1/72 2001 PanAm Space Clipper 29” Long

[VADM Fangschleister]

This is killer.  How long have we waited for this?  Moebius comes to the rescue with a large-scale rendition.  Wish we had it in 1969 but hey, what’s a 50+ year wait?  

[VADM Fangschleister]

[VADM Fangschleister]

[VADM Fangschleister]

[VADM Fangschleister]

[Dave Williams]

Hmm, according to CultTVman, it won’t include the Pan Am decals.

[VADM Fangschleister]

Yeah, copyrighted.   
 

Aftermarket most likely. 

[The Madhatter]

the guy that designed those markings actually released them for anyone to download here: https://www.therpf.com/forums/threads/moebius-new-orion.341031/page-3#post-5229268

[woof359]

i got my after market decals for the big orion, big ones are easy, but there are a bunch of little ones like vent I have no idea where they go

[Delanie]

is it me or does the 'hatch' just aft of the cockpit look a bit big, out of scale ?

 

I know its Sci-Fi kit and the original was probably 'bashed I seem to remember thinking something similar with my own airfix kit all those years ago.

 

I do fancy getting this one but space is a premium 

[VADM Fangschleister]

Quite possible they studied photos of the filming model.  It does look out-of-scale but "accurate" in the sense of what was on the filming model.  Either way, someone will gripe that it is a problem.  If it's in-scale then someone will say it doesn't match the movie.  If you match the filming miniature, which I'm guessing but was likely five or six feet long, someone will say, "What a hokey lookin' door".   

 

In the end, make it the way that pleases you and that's all that matters.  I'm not criticizing your observation at all.  A lot of people have critiqued the way the Starship Enterprise looks and how maybe the physics and engineering are all wrong.  But then, if you look at drawings of future-imagined flying machines from the 1800's and compare them to what we arrived at, you'd see the same result.  

 

Since the Space Clipper never really existed, except in model form, it did appear to be able to fly for realz in our current (1969) aeronautical world.  But current knowledge says that such a machine is grossly impractical and would likely burn up in the atmosphere.  

 

Bottom line is if I was to build it, I would pore over the pictures of the movie, do stop-frame on the DVD and look for photos of the filming of the movie.   Then I would build mine to look like theirs from 53+ years ago.   

 

It's a great observation but lots of times, we see things that the movie makers overlook for whatever reason(s) be it production costs, time delays or both or more.  

[VADM Fangschleister]

Here's a photo I found online of the filming miniature.  The door is quite pronounced.

The studio model for the Orion III was reported to be about 36" (Bizony's "Filming the Future" and Agel's "The Making of Kubrick's 2001"). Fred Ordway wrote, in his "2001" article for "Spaceflight", that the Orion was designed to have drop-tanks (semi-SSTO) and burn conventional cryogenic fuel. In one of the concept sketches by Lange, the aft end broke away as a booster (see Bizony).

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by VADM Fangschleister

[Delanie]

Oh don't get me wrong I agree with what you said about building it, do you want a movie accurate model or a custom build. 

 

 When i first saw it on screen I thought now that's a space craft. It was a real disappointment for me when NASA opted for the vertically launched Shuttle rather than some of the other proposed designs   

 

when you say the rear section breaks off as a booster you don't mean the angled engines do you?

[southwestforests]

2 hours ago, Delanie said:

when you say the rear section breaks off as a booster you don't mean the angled engines do you?

 

There are some references which propose that & some of those have the aft part of wings going along with it.

 

I just looked the ship, also called Orion, up in Jack Hagerty and Jon C. Rogers Spaceship Handbook, published 2001, (currently out of print but there is a downloadable errata sheet available https://www.arapress.com/ssh-errata/ ) & while it has quite nice plan view drawings of the Orion Shuttle it does not seem to mention the separation matter.

What it does say is that the film didn't address the propulsion issue beyond that nuclear power was somehow involved, and then author commentary is made that the shuttle's structure hasn't really got any volume for storing reaction mass for the engines.

[VADM Fangschleister]

9 hours ago, Delanie said:

 

 

when you say the rear section breaks off as a booster you don't mean the angled engines do you?

I don't really know.  Lots of ideas were being floated back then.  In fact, the story of the actual moon program is filled with fascinating tales.   For a bit of fun, rent or own the DVD "Moon Machines" and you'll get some in-depth discussion of some of the problems and challenges they faced in the program.  Nothing really pre-Apollo though.  

 

We were filled with optimism back then.  Space stations, missions to Mar, moon-bases, much more.  It was amazing.  

[niart17]

Just for fantastical discussion, it could be that since there doesn't appear to be any other entry/exit hatches, that it would be used as a cargo hatch as well as a entry for people. Since we don't know and it's not shown, in my imagination I could envision this being an outer hatch with different pathways behind it to go to either the cockpit, the passenger area, or to the cargo areas. Just a thought. but again, it's all fantasy speculation. Which is fun!

 

Bill