Subject:
|
Re: Space Cargo Container Standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:48:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4823 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess wrote:
> 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
> standard for added container functionality. Specifically, that the container
> could be used as a "poor man's" moonbase expansion, or interface.
This is what I meant. I added another post I talked about one way you could use
these modules (similar to how MPLM's are used on NASA's space shuttle and ISS).
Here's the article: http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=32305
> To muddy the waters further, an 8 x 8 container would work as a wonderful
> transition point between a standard MB module and a non-standard 32 x 32 module.
> They might allow for an even more organic growth potential than the current MB
> standard allows.
Someone else (I think Jake) suggested full length modules and half modules. An
8x8 module is half of an 8x16. Six 8x8 modules runs the length of a 48x48
Moonbase module. In combination with 8x16 modules, this would allow for some
interesting constructions.
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
