Subject:
|
Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Mark Nelson writes:
> > I remember it well. The thing that I remember most about why it died was the
> > fact that we basically couldn't agree on what sort of technology could be
> > used. For example, some folks don't use forcefields or FTL propulsion. I
> > believe even a question as basic as, Is there gravity on the station? was
> > never answered either. There was also the basic question of how far in the
> > future it was.
>
> Well, I'm thinking that it is just in orbit around a planet, so it doesn't
> need propulsion, and that it does have gravity. And how far in the future? Why
> does it matter? :) As I said, this is Lego, it doesn't have to be realistic!
> :) Also, why use forcefeilds? This thing could be armed with Global Defence
> Cannons that pop out of the roof! ;)
I'm working on several kinds of space craft, and I like having the constraints
of technology, it forces me to make me craft more realistic, at least for me.
For my near future craft, they use chemical propulsion, so I have to include
rocket fuel tanks. If the occupants need pseudo-gravity in space, they have to
rotate their ships.
The next generation uses fission heated rockets (something like NERVA), so
each ships needs a working nuclear reactor close to the nozzle, with tanks and
shielding between the reactor and the crews quarters. They have enough thrust
not to need rotation to produce pseudo gravity.
The generation after that will use fusion, and should be much smaller and more
efficient than the fission powered craft, but they will need a fusion drive
spine, like Niven details.
In short, I feel I can be more creative working within a limiting structure,
but then I like Bach better than Schonberg, for a poor analogy.
> Yep. I agree. Personaly, my view of the future has to do with antimatter
> drives, going almost lightspeed from planet to planet. Hey, those LCC'ens. :)
Ooh, antimatter, that can be my generation after fusion. Thanks!
>
> > Should this really take off, I don't see why Todd couldn't create .space
> > subgroups where the various groups could focus their chats.
>
> That would decidedly rock. :)
Agreed.
I'm buying a bigger hard drive for Father's day, which will let me access my
digital camera again, and may be start posting some of MOCs.
George
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
| (...) Yes. Actualy, the LegoWars has a strict rule. You may not use technology unless it might be created at this time, so thats what I do. :) In short, I pretty much agree with you. (...) Oh yes, quite nice stuff. My newest ship, the Peryodention, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
| (...) Well, I'm thinking that it is just in orbit around a planet, so it doesn't need propulsion, and that it does have gravity. And how far in the future? Why does it matter? :) As I said, this is Lego, it doesn't have to be realistic! :) Also, why (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.space)
|
41 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
|
|
|
|
