Subject:
|
Re: Air lock and ship docking discussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:38:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
655 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> > I've been thinking about my ship's air locks and its mechanism for
> > docking to another vessel that would be too big for its interior bays. • <snip>
> > In a long thread a while back there was a discussion about the geography
> > of local space. I believe this was pertaining to the creation of a .space
> > world and community. It strikes me that Pat's idea would be a great way to
> > further bind the .space community together in a fairly simple way.
>
> Indeed. I'm not sure that the idea was Pat's, however.
No, it wasn't, but I certainly welcome his input, and from others too. I'd
like to see this discussion continue.
> Tom McDonald proposed his airlock as a standard design back in this message:
> http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=6
> It's a very nice design (the use of pegs and beams is well thought-out, and • I'm
> likely to steal that part of the idea), if you start from three assumptions:
>
> 1) Your spacecraft design has room to spare. The walls are thick, and there • are
> two doors.
That is correct. The craft possessing this airlock is not meant to be small.
It is a multimodule design, with each module being something like 40+ studs
long, 10 wide and 10 high, IIRC.
> 2) There's a reason to want an airlock that accomodates a *standing* minifig.
Each module has multiple re-entry capability, and can double as a ground
station/container upon planetfall, so yes, standing is desirable for this
design. Other modules, once landed, could easily deploy ground vehicles or be
easily accessed by groundcrews. If there wasn't to be a ground function at
all, I would have made stuff 360 degrees in all three planes.
> In other words, you're working in an environment that has artificial gravity.
> 3) You consider it important to preserve cabin pressure under all • circumstances.
> In other words, you want a double-door airlock.
Without invoking forcefield technology (fantasy to some spaceheads), it seems
to me that a (semi-)permanent installation would want this arrangement so that
everyone else not involved in an EVA would not hafta ensure depressurization
protection every time the door opened, which might be quite often if such a
facility did not include a large-enough hangar to accomodate repairs. My
airlock design was made with this in mind.
> However, there is no gravity in the Shuttle when it's in orbit, so
> the chamber can be of any shape. And the door can be a lot smaller, since the
> person/minifig can crawl/float through, instead of walking.
I'm certainly not against any kind of airlock. In fact, for smaller or more
unconventional/bizarre craft, the above could be the only type of airlock they
can use: like the top hatch on the Millenium Falcon or something.
> But maybe extravehicular activity is not a major concern for your spacecraft.
> (There's very little EVA in most sci-fi. The only sci-fi story with EVA that I
> can recall at the moment is Asimov's "Foundation's Edge." IRL, NASA does much
> more EVA.) Maybe the hatch almost always opens into the docking port of • another
> vehicle, or into a breathable atmosphere. In that case, you can get away • with a
> single door on the ship, which greatly simplifies the interior design.
True, but I think just about everyone like the ability to put doors on things,
so that minifigures can 'get out' in space... it's just the fun thing to do.
Plus, for high adventure fun, young Lt. Spacecadet *has to* get out there
himself and repair the communications array because their only available
repair droid has just been disabled by an unknown onboard saboteur.
> I haven't said anything about this for a while. However, shortly after the
> original discussion ended, I concluded that we Space Datsville hopefuls will
> probably still end up with at least two or three different types of airlock
> design. Some of them may be able to join to each other, others not.
I don't mind several standards at all. Steve Bliss has also designed a
dockable airlock very similar to mine. But IIRC the last time he commented on
it, he said it lacked the strength for a good, strong connection and he wanted
to redo it. More power to him, esp. if a superior design comes out of it.
> I'm working from the opposite
> assumptions -- a zero-gravity environment, and the need for only one door. • I'm
> trying to make the door frame from (among other pieces) four of those 45- • degree,
> three-stud bricks <snip>
> An octagonal crawl-through hatch, if one can succeed in making it, should be
> very believable -- and, hopefully, pleasing to the eye.
Do you document your designs? Either via photo, scan or LDraw? I'd like to see
it when done.
-Tom McD.
when replying, give away a can of spamcake today, and make someone smile!
http://radiotitan.8m.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Air lock and ship docking discussion
|
| (...) This is sort of off-topic, but I just remembered another one -- Clarke's "2001." Remember? "Open the pod bay doors, HAL!" "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that." (...) Unknown? Nah, it's Major Moonbeam, having a bit of fun with the hapless newbie. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Air lock and ship docking discussion
|
| (...) Indeed. I'm not sure that the idea was Pat's, however. Tom McDonald proposed his airlock as a standard design back in this message: (URL) a very nice design (the use of pegs and beams is well thought-out, and I'm likely to steal that part of (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.space)
|
26 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
|
|
|
|
