Jump to content

Space Shuttle question


Recommended Posts

Ya might want to check out Astrazoic's shuttle model on his website. the link is under his signature. two words come to mind, WOW and WOW! it shows a very realistic way to represent the blankets as well as all of the other surfaces.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya might want to check out Astrazoic's shuttle model on his website. the link is under his signature. two words come to mind, WOW and WOW! it shows a very realistic way to represent the blankets as well as all of the other surfaces.

Bill

Bill,

You're right...WOW does not seem to do that project enough respect. I almost want to invent a new word to describe it. Well, I've planned a whole year to do this project and I'm posting an update on the "In Progress" forums in a few minutes.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, best image representations to date of Columbia come from the Space In Miniature book #3 on the shuttle:

http://www.spaceinminiature.com/

It has line diagrams of Columbia as it looked until about 1992 and except for the addition of the drag chute housing at the base of the tail (the reference for Endeavour shows the tail modification needed) and the changing of the elevon hinge flipper doors from black Inconnel X material to white (along with the addition of NASA Meatball markings to the wings and fuselage), it remained in that configuration more or less. A couple payload bay vent doors were deleted here and there, but things pretty much remained the same.

The TPS drawings in the Dennis Jenkins books (or original images from the NASA websites) will also work well enough, but at least the SIM #3 book gives good color references from a model building standpoint. They are what I used for my Columbia STS-107 stack back in 2004.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and the changing of the elevon hinge flipper doors from black Inconnel X material to white

I meant to ask you about this earlier. What material did they use in place of the Inconel-X?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am not entirely certain what they used to replace the flipper doors, but I believe it is something in common with the normal shuttle TPS. It has no rough texture, so it doesn't appear to be AFRSI. The closeup pictures of STS-130s wing on orbit with the protruding seal showed it having a similar texture to the FRSI on Endeavour's wing and it is too big to be an LRSI tile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
In my opinion, best image representations to date of Columbia come from the Space In Miniature book #3 on the shuttle:

http://www.spaceinminiature.com/

It has line diagrams of Columbia as it looked until about 1992 and except for the addition of the drag chute housing at the base of the tail (the reference for Endeavour shows the tail modification needed) and the changing of the elevon hinge flipper doors from black Inconnel X material to white (along with the addition of NASA Meatball markings to the wings and fuselage), it remained in that configuration more or less. A couple payload bay vent doors were deleted here and there, but things pretty much remained the same.

The TPS drawings in the Dennis Jenkins books (or original images from the NASA websites) will also work well enough, but at least the SIM #3 book gives good color references from a model building standpoint. They are what I used for my Columbia STS-107 stack back in 2004.

Jay,

The following three photos are from Tony Landis. They show the SILTS pod on Columbia very clearly.

169STS-61COV-102SILTSPod01.jpg

170STS-61COV-102SILTSPod02.jpg

171STS-61COV-102SILTSPod03.jpg

If anyone besides myself is doing a model of Columbia, these should help.

Thanks to Tony Landis for sharing with all of us.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay,

The following three photos are from Tony Landis. They show the SILTS pod on Columbia very clearly.

169STS-61COV-102SILTSPod01.jpg

170STS-61COV-102SILTSPod02.jpg

171STS-61COV-102SILTSPod03.jpg

If anyone besides myself is doing a model of Columbia, these should help.

Thanks to Tony Landis for sharing with all of us.

Paul

Paul,

I'm having trouble making out the details!!! These pictures aren't too clear. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I figure this might be the place to post this question. I found on some site the plans for the a couple of the window surrounds that are very accurate from Rockwell. They are listed as being for windows #2 and #4. Does anyone know for certain how the windows are numbered on the orbiters? I assume they are 1 thru 6 with two of each shape being the same, but do they start with 1 being the aft most and continue around or the middle - out or...? Silly question I know but I want to get it right as possible.

thanks,

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Yes, they do have covers on the windows. I don't know exactly at what point, but they do come off before launch. I'm also trying to determine what those covers are made of and what they actually look like. Some pictures make them look like a tinted plexiglass-like material and others look more like some sort of metal. It's hard to determine the actual color from the pics I've seen. If anyone else can clear this up it would be much appreciated. I'd like to put them on my shuttle stack as well.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

For all you experts on the Space Shuttle, what were the differences between the Space Shuttles in particular Columbia the first Space Shuttle and the rest of the fleet. I heard the Enterprise and Columbia had smaller windows, is that correct? Thank you in advance!!!

Edited by gtypecanare
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm far from being an expert, but as far as I know, the main differences were 'cosmetic' ... meaning, the Thermal Protection System, TPS, was different.

Windows ... they'd be the same in all the Orbiters.

And I think the TPS tile patterns were subtle enuff, that if the Orbiter names were to be removed, I don't think anybody would be able to identify them, except for Columbia, which had its wing chines painted black and a SILTS pod protuberence on it tail.

Edited by K2Pete
Link to post
Share on other sites
And I think the TPS tile patterns were subtle enuff, that if the Orbiter names were to be removed, I don't think anybody would be able to identify them, except for Columbia, which had its wing chines painted black and a SILTS pod protuberence on it tail.

It also depends on the time period you're depicting. Over time OV-102 received more thermal blankets, replacing some of the heavier TPS materials on the upper surfaces. I believe OV-103 and -104 experienced this as well, but I can't be certain. Certainly, if you're building Columbia as she appeared in the early 1980s, the model would have more tiles than an orbiter from the 1990s towards present.

Even if you're not talking about the TPS patterns themselves, Columbia had detail differences besides the black chines and the (61C-on) SILTS pod. Her forward RCS module had a different black-white tile pattern than the other orbiters, as well as additional black tiles on the mid-fuselage around one of the vent doors on each side. Again, these are things that changed over time.

Challenger had her own patterns, too. Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour appear the most identical. The biggest difference between the three was that on Discovery, there was an additional set of black tiles running down from one of the starboard windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between the three was that on Discovery, there was an additional set of black tiles running down from one of the starboard windows.

Kinda like a teardrop...

Anywho, I built an orbiter about 20 years ago (God, that sounds old) and am just now getting back into it. Kinda late, I know. I saw the Atlantis on the pad a long time ago and am doing the Monogram 1/72 stack to represent her all those years ago. Question: does anyone have any sources for after market for Revellogram 1/72 Shuttle stack? I know that there are decals floating out there and the engine bells but is there any photo etch for the stack still around? I know there's not a lot of parts to photo etch but it seems like some parts could be done. I've searched and have not had any success.

Patrick J McCarthy

Iola, TX

Link to post
Share on other sites

The windows on ALL the orbiters were the same size. This was done so the glass on one could be installed on another orbiter in a pinch as needed (and it happened more than a few times).

Columbia and Challenger featured the original shuttle TPS pattern with the characteristic "stair step" tiles on the sides of the fuselage below the payload bay doors. Challenger had that pattern throughout its life while Columbia got retrofitted with more AFRSI blankets during its first OMDP refit (or during the post-Challenger stand down as it may have had those tiles on STS-61C still). The main characteristics of that early tile pattern is Columbia and Challenger had fully tiled noses going back to the payload bay and the wings behind the RCC panels were tiled as well. This is the tile pattern represented in most model kits (Revell's tiles on the 1/72 orbiter are oversized, so sand those off unless you are building Enterprise).

Discovery and Atlantis were delivered with almost no white LRSI tiles as they were the first orbiters to make extensive use of AFRSI blankets (the thick stuff). The AFRSI was used pretty much over the nose, the sides of the fuselage and the leading portions of the wings behind the RCC panels. Some LRSI tile was retrofitted back around the cockpit windows a little later (and this is what Endeavour has). When the shuttle fleet was refitted for use in the ISS program (where weight carrying capacity became a priority), some of the AFRSI blankets were replaced with the lighter weight FRSI. So the wing panel shapes changed and you got a pattern of AFRSI going down about three quarters of the fuselage and FRSI the rest of the way. Funny enough, the new fuselage pattern was identical to what Columbia had from about 1989 onwards. Columbia up to STS-107 kept its tiled nose and wings while the fuselage had AFRSI about three quarters back and one quarter covered in FRSI.

As for other minor bits, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour had a small flat spot at the top rear of the tail (an aerodynamic cap fitted to Enterprise and Columbia was removed up there). Then of course Columbia had the SILTS pod from 1985 onwards. Columbia was also fitted with ejection seats up through STS-5 and had a pair of blow off panels above the seats on the nose. The ejection seat covers may have still been present on STS-9 as well even if the seats were gone. But by STS-61C, the tile profile had been altered as there were no splits in them for the roof covers.

Edited by Jay Chladek
Link to post
Share on other sites
As for other minor bits, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour had a small flat spot at the top rear of the tail (an aerodynamic cap fitted to Enterprise and Columbia was removed up there).

From what I can tell Enterprise and Columbia always had the rounded fin tip t/e, while Challenger through Endeavour were delivered with the squared tip. It was something I think I recall reading about not too long ago, and only rediscovered it the other day when comparing photos of the orbiters. Seeing Atlantis with the square-tipped tail made me think, "I don't remember it looking like that". Do you know if it was removed to save weight, or was actually an aerodynamic refinement? Your post suggests it was the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't found a firm answer about it. By removed I should have said "left off during construction" as it was never fitted to those birds. I would say in Challenger's case it was likely removed since I believe it was rounded on STA-99. before it became OV-99 Challenger. And yes, if you are coming to Nationals, this is indeed the type of stuff I will be discussing in my seminar on Friday. I figure it is better to deeper into this type of stuff rather than a talk just saying "paint this black, paint this white, paint this gray... etc." ;)

BTW, the convention book will also have a brief article on modeling the space shuttle as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, if you are coming to Nationals, this is indeed the type of stuff I will be discussing in my seminar on Friday. I figure it is better to deeper into this type of stuff rather than a talk just saying "paint this black, paint this white, paint this gray... etc." ;)

BTW, the convention book will also have a brief article on modeling the space shuttle as well.

Great! I was hoping you would say that. Looking forward to it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

Regarding the window covers, I have a few photos from the STS-135 rollover and rollout the might help a bit. It looks like a tinting film applied on the inside of the glass or plexi. See if this gives you a better view. I have included links to my STS-133 and STS-135 gallerys below.

http://troymcclellanphotos.smugmug.com/SpaceShuttle/Space-Shuttle-Discoverys-Final/16157757_ZkWGjN#!i=1213212730&k=qwEWG

http://troymcclellanphotos.smugmug.com/SpaceShuttle/Atlantis-The-Final-Shuttle/17111603_MPsSVF#!i=1296807608&k=nMsjjDq

Troy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Hi everyone. I have a question about the 1/144 Space Shuttles.

I’d like to know if anybody here has built the Anmark Space Shuttle or the MPC Space Shuttle Columbia model and how do they compare accuracy-wise to the other shuttle models out there. Are they in the same quality range as the Airfix or Revells, or are they a bit more problematic like the Minicraft (which had the wrong shaped nose problem)? I looked all over but can never find any information on them.

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. I have a question about the 1/144 Space Shuttles.

I’d like to know if anybody here has built the Anmark Space Shuttle or the MPC Space Shuttle Columbia model and how do they compare accuracy-wise to the other shuttle models out there. Are they in the same quality range as the Airfix or Revells, or are they a bit more problematic like the Minicraft (which had the wrong shaped nose problem)? I looked all over but can never find any information on them.

Thanks in advance.

Anmark I am not familiar with. But given that Anmark has also apparently repopped some of the Entex stuff, I would lay good odds that it is the Entex/Minicraft shuttle stack, which has too pointy a nose on the orbiter. MPC's kit is a rebox of Airfix's kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. The Anmark one is one that pops up every once in a while on ebay. I forgot what it looks like exactly but I believe it's a white box with the shuttle stack on a blue background. Thanks again for the fast reply.

Edit: To any reader who wants to know what the Anmark looks like, it's a white box with an all black cover of a shuttle stack (STS-1 or 2) on a small pad with Space Shuttle written in red, white and blue. Thanks to crowe-t for telling me about completed auctions so I could find a picture.

Edited by KnightWolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. The Anmark one is one that pops up every once in a while on ebay. I forgot what it looks like exactly but I believe it's a white box with the shuttle stack on a blue background. Thanks again for the fast reply.

If you do a search on E-bay for Anmark Space Shuttle under completed auctions, one pops up. It's clearly the repopped Entex/Minicraft 1/144 shuttle kit.

As Jay stated above, MPC is a rebox of the Airfix kit so it would be safe to go with the MPC or just pick up an Airfix or Revell shuttle stack kit to be safe. there's always plenty of Revell or Airfix kits on E-bay that are reasonably priced.

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...