| |
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 18:21:50 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Independent of doorframe construction, should doorway size itself matter here?
> It might look better.
Yes, there should be at least a minimum opening standard for each DP type.
The sealing surface spec will settle the question of maximum opening.
> > And any port which can also be used as a simple exit door must have a
> > complete airlock behind it. But that's a side issue.
>
> Well that's just plain good safety :-)
Depends on how absent-minded your crew is. And whether the safety locks
are reliable. :)
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:49:36 GMT, Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com> wrote:
> If this is a space station, gravity isn't necessarily a concern.
> Connections could be weak if the station was assembled in orbit and
> stayed in orbit.
True. But I was thinking about if I wanted to actually build something.
You know, without the computer.
Steve
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
