 | | Re: Moonbase & 32x32 landing pads —Adrian Drake
|
| | | (...) Interesting concept. However, the original plan for large scale moonbase displays (such as that for next year's Brickfest) was to have a separate landing/runway area, which would be based on the 32x32 footprint of the landing pad and T (...) (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase & 32x32 landing pads —Greg Howell
|
| | | | | (...) Submitted for your approval: My first section of Moonbase incorperates the 32x323 landing pad. The concept is for a small pad for cargo and light ship landing in the midst of a large base. (URL) a "Cargo Hopper" on the pad: (URL) am planning (...) (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moonbase & 32x32 landing pads —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, I approve. I like the concept. (...) In my opinion fully elevated pads are the way to go. Guiding a craft between all of those modules to the platform could get a little hairy if the Instrument Landing System goes down. ;-) -Duane (URL) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Brilliant —Paul Hartzog
|
| | | | | | this is brilliant. this is a perfect example of how the IDEA of the moonbase and the standard can be taken way beyond the ideas of even the people who created it. very nice integration of 32's be sure to bring this to a fest :-D -paul (...) (22 years ago, 18-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase & 32x32 landing pads —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | (...) But you could easily conceive of the moonbase as having been built up over the years, one module at a time, as the population expanded. As such, you wouldn't expect the layout to be perfectly planned. Of course, this conception fits the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
