Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

spaceman

Members
  • Content Count

    1,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spaceman

  1. spaceman

    1/18 LLRV - WIP

    Hey Joe, what an incredible detailed scratch work, looks like you are still employing a few employees in your work shop. Be honest, how many are? I take my hat off in awe to your skill, keep it up, it's a pleasure to see your progress.
  2. spaceman

    1/24 GEMINI 9A part 2

    Congrats, Pete, for your great model. Let's keep the legacy of this history-making milestone in human Space flight alive! Source: NASA Up to the next giant leap!
  3. spaceman

    1/18 LLRV - WIP

    Thanks Joe for your lesson in scratch building. Your idea for using the Dremel as mini-lathe is awesome, I will keep it in mind.
  4. Back to the Beginning of NASA's Space Shuttle Program Tribute to Challenger's Maiden Flight - STS-6 L-R: Donald Peterson †, Paul Weitz †, Story Musgrave, Karol Bobko Source: wikipedia.org Now it is time for presentation my Launch Pad 39A-Project in the ARC forum and I hope you'll be interested in. To the prehistory: After conclusion the NASA Shuttle program last summer with the last Atlantis-Mission (STS-135), I dedicate my first real space modeling project to the beginning the legendary space shuttle era before more than 30 years. I was inspired to this major project by similar space modeling projects in the German forum Raumcon. I decided for the STS-6-Mission with the Challenger (04.04.1983) as guidance version for my build, because I would like to build the tower version from the initial years of shuttle era with the red lattice windows and the partial red FSS grating structure inclusive hammerhead crane, which fascinated me somehow. The following picture shows the Challenger during the roll-out in the fog on their way to the Launch PAD 39A, source: NASA as well as with the lift-off to the STS-6-Mission. source: NASA To the project: To be built is the Launch Pad 39A with Launch tower, Shuttle stack, as well as Mobile launcher platform (MLP) and Crawler transporter (CT). Basic module for my project is thereby the Revell kit 4911 in scale 1:144“, in quotation marks and red, because one already is thereby for the cardinal problem of the actually mad Revell kit, the scale dilemma, to which one could be written its own chapter and said therefore some more must. For the addition of the launch tower FSS I procured myself the Detail Kits von LVM Studios. Since I decided for the STS-6-Mission with the Challenger, with the Detail kits of LVM one can represent thereby the elevator shaft of the tower in the original building technique with the red lattice windows, as it in the early years the shuttle era looked quite. In addition Detail kit No. 1 contains parts for the complete staircase in the tower, which is completely missing with Revell's 4910/4911. The LVM kits contain photo etched parts (PE) from thin brass sheet metal, with which very finely detailed structures can be produced as well known. For building MLP and Crawler I use cardboard-model kits by David Maier from EDU-Craft Deversions on scale 1:144. The kits consist in each case of 13 colored building sheets of cardboard (27.5 cm x 42.5 cm) as well as a building guidance on CD-ROM. To the scale problem: As most of you will know, Revell kit 4911 is seriously underscale and not true to scale 1:144, which lead inevitably to problems with the building. Therefore one has two possibilities, if one liked to use the Revell kit. Either one builds the kit Out Of Box (OOB), because in such a way the building groups FSS, RSS, shuttle stack and MLP fit to each other from the size, only stop is not everything on a scale 1:144, but only shuttle stack. Or one is compelling by partial scale adjustment to compromises and to scratch building, if one liked itself to orient halfway at the original. Of course one can do the build also without the Revell kit by overall scratch building. As way out of the scale dilemma I decided for a compromise settlement. Therefore I made myself first of all own assembly drawings, in order to receive a better overview. Starting point for my considerations was the following design of Gold Member Halbtoter in Raumfahrer.net forum, which shows a comparison between the Revell kit 4911 and the FSS/RSS in the true scale 1:144. source: Halbtoter The black design originates from the Revell building guidance, and the version drawn by Halbtoter by original plans of NASA is red in 1:144. It becomes clear one when exact looking that the red MLP (1: 144) does not fit no more into the Revell RSS. Since this line tangle can confuse one first however and in addition the mini MLP of the Revell kit is not with drawn in, I made myself in addition the following designs: This design illustrates clearly the descriptive scale dilemma of the Revell kit 4911, if one would build all OOB. The serious error is evenly the much to small MLP (1:200!!!) of the Revell kit, which does not fit somehow at all the total proportions. In addition it comes that also the FSS Tower (RSS probably similar) is too low approx. 7,6 cm thereby only one scale of approx. 1:168 corresponds. The image quality must accept your stop, because there two transparency sheets lie one above the other. :o The next design shows now a comparison of the RSS/FSS with MLP in 1:144 (with me black!!!) and in contrast to the Revell conditions in 1:168 and/or 1:200 (red). Considering this awkward situation I came to careful consideration in the long run that one does not come with the scale around a compromise unfortunately around, if one liked to use at least the FSS and RSS as main components of the Revell kit. And in such a way now past planning for my project looks as compromise settlement, with which I will build MLP and Crawler in 1:160 and in addition FSS and RSS in the height are supplemented around approx. 3 cm. I hope now that the result will then contently place me also to some extent. So, now however enough the preface and thus finally to the building and to the first parts and pictures. First part of my project will be the MLP platform, for which I procured myself the cardboard model kit of EDU-Craft Diversions on a scale 1:144, with which one the MLP-2 used with the mission STS-6 can build. Since I will build however MLP and Crawler transporter on a scale 1:160, first I went with the 1:144 cardboard sheets into the copy shop to reduced it to 1:160. Here is a small selection from the 13 MLP sheets. The two following pictures show now what then from it is to become, the MLP, first without source: EDU-Craft Diversions and here at the same time with shuttle stack as impressive comparison with Revell's mini MLP. source: EDU-Craft Diversions And in my next post I will show you first pictures of my building site.
  5. Hello everybody, with the orange-colored shades of the External Tank (ET) we have been engaged oftener already, and it is known that the increasing discoloration of the ET towards darker shades is related to solar radiation, the Shuttle stack is exposed to, while he is standing on the launch pad waiting for the launch. Consequently, one will not be able to get along with one hue alone, because the Intertank is darker anyway, but rather one needs some more or less intense orange-brown color blends, depending on which Countdown situation one wants to display on the launch pad, which is a matter of opinion. Originally, I had thought of the Countdown phase right before the launch for my Diorama and so far I had oriented myself by my often shown STS-6 Reference photo, on which the shades of the ET appear relatively bright, but without knowing which phase this photo comes from exactly. But since the Payload canister can be seen, the photo should be from the beginning of January 1983. Source: retrospaceimages.com (STS-6) Similarly bright shades can be seen on the pictures at the Roll-out of the ET-8 (10.09.1982), Source: forum.nasaspaceflight.com (Jester) as well as during the Roll-out of the Challenger (30.11.1982), here in the fog shortly in front of the pad 39A. Source: NASA On this photo from the Lift-off (04.04.1983) the ET shades appear much darker, a detail that I did not attach much importance to for a long time, because the whole mood of the photo appears somehow darker, which might have been due to the weather or to the photo itself. Source: NASA However, this strong discoloration of the ET becomes plausible given the unusually long resting time of the Shuttle stack on the pad, which at STS-6 in contrast to other missions with 4 months lasted much longer than originally foreseen, which would have been the main reason. The reason for the delay in the launch, which was originally scheduled for the end of January 1983, was a hydrogen leak in the area of the main engine SSME No. 1 of the orbiter that occurred during a test run, Flight Readiness Firing (FRF, 18.12.1982), but which could not be localized exactly at first. In this Flight readiness test, which every orbiter has to complete before his maiden flight or after major technical overhauls, i.a. the three main engines are tested to prove their full functionality for approx. 20 seconds and then shut down. Here is an image of this FRF, which I initially thought was a launch image, but with its brighter color shades of the ET it does not fit to the Lift-off image with the dark hues, what has been pretty confusing me at the beginning. Source: NASA Luckily, in the NSF forum there is a special, very detailed and highly interesting thread Challenger STS-6 – A Walk into History with a lot of photos and information over the entire course of this first Challenger mission, which was a great support for me for understanding all the operations. This leak and its exact locating has kept NASA busy for quite a long time and led to a delay in the launch date, as major maintenance work had to be done on the orbiter's main engines. Therefore, it was necessary to perform another FRF test (25.01.1983), where it can be seen on this photo that the colors of the ET had darkened further. Source: forum.nasaspaceflight.com (Ares67) But even during this FRF, a hydrogen leak occurred, which was caused by a 3/4 inch long hairline crack in the combustion chamber manifold of the engine SSME No. 1. Since in the other engines further leaks occurred too, which were obviously a problem of the welds of these new engines, then at the beginning of March 1983, all three main engines were dismantled on the launch pad. Source: mainengine.de While the welds at the two engines SSME No. 2 and No. 3 were reinforced, engine SSME No. 1 was replaced by a new engine whose welds were also reinforced for safety's sake. After detailed error analysis and a problem-free test of the last 16 hours of a normal countdown, the engines were reinstalled on 10.03.1983, after which the Challenger finally could start for her maiden flight on 04.04.1983. So I know now, when the ET-8 had which kind of shades, and I can decide accordingly, whereby today I tend but rather to the lighter shades.
  6. Hello everybody, now it was time to try the white Vallejo primer out of the can. By the way, it's been a felt eternity, since the last time I primed/painted something about which I can barely still remember ... In addition, these are my first attempts with Vallejo colors/primers, which I want to use shortly. Each can of Vallejo primer contains two spray heads, namely a Pocket Cap for larger flow rates and medium line widths, ideal for larger surfaces, as well as a Skinny Cap for low flow rates, recommended for fine lines and small details, as one can read in the manufacturer's flyer. Since these caps are unfortunately not marked and their nozzle openings appear almost the same size, one has a problem or spoiled for choice. After a long search, I then still found pictures of both types, of which I then haave used the Pocket Cap (left). On this occasion, I then subjected my Suction device (Wiltec) to a first practical test, whereby I started with the small Dummy on the rotary spit. After switching on, the LED lighting comes on first, and then the fan comes slowly up, which is unmistakeable. After shaking the spray can for about 1 minute, I started spinning the spit and spraying, but it began quite fogging in because the Dummy was a bit outside the roofing. Maybe I should have used the Skinny Cap with the finer nozzle. Since I did not want to spray too much primer, I preferred to stop after a few turns, especially as light splashs of primer occurred, which may also have been due to the fact that I had not previously warmed the spray can, which I should rather have done ... And this is now the result of the priming based on the Patterns 2 and 4. While I can make friends with the Pattern 2 already, I think that the Pattern 4 with the double tape layer (0,5 mm onto 0,75 mm) seems to be a bit too raised, even though the surface profile will even further be leveled by means of the following airbrushing. Since the primer layer seemed a bit too thin for me, I also sprayed a second primer to achieve better coverage, whereby I heated the can in the water bath before and shaken it for about 2 minutes. As one can see in this picture, the layer has also become noticeably denser, which means that the stripes of my favorite Pattern 2 are not so clear visible anymore. If I now still imagine a multi-layered airbrush finish above, then the surface profile could already go in the right direction, which comes closer to the original images of the SOFI pattern. On this picture you can see the area in the lower part, which I had twice floured. And this is now the larger Dummy with the five patterns after comparable (short) priming time, for which I had used the Pattex Spray Adhesive, which might not have had the optimal adhesive power, what led to a slighty too thin flour layer. On this picture one can see, that at the Pattern 3 the MEK-gluing of the Evergreen Strips has partially resolved. And so it looks after the two-time priming. The result is: After all, what I have seen so far, I would prefer the Pattern 2. Now it remains to wait for the effect of the airbrushing, whereby I slowly have to think about the orange-brown color mixture, although for the test-painting initially a simple color is sufficient.
  7. Thanks Wombat for your nice comment, I will try my best.
  8. Hello everybody, here's the result of the "double" Flour test after I've brushed off the loose flour. As one can easily see, the flour layer has become denser after the more intensive application of spray glue, which was to be expected. Consequently, one has to develop a certain sense of time for the duration of the spraying, which is why it is called not for nothing: The proof of the pudding is in the eating! This is the view of the "double" floured half of the Dummy. And here is the comparison of the two Flour tests, on the left the flour layer after the first test (in fact it was the second test) after a relatively short spray adhesive application and on the right the flour layer after the more intensive spraying. And tomorrow I will then prime both Dummies in the hope that one can then recognize more and better evaluate the patterns.
  9. Thanks Bill for your nice comment. Hello friends, no sooner said than done! Or- Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. After I had masked one half of the Dummy, I've sprayed the other half full with the UHU Spray Adhesive and then immediately besprinkled it with the flour. After that, I've lightly pressed the flour with my fingers, and then shortly after, I've carefully removed the loose flour from the Dummy by knocking off. Now it's time again to await for the glue to dry, and then tomorrow it remains to be seen, whether a more intensive spraying with the spray glue before the flour apply makes sense, I think so ...
  10. Thanks Brian for your helpful comment. I'm thinking in the same direction, so I'll do a further layer with UHU Spray Adhesive and Flour on one half of the little dummy before priming and so I can then compare both halves.
  11. Hello everyone, now I can also take a closer look on the result of the 2nd Flour test. And my first impression when spraying the UHU Spray Adhesive did not deceive me. The floured surface of the Dummy looks much smoother and more fine-grained after brushing off the loose flour than with 1st Test with the Pattex Adhesive Spray, which I had suspected. Presumably, the Pattex adhesive was not quite okay and the application worked so flocky. Maybe I should have sprayed a little more glue, so that more flour would have stuck, because the layer is indeed nicely even, but looks relatively thin. On this image one can see very nicely the different heights of the two patterns, whereby the Pattern 2 rests relatively flat and the doubled Pattern 4 looks more like the half-rounded form of the SOFI Pattern, which might even prove more favorable in terms of the final look after priming/varnishing, depending on how much of the texture is covered by the primer/varnish. A close comparison of the patterns of both tests is somewhat difficult to accomplish due to the removal of both Dummies and the focusing of the autofocus, but on this image one can clearly see the finer and more homogeneous coating of the 2nd Test (right). And since today the white Vallejo primer has arrived too, I can now prime both dummies, and then one will see, what will be left to see from the patterns under the Flour surface, whereon I am again very curious.
  12. spaceman

    1/18 LLRV - WIP

    Hey Joe, great to see you back in scratch-building your bizarre LLRV, and again in the same impressive way as before, keep it up.
  13. Hello everybody, since during my first test the Pattex Adhesive Spray came out of the spray nozzle in a strangely flaky way, today I did another Flour test with the UHU Spray Adhesive, wherefore I've applied again the Pattern 2 (right) and Pattern 4 (left) on the rest dummy, which are my favorites so far. Pattern 2 - single turns of 0,75 mm Tape, distance 0,5 mm, as a continuous spiral (Barber pole) Pattern 4 - single turns of 0,75 mm Tape, distance 0,5 mm, on it one more layer 0,5 mm Tape, as a continuous spiral Then it went back to the flour cellar. This time around, the application of the spray adhesive looked more regular and smoother than when tested with the Pattex Adhesive Spray and was by no means flaky, but as homogeneous as I remembered it, as one can see here again at a slightly higher magnification. Then I've besprinkled the the Dummy again with flour from the sieve, while turning the dummy, and then lightly pressed the flour with my fingers. And so looked the Dummy then after the knocking off the loose flour, and I think the result looks already more even than the first test. After the glue will has been dried through, the remaining flour is then brushed off tomorrow, and then I can make a comparison.
  14. I suspect that it is more due to the Pattex Adhesive spray and will try the UHU Spray glue again. And then the same procedure once more: Silently trickles the flour ...
  15. Thanks Phil for your nice tip, but I think it will work in some way ...
  16. Thanks Phil for your nice compliment. You mean that the flour might be too coarse, right? This flour structure will surely appear even more leveled after priming and painting and therefore still a bit more realistic, I hope so.
  17. Hello everybody, these are some photos from brushing off the excess flour, whereupon the patterns have reappeared. The long-haired soft brush was perfectly suited for it, and I was amazed how easily the flour was removed. And this is how the cleanly brushed Dummy looks like with the following patterns: 1 - single rings of 1 mm Tape, distance 0,5 mm, 2 - single turns of 0,75 mm Tape, distance 0,5 mm, as a continuous spiral (Barber pole), 3 - single turns of Evergreen Strips 0,25 mm x 0,75 mm, distance 0,5 mm, as a continuous spiral, 4 - single turns of 0,75 mm Tape, distance 0,5 mm, on it one more layer 0,5 mm Tape, as a continuous spiral, 5 - single turns of 0,75 mm Evergreen Sheet Styrene (0,1 mm), distance 0,5 mm, as a continuous spiral. And now to the evaluation, whereby it is to be noted that all patterns will still be leveled a little bit by the following priming and airbrushing. After that, I think the Patterns 2 and 4 are most likely to be considered, as well as possibly also Pattern 5, which correspond with the geometry (width, distance, thickness) of the SOFI Texture I had previously estimated on the basis of original photos. Pattern 3 seems to me to be a little bit too much raised because of the thickness (0,25 mm). On this image, the thicknesses become a bit clearer. And here is once more a comparison of the Dummy with and without the flour structure, which I also have imagined more or less like this and which I like quite well. As I said, a better impression one will receive only in the primed and painted state and only then can be made a final choice. And now I'm curious about your opinion of how you see it.
  18. Thanks Pete, as you know: Discretion is the better part of valor. Better like sticky stuff and tools afterwards, besides the flour was a rather harmless matter ...
  19. Hello everybody, well then let's go into the cellar bakery and get to the sticky Flour pleasure. So that not everything is made sticky afterwards, I have precautionally covered the environment with foil. For a more even flour application I used this sieve instead of the small shovel, which is very suitable for this. And then the Pattex Adhesive Spray was applicated, whereby I've turned the Dummy slowly several times during the spraying process. The spray layer looked strangely flaky, whereat I've wondered about, especially because I remembered the image of the formerly used UHU Adhesive Spray which looked somehow more fluidly ... After the photo, I've immediately taken up the flour sieve. While I was shooting the Dummy, I then sprinkled up a lot of flour and subsequently pressed it lightly with my fingers. Then I've gently tapped the Dummy around with my finger, causing much of the flour to fall off. So now I let stand the whole thing once over night, so that the glue can dry through. Here is a close-up of the first two patterns, where one can still recognize the stripes of the cover tape. In the meantime I've taken the LH2Tank and started to remove this Pressurization line, which had not existed on the ET-8 during STS-6. That was pretty good doable with the Chisel cutter, whereby it is advantageous to put the blade with the slope downwards to produce no unsightly nicks. Tomorrow I will then remove the excess flour with a brush and present you the result of this Flour test application, which I myself am very curious.
  20. Hello friends, and thus from the idea to the practical implementation, this is my Hi-Tech Holding jig for dusting the ET Dummy with flour, which looks cool, right? I do not want to win a Designer prize, and so the purpose justifies the means! Therefore, please keep all available fingers pressed that the test works well.
  21. spaceman

    “Everything is Go” advice needed

    Hi Guys, here is a great Diorama thread (britmodeller.com) by my friend Rich regarding the Launch Complex 14, where you can find lots of interesting stuff, maybe you are interested in.
  22. Thanks Joe for looking in on me again, but I'm not afraid of big animals ... Hello friends, in the meantime, I came up with the following solution for handling the Dummy ET and imagine a simple small holding jig from cardboard, much like a Rotary spit for suckling pigs, the dummy being the suckling pig. Source: chefkoch.de For this I will fill the Dummy tube on both sides with Styrofoam and insert a rod. And then I'll turn this spit slowly by hand, both when spraying with the Spray adhesive and during the subsequent dusting with flour, that's all.
  23. Hello everybody, the ingredients for the Flour orgy are ready and waiting for their application. The flour is fresh from the supermarket, and the Pattex spray glue I have precautionally tested once more, because I did not use it for a long time, but it still glues like hell! But now I have to go to the basement, because here I ultimately want to continue with building ... That's why it could then also start soon. Now I just have to think about how I can hold best the Dummy when spraying and sprinkling with flour ...
  24. Hello everybody, after a short detour to the moon in the year of the 50th Anniversary of the first Moon landing by Apollo 11 in our German Raumcon Forum, in order to comment on the events around Paul Van Hoeydonck's unique sculpture "Man in Space", which was laid down on the moon by David Scott during Apollo 15 mission as "Fallen Astronaut" along with a plaque with the fourteen names of astronauts and cosmonauts who have died in the pursuit of Space exploration, Source: BILD (Ken Glover) I'm back on track again. Today I want to start with the preparations for the creation of the wavy SOFI Ring Structure, for which I famously wanted to apply a combined Flour&Strip Method. Last summer I had first determined the shape and then the geometry of the SOFI Texture and started with first preliminary experiments, s. Posted July 24, 2018 For the starting pattern (left) that time I had glued single rings of 1 mm wide Rai-Ro-Tape next to each other onto my ET dummy and used a magnet strip loop of Evergreen strip 0,25 mm x 0,5 mm as a spacer. In the meantime, I also got me the required different width masking tapes and thought about some more patterns. For the 2nd pattern I have successively glued single turns of 0,75 mm tape and in between at the same time as spacer a black 0,5 mm tape as continuous spirals (Barber pole), which was rather tricky, but has worked well nevertheless. For the 3rd pattern I've glued Evergreen strips 0,25 mm x 0,75 mm in the same way by using MEK, which are thicker than the used Tape strip (about 0,1 mm). Before the Flour test, the spacer tapes (0,5 mm) are removed again. For the 4th pattern I have glued onto the 0,75 mm tape one more layer 0,5 mm tape, to get something more thickness, and for the 5th pattern I have cut some 0,75 mm wide strips of Evergreen Sheet Styrene (0,1 mm) and glued them also by using MEK with 0,5 mm spacing. Next up follows the Flour test by using spray glue, which I am very curious about.
  25. spaceman

    1/24 GEMINI 9A part 2

    I am amazed again and again how narrow it was in the capsules that time, which is why the astronauts were not allowed to have claustrophobia ...
×