what about zero datum / horizon architecture . . . designs for space, not a planet, or comet, but what happens when architecture has no ground to build on, just empty space?
If 'architecture sucks' here on earth [in the presense of an atmosphere], does that mean it would 'blow' out in space?
I ask this, since it's commonly percieved [incorrectly] that when something is catastrophically depressurized in space, it's 'sucked' into space, when in fact it is 'blown' into space.
true, science blows, it does not suck . . . I was taught that in 4th grade I think, and I still use it to make myself seem witty and smart all at once . . . which of course, I am neither.
what about coordinate system . . . would there be a localized and a "global" coordinate which references the rest of the universe? Localized interior coordinates to determine upness and downless. I always found it amazing that in Star Trek, all of the ships always met up in space "upright." So maybe they had some universal coordinate system to determine which way was the metaphor for up.
of course, but it is just messy and kind of demeaning . . . I think 2001 addressed the trueness of what a space environment could mean. Still, there were physical errors there too.
Hi
What you will see in space is best emagined towerds the design you see with submarines. With these you must restand an opposite force where just 10 meter down you have same preasure working on the outside the sub where in space the same preasure will work the opposite way.
Submarines are in these terms over enginered structures --- in space the structure just need to restand one atm. prasure from inside ,submarines allready been made to restand thousands of meters ,acturly a strong structure for a space structure will require very little oposed what is already put into enginering submarines.
Anyway you would never place bricklayers in space , spacehuts will be made from anything else than bricks so forget about earth architecture maby even meters and inches. --- make a new measure , an 3D-H.
In space the distances will be parsec try evluate one inch up against that angle. Again --- would you expect spaceworkers doing measures with tape measures ?
Realy I think that with the famous Mars oops where inches was mistaken for cm. there realy are a need for a new measure --- what is then wrong that a house are one house wide a spacestation one space station across, fact is that it work ; place a door halve a house from the edge of the house and the door will be in the middle , just like with inches and centimeters , at the same time we can scrap thousands of nasional measures , --- there still are differences just in the inch system in different contries --- only thing that is "wrong" with this suggestion is proberly your response , please ask yourself if you react just like those who said "no thing heavier than air will ever fly".
You see I can use such system to draw just anything, without inches or meters and it will still work beside it would not have made the inch versus cm. trouble -------- what unit would you suggest in space ,an astronomic unit, the mid distance earth - sun ? Now try dimension a space station from that.
Why? Construction at that scale is completely outside our abilities and resources and I imagine will remain that way for the rest of our species functional existance. How about I just build a hyper-space jet fighter to shuttle monkeys between Africa and the Lesser Antilles instead?
Besides, the idea is completely unoriginal. Go to Google and look up "Dyson Sphere," and ponder the wonderous possiblities of 3D-H for that one...
Jun 10, 05 8:19 pm ·
·
Plus there were some animals heavier than air flying in the Earth's lower atmosphere long before there were humans asking questions.
momentum: can't you see that Per is struggling - in his own way - towards Teilhard's omega point, as we all are, indeed, in our separate ways?? I see convergence: some day we WILL understand what he is talking about. Not just yet...
the way I see it, cartesian geometry is flawed as it leaves out i, imaginary numbers (being the square root of negative x I think). Descartes evisaged only 3 dimensions: Einstein tells us there are 4. Hence a tetrahedral geometry would admit a 4th (spatial) dimension. Which is why I think the geometry of the space station should be tetrahedral and not cartesian (the latter composed of x,y & z and their negatives). I think the 4th dimension is not time, but i, imaginary numbers...
Hi
Most troubles in architectural renderings are caused by negative numbers, there are a need for the direction vector as the math. don't care if it is negative or positive numbers. ------- Still what's the trouble, you now can form and shape with Solids with no thought about how to detail engineer the framework, now isn't that an aproach that fit better with what you would expect computers to offer the total freedom ,the new architecture the new form language.
Realy this is the sad drama ,that in architecture the icon making architect are now that far from the actural tool that make the wonder ,then someone must tell that creativity to long been kept prison by the attitude, that "the architect throw a sketch that the CAD workers then "translate". -------- Out with that lame 70' computermesh attitude Out of the dead end road that make sure there will be no true creativity while the architects want no hands-on touch with the works.
How can true wonders be shapen with that attitude. Without even knowing the numbers the vectors and why architecture been stuck as a social game rather than a creative playground.
Sorry I am proberly to off-topic then, back to zero gravity ,and we agrea that it's not bricklayers that is needed ,then as we already have the Math. for anything the cooerdinate systems and discussions about 4'th dimention shuld also be irelevant . Only question would then be, how to perform it, what to perform it from ,if it shuld carry it's own resoning if shuch system would ever be possible, unless the code is avaible for changing itself.
We still in some sense build from dirt and water ,not that anything is wrong about that ,but robots are bound to protest if the material processed is destroying the damn tool.
Na it will be no problem calculating anything and show it calculated on a screen , but do you Want a Cabin at a third the cost, that is the question.
Jun 11, 05 12:32 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
zero-g architecture
in space or on the Moon or Mars: what should it look like? Is this the future of architecture?
what about zero datum / horizon architecture . . . designs for space, not a planet, or comet, but what happens when architecture has no ground to build on, just empty space?
should it be tetrahedral or cartesian (with and x,y & z axis) in that case?
If 'architecture sucks' here on earth [in the presense of an atmosphere], does that mean it would 'blow' out in space?
I ask this, since it's commonly percieved [incorrectly] that when something is catastrophically depressurized in space, it's 'sucked' into space, when in fact it is 'blown' into space.
true, science blows, it does not suck . . . I was taught that in 4th grade I think, and I still use it to make myself seem witty and smart all at once . . . which of course, I am neither.
what about coordinate system . . . would there be a localized and a "global" coordinate which references the rest of the universe? Localized interior coordinates to determine upness and downless. I always found it amazing that in Star Trek, all of the ships always met up in space "upright." So maybe they had some universal coordinate system to determine which way was the metaphor for up.
Of course it could also be due to the fact that it was all fake anyway...
of course, but it is just messy and kind of demeaning . . . I think 2001 addressed the trueness of what a space environment could mean. Still, there were physical errors there too.
Hi
What you will see in space is best emagined towerds the design you see with submarines. With these you must restand an opposite force where just 10 meter down you have same preasure working on the outside the sub where in space the same preasure will work the opposite way.
Submarines are in these terms over enginered structures --- in space the structure just need to restand one atm. prasure from inside ,submarines allready been made to restand thousands of meters ,acturly a strong structure for a space structure will require very little oposed what is already put into enginering submarines.
Anyway you would never place bricklayers in space , spacehuts will be made from anything else than bricks so forget about earth architecture maby even meters and inches. --- make a new measure , an 3D-H.
per does everything you post always need to come back to this doltish 3d-h?
What's 3D-H?
In space the distances will be parsec try evluate one inch up against that angle. Again --- would you expect spaceworkers doing measures with tape measures ?
Realy I think that with the famous Mars oops where inches was mistaken for cm. there realy are a need for a new measure --- what is then wrong that a house are one house wide a spacestation one space station across, fact is that it work ; place a door halve a house from the edge of the house and the door will be in the middle , just like with inches and centimeters , at the same time we can scrap thousands of nasional measures , --- there still are differences just in the inch system in different contries --- only thing that is "wrong" with this suggestion is proberly your response , please ask yourself if you react just like those who said "no thing heavier than air will ever fly".
You see I can use such system to draw just anything, without inches or meters and it will still work beside it would not have made the inch versus cm. trouble -------- what unit would you suggest in space ,an astronomic unit, the mid distance earth - sun ? Now try dimension a space station from that.
i see words,
i see sentences,
i even see some sensible things on occasion, but then something like this happens, and once again my mind goes numb.
Why? Construction at that scale is completely outside our abilities and resources and I imagine will remain that way for the rest of our species functional existance. How about I just build a hyper-space jet fighter to shuttle monkeys between Africa and the Lesser Antilles instead?
Besides, the idea is completely unoriginal. Go to Google and look up "Dyson Sphere," and ponder the wonderous possiblities of 3D-H for that one...
Plus there were some animals heavier than air flying in the Earth's lower atmosphere long before there were humans asking questions.
momentum: can't you see that Per is struggling - in his own way - towards Teilhard's omega point, as we all are, indeed, in our separate ways?? I see convergence: some day we WILL understand what he is talking about. Not just yet...
Something tells me L. Ron Hubbard knows what Per is talking about...
that was cruel... but then again, maybe you're right
Think of it like this...
It's a battle of actors. Per's got John Travolta and Tom Cruise on his side.
We've got Brad Pitt and Christian Haydenson on ours.
We've definitely got the numbers on that one.
the way I see it, cartesian geometry is flawed as it leaves out i, imaginary numbers (being the square root of negative x I think). Descartes evisaged only 3 dimensions: Einstein tells us there are 4. Hence a tetrahedral geometry would admit a 4th (spatial) dimension. Which is why I think the geometry of the space station should be tetrahedral and not cartesian (the latter composed of x,y & z and their negatives). I think the 4th dimension is not time, but i, imaginary numbers...
Hi
Most troubles in architectural renderings are caused by negative numbers, there are a need for the direction vector as the math. don't care if it is negative or positive numbers. ------- Still what's the trouble, you now can form and shape with Solids with no thought about how to detail engineer the framework, now isn't that an aproach that fit better with what you would expect computers to offer the total freedom ,the new architecture the new form language.
Realy this is the sad drama ,that in architecture the icon making architect are now that far from the actural tool that make the wonder ,then someone must tell that creativity to long been kept prison by the attitude, that "the architect throw a sketch that the CAD workers then "translate". -------- Out with that lame 70' computermesh attitude Out of the dead end road that make sure there will be no true creativity while the architects want no hands-on touch with the works.
How can true wonders be shapen with that attitude. Without even knowing the numbers the vectors and why architecture been stuck as a social game rather than a creative playground.
Sorry I am proberly to off-topic then, back to zero gravity ,and we agrea that it's not bricklayers that is needed ,then as we already have the Math. for anything the cooerdinate systems and discussions about 4'th dimention shuld also be irelevant . Only question would then be, how to perform it, what to perform it from ,if it shuld carry it's own resoning if shuch system would ever be possible, unless the code is avaible for changing itself.
We still in some sense build from dirt and water ,not that anything is wrong about that ,but robots are bound to protest if the material processed is destroying the damn tool.
Na it will be no problem calculating anything and show it calculated on a screen , but do you Want a Cabin at a third the cost, that is the question.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.