think we need to define any
standards for "fly-in" docks, but a CDP standard would be
useful. I am thinking of something with an opening of 80 LU
by 160 LU (roughly three minifigs tall), but an intermediate
size might be nice for smaller vessels.
If you keep your cargo in pressurised containers, there is
no need for as specific docking port.
Play well,
Jacob (who only carries mail boxes around)
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > Tom McDonald:
> >
> > > > > I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
> > > > > with docking options for other modules.
> > >
> > > Wow. You mean establishing a docking standard so that our
> > > MOC's could actually link/dock assuming we ever meet IRL?
> > > That's cool and worth a few pictures when it ever happens.
> >
> > I must admit that I consider Steve's docking ports[1] _the_
> > standard, but yes.
>
> I like Steve's design and must build one and study it. His pocket door is very
> nice, though I hafta admit that the pocket door system on the M3 is only 2
> studs wide rather than Steve's 3.
Actually, the door in my system tends to stick too much, making it hard to
open and close. Especially when the door is located in the middle of a
model, and is somewhat hard to get at.
I'd like to see a standard docking port that's slimmer than mine. It would
be nice if it can act as a real-world support point, but that might not be
practical...
> What might be in order here is maybe a sort of compromise/combination, a new
> door entirely, or just a decision one way or the other denoting which is
> "official". I don't mind whichever way the wind blows here.
How about we don't specify the door type in the standard? Any port must
have an airtight door, but the exact spec doesn't really matter.
And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
> I suppose there should be a small cargo docking port (CDP) standard as well.
> Perhaps anything larger would require special construction (and therefore
> would be a big deal).
That's probably a good idea.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Duane:
>
> > > I suppose there should be a small cargo docking port (CDP)
> > > standard as well. Perhaps anything larger would require
> > > special construction (and therefore would be a big deal).
> >
> > How about cargo bays? What size should we look at here? Should they be
> > accessed by a docking port, or should they be a "fly-in" type?
>
> Why not both kinds.
True. Some cargo wouldn't need to be hauled aboard, just connected. Like fuels
for example.
> I don't think we need to define any
> standards for "fly-in" docks,
Agreed. They should be built to accomodate whatever they house.
> but a CDP standard would be
> useful. I am thinking of something with an opening of 80 LU
> by 160 LU (roughly three minifigs tall), but an intermediate
> size might be nice for smaller vessels.
Sounds good. What do y'all think? Should there should be at least three sizes
which should accomodate most minifig scale ships?
> If you keep your cargo in pressurised containers, there is
> no need for as specific docking port.
That's really handy for a container full of ketchup which needs just a hose
that runs right into a tap in the mess :-)
-Tom McD.
when replying, they also threw spamcake overboard at the Boston Tea Party.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > Tom McDonald:
> > I like Steve's design and must build one and study it. His pocket door is • very
> > nice, though I hafta admit that the pocket door system on the M3 is only 2
> > studs wide rather than Steve's 3.
>
> Actually, the door in my system tends to stick too much, making it hard to
> open and close. Especially when the door is located in the middle of a
> model, and is somewhat hard to get at.
Hmm, now that you mention it, mine sticks a bit too. "Snug" or "tight" would
be appropriate terms for the M3 pocket doors. But that's because they're
pocket types, the basic design concept that we both used. You've completely
enclosed the pocket for your doors, whereas I didn't. Given the constraints
(making it as small as possible, but also so that a door doesn't slide open at
a mere tilt of the craft) it might be a bit more of a challenge to come up
with something that opens a bit easier but doesn't open accidentally.
While locking mechanisms could be used, it means using more pieces, although
something just came to mind which I'll hafta test out... I'll get back to
y'all later. :-)
> I'd like to see a standard docking port that's slimmer than mine. It would
> be nice if it can act as a real-world support point, but that might not be
> practical...
I've noticed that, even with a 4-pin docking support that the M3 has, other
craft of significant length and weight (say another M3), will pull out if
unsupported, though the walls around the docking port of each module survived
okay. The real strength (and this could be true IRL) would be how the modules
would be arranged, that is, using other modules to build a stable physical
matrix, perhaps a cube or something similar, so that no one connection is
supporting all the mass.
> > What might be in order here is maybe a sort of compromise/combination, a new
> > door entirely, or just a decision one way or the other denoting which is
> > "official". I don't mind whichever way the wind blows here.
>
> How about we don't specify the door type in the standard? Any port must
> have an airtight door, but the exact spec doesn't really matter.
Sounds good to me. The M3 itself uses 2 kinds of doors.
Independent of doorframe construction, should doorway size itself matter here?
It might look better.
> And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
> complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
Well that's just plain good safety :-)
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake... it's what's for dinner.
|
|
| |
"Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> writes:
> I've noticed that, even with a 4-pin docking support that the M3 has,
> other craft of significant length and weight (say another M3), will pull • out
> if unsupported, though the walls around the docking port of each module
> survived okay. The real strength (and this could be true IRL) would be • how the
> modules would be arranged, that is, using other modules to build a • stable
> physical matrix, perhaps a cube or something similar, so that no one
> connection is supporting all the mass.
If this is a space station, gravity isn't necessarily a concern.
Connections could be weak if the station was assembled in orbit and
stayed in orbit.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
> complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
You could also make an airlock module that completes the airlock, thereby
converting any door into an exit.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
"Duane Hess" <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM> writes:
> How about cargo bays? What size should we look at here? Should they be
> accessed by a docking port, or should they be a "fly-in" type?
I've got a couple ideas (in my head only) for a fly-in bay. If I have
time, I'll LDraw them.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> writes:
> > I've noticed that, even with a 4-pin docking support that the M3 has,
> > other craft of significant length and weight (say another M3), will pull • out
> > if unsupported, though the walls around the docking port of each module
> > survived okay. The real strength (and this could be true IRL) would be • how the
> > modules would be arranged, that is, using other modules to build a • stable
> > physical matrix, perhaps a cube or something similar, so that no one
> > connection is supporting all the mass.
>
> If this is a space station, gravity isn't necessarily a concern.
> Connections could be weak if the station was assembled in orbit and
> stayed in orbit.
That's quite true. But I was thinking of situations where gravity would have
some small influence on the station itself, perhaps with cumulative effects
over time, such as being in a planet's orbit with a nearby moon pulling at it,
however slight, year after year. Such stress might eventually weaken the
connecting joints. Yet the minifigs should have _something_ to fix :-)
I also thought about another "what if" scenario such as, "what if the station
was rotating to provide gravity?" That would definitely cause stress.
But while all the above is nitpicking to be sure here in "Pretendland", I was
thinking more along the lines of fun, and being able to effectively endure
stresses inflicted during attack :-) Maybe it's not necessary though.
-Tom McD.
when replying, sprinkle catnip on a spamcake, sit back, and enjoy the fun!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> > And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
> > complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
>
> You could also make an airlock module that completes the airlock, thereby
> converting any door into an exit.
Excellent idea. You da man! That would make expansions much easier, and the
usable interior space of any module bigger as well. If I were to employ such a
design in the M3 modules (which I will, so thanks! :-) I'd keep the end flip
doors in the modules, and equip each airlock module with the 2 slides and
another flip door.
Your nice solution solved a problem for me too, Bram: the living quarters
module was too cramped.
I can tell this is gonna be a great group!
-Tom McD.
when replying, Krakatoa actually spouted megatons of spamcake.
|
|
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:57:42 GMT, "Duane Hess" <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM>
wrote:
> I haven't built a fully working model yet, but have played with the mating
> slopes on either side of the door. I found that to get a good mate between
> the two sides, the female portion must be one plate taller than the male. In
> doing so, the alignment of the hole/pin is thrown off by 1/2 a plate.
Oops. Erg. This is not easily resolved. Drat. The indented/extended
portions could be changed to use bricks and tiles, instead of slopes. Or
we could keep the surfaces flat, like the M3 port.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:21:50 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Independent of doorframe construction, should doorway size itself matter here?
> It might look better.
Yes, there should be at least a minimum opening standard for each DP type.
The sealing surface spec will settle the question of maximum opening.
> > And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
> > complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
>
> Well that's just plain good safety :-)
Depends on how absent-minded your crew is. And whether the safety locks
are reliable. :)
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:49:36 GMT, Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com> wrote:
> If this is a space station, gravity isn't necessarily a concern.
> Connections could be weak if the station was assembled in orbit and
> stayed in orbit.
True. But I was thinking about if I wanted to actually build something.
You know, without the computer.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:54:27 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> wrote:
> True. Some cargo wouldn't need to be hauled aboard, just connected. Like fuels
> for example.
Ooo, cool idea -- put a standard port on a fuel module, except instead of
an airlock door, there're just fuel-feed connectors. If these feeds are
also standardized, the receiving ship just plugs into the fuel
automatically. If not, the engineers have to open the port-door on their
side, and manually connect their hoses (or whatever) to the fuel module.
> Sounds good. What do y'all think? Should there should be at least three sizes
> which should accomodate most minifig scale ships?
Seesm like two would be enough. One for personnel, another for cargo (or
major connections).
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:57:42 GMT, "Duane Hess" <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't built a fully working model yet, but have played with the mating
> > slopes on either side of the door. I found that to get a good mate between
> > the two sides, the female portion must be one plate taller than the male. In
> > doing so, the alignment of the hole/pin is thrown off by 1/2 a plate.
>
> Oops. Erg. This is not easily resolved. Drat. The indented/extended
> portions could be changed to use bricks and tiles, instead of slopes. Or
> we could keep the surfaces flat, like the M3 port.
>
> Steve
My vote is for the flat faced design. It generally takes up less room and
(I think) is easier to incorporate into a design.
Have you tried using a 2 x 1 x 1 panel instead of the 1 x 1 w/ headlight
and tile design? I vaguely (sp) remember using this design once, but don't
remember if I had a sticking problem or not. The door is sandwiched between
the panel side and a brick. The door slides on the tile-like surface of the
panel. If my verbal description is unclear, let me know, I'll whip something
up in LDraw.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> Have you tried using a 2 x 1 x 1 panel instead of the 1 x 1 w/ headlight
> and tile design? I vaguely (sp) remember using this design once, but don't
> remember if I had a sticking problem or not. The door is sandwiched between
> the panel side and a brick. The door slides on the tile-like surface of the
> panel. If my verbal description is unclear, let me know, I'll whip something
> up in LDraw.
It does stick a bit. The M3 uses the 1x2x1 panel you're talking about to
secure the slide door at the top and bottom. Don't bother with LDraw unless
you want to, cuz it's downloadable from my M3 page.
Tonite and tommorrow I'm going to play with the new slide door design I'm
thinking of, and I'll get back to y'all about its good and bad points as soon
as I can.
BTW Duane (if I haven't missed it), do we ever get to see your minifig cryo-
chambers that you made? :-)
-Tom McD.
when replying, throwing spamcake from a moving vehicle is illegal in Wyoming.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
>
> BTW Duane (if I haven't missed it), do we ever get to see your minifig cryo-
> chambers that you made? :-)
I have them in the remains of my Deep Space Research vessle. They are
integrated into the control center bulkhead. Other than what was posted
in the ideas group, I haven't posted anything else. I would like to LDraw
what I have left of the ship before I completely lose it though.
Duane
|
|
| |
Tom McDonald wrote:
> I've noticed that, even with a 4-pin docking support that the M3 has, other
> craft of significant length and weight (say another M3), will pull out if
> unsupported, though the walls around the docking port of each module survived
> okay. The real strength (and this could be true IRL) would be how the modules
> would be arranged, that is, using other modules to build a stable physical
> matrix, perhaps a cube or something similar, so that no one connection is
> supporting all the mass.
How about working in some sort of locking connector. Could be as simple
as indents for 1x2 bricks, or could be more complex like a set of
vertical pins which a technic beam is connected to (the half beams would
make nice connectors). In real life, I think long term connections
between space station modules will have bolts or some other connection
more permanent than just a docking ring.
Of course there is still a problem if you want to dock a large space
ship to the space station.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Frank Filz writes:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> > I've noticed that, even with a 4-pin docking support that the M3 has, other
> > craft of significant length and weight (say another M3), will pull out if
> > unsupported • <snip>
> How about working in some sort of locking connector. Could be as simple
> as indents for 1x2 bricks, or could be more complex like a set of
> vertical pins which a technic beam is connected to (the half beams would
> make nice connectors). In real life, I think long term connections
> between space station modules will have bolts or some other connection
> more permanent than just a docking ring.
Hmm, intriguing. I like the idea of something else taking the brunt of the
weight other than the pins, but still keeping the pins to keep things
together. I don't have to keep the pins as connectors of course, but they make
for a simple, more convenient coupler that's not gender specific.
If I understand his design correctly, Steve Bliss' airlock needs further
consideration, as I believe that was what he tried to do. But I'm not sure if
his was subjected to the same test that mine was (somebody will correct me if
I'm wrong, no doubt :-)
> Of course there is still a problem if you want to dock a large space
> ship to the space station.
Yep. I guess a connection like that wouldn't be meant to stand gravitational
or centrifugal stresses, so there's where the fiction of it ends.
Deep Space 9 used to make me smile when I'd see a huge starship connected to
an upper pylon by a comparatively itty-bitty port. In that case, the ship
would hafta rotate to match the station to achieve docking, but even so, any
sudden change in either the ship or the station's position or rotational
velocity would tend rip the port to shreds or strain it at the very least.
-Tom McD.
when replying, "Spamcakey" will be a new character on Pee-Wee Herman's new kid
TV kid show slated to return next fall.
|
|
| |
Resurrecting an old thread ...
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Tom McDonald:
>
> > Wow. You mean establishing a docking standard so that our
> > MOC's could actually link/dock assuming we ever meet IRL?
> > That's cool and worth a few pictures when it ever happens.
>
> I must admit that I consider Steve's docking ports[1] _the_
> standard, but yes.
Jacob was referring to this port:
<URL:http://www.geocities.com/partsref/br/br-dport.html>
Two big problems with my door design: the door sticks, and it needs a bunch of
parts and there's no way to motorize or add an external HOG-activation knob.
Has everyone seen the sliding door in the B-Wing Star Wars set? It's a pocket
door, with two panels which slide into the wall. Each panel is two 1x2x5
bricks mounted on a 1xn plate, which sit on a tile. There are some extra
parts to keep everything together, and give the kids a knob to grab, but the
basic door is very simple and works nicely.
And the really cool thing is this: it's very easy to add a few Technic bits to
connect the doors, so they open and close together. Basically, you put a 1x4
rack (a tile with gear teeth on it) on top of one of the doors. Then use an 8-
tooth gear (the small ones), mounted on an axle, on top of that. Invert
another rack on top of the gear, use a plate and some headlight bricks to
connect the top rack to the other door, and your set.
from the side, the rack and gears look something like this:
----------
VVVVVVVVVV <- top rack
* <- small gear
^^^^^^^^^^ <- bottom rack
----------
It would also be very easy to add extensions to these working parts, running
an axle to the outside of the ship, allowing you to open and close the doors
by remote control. :)
Steve
|
|
| |
HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
better that way too.
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> better that way too.
Works better how?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> > better that way too.
>
> Works better how?
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components function
with certain other components. Such specific design results in a better
functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
> designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components
> function with certain other components. Such specific design results in a
> better functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump
one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented
programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as
layers.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > While modules aren't designed for any particular setup, the space stations
> > designed and built as one unit are designed so that certain components
> > function with certain other components. Such specific design results in a
> > better functioning space station, and certainly a better looking one.
>
> Well-designed modules can produce a better whole than a designed-as-a-lump
> one, for a complicated-enough system. This is why object-oriented
> programming is so popular. Or why networking protocols are thought of as
> layers.
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
things.
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space "Z" <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> better that way too.
Nah, I'm a modular junkie myself. They can be bigger modules, but
still modules. I like spindly things sticking off of a central hub,
or central hubs. My sketches (I haven't had the time/energy to LDraw
or build them) are just that. Like, the docking bay is large and
pass-through for capital ships and its a module, there's habitation
modules (larger, several decks), command module, smaller (garage
style) docking bays - which are usually for defense fighters, etc.
I see what you're saying as far as sleekness goes, but a station can
look sleek, spacey, and attractive and still contain various modules.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> Nah, I'm a modular junkie myself. They can be bigger modules, but
> still modules. I like spindly things sticking off of a central hub,
> or central hubs. My sketches (I haven't had the time/energy to LDraw
> or build them) are just that. Like, the docking bay is large and
> pass-through for capital ships and its a module, there's habitation
> modules (larger, several decks), command module, smaller (garage
> style) docking bays - which are usually for defense fighters, etc.
>
> I see what you're saying as far as sleekness goes, but a station can
> look sleek, spacey, and attractive and still contain various modules.
>
> -Tim
>
> http://www.zacktron.com
> http://www.ldraw.org
> AIM: timcourtne
> ICQ: 23951114
My space stations are either built like cities, like a big solid battlestation
[kinda like the Death Star, but without that kind of mass [duh]], or in
platforms, like the top section of an oil rig. But, I usually just do
battlecarriers instead of space stations [sorry about the fancy name, my Quasar
series ships only hold 6 or less really small fighters [12 studs L, 8 W, 6 or 7
T; pathetic]] At least everything I build is always minifig scale, so it's
still good anyway.
Try the platforms, perhaps. The spaces between them make nice fighter bays,
ship bays, etc., with room to spare. Just an idea
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> things.
But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
design make sense?
I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
appeal too, can't it.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
Form follows function, baby, and something that does the thing it is
intended to do, and does it well and efficiently, is a thing of beauty,
as beauty follows form.
At least that's MY aesthetic opinion.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> > which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> > things.
>
> But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
> design make sense?
>
> I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
important than realism.
Z
|
|
| |
Z wrote:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
talking about.
If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> better that way too.
Butt-ugly eh? :) I hope I provide more inspiration for newsgroup fodder for
years to come! (And he's only seen 4 out of dozens of configurations.)
And BTW, when referring to ugliness, some folks might not be able to take it,
so using "IMO" in such statements can work wonders. But personally, I don't
give a yak's booger about whether people think my stuff is ugly or not.
-Tom McD.
when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
at sea.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> > assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> > and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> > better that way too.
>
> Butt-ugly eh? :) I hope I provide more inspiration for newsgroup fodder for
> years to come! (And he's only seen 4 out of dozens of configurations.)
>
> And BTW, when referring to ugliness, some folks might not be able to take it,
> so using "IMO" in such statements can work wonders. But personally, I don't
> give a yak's booger about whether people think my stuff is ugly or not.
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
> at sea.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
you hear what they stand for.
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
> at sea.
Say Tom? Is your space station powered by those new spamcake fusion fuel cells
that NASA Is developing ?
<g>
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Z wrote:
>
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
> constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
> talking about.
>
> If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
> rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
> is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
> adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
This is lugnet.space, not lugnet.splitting-hairs. Need you point out small,
insignificant errors?
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
> you hear what they stand for.
IMO, aside from a sour-cream substitute, stands for "In My Opinion"
A permutation of IMO is IMHO, where all is as above, and H=Humble. Some people
view IMHO as an oxymoron, because if you are truly humble, you don't go around
giving your own opinion.
Larry P might be able to point you to a netiquette site, but I'll list a few
acronyms here that'll help you in newsgroup postings.
AFAIK = As Far As I Know (use this when you *know* you're correct)
BTW = By The Way (another idea/question that is less important, but still is)
FWIW = For What It's Worth (cushions opinions as a reader what it's worth)
IIRC = If I Remember Correctly (similar to AFAIK, but with less certainty)
LMK = Let Me Know (used to solicit response from proposed ideas even if you
won't read those responses)
Such ideas (used as acronyms merely for the sake of brevity) make the written
word less harsh to read. Since it's all we have to go on, such formalities
work wonders in building a community rather than seeming to exalt one person's
views above another.
-Tom McD.
when replying, the first lava-lamps had spamcake in them.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
> > you hear what they stand for.
>
> IMO, aside from a sour-cream substitute, stands for "In My Opinion"
>
> A permutation of IMO is IMHO, where all is as above, and H=Humble. Some people
> view IMHO as an oxymoron, because if you are truly humble, you don't go around
> giving your own opinion.
>
> Larry P might be able to point you to a netiquette site, but I'll list a few
> acronyms here that'll help you in newsgroup postings.
>
> AFAIK = As Far As I Know (use this when you *know* you're correct)
> BTW = By The Way (another idea/question that is less important, but still is)
> FWIW = For What It's Worth (cushions opinions as a reader what it's worth)
> IIRC = If I Remember Correctly (similar to AFAIK, but with less certainty)
> LMK = Let Me Know (used to solicit response from proposed ideas even if you
> won't read those responses)
>
> Such ideas (used as acronyms merely for the sake of brevity) make the written
> word less harsh to read. Since it's all we have to go on, such formalities
> work wonders in building a community rather than seeming to exalt one person's
> views above another.
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, the first lava-lamps had spamcake in them.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
Okay, thanks.
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
-Tom McD.
when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
1930's.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
I'm working on a modular one now but its not as neat as my mostly
brick ones. See CLSotW: Aug 22 99 Original LEGO® creations by Rick
L. Kujawa. The modular design takes many more specialized pieces.
I'll post some pics soon.
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
I just make sure that the concepts used in my LEGO creations are at least
theoretically possible.
Z
|
|
| |
Well, I built a starship bridge, I still have it somewhere, and it took
so much space for what I wanted, I can't imagine a space station I would
like to build (I think of station McKinley from ST) Sometimes, you have
to build only what your bricks allow! :)
Scott S.
P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
anybody remember this?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-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
|
|
| |
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> anybody remember this?
Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
minifigs working on computers and such.
Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
-chris
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote:
>
> In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
> >
> >
> > "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > > anybody remember this?
> >
> > Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> > It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> > minifigs working on computers and such.
> >
> > Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> > that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
Maybe, it has been so long. I think they had those 45D 1x4x5 white
angled windows, perhaps. Ugh, bad memory!
> > This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> > the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
> >
> > Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
>
> That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
> ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
> from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
> Would people be interested in scans?
I would like to see them, maybe I can stir up the old memory banks!
Scott S.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
>
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > anybody remember this?
>
> Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> minifigs working on computers and such.
>
> Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
>
> This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
>
> Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
Would people be interested in scans?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
Please post the scans>>>
In lugnet.space, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
> >
> >
> > "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > > anybody remember this?
> >
> > Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> > It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> > minifigs working on computers and such.
> >
> > Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> > that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
> >
> > This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> > the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
> >
> > Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
>
> That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
> ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
> from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
> Would people be interested in scans?
>
> James
> http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
|
