|
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.
|
|
|
"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/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
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
|
|
|