Google| Subject | Re: Back To The Egg ... |
| From | Volt |
| Date | 2002-04-14 18:41 (2002-04-14 17:41) |
| Message-ID | <Ejiu8.6982$Xf5.510088@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Robert D. Baker |
| Followups | Robert D. Baker (1d, 19h & 6m) |
Robert D. Bakermaterial
If you slice an airplane open (wood or aluminum) it's got rib-like structures, not by coincidence or for aesthetics, but because it's structurally the best way to build it. All that's needed to give it an 'inside an animal' look is to make the
itself icky. ;)Well, yes a wing has 'ribs' and 'skins', which sound like they belong in an animal, and if you squint your eyes after sniffing glue they might look like skeletal parts, but they share little in common with biology, and have fundementally different purposes. Modern aircraft wings are of stressed skin construction, whereas mammals and things with ribs aren't. I'm no biologist but I can't think of any living thing that is built the same way. Fleas, ants and crabs have structural exoskeletal skins, but I don't think they have supporting structure equivalent to stringers, ribs and spars to take bending and torsion loads. So the link with aerospace design and biology in this case extends no further than aesthetics.
So the point stands that the SJ spaceship's 'ribs' just happen to look like ribs, they'd probably be a different material and possible even serve a completely different purpose. I can't believe such an advanced race would resort to hunting creatures and chopping them up for spaceship parts.
But I agree with you that nature does often get the basic ideas right and that good engineering is sometimes inspired by her creations, it's just she struggles with uniformity and her material selection is limited to things that grow.
-Dave
2002-04-08-
