Subject:
|
Re: Stacking Moonbases
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:07:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Aaron Sneary wrote:
| |
Moonbase Module Standard Addendum Proposal
Optionally, Moonbase Modules may be built with four vertical passageways 6
studs wide by 5 bricks long and 15 bricks high (translates into 18 studs
tall), passing through the module. These columns should be built studs not up
and all four passageways should have studs pointing the same direction.
Column centers should be 12 studs in from the edges of the 48x48 baseplate.
The ends of these columns should be constructed following the original
corridor connection standards.
With 4 vertical corridors built in this fashion, multiple modules could be
stacked one upon the other, with the weight of higher modules being
transferred directly to the table top, and not through the individual
modules.
What do you guys think?
Aaron S
|
I think a drawing would help people visualize this better.
Seriously, though, it would be easier for modules to connect if you have a
single passageway running up and down in the middle of a baseplate. With four
individual columns, you’d be requiring that each lower module have four vertical
passageways, which is too restrictive. If you can build a module with just one
horizontal connection, why must you have four to go vertical?
I understand your reason is to support the weight, but you could instead say
that lower modules must have a flat top surface onto which the next module is
placed. And all modules that will attach to a lower module must have a flat
bottom surface. That would distribute the weight just like columns would.
The only problem I see with my way is if the upper module is smaller than the
lower one. Then you’ll have a lot of empty flat roof on the lower module. I
guess that kind of thing can be prevented with planning -- if you know how big
an upper module is going to be, then you’ll know where you can safely not have a
flat roof.
And of course there’s a problem if the upper module is bigger than the lower
one. Again, planning.
Maybe the best way would be to have a set of standard options from which to
choose. One single center column, four columns in the corners, etc. Then you
just have to find a compatible upper module to stick on top. Yeah, I like that
way the best.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Stacking Moonbases
|
| (...) Please understand that it is a VERY rough photoshop 'sketch' since I only had a few minutes in class to toss it together, but it will express my ideas to visual thinkers ok: (URL) Aaron S (21 years ago, 5-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Stacking Moonbases
|
| "Jordan Bradford" <jordan_bradfordREMO...tmail.com> wrote in message news:HKppJr.sy9@lugnet.com... (...) four (...) vertical (...) one (...) I thought I'd add that I'm a big supporter of the single centered column/corrido too. [ j o n ] (URL) (21 years ago, 6-Sep-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Stacking Moonbases
|
| Moonbase Module Standard Addendum Proposal Optionally, Moonbase Modules may be built with four vertical passageways 6 studs wide by 5 bricks long and 15 bricks high (translates into 18 studs tall), passing through the module. These columns should be (...) (21 years ago, 4-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
