| |
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
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space "Z" <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> better that way too.
Nah, I'm a modular junkie myself. They can be bigger modules, but
still modules. I like spindly things sticking off of a central hub,
or central hubs. My sketches (I haven't had the time/energy to LDraw
or build them) are just that. Like, the docking bay is large and
pass-through for capital ships and its a module, there's habitation
modules (larger, several decks), command module, smaller (garage
style) docking bays - which are usually for defense fighters, etc.
I see what you're saying as far as sleekness goes, but a station can
look sleek, spacey, and attractive and still contain various modules.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> Nah, I'm a modular junkie myself. They can be bigger modules, but
> still modules. I like spindly things sticking off of a central hub,
> or central hubs. My sketches (I haven't had the time/energy to LDraw
> or build them) are just that. Like, the docking bay is large and
> pass-through for capital ships and its a module, there's habitation
> modules (larger, several decks), command module, smaller (garage
> style) docking bays - which are usually for defense fighters, etc.
>
> I see what you're saying as far as sleekness goes, but a station can
> look sleek, spacey, and attractive and still contain various modules.
>
> -Tim
>
> http://www.zacktron.com
> http://www.ldraw.org
> AIM: timcourtne
> ICQ: 23951114
My space stations are either built like cities, like a big solid battlestation
[kinda like the Death Star, but without that kind of mass [duh]], or in
platforms, like the top section of an oil rig. But, I usually just do
battlecarriers instead of space stations [sorry about the fancy name, my Quasar
series ships only hold 6 or less really small fighters [12 studs L, 8 W, 6 or 7
T; pathetic]] At least everything I build is always minifig scale, so it's
still good anyway.
Try the platforms, perhaps. The spaces between them make nice fighter bays,
ship bays, etc., with room to spare. Just an idea
Z
|
|
| |
Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> things.
But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
design make sense?
I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
appeal too, can't it.)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
Form follows function, baby, and something that does the thing it is
intended to do, and does it well and efficiently, is a thing of beauty,
as beauty follows form.
At least that's MY aesthetic opinion.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller writes:
> Z <leahy@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Nonetheless, the modular stuff is structurally weaker, and UGLIER than that
> > which is designed as one. I don't ever build modular stations, due to such
> > things.
>
> But think about how you'd build a _real_ space station. Wouldn't a modular
> design make sense?
>
> I understand where you're coming from on the ugliness point. Modular designs
> tend to look very functional and mechanical. (But that can have it's own
> appeal too, can't it.)
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
important than realism.
Z
|
|
| |
Z wrote:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
talking about.
If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> better that way too.
Butt-ugly eh? :) I hope I provide more inspiration for newsgroup fodder for
years to come! (And he's only seen 4 out of dozens of configurations.)
And BTW, when referring to ugliness, some folks might not be able to take it,
so using "IMO" in such statements can work wonders. But personally, I don't
give a yak's booger about whether people think my stuff is ugly or not.
-Tom McD.
when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
at sea.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > HEY! What's going on? Why does a space station have to be some butt-ugly
> > assembly of modules? I think a space station, ship, etc. should be designed
> > and built as a single unit. It looks so much better that way, and it works
> > better that way too.
>
> Butt-ugly eh? :) I hope I provide more inspiration for newsgroup fodder for
> years to come! (And he's only seen 4 out of dozens of configurations.)
>
> And BTW, when referring to ugliness, some folks might not be able to take it,
> so using "IMO" in such statements can work wonders. But personally, I don't
> give a yak's booger about whether people think my stuff is ugly or not.
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
> at sea.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
you hear what they stand for.
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, once upon a time spamcake was used to weigh down coffins buried
> at sea.
Say Tom? Is your space station powered by those new spamcake fusion fuel cells
that NASA Is developing ?
<g>
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Z wrote:
>
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> Perhaps you are. I'm talking about LEGO brand building bricks, and the
> constructions we can make from them, not about whatever it is you are
> talking about.
>
> If you want me to take you seriously, take The LEGO Company and their
> rights seriously, including their right to determine what their product
> is called, and what part of speech the name actually is. LEGO is an
> adjective, by their reckoning, not a noun.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
This is lugnet.space, not lugnet.splitting-hairs. Need you point out small,
insignificant errors?
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
> you hear what they stand for.
IMO, aside from a sour-cream substitute, stands for "In My Opinion"
A permutation of IMO is IMHO, where all is as above, and H=Humble. Some people
view IMHO as an oxymoron, because if you are truly humble, you don't go around
giving your own opinion.
Larry P might be able to point you to a netiquette site, but I'll list a few
acronyms here that'll help you in newsgroup postings.
AFAIK = As Far As I Know (use this when you *know* you're correct)
BTW = By The Way (another idea/question that is less important, but still is)
FWIW = For What It's Worth (cushions opinions as a reader what it's worth)
IIRC = If I Remember Correctly (similar to AFAIK, but with less certainty)
LMK = Let Me Know (used to solicit response from proposed ideas even if you
won't read those responses)
Such ideas (used as acronyms merely for the sake of brevity) make the written
word less harsh to read. Since it's all we have to go on, such formalities
work wonders in building a community rather than seeming to exalt one person's
views above another.
-Tom McD.
when replying, the first lava-lamps had spamcake in them.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > I might use IMO if I knew what it stood for. So many acronyms, so few times
> > you hear what they stand for.
>
> IMO, aside from a sour-cream substitute, stands for "In My Opinion"
>
> A permutation of IMO is IMHO, where all is as above, and H=Humble. Some people
> view IMHO as an oxymoron, because if you are truly humble, you don't go around
> giving your own opinion.
>
> Larry P might be able to point you to a netiquette site, but I'll list a few
> acronyms here that'll help you in newsgroup postings.
>
> AFAIK = As Far As I Know (use this when you *know* you're correct)
> BTW = By The Way (another idea/question that is less important, but still is)
> FWIW = For What It's Worth (cushions opinions as a reader what it's worth)
> IIRC = If I Remember Correctly (similar to AFAIK, but with less certainty)
> LMK = Let Me Know (used to solicit response from proposed ideas even if you
> won't read those responses)
>
> Such ideas (used as acronyms merely for the sake of brevity) make the written
> word less harsh to read. Since it's all we have to go on, such formalities
> work wonders in building a community rather than seeming to exalt one person's
> views above another.
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, the first lava-lamps had spamcake in them.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
Okay, thanks.
Z
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> important than realism.
I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
-Tom McD.
when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
1930's.
The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
I'm working on a modular one now but its not as neat as my mostly
brick ones. See CLSotW: Aug 22 99 Original LEGO® creations by Rick
L. Kujawa. The modular design takes many more specialized pieces.
I'll post some pics soon.
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more
> > important than realism.
>
> I don't automatically agree. For some, realism *is* coolness, as the more
> realistic a creation is, the cooler it can be. And some build for realism with
> no thought of coolness (which can occur naturally as a bonus).
>
> -Tom McD.
> when replying, "Spammenstein" was much too scary for movie audiences of the
> 1930's.
>
> The San Francisco Bay Area Users Group
> http://www.baylug.org
I just make sure that the concepts used in my LEGO creations are at least
theoretically possible.
Z
|
|
| |
Well, I built a starship bridge, I still have it somewhere, and it took
so much space for what I wanted, I can't imagine a space station I would
like to build (I think of station McKinley from ST) Sometimes, you have
to build only what your bricks allow! :)
Scott S.
P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
anybody remember this?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
| |
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> anybody remember this?
Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
minifigs working on computers and such.
Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
-chris
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote:
>
> In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
> >
> >
> > "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > > anybody remember this?
> >
> > Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> > It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> > minifigs working on computers and such.
> >
> > Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> > that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
Maybe, it has been so long. I think they had those 45D 1x4x5 white
angled windows, perhaps. Ugh, bad memory!
> > This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> > the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
> >
> > Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
>
> That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
> ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
> from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
> Would people be interested in scans?
I would like to see them, maybe I can stir up the old memory banks!
Scott S.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
>
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > anybody remember this?
>
> Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> minifigs working on computers and such.
>
> Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
>
> This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
>
> Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
Would people be interested in scans?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
Please post the scans>>>
In lugnet.space, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.space, Christopher Tracey writes:
> >
> >
> > "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> > > P.S. I remember a traveling LEGO show, when I was 10 or 12, (1985-1987).
> > > It had a bunch of LEGO creations from space, like the Apollo capsule,
> > > and they had an awesome space station / colony thing. It must have been
> > > at least 8 or 10 feet in diameter, with tons of minifigs around. Does
> > > anybody remember this?
> >
> > Was it the big white/transblue one that spun around a central axis?
> > It had cut outs on the side where you could look in and see scores of
> > minifigs working on computers and such.
> >
> > Right next to it they had a modular land base that had a space train
> > that ran on 12V track with a Solar Power Transporter beneath it.
> >
> > This was the first LEGO show I ever saw, I remember trying to build
> > the rotating station but I was dismayed by the number of bricks it took.
> >
> > Someone on lugnet has a few pictures, can't find the link now though
>
> That spacestation (and the accompanying show) went through here many moons
> ago, and one of the few pieces of Lego nostalgia I have is the guide booklet
> from the tour. IIRC, the theme of the show was inventions, and so forth.
> Would people be interested in scans?
>
> James
> http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
|
