egt95 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Oh you tease..... Looking forward to seeing how they turned out. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 Hi Mike, every now and then just kidding ... Hi friends, and here are the AFTSs, where one can hardly distinguish the two kinds with the naked eye, to the left the FUDs, and to the right the FXDs. Of course, they now have to be freed from the rest of the supporting wax necessary for printing before they come fully into their own. Only at higher magnification one can recognize the dividing lines between the individual segments, whereby the surface of the finer-grained structure of the FXD (right) feels a bit finer. But of the feared and often described stepped structure of 3D prints is no trace, which has pleasantly surprised me. And as one can see, the ring fits perfectly in the SRB Aft Skirt, as well as the nozzle into the ring, which proves that I must have measured well and the parts have been printed exactly. And so I really like the 3D AFTC Ring much more better than the spartan part of the Airfix Kit, to whom the Revell ASTC comes relatively close. I suspect that the dividing lines between the segments become even more visible after cleaning and can still be seen after painting, so that the silver foil insulation strips can still be glued on well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
egt95 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Those turned out really, really good. I need some. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 Thanks Mike, then you just need to order a set, Joe will be pleased. Hello everybody, quickly a small addendum to the ASTCs, which are tailor-made for the Airfix Shuttle Stack (1/144). But one can use them also for the Revell Stack, as one can see on this image. Since the inner diameter of the Revell Aft Skirts is slightly larger than for Airfix, it might therefore be advisable to glue an Evergreen Strip 0,25 mm x 1,0 mm around the ASTC ring, then the ring would probably fit even better. Or I could ask my friend Joe (crackerjazz) if he could enlarge the ASTC rings for the Revel Kit to Ø 33,5 mm. And finally, the still remaining test with the Bare-Metal Foil (New Improved Chrome), of which still 24 thin strips (1 mm) must be glued after the painting of the rings, for what a lot of patience should be necessary again. For this I have cut a longer 1 mm wide strip. Then the very thin film can be easily removed from the carrier strip, then each short pieces of it were cut off, and glued to the half tube (to the left of the green line) as well as onto the Airfix ring and pressed and smoothed with a Q-Tip. These are the two stripes to the right of the Liquid Chrome strip that I have recently applied with the Pumpmarker. And as one can see, the Bare-Metal Foil is sticking firmly even still after some hours. Let's see what it tomorrow will look like, hopefully not as with some of the previous stripes, but rather still unchanged firm, wherefore I precautionally press both thumbs. And the chrome luster of the stripes is in my opinion completely sufficient, so that I would be fully satisfied with this result, if it stayed so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 hours ago, spaceman said: And the chrome luster of the stripes is in my opinion completely sufficient, so that I would be fully satisfied with this result, if it stayed so. So, stay tuned for further developments, as they say in the news business? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K2Pete Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 The resolution on those 3D parts is remarkable ... impressive ... Most impressive! Thanx for sharing and thanks for taking such excellent photos of the parts! They leave no question in our minds as to the quality we can expect! Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 13 hours ago, southwestforests said: So, stay tuned for further developments, as they say in the news business? So, let yourself be surprised, and always be curious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 6 hours ago, K2Pete said: The resolution on those 3D parts is remarkable ... impressive ... Most impressive! Thanx for sharing and thanks for taking such excellent photos of the parts! They leave no question in our minds as to the quality we can expect! Pete Thanks Pete, I am pleasantly surprised myself by the quality of the AFTCs, which shows that Shapeways is on a good way. I can recommend you the parts with a clear conscience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anj4de Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Hello I have been using Shapeways FED stuff for a while now on ship parts...The quality is excellent. Important on FUD and FED is to let the parts first of all sit in the sun or under a UV lamp for some hours. In a lot of cases they not not fully cured inside yet. You can see that when they change from transparent to almost white. Then I soak them in Nitro thinner...or acetone. This chews off the left over wax from the priniting process. I also prime all my parts with a laqueur primer, either Tamiya extra fine or the MRP stuff. After that painting with lacquer or arcrylics is no issue any more. cheers Uwe PS: Space stuff seems to be way more expensive then ship parts...;-) Edited February 6, 2018 by anj4de Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Thanks Uwe for your useful tips. I still have to collect the experience with the 3D parts. According to Shapeways guideline, one only should clean the parts in acetone to remove any remaining wax: "If there is any residual oil or wax support material left over from the production process, this can easily be removed using acetone or Simple Green solvent. You can simply dip and air dry the model. Or, using a paint brush, you can lightly spread the solvent on the train and air dry." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Hello everybody, and even after a day, the strips are still gluing unchangedly in place, so that the decision for the Bare-Metal Foil (New Improved Chrome) has fallen. Then I wanted to see how the stripes on the ASTC would look like, and was pleasantly surprised again. Cutting these approx. 7 mm long and 1 mm wide strips and gluing over the dividing lines between the segments, however, proved to be the expected delicate matter, because one has hellishly to take care when handling with cutter and/or tweezers, so that the very thin foil does not tear off. And as one can see, the dividing lines under the stripes are becoming slightly visible, but the same can also be seen on this photo from the STS-43 at a higher magnification. Source: flickr.com (NASA on The Commons) All in all, a completely successful matter with these 3D-ASTCs, which was worth all the effort. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, anj4de said: I have been using Shapeways FED stuff for a while now on ship parts...The quality is excellent. Important on FUD and FED is to let the parts first of all sit in the sun or under a UV lamp for some hours. In a lot of cases they not not fully cured inside yet. You can see that when they change from transparent to almost white. Then I soak them in Nitro thinner...or acetone. This cews off the left over wax from the priniting process. I also prime all my parts with a laqueur primer, either Tamiya extra fine or the MRP stuff. After that painting with lacquer or arcrylics is no issue any more. Ahh, will have to make a note of that. Haven't yet gotten around to getting some of the recent miniatures up on Shapeways for the old sci-fi board game/miniatures game Starfire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, spaceman said: ... this photo from the STS-43 at a higher magnification. Source: flickr.com (NASA on The Commons) Okay, true, Shuttle wasn't perfect, but, dang, it was a glorious thunder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crowe-t Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Manfred, I'm glad to see you like the Bare Metal Foil. I use it for the chrome trim on car kits and it works great and sticks forever. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Thanks friends, and also after two days, the state of the Bare-Metal Foil stripes is unchanged stable, and looks very well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hotdog Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Those thermal curtains are turning out great, Manfred! Your hard work on that is paying off! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 Thanks Brian for your nice compliment, I also think that the ASTCs in combination with the Bare-Metal foil strips will look awesome. One can really fall in love with these 3D parts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) Hello everybody, after having been more intensively involved with the AFTC rings that have been printed meanwhile by Shapeways and tested by me, I want to go back to the 3D modeling of the Intertank wherewith Michael Key had started last December, what I've been posting about. Therefor I had sent him in the result of my research my drawing and the estimated Stringer dimensions without and with foam insulation, where actually only the dimensions with foam insulation for his 3D modeling are relevant. Thereupon he had to adjust his 3D model once again, which I as a 3D rookie have not imaginated so complicated, but which should turn out to be a fallacy. At the beginning of the year he told me that he has meanwhile modeled another version with these stringer dimensions, given by me, Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) consisting of each 26 Stringers in the two Thrust Panels and of each 40 Stringers in the intervening Stringer Panels. But somehow I immediately stumbled over his number of 40, that's totally 80 stringers in the Stringer panels, which I was very surprised because I dimly remembered a number 108 in our German Raumcon discussions, wherewith the confusion around numbers and terms started at the beginning of my project start (11/2011). After intensive researches I finally found the explanation in the System Definition Handbook SLWT, in which the Intertank structure is described quite well. Source: Space Shuttle/External Tank System Definition Handbook SLWT After that one has to distinguish the following terms: While in the six Skin/Stringer Panels (45°) there are each 18 of these Stringers, one speaks in the two Thrust Panels of Ribs, whereby in each case 26 parallel ribs as well as seven circumferential ribs are integrated in these panels, Therewith was clarified at least the number of stringers, namely 108, which showed that Michael Key's 3D model had with totally only 80 too little stringers. And now I had to explaine this fact heavy-heartedly Michael Key, whereby I was afraid that he would lynch me for it. Thereupon he was very disappointed and had initially thrown in the towel quite frustrated. But of course, I did not want to give up that fast ... On the other hand, it would probably have been more useful to distribute the Stringer number onto the circumference of the eight 45° panels, whose drawing he had also been given by me. But in hindsight one is always smarter than before ... In the meantime, I did it my way both for the six Stringer Panels and for the two Thrust Panels with following results and sent it to him, in the hope that he would have an insight as well as a good will. Long story short, therewith I obviously had affected his honor, so that he was ready to go on. But I had to confirm to him that it would finally remain, in each case 54 stringers in the Stringer panels (135°) and in each case 26 ribs in the two Thrust panels (45°), whereupon I gave him my word and was jolly glad. Edited February 8, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Space models are just insane with small details and subtle details - because the amount of intricate engineering which goes in to the real thing is. That part development was quite an emotional ride. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Thanks southwestforests for the nice words. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 (edited) Hello everybody, there are progresses to be reported of Michael Key's intertank modeling. After the number of Stringers (108) and that of the Ribs (52) have been clarified, we now have to clarify some further details on the Intertank, which are marked in this image, some of which have already been integrated into Michael's model. Source: NASA Here are his latest 3D pictures, whereby I wondered at first about these six plates in the Access Door, that I've never seen before. Furthermore, I noticed that the size and location of the Access Door (AD) and the Carrier Plate (CP) cannot be quite right, Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) which is why I determined them more precisely based on photos, wherefore I used the agreed reference size 1 Stringer+Valley = 1,3 mm. At first I used this great direct view of the Carrier Plate, which has almost no perspective distortions, what should be considered. For the determination and conversion of the measures, the following explanation of my numbers in the photos with and without mm is necessary, so that one does not get confused. Numbers without mm are measured values in the respective photo, and Numbers with mm are the converted measurements in 1/144. And if one compares this photo with his model, stands out that the distance D2 of the Carrier Plate from the Thrust Panel is too large because it should be only 2 Stringer+Valley (2,6 mm). Source: NASA With this distance and the determined dimensions of the Carrier Plate of 3.5 mm x 5.0 mm (W x H) I am afterwards in this photo of the Access Door boarded, which unfortunately is not so distortion-free in the area of the door. And in this photo one can see that the door is flat and has no attached panels. Source: NASA Here's a similar picture at which the access door panel is removed, which is attached with 44 flat profile screws. Source: NASA Thus, the Access Door and the Carrier Plate would have the following dimensions: Access Door: 9,1 mm x 7,7 mm (W x H) Carrier Plate: 3,5 mm x 5,0 mm (W x H) As one can see in the following image, the Fairings of the LO2 Feedline (17'') and of the GH2 Press. Line (2'') were added, as well as the LH2 PAL Ramp and the LO2 PAL Ramp, as well as the Supports for the two Press. Lines and the associated Cable Trays. Thereto Michael has suggested to omit the two thin Press. Lines and the Cable Trays, as they would go beyond the intertank anyway and could possibly break off during printing or transport. He was worried about the PAL Ramps. While the LO2 PAL Ramp could survive at the top, he fears that the LH2 PAL Ramp could probably break because it's very long and thin. So he asked if he should cut them off at the ends of the Intertank, which I agree with. Since I anyway want to insert the LO2 Feedline and the Press, he should omit them away, but not the Cable Trays, because I could continue them to the front and backwards. Then I still showed him these two photos, on which one can see that the bottom plates of the Fairings are flush with the stringers and not put onto, what he has accepted and wants to change. Source: NASA Source: NASA These were essentially my hints and correction wishes. Regarding of his plates attached on the Access Door, which I had queried, he sent me this photo here, which surprised me, since I did not have seen it yet. That's why I asked him if he had any source, whereby it could possibly be a Mock-up. I believe that shows once again that a timely and consensual coordination of such details is important for a smooth process, that's why one never stops learning. Edited February 11, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Hello everybody, let's go step by step on our way to the goal, here are the next images of Michael Key's 3D modeling. As one can see in this image, he has omitted both the six plates in the door and adjusted their size, as well as he had corrected the distances of the AD and the CP from each other and from the Thrust Panel. Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) The position of the CP, however, remained unchanged and still sits too high up, although I had already marked it in this last image, Source: NASA what one can also see in this photo. Source: forum.nasaspaceflight.com (Jester) Furthermore, it is noticeable that the bottom plate of the large LO2 Fairing admittedly is flush with the stringers, but not that of the small LH2 Fairing, Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) which is still to be corrected, according to the following photo, but hopefully will not cause any problems. Source: NASA Then here are two more images of the small supports of the GH2/GO2 Press. Lines (2''), first with the indicated lines, Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) and here the final design without the lines, whereby the thin wires (Ø 0.3 mm) will separately be inserted later and covered with small caps. Source: shapeways.com/forum (Michael Key) Now I hope that these last changes can also be considered by him, according to which an upload of the 3D model to Shapeways nothing would stand in the way. But Michael Key wanted to be honest and told me, that there are some very small parts in this model that could possibly overstrain Shapeways' possibilities, so the model might not pass their inspections the first time around. That would be normal, and Shapeways would let him know the problem, which he would correct. That's why I'm very curious, but initially his modified model is still due. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 17 hours ago, spaceman said: Hello everybody, ... Regarding of his plates attached on the Access Door, which I had queried, he sent me this photo here, which surprised me, since I did not have seen it yet. That's why I asked him if he had any source, whereby it could possibly be a Mock-up. I believe that shows once again that a timely and consensual coordination of such details is important for a smooth process, that's why one never stops learning. Playing a bit with Google's reverse image search found another image of that door, "The tank – also known as STA – was the third and final test tank for the Space Shuttle Program and was used for structures/stress testing at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama between 1977 and 1980. After it had completed this task, the tank was placed on display at MSFC and then later at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. It was then moved to the KSC Visitor Complex in 1997 where it was visible to the public until April 2013." http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/failure-to-launch-full-scale-shuttle-external-tank-stuck-at-green-cove/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spaceman Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 (edited) Thanks southwestforests for your sense of searching for the source of this photo of the Intertank-Access Door, shown by Michael Key. You've hit the nail on the head!!! I had thought of a Mock-up right away. In this article one can find this photo with its originator Jacques van Oene. And in this Article I have found many other interesting photos, such as also this photo of the Carrier Plate, which is only five Stringers above the Access Door, as we meanwhile know. Very interesting details. Edited February 12, 2018 by spaceman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
southwestforests Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Welcome! It is a good bet the flight rated tanks had design evolution as the program required each new one. That might be a thing to look in to. Could slow the project by five years researching which if any details changed but it might be a thing to look in to. ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.