6,244
edits
Talk:StarBase 118 Deck Layout: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Fixing link.
(New issues resolved.) |
m (Fixing link.) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::: Also, the engineering decks don't just account for "craft," but instead all manner of maintenance-type stuff. Though, as I think about it, it occurs to me that a lot of stuff that I assumed went in the engineering area (i.e.- water recyclers, air scrubbers, etc.) would probably be "local" to where they are needed. It would be a lot of wasted energy to pipe water from deck 5 to deck 700 just to clean it. So we may want to keep the "lower habitat" the same, then break up the engineering section to include maintenance stuff (fusion reactors, a couple of the computer cores, and other big stuff) and research areas? --[[User:FltAdml. Wolf|Wolf]] /<sup>[[User talk:FltAdml. Wolf|talk page]]</sup> 22:49, 26 June 2006 (CDT) | ::: Also, the engineering decks don't just account for "craft," but instead all manner of maintenance-type stuff. Though, as I think about it, it occurs to me that a lot of stuff that I assumed went in the engineering area (i.e.- water recyclers, air scrubbers, etc.) would probably be "local" to where they are needed. It would be a lot of wasted energy to pipe water from deck 5 to deck 700 just to clean it. So we may want to keep the "lower habitat" the same, then break up the engineering section to include maintenance stuff (fusion reactors, a couple of the computer cores, and other big stuff) and research areas? --[[User:FltAdml. Wolf|Wolf]] /<sup>[[User talk:FltAdml. Wolf|talk page]]</sup> 22:49, 26 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::: Phew... okay. Lots of calculations done. Used a [[:Image:Spacedock.jpg|new pic of the base]] which I feel is more accurate. Then I basically did the same thing I did the first round, but used the height of the base, instead. Worked it out all complicated-like, ending up with a deck being 0.033mm=10feet/3.04m on my scale. Using the [[StarBase 118 Specifications#Dimensions|new specifications]] Avatar and I got from | :::: Phew... okay. Lots of calculations done. Used a [[:Image:Spacedock.jpg|new pic of the base]] which I feel is more accurate. Then I basically did the same thing I did the first round, but used the height of the base, instead. Worked it out all complicated-like, ending up with a deck being 0.033mm=10feet/3.04m on my scale. Using the [[StarBase 118 Specifications#Dimensions|new specifications]] Avatar and I got from [http://www.ditl.org DITL], it was just a mess! But, it came out a little more accurate, I believe, than the original specs we had. So now I'm going to update the deck ranges with the appropriate numbers. | ||
:::: Now, as far as the issues raised above about what is in each section, specifically (research, engineering, etc.), those are issues you can sort out by simply designating "sub-sections" of the major sections for specific things. Part of the engineering section for scientific research, and so on. Be creative :) --[[User:FltAdml. Wolf|Wolf]] /<sup>[[User talk:FltAdml. Wolf|talk page]]</sup> 00:04, 27 June 2006 (CDT) | :::: Now, as far as the issues raised above about what is in each section, specifically (research, engineering, etc.), those are issues you can sort out by simply designating "sub-sections" of the major sections for specific things. Part of the engineering section for scientific research, and so on. Be creative :) --[[User:FltAdml. Wolf|Wolf]] /<sup>[[User talk:FltAdml. Wolf|talk page]]</sup> 00:04, 27 June 2006 (CDT) | ||