Subject:
|
Re: Space stations?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 01:34:10 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm%antispam%.org
|
Viewed:
|
7145 times
|
| |
|
|
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/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Space stations?
|
| (...) 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. (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Space stations?
|
| (...) Remember: We're talking about LEGOS here, and therefore coolness is more important than realism. Z (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space stations?
|
| (...) 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 (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
