Droyne Architecture

Jeff Zeitlin sagt:
>   Actually, I would tend to think that Droyne architecture would
>   tend to triangles and hexagons in the plane (such as in the jump
>   grid on their starships), and geodesic domes and icosahedra in
>   threespace (the ships themselves, buildings, and so on).
>   Structurally, this kind of construction minimizes material while
>   maximizing strength and area/volume.  There is also the example
>   of their own "rib" structure; I've read suggestions that body
>   structure will have a large influence on the way that a species
>   would "design" its environment.  Notice, for example, that the
>   human rib cage is a series of arches, with the sternum as the
>   "keystone" of the arch.

Hum.  I don't see much of human anatomy in something like say:  The
Space Shuttle.  Nor do I see it in a Saturn V.  Nor do I see it in a
Sapwood ICBM...  Ariane...  Mir... Skylab... Abrams MBT... F-14 Tomcat
Nimitz class carrier...  Los Angeles class fast attack sub...  MiG-29
Fulcrum...

The laws of engineering don't change, vertibrates need a good internal
structure, and so are governed by those laws.  But the things we build
are not constrained to only those solutions which have been solved by
evoloution.  Humans and other advanced alien societies do not adapt
themselves to fit their environment, they adapt their environment to fit
themselves.  (For the most part)  A space ship is not bound by evolution.

Cubic structure, most commonly found on earth, is nicely easy to build,
but I don't think that there is anything intrinsically cubic about human
beings.  (Though I Do know humans who are best described as squares...)

But yes, body structure Will have an influence on the design of
environment.  If you are only 1.5 meters tall, you don't need 2.6 meters
of head room on your decks.  If you have wings, you will design spaces
in such a way that flight is comfortable.  If you have a tail, you will
cartainly have a space for said tail designed into your chairs.  But
these differences will primarily be shown in how work stations and
floor plans will work out.

The only real descriptions we have to work from are the descriptions of
the Ancients stuff as found in, Twilight's Peak, Secret of the Ancients
and DGP's little thing on Antiquity.  Now the interesting thing about
those, I would say, is that the function of Ancient Artifacts should be
a lot more self evident to a Droyne than it would be to a human.  Think
about THAT.  Also, in Secret of the Ancients, we have a good descrption
of an Ancient's starship.  THAT is an example of Droyne Architecture.
So maybe Droyne Architecture IS completely weird from human (Imperial)
eyes.

I would suggest that the Zhodani seem to know a lot more about the
Droyne than the Imps do.  Their jump grids are similar.  Zhos use
triangles, while Droyne use hexagons.  The patterns are very similar.
Take 6 triangles, glue em together and you've got a Hexagonal Droyne
grid.  (Maybe theres something weird psionically about a hex or triagonal
grid).

Speaking of Jump drives, I haven't got Brilliant Lances yet, but I hope
that it was NOT a misprint about a 2 cubic meter jump drive being the
minimum rather than 2*(whatever a displacement ton is).  A 2 cubic meter
jump drive will now allow such a drive to be installed into the enlarged
TNE missiles, so we can now build Jump torpedoes again.
- --
Scott 2G Kellogg
"Kellogg is just plain nuts!"  -- H. Beam Piper

[email removed] (Scott S. Kellogg) says:
>Speaking of Jump drives, I haven't got Brilliant Lances yet, but I hope
>that it was NOT a misprint about a 2 cubic meter jump drive being the
>minimum rather than 2*(whatever a displacement ton is).  A 2 cubic meter
>jump drive will now allow such a drive to be installed into the enlarged
>TNE missiles, so we can now build Jump torpedoes again.

That would be nice ... or would it?

Oh NO!  Interstellar war from your lounge room.  Bombard the s**t out of
your enemy without even leaving the comfort of your own planet 8^}

Bruce...      [email removed]

Scott Kellog writes:
>Hum.  I don't see much of human anatomy in something like say:  The
>Space Shuttle.  Nor do I see it in a Saturn V.  Nor do I see it in a
>Sapwood ICBM...  Ariane...  Mir... Skylab... Abrams MBT... F-14 Tomcat
>Nimitz class carrier...  Los Angeles class fast attack sub...  MiG-29
>Fulcrum...

Of those, the Saturn V, the Sapwood, and Arianne are the only ones
not significantly affected by human anatomy and anthropometrics.

The Space Shuttle has to be big enough for three things: Big cargos
due to DOD specifications, wings for crossrange capability in re-entry,
and a seven-man habitation space up front.  The hab space is very much
dependent on human size.

Mir was sized to be the minimum space two people can comfortably
live in for 6-9 months.  Skylab's interior was broken up into spaces
based on what human size could handle, in terms of operating machinery and
such.  The Abrams MBT is that size and shape muchly to fit the people
in... trust me, crew position is one of the hardest issues in armour
design...  The F-14 Tomcat was sized to carry three payload items to
Mach 2.4 off a carrier deck: a large radar, a bunch of big missiles,
and _two flight crew and their work stations_!  Of those, the crew
are arguably the largest item, and the canopy the crew are under is
quite a bit of total aircraft supersonic drag.

The Nimitz is that size because of the number of aircraft it needs to
carry and the size of those aircraft.   The size of those aircraft
to a large degree determines overall size.  The Los Angeles would
be a lot different if its crew were a lot smaller or larger; you need
a certain crew size to keep everything operational, and that drives
some pretty painful relationships as larger crew require more space
per crew which requires more machinery which requires more crew...

>The laws of engineering don't change, vertibrates need a good internal
>structure, and so are governed by those laws.  But the things we build
>are not constrained to only those solutions which have been solved by
>evoloution.  Humans and other advanced alien societies do not adapt
>themselves to fit their environment, they adapt their environment to fit
>themselves.  (For the most part)  A space ship is not bound by evolution.

Yes, and the rules on which advanced societies build things are carefully
and closely linked to things like size.  Try spending time in Japan for
instance; the average Japanese person is several inches shorter than
in the US, and they have smaller buildings (in all dimentions, and not
just a little) and vehicles than we do.  Lots smaller.

- -george william herbert

 ...Scott Kellog wrote:
>>Hum.  I don't see much of human anatomy in something like say:  The
>>Space Shuttle.  Nor do I see it in a Saturn V.  Nor do I see it in a
>>Sapwood ICBM...  Ariane...  Mir... Skylab... Abrams MBT... F-14 Tomcat
>>Nimitz class carrier...  Los Angeles class fast attack sub...  MiG-29
>>Fulcrum...

 ...and George Herbert replied:
>Of those, the Saturn V, the Sapwood, and Arianne are the only ones
>not significantly affected by human anatomy and anthropometrics.
> <Rest of text deleted for brevity's sake>

First, I believe the original comment was (to paraphrase): there is a
correlation between architecture and anatomy.  However, none of the
items that Scott listed are architecture in the classical sense, but
vehicles.  I think the original comment was specifically referring to
buildings, not to vehicles...

Second, the examples that George used to rebut Scott were all based
on ergonomics.  I certainly won't argue that form must/should/does
follow function (to quote a famous deceased architect), because I
agree.  But I believe that the original comment of
        <building arch> = <human arch/torsal structure>
was _not_ making the connection between form and function.
Instead, I viewed it as a simple connection between shapes;
the point made was that a species' architecture would be based on
some structural aspect of that species' shape.

        Myself, I think that the connection between building arch and
human arch is stretching it a bit.  It's only one example, and there
don't seem to be any more (not that I can think of, but hey, I'm just
a brain dead grad student...).  Not only that, but the sum total of
human architecture is extremely diverse.  Zulu and Mongols built
round "houses" with conical tops.  Iraquois built the origianl "quonset
huts," which we so copiously copied during WWII here in the States.
Plains Indians built Teepees, which are conical.  Egyptians, Aztecs
and Incas built pyramids.  It seems that most simple geometric shapes
get used by humans.  The examples are more numerous than I want to
put in a post...
        So I will stir the pot some more...  ;->  ;->  ;->  I would argue
that architectural shape of buildings has far more to do with the
building materials available than anything else.  Think about it:
the original quonset huts are half cylinders bacause that's the shape
you get when you bend a bunch of saplings and cover them with birch.
When you live in places where trees are abundant (and the culture has
advanced past the bronze age) you get square houses (with peaked roofs
in areas where it snows) - like most of Europe.  The arch is found
whenever people are building with stone, because it solves the problem
of tension failure in rocks - it's a shaped based on the property of the
material, no more, no less. Let's skip the rest of the examples, as I'm
sure everyone can figure them out for themselves.  :->

        I'm not going to touch vehicular design with a ten foot pole.    ;->
Besides, I agree essentially with George.

ttfn!
Catie, brain dead grad student
Catie Helm
Stable Isotope Lab, Geology Dept, UC Davis
[email removed]