Subject:
|
Re: Space Cargo Container Standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:53:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
681 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jeff Findley wrote:
> Even though I rarely start threads on Lugnet, I thought this topic is ripe for
> discussion.
>
> We've seen from the recent thread, http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=32226
> Trainhead gives space a whirl, that there seems to be some interest in a Space
> Cargo Container Standard.
>
> Drawing on the above thread, I'd guess that you'd want both ends of the cargo
> container to conform to the existing standard for a Moonbase Corridor connection
> (i.e. 8 studs wide with the 2 1x2 bricks with hole in the proper place).
> Furthermore, it seems that 8 studs wide works for trains.
>
> I'm not sure about the height. The ends of the Moonbase Corridor are 7 bricks
> and two plates high. It might be nice to extend this a bit both up and down so
> that a standard can be made for the top and bottom that will allow stacking of
> containers. Perhaps there is a technique to be borrowed from Trains?
>
> As for the length, Moonbase Modules are 48x48 studs. If you choose to make them
> 16 studs long, three containers in length is exactly the length of a Moonbase
> Module. This allows containers to be used as expansion modules on a moonbase.
> It's also exactly twice the standard width of the Moonbase Corridor, which will
> make the containers the same width vs. length ratio as the classic 2x4 brick.
> What do others think about a standard length?
>
>
> Comments, suggestions, flames?
I don't see this as being an issue for the MoonBase. I see it being more
necessary for a MB rail or track system, but even then it doesn't need to be
"nailed down" like the MB corridors have to be. If the MB corridors don't line
up, then that's a LOT more work to get the module up to code.
If a container is meant to fit on a door, I would imagine it's up to the builder
to take that into consideration to fit the basic dimensions of the door. If
it's meant to travel throughout the MB without ever leaving the comfort of the
pressurized environment, that again is on the builder.
The word "container" is a pretty broad term. There's room for all kinds of
containers, in many capacities.
Also, it took a lot of work & discussion before the MB corridor standard came to
be. Changing it now, to fit an as-yet undefined (and possibly unnecessary)
standard for containers would be jumping the gun.
-nk
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Space Cargo Container Standard?
|
| (...) I agree that this is more of a container standard than a MB standard. I'm not sure Jeff was talking about modifying the MB standard at all. I think his point is that we should try to make the container standard conform to the MB airlock (...) (20 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Space Cargo Container Standard?
|
| Even though I rarely start threads on Lugnet, I thought this topic is ripe for discussion. We've seen from the recent thread, (URL) gives space a whirl, that there seems to be some interest in a Space Cargo Container Standard. Drawing on the above (...) (20 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.space)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
