 | | | | | |
Hello all,
Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
long.
Robert
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Robert Petersen:
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port?
You might be interested in taking a look at Briport East:
http://blah.math.tu-graz.ac.at/%7Ebri/lego/spaceport/
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
But, imagine someone building another space port, only with today's
minifigs and pieces.
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Robert Petersen:
>
>
> > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port?
>
>
> You might be interested in taking a look at Briport East:
>
> http://blah.math.tu-graz.ac.at/%7Ebri/lego/spaceport/
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
> -- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
> ------------------------------------------------
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
You can check out the M3 modules I designed for Peregrin-Westar Intergalactic
that can combine to form stations, utilizing the J456 docking system, as well
as sections for ships. Each module usually has 2 working airlocks. There are a
variety of types listed, only 2 of which are displayed. LDraw instructs are
not available yet.
http://www.baylug.org/titan/pw/m3.htm
-Tom McD.
when replying, hollowed out spamcake globes make excellent halloween pumpkin
substitutes.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> > Hello all,
> > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> > fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> > possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> > Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> > something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> > style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> > long.
>
> You can check out the M3 modules I designed for Peregrin-Westar Intergalactic
> that can combine to form stations, utilizing the J456 docking system, as well
> as sections for ships. Each module usually has 2 working airlocks. There are a
> variety of types listed, only 2 of which are displayed. LDraw instructs are
> not available yet.
>
> http://www.baylug.org/titan/pw/m3.htm
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, hollowed out spamcake globes make excellent halloween pumpkin
> substitutes.
I like the modularity of your design. I might have to "borrow" this design
and see if I can use it for anything of my own. :-)
One idea, although I am not the person to head this up, would be to create
a Datville for each major theme. Say a Spaceport where ship and vehicle
designs could be shared, or a Kingdom where castle designs are shared.
Any thoughts?
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Duane:
> One idea, although I am not the person to head this up, would be to create
> a Datville for each major theme. Say a Spaceport where ship and vehicle
> designs could be shared, or a Kingdom where castle designs are shared.
Cool idea.
I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
with docking options for other modules.
This probably demands a bit more integration of the designs
if we don't want the station to loose pressure immediately.
Looks like it is time to LDraw a dock for of my vessels.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Duane:
>
> > One idea, although I am not the person to head this up, would be to create
> > a Datville for each major theme. Say a Spaceport where ship and vehicle
> > designs could be shared, or a Kingdom where castle designs are shared.
>
> Cool idea.
>
> I am all for a space station. Who delivers a starting module
> with docking options for other modules.
>
> This probably demands a bit more integration of the designs
> if we don't want the station to loose pressure immediately.
>
> Looks like it is time to LDraw a dock for of my vessels.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
My vision would be to start out with a bunch of landing plates, similar
to Datsville. That would allow ground vehicles, robots, mechs and ships
to all be on the same starting point. The sticking point is creations
which aren't quite so terrestrial. How would we integrate something,
for example, like Tom's modular space station?
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > Duane:
> >
> > > One idea, although I am not the person to head this up, would be to create
> > > a Datville for each major theme. Say a Spaceport where ship and vehicle
> > > designs could be shared, or a Kingdom where castle designs are shared.
> >
> > Cool idea.
Absolutely!
> > 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.
> > This probably demands a bit more integration of the designs
> > if we don't want the station to loose pressure immediately.
heh
> My vision would be to start out with a bunch of landing plates, similar
> to Datsville. That would allow ground vehicles, robots, mechs and ships
> to all be on the same starting point. The sticking point is creations
> which aren't quite so terrestrial. How would we integrate something,
> for example, like Tom's modular space station?
But the M3 modules are very terrestrial. I'm not maintaining that they have to
be the spacestation itself, but there's no reason why they couldn't part of
one or even a separate outpost. Since the modules are re-entry capable, they
are useful for all things planetary for everything from terraforming to just
maintaining a presence.
We need a cool name for the space equivalent of "Datsville", maybe something
stupid like "Datlink", "Datcom" or "Datbase".
-Tom McD.
when replying, Beowulf actually killed Grendel with spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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:
> 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"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, 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, 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/
-----------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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/
-----------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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, 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:
> 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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, 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> We need a cool name for the space equivalent of "Datsville", maybe something
> stupid like "Datlink", "Datcom" or "Datbase".
Do we have to have dat in the name? How about something like space station alpha 2 or something
futuristic sounding like that.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:12:41 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> We need a cool name for the space equivalent of "Datsville", maybe something
> stupid like "Datlink", "Datcom" or "Datbase".
Assuming there could end up being several "neighborhoods", allow some
generally description for the start of the name: "Station", "Planetary
Outpost", "Free Trade Installation". Then put an ID code on the end,
"LD-x", where the x is a number unique to the neighborhood.
Then all the models for a neighborhood should use the same ID tag. They
could even have sub-id tags "LD-2A", etc., etc.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:12:41 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
> <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We need a cool name for the space equivalent of "Datsville", maybe something
> > stupid like "Datlink", "Datcom" or "Datbase".
>
> Assuming there could end up being several "neighborhoods", allow some
> generally description for the start of the name: "Station", "Planetary
> Outpost", "Free Trade Installation". Then put an ID code on the end,
> "LD-x", where the x is a number unique to the neighborhood.
>
> Then all the models for a neighborhood should use the same ID tag. They
> could even have sub-id tags "LD-2A", etc., etc.
What about this for a name? What if in honor of the first non-generically
named base, we name the spacebase "Alpha-1"? The name could apply to the whole
base, and we could add at least one 483 Alpha-1 Rocket Base to it just for fun.
I'm still drawing a blank for a name of the spacestation itself. Nothing in
the official set listing has a name for a spacestation because all the space
sets TLG made are either ships or planetary-based stations. Looks like we'll
either have to steal one or invent one.
-Tom McD.
when replying, the ancient pyramids employed fatal traps of giant falling
spamcake blocks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > Assuming there could end up being several "neighborhoods", allow some
> > generally description for the start of the name: "Station", "Planetary
> > Outpost", "Free Trade Installation". Then put an ID code on the end,
> > "LD-x", where the x is a number unique to the neighborhood.
> >
> > Then all the models for a neighborhood should use the same ID tag. They
> > could even have sub-id tags "LD-2A", etc., etc.
>
> What about this for a name? What if in honor of the first non-generically
> named base, we name the spacebase "Alpha-1"? The name could apply to the whole
> base, and we could add at least one 483 Alpha-1 Rocket Base to it just for • fun.
>
> I'm still drawing a blank for a name of the spacestation itself. Nothing in
> the official set listing has a name for a spacestation because all the space
> sets TLG made are either ships or planetary-based stations. Looks like we'll
> either have to steal one or invent one.
After reading your post again Steve, it seems I ignored it. And I ignored
Jonathan too. My apologies! Please forgive me.
I like your ideas now that I've read them again. And they can both work
together. Steve, to nitpick here, instead of sub-id tags like "LD-2A" what
about "LD-A2"? That way we could have a facility nicknamed "Alpha 1" or
Jonathan's "Alpha 2".
BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian traffic,
but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
A downside of this idea is that over time is that as bigger and bigger
installations continue to be made or added onto, some facilities could be
downgraded from "Base" to "Station" (though sub-id's would remain the same).
What do y'all think about that? Should that terminology be adopted, or are
there other thoughts, or is this needless nitpicking?
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake pellets make excellent snail-bait.
(1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation to a planetary body,
that is, "Stations" were only found in orbit or space, and "Bases" were only
on planets, but due to the lack of words to fit all the possible kinds of
installations, other nice short terms weren't to be found, or at least I've
forgotten them.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McDonald <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
> civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian traffic,
> but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
I'd think of Base to be something purely military/government. Outpost and
Station are either mixed or all civilian -- the difference being that an
Outpost would be more on the frontier.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McDonald:
> (1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation
> to a planetary body, that is, "Stations" were only found
> in orbit or space, and "Bases" were only on planets, but
> due to the lack of words to fit all the possible kinds of
> installations, other nice short terms weren't to be found,
> or at least I've forgotten them.
This corresponds with my view (and use) of the words.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:44:14 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> After reading your post again Steve, it seems I ignored it. And I ignored
> Jonathan too. My apologies! Please forgive me.
No biggie. I wasn't clear on my post. I said:
> > > allow some
> > > generally description for the start of the name: "Station", "Planetary
> > > Outpost", "Free Trade Installation".
I meant each neighborhood would have a descriptive/category based on its
own peculiar nature. Not that every site would necessarily have the same
description. Or necessarily have different ones. But I think you all
picked up on that.
> I like your ideas now that I've read them again. And they can both work
> together. Steve, to nitpick here, instead of sub-id tags like "LD-2A" what
> about "LD-A2"? That way we could have a facility nicknamed "Alpha 1" or
> Jonathan's "Alpha 2".
That sounds cool. "Alpha 2" sounds better on the commbox than "2 Alpha".
:)
> BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
> civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian traffic,
> but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
> (1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation to a planetary body,
> that is, "Stations" were only found in orbit or space, and "Bases" were only
> on planets, but due to the lack of words to fit all the possible kinds of
> installations, other nice short terms weren't to be found, or at least I've
> forgotten them.
I was thinking along the lines of your original thought. It could still
work: "Station Outpost" could be a remote installation in deep space, while
"Base Outpost" would be a remote, planet-side site. Actually, "Base
Outpost" is more of an oxymoron, since an outpost is explicitly not part of
a base.
But "Station" and "Base" probably aren't the best words to use for
identifying location. Base should be a big military thing, Station has a
lot of traffic, probably a mix of civ & mil, and Outpost is somewhere where
not a lot of people go, so there isn't much traffic of any type.
Let's see if I can find some synonyms. Here's a good one: outstation for
outpost.
Others:
Camp
Colony
Base
Post
Depot
Terminal
Waystation
(BTW, www.thesaurus.com is pretty sucky. All the above terms came from
MS-Word's thesaurus. Or my fevered brain.)
How about adding modifiers for location, such as "Surface", "Mobile" (in
space and maneuverable), "Orbiting" (going around a natural body)?
"Outworld" could mean either remote or off-planet.
Surface Base LD-A
Mobile Outpost LD-B
Orbiting Outstation LD-C
Other modifiers could be used for the purpose of the site. Such as a
observation post, a mining camp, a drydock station, or a trading
settlement.
> A downside of this idea is that over time is that as bigger and bigger
> installations continue to be made or added onto, some facilities could be
> downgraded from "Base" to "Station" (though sub-id's would remain the same).
I'd assume that as installations grew, they'd be upgraded. So a site which
starts out as a Station might grow over time, and become a Base. If a site
doesn't change, it wouldn't be downgraded. Just bypassed by other, more
active, sites.
> What do y'all think about that? Should that terminology be adopted, or are
> there other thoughts, or is this needless nitpicking?
Nitpicking can be fun.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
(Edited for cogency!)
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss responded:
> BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
> civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian
> traffic, but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
> (1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation to a planetary
> body, that is, "Stations" were only found in orbit or space, and "Bases"
> were only on planets, but due to the lack of words to fit all the
> possible kinds of installations, other nice short terms weren't to be
> found, or at least I've forgotten them.
I was thinking along the lines of your original thought. It could still
work: "Station Outpost" could be a remote installation in deep space, while
"Base Outpost" would be a remote, planet-side site. Actually, "Base
Outpost" is more of an oxymoron, since an outpost is explicitly not part of
a base.
But "Station" and "Base" probably aren't the best words to use for
identifying location. Base should be a big military thing, Station has a
lot of traffic, probably a mix of civ & mil, and Outpost is somewhere where
not a lot of people go, so there isn't much traffic of any type.
Let's see if I can find some synonyms. Here's a good one: outstation for
outpost.
Others:
Camp
Colony
Base
Post
Depot
Terminal
Waystation
<snip>
> A downside of this idea is that over time is that as bigger and bigger
> installations continue to be made or added onto, some facilities could be
> downgraded from "Base" to "Station" (though sub-id's would remain the
> same).
I'd assume that as installations grew, they'd be upgraded. So a site which
starts out as a Station might grow over time, and become a Base. If a site
doesn't change, it wouldn't be downgraded. Just bypassed by other, more
active, sites.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller responded:
I'd think of Base to be something purely military/government. Outpost and
Station are either mixed or all civilian -- the difference being that an
Outpost would be more on the frontier.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen responded:
(in regards to footnote 1 above)
This corresponds with my view (and use) of the words.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald responded:
> How about adding modifiers for location, such as "Surface", "Mobile" (in
> space and maneuverable), "Orbiting" (going around a natural body)?
> "Outworld" could mean either remote or off-planet.
>
> Surface Base LD-A
> Mobile Outpost LD-B
> Orbiting Outstation LD-C
>
> Other modifiers could be used for the purpose of the site. Such as a
> observation post, a mining camp, a drydock station, or a trading
> settlement.
I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
would really be Surface Base LD-A1. We could further modify the ID subcode to
mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
alphabetize the sectors.
I think that amongst the various major installations in any one sector,
there'll probably only be one (or less) of each type of major installation (in
the case of bases and stations), so that any possible ambiguity introduced by
just simply contacting the "Surface Base" is unlikely. Other minor
installations might have to be referred to in more detail though. But I don't
care.
But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors?
Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from common
usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
the various installations.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, then Tom McDonald compiled:
Try this on for size (to let the nitpicking continue :-)
Would we all agree that "Base" should denote a comparably sizeable
military/government-only installation? I think so. So given this, and to
continue from this point (that we shouldn't use spaceterms interchangeably
because they are in such short supply, it would be inefficient, and that
we all would know what another person is saying) I've made a small chart
to denote what, I hope, combines what we've all offered/said. Steve
offered some more great terms to include, so here's a possible spread of
the terms:
Typical Planetary Disposition
Planet <----- Orbit ------ Star System ----------------> Deep Space
planetary- orbital- system- space- out-
(underground, asteroid- asteroid-
surface)
base station station station station
outpost outpost outpost outpost outpost (out-
port waystation waystation waystation is dropped)
colony colony depot
Typical Population/Staff Amount
Large and/or
Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
base port post outpost relay*
station waystation depot colony terminal
city terminal platform*
Typical Proximity To Friendly Systems
Same System <---------------------------------------------> Way Far Away
base base waystation colony outpost
metropolis port depot post
city station station station
port terminal
Personnel/Purpose
Military/Government <-------------------------------------> Civilian
base depot waystation colony Metropolis
outpost station City
post port
terminal
Footnotes to chart:
*Relay means installation generally automated and unpeopled, though
limited life support is possible, such as communications relays, listening
equipment, and telescopes.
*Platform means extremely limited supplies available, such as small
amounts of fuel, life support equipment, rations, and first aid supplies.
This rough chart is just to get interest going. I included two additional
terms just for fun: relay and platform. Find the real chart at
www.baylug.org/space/installations.htm which I'll be updating to reflect
decisions made in this group.
Something else to consider: it's not unheard of for an installation to
change title and function depending on which high-ranking officer is in
residence/command.
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake torpedoes.. away!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> Typical Planetary Disposition
> Planet <----- Orbit ------ Star System ----------------> Deep Space
>
> planetary- orbital- system- space- out-
> (underground, asteroid- asteroid-
> surface)
>
> base station station station station
> outpost outpost outpost outpost outpost (out-
> port waystation waystation waystation is dropped)
> colony colony depot
>
>
> Typical Population/Staff Amount
> Large and/or
> Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
>
> base port post outpost relay*
> station waystation depot colony terminal
> city terminal platform*
Yuck! I forgot that Lugnet substitutes spaces for tabs made with ^I. It
doesn't show up that way in the web interface message editing window though.
Oh well, do visit the website cuz that's much better lookin. (see prev post)
-Tom McD.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> writes:
> > Typical Population/Staff Amount
> > Large and/or
> > Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
> >
> > base port post outpost relay*
> > station waystation depot colony terminal
> > city terminal platform*
>
> Yuck! I forgot that Lugnet substitutes spaces for tabs made with ^I.
Nope, it doesn't! Tabs are actually preserved. If you do a "view source"
on this...
http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=87
...you'll see that tabs are actually output correctly as "	" HTML entity
sequences. It's actually your browser which is converting the tabs to
spaces, but it's also an artifact of using a variable-width font (whatever
your default is, usually Times) rather than <PRE></PRE>.
However, if you simply click the "View Raw Message" link in the upper-right,
it brings you here:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/raw.cgi?lugnet.space:87
where you can see the exact whole message with a MIME type of "text/plain".
The reason a variable width font is used for messages rather than
<PRE></PRE> is not for beautification of the messages, but to ensure that
they fit on the screen. The default monospace font on most browsers is a
really really wide Courier, and 80 characters don't even fit in 640-wide
window.
> It doesn't show up that way in the web interface message editing window
> though.
I think this depends on how your browser renders the <TEXTAREA> tag.
Sorry about the confusion, in any case...
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
> I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
LD-A2, right?
> We could further modify the ID subcode to
> mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
> alphabetize the sectors.
We could, but I'd rather not. That could lead to post office readdressing,
if the sectors filled in later. My preference would be to apply the
letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;) If we manage to
get more than 26 installations,
> But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
> subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
> are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors?
My preference is to not do sectors/quadrants/octants/whatever. Or at
least, not to (generally) use them as part of the name of installations.
> Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from common
> usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
> the various installations.
LD isn't supposed to distinguish between the installations. It's supposed
to unify them. In the same way that Datsville could have neighborhoods,
but all the neighborhoods would still be part of Datsville.
Steve
(going off to look at Tom's chart,
<http://www.baylug.org/space/installations.htm>)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
>
> > I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> > everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> > would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
>
> It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
> and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
I your idea better.
> If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
> LD-A2, right?
I'd rather keep it that 1 means the first thing.
[...]
> My preference would be to apply the
> letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
> also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;)
Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
> > We could further modify the ID subcode to
> > mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
> > alphabetize the sectors.
>
> We could, but I'd rather not. That could lead to post office readdressing,
> if the sectors filled in later.
True. That could get ugly.
> > But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
> > subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
> > are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors? If we manage to
> get more than 26 installations,
>
> My preference is to not do sectors/quadrants/octants/whatever.
My thinking behind using sectional units was only if someone ever wanted to
map out how space was being populated, or where their "cool spacebase" was, it
might be fun.
Maybe, if at all, were you thinking to label sections of space with more
proper names, such as "Badlands", "Star Nursery", or after major nearby stars,
and other terms like that?
> Or at
> least, not to (generally) use them as part of the name of installations.
True again, especially where mobile installations are concerned.
> > Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from • common
> > usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
> > the various installations.
>
> LD isn't supposed to distinguish between the installations. It's supposed
> to unify them. In the same way that Datsville could have neighborhoods,
> but all the neighborhoods would still be part of Datsville.
I get you now. I must've been under medication earlier.
-Tom McD.
when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
> >
> > > I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> > > everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> > > would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
> >
> > It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
> > and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
>
> I your idea better.
>
> > If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
> > LD-A2, right?
>
> I'd rather keep it that 1 means the first thing.
>
> [...]
> > My preference would be to apply the
> > letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
> > also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;)
>
> Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
> that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
> just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
<Clears Throat>
I agree. That was the first thing that came up in my mind. To begin with,
it would be easy to add on to, just add a baseplate.
I really don't have too much input as to the naming conventions used. I
just want to build. Has anyone had any luck in designing the docking port?
I started working on a couple of docking ideas the other night, and came
away with a battle droid. (How the two are related, I'll never know) Any
thoughts on how large a footprint we want the airlock to have? I've tried
to stay around 6 X 6, or 6 X 8.
You know Tom, I'm beginning to think that you're a pretty good guy, no
matter what Larry says about you. :-)
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:19:59 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
> that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
> just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
So what's the nature of Moonbase LD-A? Before we decide that, we should
decide on the background environment, so we'll know what's appropriate and
inappropriate. I'll take that to another thread, 'kay?
> My thinking behind using sectional units was only if someone ever wanted to
> map out how space was being populated, or where their "cool spacebase" was, it
> might be fun.
How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
arbitrary?
I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
> Maybe, if at all, were you thinking to label sections of space with more
> proper names, such as "Badlands", "Star Nursery", or after major nearby stars,
> and other terms like that?
Something like that. But I'm not feeling a strong opinion here.
> when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
Oh no! He drew a blank! Is this the beginning of the end for McSpamcake?
Stay tuned...
Or was it a very subtle, obscure movie reference that I missed?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:19:59 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
> <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
>
> Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
lol
> So what's the nature of Moonbase LD-A? Before we decide that, we should
> decide on the background environment, so we'll know what's appropriate and
> inappropriate. I'll take that to another thread, 'kay?
k
> How big a chunk of space do you want to start with?
Note below when you get there.*
> And should use real
> space-time, or just make it up?
Just to maintain some equality, should we stick with:
1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30.8x10^12 km = 206,265 AU
I vote yes, just so we can come out somewhat consistent.
> And what method of surveying do would be
> best?
> Where would the origin be?
Note below when you get there.**
> Galactic center?
Hard to say based on current science, which has revised it's figures on the
diameter of the M0 (Milky Way) galaxy within the last few years. I suppose we
could leave that figure alone for awhile, unless we're going to be zooming all
the way across the galaxy in a matter of hours.
> I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
> someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
I think it might be cool to just start with what we *very* generally know
about how real space is arranged so far, and then let imagination take over.
That way we could still use some known real names and objects, but are not
strictly limited to them.
* How about we start with 100 parsecs (pc) / 326 light years (ly)? Too big?
Too little?
** If you all want to see it, I've got a map from which we could possibly
start. It's from an old Star Trek Tech Manual which shows major stars (48 of
them in fact) in a sphere within 7 pc, 22.82 ly, centered round our own star
Sol (though the original Federation was much bigger than that, more along the
lines of 4kpc+). And it does not show any other objects, such as nebulae,
black holes, etc. As it's not very detailed, it'll leave plenty of room for
creativity. I don't want to imitate Star Trek (or any other established
paradigm necessarily, though I imagine it'll happen to a degree or two),
except possibly by convenience of adopting spacial measurements.
Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind of
velocity scale do we want to adopt?
I also am not against someone wanting to do real research about "what's real"
though I think that once we establish some sort of map, it should be "first
come, first served" so that if someone finds out that IRL there's a huge black
hole where we've put a densely populated set of solar systems, then the hole
has to be relocated. Unless, maybe, someone wants to go to the trouble of
staging an emergency mass-exodus of moving civilizations because a rogue black
star is approaching! That could be another story :-)
> > Maybe, if at all, were you thinking to label sections of space with more
> > proper names, such as "Badlands", "Star Nursery", or after major nearby • stars,
> > and other terms like that?
>
> Something like that. But I'm not feeling a strong opinion here.
I'll go either way about this, just so long as we can agree and document where
areas are. But please explain what you were thinking, as I'm curious. Start a
new thread!
> > when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
>
> Oh no! He drew a blank! Is this the beginning of the end for McSpamcake?
> Stay tuned...
>
> Or was it a very subtle, obscure movie reference that I missed?
Hee, no movie reference intended. I sorta had a headache when I wrote that, so
the spamcake creativity section was temporarily distracted.
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake in pellet form was used in early '60's beanbag chairs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:13:54 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> I think it might be cool to just start with what we *very* generally know
> about how real space is arranged so far, and then let imagination take over.
> That way we could still use some known real names and objects, but are not
> strictly limited to them.
If we start with the just the Moonbase, we can put off making this decision
at least until the second installation is started. If not longer.
> * How about we start with 100 parsecs (pc) / 326 light years (ly)? Too big?
> Too little?
Hmm. Do you mean 100 cubic parsecs? Or a sphere with a radius of 100
parsecs (that's 4.2 cubic mega parsecs).
> Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind of
> velocity scale do we want to adopt?
Parsecs per hour? Which might not apply, depending on the technology.
> I also am not against someone wanting to do real research about "what's real"
> though I think that once we establish some sort of map, it should be "first
> come, first served" so that if someone finds out that IRL there's a huge black
> hole where we've put a densely populated set of solar systems, then the hole
> has to be relocated.
Agreed. Not that I expect it to be an issue.
> > > Maybe, if at all, were you thinking to label sections of space with more
> > > proper names, such as "Badlands", "Star Nursery", or after major nearby • stars,
> > > and other terms like that?
> >
> > Something like that. But I'm not feeling a strong opinion here.
>
> I'll go either way about this, just so long as we can agree and document where
> areas are. But please explain what you were thinking, as I'm curious. Start a
> new thread!
I wasn't thinking anything specific, except I wanted to avoid names like
"Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56>".
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind • of
> > velocity scale do we want to adopt?
>
> Parsecs per hour? Which might not apply, depending on the technology.
That sounds fast enough to me! I mean, on a bad morning, some people
get a headache *walking* from the bedroom to the bathroom!
It all comes down to distance and time (doh!). The further apart the
installations, the faster we need to go. Would a week/month's travel
between installations be about right? If so, work out v and s from t!
> I wasn't thinking anything specific, except I wanted to avoid names like
> "Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56>".
This got me thinking about the way that towns and cities on Earth have
picked up their names. I mean, I live in Congleton which is from the
Roman meaning "Corner Town" as the town grew up in the inside corner
of a bend in a river. Just up the road, there's Newcastle-Under-Lyme,
from the time when a New castle was built (to replace the old one)
at the bottom of the hill where the old castle was (among a field of
lyme trees).
So Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56> could well have that designation
and be nicknamed "Tertiary Trading Outpost" if it does a lot of trade
and is near a tertiary star system?
Whatever!
David.
>
> Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he • wants
> > that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again • I'll
> > just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> > Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
>
> Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
Very funny! 8-)
> How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
> space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
> best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
> arbitrary?
I think the centre of the galaxy would be a good idea, if only as it
will simplify the Maths! If we said that Earth was (0,0,0) then the
x,y and z axes would be moving all the time. For one season the Sun is at
(1,0,1) and the next it's at (-1,0,1). Having said that, it might
help if we always considered the sun to be at the origin (0,0,0) and
the x axis always points to the Earth. Except the whole universe then
starts rotating at one revolution per year?
> I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
> someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
I've just tried it and it's hard work. Just put the name of the
place you want to go into a computer and let it work out the route for you!
Just a thought.
David.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:00:10 GMT, "Mr D Leese"
<MRLEESE@genius1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
> > space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
> > best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
> > arbitrary?
>
> I think the centre of the galaxy would be a good idea, if only as it
> will simplify the Maths! If we said that Earth was (0,0,0) then the
> x,y and z axes would be moving all the time. For one season the Sun is at
> (1,0,1) and the next it's at (-1,0,1). Having said that, it might
> help if we always considered the sun to be at the origin (0,0,0) and
> the x axis always points to the Earth. Except the whole universe then
> starts rotating at one revolution per year?
It's too detailed for the discussion at hand, but I was wondering if it
would be practical to use several systems. For interstellar travel, use
galactic coordinates. For in-system travel, use solar coordinates. On a
planet's surface, use the local latitude/longitude. Basically, use the
nearest large gravity well as a reference point. ;)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Duane:
> My vision would be to start out with a bunch of landing plates, similar
> to Datsville. That would allow ground vehicles, robots, mechs and ships
> to all be on the same starting point. The sticking point is creations
> which aren't quite so terrestrial. How would we integrate something,
> for example, like Tom's modular space station?
Well, my view was more something like the space station at
the "centre of the uiverse" in Valerian et Laureline[1], so
Tom's space station modules would be an ideal starting point
although I would try to hook them up with some living
quarters from the space ship BR[2] (comfortable living is
always important).
Play well,
Jacob
1) <URL:http://www.e.kth.se/%7Ee95_mzo/valerian/>
2) <URL:http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/8641/br/lqep.html>
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Duane:
>
> > My vision would be to start out with a bunch of landing plates, similar
> > to Datsville. That would allow ground vehicles, robots, mechs and ships
> > to all be on the same starting point. The sticking point is creations
> > which aren't quite so terrestrial. How would we integrate something,
> > for example, like Tom's modular space station?
>
> Well, my view was more something like the space station at
> the "centre of the uiverse" in Valerian et Laureline[1], so
> Tom's space station modules would be an ideal starting point
> although I would try to hook them up with some living
> quarters from the space ship BR[2] (comfortable living is
> always important).
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
>
> 1) <URL:http://www.e.kth.se/%7Ee95_mzo/valerian/>
> 2) <URL:http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lagoon/8641/br/lqep.html>
My only argument for using the baseplates is to show off land-based
vehicles. If someone could figure out a decent way of doing so using
a space station theme, I would go with that. I find a modular system
much more appealing.
Could we expand the modular design to include baseplates? Instead of a
module that is 6 wide X 16 long, we could go with a standard 32 X 32.
That might allow for vehicles to be included on the station.
I also like the idea of a standard docking port. Steve's I think is close,
but not quite what I am looking for. The male-female feature is nice for
ship orientation, but eats up valuable space. I feel like I really shouldn't
be criticizing (sp?) his design since I don't have an alternative design
to offer up.
Sorry if I'm unclear, but I'm just rambling. Let me know if any of these
ideas strike a cord.
-Duane
PS.
How about "Station Deep Brick"? Naw, too Star Trek-ish.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Duane:
> My only argument for using the baseplates is to show off land-based
> vehicles. If someone could figure out a decent way of doing so using
> a space station theme, I would go with that. I find a modular system
> much more appealing.
I think the most appropriate solution would be a "moon base"
and a "space station" as two different environments, but
most likely with lots of traffic between the two.
> Could we expand the modular design to include baseplates? Instead of a
> module that is 6 wide X 16 long, we could go with a standard 32 X 32.
> That might allow for vehicles to be included on the station.
I don't really think typical space vehicles belong on a
space station (it's more golf car like vehicles you expect
there).
> How about "Station Deep Brick"? Naw, too Star Trek-ish.
"Deep Brick" is okay for a ground base that started out as
an underground outpost. I wouldn't mind stationing some
ground vehicles at the Deep Brick outpost.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Duane:
>
> > My only argument for using the baseplates is to show off land-based
> > vehicles. If someone could figure out a decent way of doing so using
> > a space station theme, I would go with that. I find a modular system
> > much more appealing.
>
> I think the most appropriate solution would be a "moon base"
> and a "space station" as two different environments, but
> most likely with lots of traffic between the two.
That works. How would we provide continuity between the two? Story-wise
I mean. Would we have a page dedicated to each environment?
>
> > Could we expand the modular design to include baseplates? Instead of a
> > module that is 6 wide X 16 long, we could go with a standard 32 X 32.
> > That might allow for vehicles to be included on the station.
>
> I don't really think typical space vehicles belong on a
> space station (it's more golf car like vehicles you expect
> there).
True. It makes sense when you say it that way.
Do you mean a cart like here:
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Creek/1006/cart.html
> > How about "Station Deep Brick"? Naw, too Star Trek-ish.
>
> "Deep Brick" is okay for a ground base that started out as
> an underground outpost. I wouldn't mind stationing some
> ground vehicles at the Deep Brick outpost.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Duane:
> > I think the most appropriate solution would be a "moon base"
> > and a "space station" as two different environments, but
> > most likely with lots of traffic between the two.
>
> That works. How would we provide continuity between the two? Story-wise
> I mean. Would we have a page dedicated to each environment?
I don't know. I suppose that will be up to the base
commander and the president of the station council.
I would definitely use two different pages for the ground
and space environments, but with lots of possibilities to be
beamed up/down.
> > I don't really think typical space vehicles belong on a
> > space station (it's more golf car like vehicles you expect
> > there).
>
> True. It makes sense when you say it that way.
>
> Do you mean a cart like here:
> http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Creek/1006/cart.html
Yup.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ...
> Duane:
>
> > > I think the most appropriate solution would be a "moon base"
> > > and a "space station" as two different environments, but
> > > most likely with lots of traffic between the two.
> >
> > That works. How would we provide continuity between the two? Story-wise
> > I mean. Would we have a page dedicated to each environment?
>
> I don't know. I suppose that will be up to the base
> commander and the president of the station council.
>
> I would definitely use two different pages for the ground
> and space environments, but with lots of possibilities to be
> beamed up/down.
Or, if you prefer (and I certainly would) you could have the
characters and goods or cargo or whatever transported by an
interplanetary vehicle - yet more options! Star Trek only
had beaming because they couldn't build the transport ships...
now if we can't build transport ships... 8-)
Just a thought
David (first post)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > Duane:
> >
> > > My only argument for using the baseplates is to show off land-based
> > > vehicles. If someone could figure out a decent way of doing so using
> > > a space station theme, I would go with that. I find a modular system
> > > much more appealing.
> >
> > I think the most appropriate solution would be a "moon base"
> > and a "space station" as two different environments, but
> > most likely with lots of traffic between the two.
>
> That works. How would we provide continuity between the two? Story-wise
> I mean. Would we have a page dedicated to each environment?
>
> >
> > > Could we expand the modular design to include baseplates? Instead of a
> > > module that is 6 wide X 16 long, we could go with a standard 32 X 32.
> > > That might allow for vehicles to be included on the station.
> >
> > I don't really think typical space vehicles belong on a
> > space station (it's more golf car like vehicles you expect
> > there).
>
>
> True. It makes sense when you say it that way.
>
> Do you mean a cart like here:
> http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Creek/1006/cart.html
>
> > > How about "Station Deep Brick"? Naw, too Star Trek-ish.
> >
> > "Deep Brick" is okay for a ground base that started out as
> > an underground outpost. I wouldn't mind stationing some
> > ground vehicles at the Deep Brick outpost.
> >
> > Play well,
> >
> > Jacob
>
>
>
> -Duane
Here's an idea: Remember Lando Calrissian's Cloud City on Bespin? Something
like that might look cool...
Z
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Wow, awesome! monorail tracks, quarter domes...... I´d like the Futuron
color scheme better, with lots of hinges, snap-together units, and minifigs.
I can imagine a really huge spaceport with futuron ships taking off,
Blacktron I vehicles being repaired, and Classic Space ships patrolling the
borders.........
--Tobias
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes • and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking • ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians • colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
>
> Robert
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tobias Möller writes:
> Wow, awesome! monorail tracks, quarter domes...... I´d like the Futuron
> color scheme better, with lots of hinges, snap-together units, and minifigs.
> I can imagine a really huge spaceport with futuron ships taking off,
> Blacktron I vehicles being repaired, and Classic Space ships patrolling the
> borders.........
>
> --Tobias
I can imagine the Blacktron ships bustin' out some warfare [what else would
Blacktron think of at the sight of a Futuron spaceport?] What a cool scenario.
Maybe I should build it...
Z
> > Hello all,
> > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> > fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes • and
> > possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking • ports/airlocks.
> > Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> > something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians • colors/
> > style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> > long.
> >
> > Robert
I'm more of a spaceship builder. Battlecarriers are my ships of choice,
however, so I nonetheless know plenty about docking bays and such. I just
build a huge fighter bay, and next to it I place a launch/landing bay. The
launch/landing bay is covered by sliding doors, usually. However, I also
sometimes will just have an opening, with no door. So, I just heavily armor
the interior of the bay, to protect it from clumsy starfighter pilots and
various weapons. Such precautions are necessary, when there's no door to
close.
Z
This is such a cool thread. Let's keep it up!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
All this space station talk reminded me of one I started in my early LDraw
days. I didn't have POV-Ray back then, so I just ran a raytrace. Check out
the M:Tron Operations Base at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Fields/1864/mtron.html
-John Van
Robert Petersen <nospamrobert@worksharp.com> wrote in message
news:FI9HKE.Gu9@lugnet.com...
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes • and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
>
> Robert
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
>
> Robert
Well, I am more into building the original models. So my spaceport looks like
a combination of _all_bases_ever_released_ by TLG. I am still looking for new
base-plates to connect them all and to facilitate enough landingplaces for all
by big Spaceships.
No pictures yet...still deciding where to start my homepage.
Mark "almost Space Complete" de Kock
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Mark de Kock writes:
> Well, I am more into building the original models. So my spaceport looks like
> a combination of _all_bases_ever_released_ by TLG. I am still looking for new
> base-plates to connect them all and to facilitate enough landingplaces for all
> by big Spaceships.
> No pictures yet...still deciding where to start my homepage.
That's cool Mark. Pick a homepage, any page. I wanna see, I wanna see!
I've got no problem with .space including official models (especially the
older ones :-)
-Tom McD.
when replying, some asteroids have been known to include spamcake content
upwards of 37%.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
>
> Robert
Did you see my stations @ http://www.lugnet.com/cool/site-146.html ??
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> > Hello all,
> > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> > fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> > possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> > Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> > something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> > style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> > long.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Did you see my stations @ http://www.lugnet.com/cool/site-146.html ??
Yes, very interesting creations! In dark grey, it would vaguely reminds me of
Deep Space 9.
Does your station have docking ports and/or can it be expandable? Any
deckplans to show internal arrangement? Not that it *must* have those things,
but I was curious if it did, even if the deckplans were mere sketches.
Any docking ports?
-Tom McD.
when replying, don't stray into the Spamcake Nebula!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> > > Hello all,
> > > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> > > fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> > > possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> > > Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> > > something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> > > style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> > > long.
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > Did you see my stations @ http://www.lugnet.com/cool/site-146.html ??
>
> Yes, very interesting creations! In dark grey, it would vaguely reminds me of
> Deep Space 9.
>
> Does your station have docking ports and/or can it be expandable? Any
> deckplans to show internal arrangement? Not that it *must* have those things,
> but I was curious if it did, even if the deckplans were mere sketches.
>
> Any docking ports?
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, don't stray into the Spamcake Nebula!
Yes, you can see the back of a 6887 sticking out of the bottom section between
the yellow wing on the right and the red wing. Also the Technic shuttle docks
under the wing with the payload bay doors open.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> > > Did you see my stations @ http://www.lugnet.com/cool/site-146.html ??
> >
> > Yes, very interesting creations! In dark grey, it would vaguely reminds me of
> > Deep Space 9.
> >
> > Does your station have docking ports and/or can it be expandable? Any
> > deckplans to show internal arrangement? Not that it *must* have those things,
> > but I was curious if it did, even if the deckplans were mere sketches.
> >
> > Any docking ports?
(As you might notice from above, I love docking ports ;-)
> Yes, you can see the back of a 6887 sticking out of the bottom section between
> the yellow wing on the right and the red wing. Also the Technic shuttle docks
> under the wing with the payload bay doors open.
From the photo I couldn't tell what that was near the bottom, so I'm glad you
told me it was an Allied Avenger. How does it attach: studs, clamp, hook,
magnet, pin? Is there a sealed docking port with airlock, or does the pilot
EVA to a station hatch?
-Tom McD.
when replying, even Curious George stayed away from spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Rick Kujawa writes:
> > > > Did you see my stations @ http://www.lugnet.com/cool/site-146.html ??
> > >
> > > Yes, very interesting creations! In dark grey, it would vaguely reminds me of
> > > Deep Space 9.
> > >
> > > Does your station have docking ports and/or can it be expandable? Any
> > > deckplans to show internal arrangement? Not that it *must* have those things,
> > > but I was curious if it did, even if the deckplans were mere sketches.
> > >
> > > Any docking ports?
>
> (As you might notice from above, I love docking ports ;-)
>
> > Yes, you can see the back of a 6887 sticking out of the bottom section between
> > the yellow wing on the right and the red wing. Also the Technic shuttle docks
> > under the wing with the payload bay doors open.
>
> From the photo I couldn't tell what that was near the bottom, so I'm glad you
> told me it was an Allied Avenger. How does it attach: studs, clamp, hook,
> magnet, pin? Is there a sealed docking port with airlock, or does the pilot
> EVA to a station hatch?
>
> -Tom McD.
It just hangs off the bottom of the station by the 2 studs on top of
6887. The underside of the station is open. EVA required. I might
enclose the bottom for docking ports some day.
No layout of the quarters other than blue dome is Biosphere
complete with palm tree, red bush and flowers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> Hello all,
> Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> long.
Sort of.
My City is in a futuristic setting (2479). I plan to improve it. Add a landing
pad. I have a digi cam so you can ask me to take a pic when it is ready.
;-)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Dan Simonson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Robert Petersen writes:
> > Hello all,
> > Anyone ever made a large space station /space port? I think it would be
> > fun to make a space port with some monrail tracks and large quarter domes and
> > possibly a landing pad. Or a space station and with docking ports/airlocks.
> > Soon, when I get more pieces and my lego collection back, I hope to do
> > something like this, most likely using the unitron and/or explorians colors/
> > style. Any ideas? This is my first post to lugnet as I have lucked for so
> > long.
>
> Sort of.
>
> My City is in a futuristic setting (2479). I plan to improve it. Add a landing
> pad. I have a digi cam so you can ask me to take a pic when it is ready.
>
> ;-)
> Dan
Sounds cool! When will pics be available?
Z
| | | | | | |
