Subject:
|
Re: Stacking Moonbases
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:55:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Aaron Sneary wrote:
Whoa! How about having a larger standard internal diameter for vertical
corridors? That would allow a bit more flexibility on how the corridors
transport things vertically. I’d hate to have the standard mandate ladders or
“antigravity devices”. I prefer mechanical lifts.
How about an 8x8 lift tube for people, and a 16x16 lift tube for cargo?
I agree with Jordan about just one vertical tube per module - more seems like
overkill (but I would use additional non-tube stanchions for supporting upper
modules as I think that flat module surfaces touching wouldn’t look any
good).
The real problem is where the standard place should be. Central would be
neatest, but there’s real benefit from placing a lift bay to the side if a
module has a large enclosure.
I’m leaning towards saying that the standard specify a vertical module
separation (does it have that already?) and positions for supports, but that
they needn’t be tubes - and leave that to modules built specifically for it
i.e. To go to an upper module, a minifig would travel to a nearby “lift
module”, go upstairs, then horizontally out to the destination module. That
way, groups designing a moonbase can plan ahead to make sure they have an
adequate number of “lift modules”. Note that a “lift module” needn’t be
merely for lifts - it can still have a cool primary purpose e.g. a
multi-level space hotel.
|
If you’re going to get so complex as to build a lift, you might as well be
making just a single moonbase that’s very tall. Something like this one:
http://lego.bldesign.org/models/?n=91
After considering this some more, I’m thinking that having a vertical connection
standard is going to be too complicated. All we really need is a standard
height that the next horizontal connection should be at. Then let the builder
decide how to connect two or more floors.
That way we don’t have to worry about support columns, number of vertical
passageways/tubes/lifts/whatever, where they should be, and so on. Once this
other thread figures out how tall to
raise the current standard for the first floor, we can determine how tall each
additional floor’s connections should be.
Actually, that thread says that they’ve already worked on a vertical corridor
standard and are waiting to update their site until they figure out if the
current corridors should be raised two bricks.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stacking Moonbases
|
| (...) Whoa! How about having a larger standard internal diameter for vertical corridors? That would allow a bit more flexibility on how the corridors transport things vertically. I'd hate to have the standard mandate ladders or "antigravity (...) (21 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
