Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

DutyCat

Accurate vs Educational/Representative

Recommended Posts

So I have this Revell 1/96 Saturn V. I actually had two, but sold one because I ordered the new Dragon 1/72 version. I have these and a bunch more spacecraft models from Revell, Monogram, and Airfix. My intention is to build them all up over time for my classroom.

At this point, if you are asking your self why the large scale Dragon AND Revell it is because the Dragon will be stacked and the Revell will be horizontal.

Anyway, I know all about the accuracy issues with the Revell kit, so I thought about ponying up for the New Ware upgrade and the Real Space CSM and batted engines. Then I got to thinking...my goal here is to make an impressive display for my high school aerospace students, not make a hyper accurate model for myself or to impress real space experts. I thought about the batted engines.....nope, don't want to use them because they are ugly and do not show the cooling rings etc around the engine. Then I thought about the CSM and protective shroud. Nope, don't want to use the protective shroud either because then the viewer can't see any detailed representation of the command module as it sits on the service module and in relation to the overall rocket. Then I thought about all of the resin and photo etch corrections. My students will not have a clue about the accuracy of those and neither will anyone else except you guys here. Same for the Block 1 vs Block 2 CSM. In fact the Block 1 CSM vs Block 2 would be a point of conversation as the Monogram 1/32 Block 2 CSM is going to be sitting right next to Revell Saturn V.

Then I started thinking about the other stuff that I have to build. Monogram 1/48 Lunar Module set, 1/24 Gemini, 1/32 Apollo, and more. All of these kits have issues and require time consuming and expensive modifications to make flight accurate. The Dragon 1/72 Saturn in some ways has worse accuracy issues than the Revell 1/96 kit and I still ordered that because it will build up to an impressive beast and wow my students.

I guess what I am trying to say is, given my "customer" I don't see that need in going all out. I just want to build them well using what I have to work with. The Shuttle Wars project has been time consuming and expensive as it is, and I really do not want to get bogged down with any more resource and time intensive projects after it is done.

Thoughts, please.

Edited by DutyCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel your pain! Getting these kits accurate is what makes the build process so expensive and time consuming...but it's also the fun part! You can skip out on getting the details right, but then you have to live with looking at those builds in your classroom every day. Another reason NOT to go all-out on those Saturn builds is because of the fact they are going into a classroom, where they are more likely to get mishandled, knocked over or broken. I wouldn't want to put so much time and effort into something going into that environment. It may also be good for your morale to knock out a quick out-of-box build or two just to take away from the monotony of the builds that do drag out for so long. I thought about building a quick-build of an Enterprise shuttle just for that very reason, and to just to get *something* finished since my other shuttles are going at such a slow pace.

Edited by Hotdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a classroom build I wouldn't go all the way detailing every last bit of the real vehicle. If you build them to be educational models it is more important that the students can see the structure and the different components and how they actually work than every last bolt. I also don't think the extra time and effort of building an (almost) exact replica will be appreciated enough. Being a teacher myself I know what I am talking about.

And for the differences between Block 1 or 2 and if the engine is batted or not. I don't think it is worth the effort. I would include the protective boost cover though since it is a prominent feature of the real thing. If you really want to improve the model maybe a block 2 CSM since this isn't too much extra work. Other than that I would go with an clean OOB build with maybe a little bit of extras.

I also agree with Hotdog in the way that there is a not a too small chance that eventually a model will be dropped by a student oder they knock some parts off. I think it would be quite painful if you invest much time and money in such a model.

Cheers Ralf

Edited by ralf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just build it outta the box. From an educational standpoint, the inaccuracies may ... just may, create questions like ... "Mr DutyCat, why does the photo show this, and your model shows that?" ... and then it opens up the Saturn V to discussion.

I've worked as a commercial artist and I always do what the customer asks. You want detail? ... it'll cost ya! :thumbsup:

For a classroom situation, outta the box is quite good enuff ... even the paint patterns don't have to be uber accurate. Boost Protective Cover ... not necessary. To me, these models, these large, very impressive models ... are there to stimulate the students' curiosity, that's all ... it doesn't have to explain the various functions visually ... the explanation is gonna be your job!

Your rationale is right on Gil!

But for your own builds, build to whichever degree satisfies you. Me? ... I like to know about and depict as many details as I can ... because I've learned about it, I've spent time researching the vehicle. The viewer doesn't care, but in the event they ARE interested, the details will satisfy them.

As has been said many times before, this is a hobby, you're building for your pleasure ... when you get a commission, you'll build it to satisfy your client.

... but if you post these builds here, please, at least sand and fill the seams and glue blobs! :rofl:

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with the rest here, build it simple. But I would add, if these are for conversation pieces and education, then take whatever effort and cash you would have put into accuracy and apply that to presentation. Think of them as being displayed in a small personal museum. Take a little extra time and make bases with information plates etc... If you want to get really tech savvy, put a QR code on the information plaques that have links to articles about the real spacecraft and/or missions. Since you're teaching high school age kids, they are pretty technically oriented already, that kind of interaction might hook them in a little more. I think having them there is a good thing, but just having them sit in the class with no other purpose other than look cool could be a wasted opportunity to really get their minds working. Make them look interesting and it may open up a lot of thought. Just an thought.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.

They will be quality builds...that is a given. And, Bill, you are right about presentation. That is very important, especially in an educational context. Basically what I have is a large, industrial type classroom, with 20 PC based flight sims and room for several display cases. I also have a fairly large storage room adjacent that I plan to convert into a large scale Aerospace Museum. I already have presentation tables, curio cabinets and 7 foot high library shelves along about a 15 foot wall area. My plan is to have large scale aircraft on the library shelves, and then there will be a table dedicated to 1/144 airliners, and a table dedicated to real space. Each item will have a professional looking label nearby. It will take me several years to get it all in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an educational point of view I think a constant scale would be more educational than uber-accurate detailing. For instance, if you're gonna have that 1/72 Saturn V then putting a 1/72 Mercury Redstone right next to it really drives the point home. Larger scale capsules would be useful for more details but seeing the progression of size should not be lost on the students. You can do a 1/200 series from Mercury to Space Shuttle pretty easily and no need to go overboard on detail in that small scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an educational point of view I think a constant scale would be more educational than uber-accurate detailing. For instance, if you're gonna have that 1/72 Saturn V then putting a 1/72 Mercury Redstone right next to it really drives the point home. Larger scale capsules would be useful for more details but seeing the progression of size should not be lost on the students. You can do a 1/200 series from Mercury to Space Shuttle pretty easily and no need to go overboard on detail in that small scale.

Well the 1/72 Shuttle stack and 1/72 Dragon Apollo stack will be stand alone presentations, perhaps placed side by side. The 1/96 Saturn V will be a stand alone, laid down presentation with the stages separated.

On another table, I will have all of the manned US and some Russian rockets done up in 1/144, so you can see relative size. These will be at the back of a table in a row, from left to right, smallest to largest. In the foreground will be a large scale capsule for each project, as applicable. It will be pretty cool when I get it done. I will post pics when i get it finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOB Gil.. Displaying it on its side? Evie and I took a lot of pics during her space camp trip last summer. I'll get them to you. The F1s are unbatted. Make sure you find a scaled human figure to put on the base so the kids will have an idea how big it was.

Tracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C-5 would undergo component testing even before the first model was constructed. The S-IVB third stage would be used as the second stage for the C-IB, which would serve both to demonstrate proof of concept and feasibility for the C-5, but would also provide flight data critical to development of the C-5. Rather than undergoing testing for each major component, the C-5 would be tested in an "all-up" fashion, meaning that the first test flight of the rocket would include complete versions of all three stages. By testing all components at once, far fewer test flights would be required before a crewed launch.

The C-5 was confirmed as NASA's choice for the Apollo program in early 1963, and was named the Saturn V. The C-1 became the Saturn I, and C-1B became Saturn IB. Von Braun headed a team at the MSFC to build a vehicle capable of launching a crewed spacecraft to the Moon.

Before they moved under NASA's jurisdiction, von Braun's team had already begun work on improving the thrust, creating a less complex operating system, and designing better mechanical systems. During these revisions, the team rejected the single engine of the V-2's design and moved to a multiple-engine design. The Saturn I and IB reflected these changes but were not large enough to send a crewed spacecraft to the Moon. These designs, however, provided a basis for which NASA could determine its best method towards landing a man on the Moon.

The Saturn V's final design had several key features. Engineers determined that the best engines were the F-1s coupled with the new liquid hydrogen propulsion system called J-2, which made the Saturn C-5 configuration optimal. By 1962, NASA had finalized its plans to proceed with von Braun's Saturn designs, and the Apollo space program gained speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...