 | | Re: Moonbase Corridor 2.0 ? —Tony Alexander
|
| | | Markham, I remember this, and still think it a useful idea. I think the concensus at the time was to let the moonbase idea gel a little before modifying the original concept, then maybe later consider modifications. It's later. I think it's a worthy (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase Corridor 2.0 ? —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | (...) But what do we do with the dozens of moonbase modules that are already built? I'd say that if we want to do a wide corridor standard, we should have it set back 2 bricks from the edge, so that if we need a coupler from new to old, it can be (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase Corridor 2.0 ? —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | "Adrian Drake" <tremor@apk.net> wrote in message news:HC82MI.150o@lugnet.com... (...) new (...) build (...) to (...) add (...) connectors would only need to be 1 brick back than usual. A 2-brick wide connector could then be used to connect two (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moonbase Corridor 2.0 ? —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | | | Neat stuff, Markham. I was thinking simmilarly : ) I'm hoping to have some renderings of various adapter configurations soon. -JSM (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase Corridor 2.0 ? —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | I forgot to mention that I would expect any new corridor designs must co-exist with previous revisions. IE any moonbase must either incorporate a 1.0 corridor or have adapters to accomodate them. I definitely want to be able to connect to all the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
