 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
