 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / June 2004SS1 pix and story
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceShipOne2004/index.html  SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com >http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceShipOne2004/index.html ...FYI, he's got right-click blocking enabled, but if you do a SAVE AS from IE or any inferior browser, you can save these images to your hard drive for background purposes. Still, incredibly good shots, worthy of my skill. Just wish I'd been there to take them :-( OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > ...FYI, he's got right-click blocking enabled, but if you do a SAVE AS > from IE or any inferior browser, you can save these images to your > hard drive for background purposes. Netscape works a treat! No issues with right click blocks.... :-) > > ...FYI, he's got right-click blocking enabled, but if you do a SAVE AS > > from IE or any inferior browser, you can save these images to your > > hard drive for background purposes. > > Netscape works a treat! No issues with right click blocks.... :-) right-click blocking is b0rken anyway. Right-click-and-hold, press space bar, release mouse button. Although of course none of this changes whether an image is copyrighted or not or whether what you plan to do with it is 'fair use'. In article <26jvd0hmefasbh6hocpmop2ic04c0ou78i@4ax.com>, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote: > >http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceShipOne2004/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OM Yet another reason to use a Mac: right-clicking and "Download Image As . . ." works just fine in Safari. ;-p SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> >Yet another reason to use a Mac: ...#1 reason to use a Mac: Take out the guts and install a fish tank kit. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >>Yet another reason to use a Mac: > > ...#1 reason to use a Mac: Take out the guts and install a fish tank > kit. > > OM Can't make aquariums out of Wintel machines. Viral infections would kill the fish in no time. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html >Can't make aquariums out of Wintel machines. >Viral infections would kill the fish in no time. ...Right before I read this, I was reading an old DC comic with one of Henry Boltinoff's _Cap's Hobby Hints_ as a page filler. Ironically, this one dealt with the kid who broke his model of a sailing frigate, and was really pissed that his model was ruined. His father showed him how to salvage it by breaking off more pieces, then dropping it in the fish tank where it would look cool like a sunken ship. ...However, what Boltinoff failed to follow-up on in a later _Cap's_ half-pager was the fact that, since most kids in the 60's used the original Testor's Red Tube - the glue that made you so high that you didn't give a sh.t that your model was thrown together in 30 minutes or less and looked like it was and/or your fingertips were coated and could no longer leave fingerprints - throwing a kit assembled with said adhesive would outgas and partially dissolve in the tank water, and kill your fish within a month or two after submerging. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >> Can't make aquariums out of Wintel machines. >> Viral infections would kill the fish in no time. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > OM Hey, I remember (vaguely) that glue. Many Revell Model-Of-The-Month club projects were assembled under the influence of Testor's Red ;-). >Hey, I remember (vaguely) that glue. ...If you remembered Testor's Red Tube, you either a) didn't use it enough, b) never used it, c) used it every damned day and had the empty tubes to remind you of why your fingers are now fingerprint proof :-P >Many Revell Model-Of-The-Month club >projects were assembled under the influence of Testor's Red ;-). ...Which finally gives us the reason why *nobody* complained about Revell's CSM stack never being updated to Block II configurations until the fuckwits at the FDA made Testor's change the formula so their glue couldn't get us high anymore. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >Hey, I remember (vaguely) that glue. Many Revell Model-Of-The-Month club >projects were assembled under the influence of Testor's Red ;-) Part of an old posting, regarding the tiny AMT Apollo CSM/LM kit: "Whoop-tee-doo for the young space enthusiast whose parents gave him this tiny gift rather than the Almost God-like Revell Saturn V; or wonderful Apollo/LM kit with upper S-IVB stage and escape tower in 1/48th scale... I say that we track down the address of every Commie-Loving Pinko Parent who thought that they COULDN'T afford a DECENT Apollo model for little Timmy; and have Buzz beat them to within an inch of their Miserable Red Lives- so it may have meant taking a second job....would you prefer Timmy to be a ROCKET SCIENTIST...or some DOPE SMOKING, ANTI-MOON, _HIPPY_ because YOU couldn't spring for the few extra dollars that the child needed for a REAL model of an Apollo?! My parents bought me THE GOOD ONES, and as Monogram Models assured us on the side of their model kit boxes: "A Boy's Future Begins With Model Building....".... ABSOLUTELY FUKIN' RIGHT, MONOGRAM! I remember those days... frantically gluing and painting those wonderful models in our tiny unventilated kitchen dinette, woozy as hell from the fumes of the Testor's paint and plastic model cement, and thinking: "THIS IS HOW MY FUTURE BEGINS- I DON'T NEED DRUGS!"...and from the ceiling, Wernher von Braun would reach down to congratulate me on my civic patriotism, and place his winged, purple-clawed hand into my translucent twelve-fingered one.....excuse me....I seem to be drifting a bit." Pat >Part of an old posting, regarding the tiny AMT Apollo CSM/LM kit: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >translucent twelve-fingered one.....excuse me....I seem to be drifting a >bit." This struck a chord with me. I _so_ wanted that Airfix Saturn V kit... >This struck a chord with me. I _so_ wanted that Airfix Saturn V kit... ...The same Chrisnukkah I got the Revell 1/96 Saturn V, I also got the Monogram 1/whatever scale version. the only positive thing about that Monogram disaster was the base, which was far more stable in holding the kit upright than the one provided for the Revell one(*). To see just how inaccurate it is, you only have to start with the engine section of the S-II stage. A flat disk holding five basic cone shapes, looking AbZero like J-2 engines. Add to that the SLA panels are too long, and the CSM stack is misproportioned as well. It was, honestly, something Monogram must have thrown together at the last minute to try and steal holiday sales from Revell. The fears were justified, however - turns out that Revell's top-selling kit that year was the S-V kit. Ironically, tho, that sales boom lasted only for that holiday season, as by 1970 it was one of Revell's lower-selling kits. They'd basically saturated their target market and the holiday impulse buyer market both in the last two months of 1969, and from there sales plummeted. It's why there's been only the one re-release, and that came from Revellogram Germany and had to be imported into the US. I really need to buy one of those damn things as well as the correction kits... (*) Some years later, I reused the Revell base for a display stand for a severely modified Darth Vader Advanced TIE fighter. Looked pretty cool with the Astrolite rods holding it suspended above the deck, too :-) OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:33:43 -0500, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote: >>This struck a chord with me. I _so_ wanted that Airfix Saturn V kit... > >...The same Chrisnukkah I got the Revell 1/96 Saturn V, I also got the >Monogram 1/whatever scale version. the only positive thing about that >Monogram disaster was the base, which was far more stable in holding >the kit upright than the one provided for the Revell one(*). To see The Airfix kit shares many of the errors of the Monogram, I believe, but I never even heard of the Revell kit until I was in my teens. I did rectify the Airfix desire by buying a couple of kits a few years ago though. I've even flown one of them: http://www.nsrg.org.uk/projects/saturn_v_pmc/ >The Airfix kit shares many of the errors of the Monogram, I believe, ...And for some years after the Airfix kit showed up, people believed that Airfix had simply bought the tooling from Monogram, as they had quit producing the kit for a number of years. There's differences, tho, that allow one to tell the two kits apart. I used to have a link to a site that compared the two, but it's no longer there as most GeoShitties sites tend to become :-) >but I never even heard of the Revell kit until I was in my teens. ...First saw it in most DC comic books in September-October '69, and knew right off I wanted one. However, $10 for a "goddamn model kit" in 1969 was a *lot* of money, which is why I wound up getting one for Chrisnukkah. At that time, Sears was the only place in town that had any, as the two local hobby shops that carried anything besides f.cking NASCAR kits had either sold out weeks earlier or "we don't carry bullshit kits like that! We only carry car kits that normal kids build!"(*). Sears, on the other hand, had them stacked like f.cking cordwood, IIRC 15 high, all on their sides. and at least ten deep. And according to my Mom everyone in line had at least one, and someone had four of them. and a couple of Testor's basic starter paint kits as well. ...That Christmas was only exceeded by the one in '72, where after a year of three landings I received the most presents I'd ever gotten thanks to a couple of doting grandmothers who'd decided I needed an extra reward for having successfully MC'd the school talent show without telling any Nixon jokes, and without knowing it simultaneously took advantage of a local department store chain going out of business and dumping all their models, toys and kids' clothing for 1/3 price. The wild part is that, even though they knew my tastes, they didn't duplicate one single item between them. (*) That old fuckwit passed away a couple of years after that, and it was possibly the first time I can recall being glad someone had croaked. His kids closed down the shop, tho, and that left the one shop in far south Austin - which, until the late 70's, was considered not part of Austin, but actually a far north suburb of San Antonio and treated as such - and even then most of what I wanted had to be special ordered. It wasn't until the Village Hobby Shop opened in '75 or thereabouts that we got a decent kit source in North Austin again. And no, don't even bring up that idiot Bob King and his ditz of a wife over at King's Hobby. I haven't done business with them in over 25 years, and have no plans to ever do so again. But that's another story... >I did rectify the Airfix desire by buying a couple of kits a few years >ago though. I've even flown one of them: >http://www.nsrg.org.uk/projects/saturn_v_pmc/ ...I've seen your site before, as someone posted the link here quite a while back. The fact that it didn't wind up as a lawn dart still surprises me, as that's what most of my chute failures became during my rocketry days. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:03:07 -0500, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote: >...I've seen your site before, as someone posted the link here quite a >while back. The fact that it didn't wind up as a lawn dart still >surprises me, as that's what most of my chute failures became during >my rocketry days. Sheer luck. >...The same Chrisnukkah I got the Revell 1/96 Saturn V, I also got the >Monogram 1/whatever scale version. 1/144th scale > the only positive thing about that >Monogram disaster was the base, which was far more stable in holding >the kit upright than the one provided for the Revell one(*). I can't even remember what the stand on Revell one looked like; I just remember the self-stowage box for the finished model and the prepainted wrap-around styrene sheet stage parts. > To see >just how inaccurate it is, you only have to start with the engine >section of the S-II stage. A flat disk holding five basic cone shapes, >looking AbZero like J-2 engines. Which is odd, because they did have a J-2 on the third stage, so why didn't they just use five more of those? The Airfix one has a far better detailed second stage engine assembly. Also remember the strange cone-with-top-hole the Monogram one had at the top of the second stage? That made it look like the J-2 on the third stage was stuck into the interior of the second stage's LH2 tank? > Add to that the SLA panels are too >long, and the CSM stack is misproportioned as well. It was, honestly, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ironically, tho, that sales boom lasted only for that holiday season, >as by 1970 it was one of Revell's lower-selling kits. It had three basic problems: 1.) It was large and unwieldy when finished, and due to its lightweight construction, easy to tip over. 2.) The scale was odd, and there were few other things in 1/96th scale to compare it to (I'm trying to remember- were the Revell Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas in 1/96th? I've got the Mercury-Atlas, and that looks about right.) 3.) It was expensive, and the lower-cost Monogram one was more reasonably sized, as well as more conventional in construction...in later runs of the Monogram kit the two piece LM was replaced by one that had opening legs and a separable upper stage IIRC, so that you could simulate the whole trip like you could with the Revell one. Without the CM falling off of the SM and breaking the three pins that held it on to the SM, and without the odd widget the locked the LM to the CM snapping off also. Neither the Revell one or the Monogram one gave you the Boost Protective Cover for the CM IIRC, but the Airfix one does. Interestingly, the Airfix one is a late model Saturn V, with only four solid motors on the interstage structure. It also has separate thruster quads on the SM and LM, which are a nice touch in this scale. >They'd basically saturated their target market and the holiday impulse buyer market >both in the last two months of 1969, and from there sales plummeted. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >cool with the Astrolite rods holding it suspended above the deck, too >:-) I converted a Revell 1/48th scale Apollo CM into a Lunokhod when I was a kid. Guess what happened to the 1/48th scale LEM? You got it...Luna sample return spacecraft! Even when I was young, red treason flowed in my veins with the hydraulic force of the thundering deluge emanating forth from a Stalinist hydroelectric dam! Comrades! To the Moon! Pat >I can't even remember what the stand on Revell one looked like. ...The base was a flat piece of grey plastic, beveled at the edges at ~45 degs, and had a serration that "divided" the base into four equal squares. The supports were four in number, and fit between the outer fairings of the four outer F-1's. They were triangular, with the side perpendicular to the deck being notched so as to allow the S-1C to sit on them slightly. >Which is odd, because they did have a J-2 on the third stage, so why >didn't they just use five more of those? ...Monogram sometimes was hit-and-miss. Considering how poorly that kit sold, and how one or two modeling magazines bashed it - hell, IIRC even _Car Model_ mentioned it! - they can still be forgiven after the 1/32 CSM stack and the LM diorama. >The Airfix one has a far better detailed second stage engine assembly. ...True. Still, I prefer the Revell version, even if they got lazy and simply reused the Block I CSM tooling from that old "over the rainbow" CSM & LM kit. >Also remember the strange cone-with-top-hole the Monogram one had at >the top of the second stage? That made it look like the J-2 on the third >stage was stuck into the interior of the second stage's LH2 tank? ...Yup. Again, very sloppy work, but the more I think about it, I have this suspicion that they expected the kit to be displayed as one solid stack and only rarely separated. On the other hand, having that peg at the tip of the CM made repeated dockings with the LM far more survivable than that thin goofy hook arrangement on the end of the Revell 1/96 CM. Those usually survived one or two rendezvous at best. >It had three basic problems: >1.) It was large and unwieldy when finished, and due to its lightweight >construction, easy to tip over. ...Again, I blame that base. With the Monogram base, the F-1's were sunk below the holes, and if the rocket tipped over it usually didn't tip very far. >2.) The scale was odd, and there were few other things in 1/96th scale >to compare it to (I'm trying to remember- were the Revell >Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas in 1/96th? I've got the >Mercury-Atlas, and that looks about right.) ...The ones you speak of were in an even weirder scale:1/110. Those were as follows: * Mercury Capsule and Atlas Booster: Everything is "Go", Revell #H-1833 (1962). THis was a revamp of the Atlas ICMB kit, with the nuke payload replaced with the Mercury. FYI, in 1968 a large number of these turned up in a warehouse and wound up getting dumped to the Gibson's chain of department stores. This led to some kit historians believing that there was a '68 re-release. The box cover & instructions have no copyright corrections, and besides, you could tell by the compression of the box by the perpetually shrinking wrap that they'd been in storage for a while. This is the one I had, and it's still one of the most fun kits to have, even if it didn't have the full gantry and only the pad :-( http://www.airspacemodels.com/mercuryatlas.htm * Mercury Capsule and Atlas Booster: Everything is "Go", Revell #H-1833 (1994), Selected Subjects Program * Mercury Capsule and Atlas Booster: Everything is "Go", Revell-Monogram #85-1833 (1998) * Mercury Capsule with Atlas Booster, Revell #8647 (1983), History Makers II * Mercury Capsule with Atlas Booster, Monogram #5910, Young Astronauts * Mercury/Redstone, Revell (Lodela) #H-1832, Full color box art * Redstone Booster and Mercury Capsule, Revell #H-1832 (1961), Newsprint box art. >3.) It was expensive, and the lower-cost Monogram one was more >reasonably sized, as well as more conventional in construction... ...Yeah, but it was *STILL* more fun to assemble than just gluing two sides together, dammit! :-) >in later runs of the Monogram kit the two piece LM was replaced by one that >had opening legs and a separable upper stage IIRC, so that you could >simulate the whole trip like you could with the Revell one. ...No, the opening legs were in the first release as well, although the AM wasn't separate from the DM. The assembly was similar to that on the 1/200 AMT version that got re-released a few years ago with extra CSM stacks thrown in for reasons unknown but damn well appreciated :-) >Without the CM falling off of the SM and breaking the three pins that held it on to >the SM, and without the odd widget the locked the LM to the CM snapping >off also. ...The docking widget was the worst, and as long as you had two pins the CM stayed on fine. Considering the damn kit stayed under a buck all the way through most of the 70's except when it was recycled for ASTP, Revell probably considered it disposable enough for kids to buy a new one whenever they broke it during a mission :-) (Why Aurora never did a line of space kits still bugs me. Considering their expertise in figure kits at the time, they should have been the ones doing the Ed White kit, as well as a Neil Armstrong one.) >Neither the Revell one or the Monogram one gave you the Boost Protective >Cover for the CM IIRC, but the Airfix one does. ...Again, Revell did the tooling for the CSM stack based on the Block I configuration, something they've never corrected, and probably never will. That's why we have RealSpace Models: http://www.realspacemodels.com/html/catalog5.htm ...and New Wave: http://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/index.htm ...Sven Knudson reviewed the CSM correction kits, and IIRC gave it a rather positive review. >I converted a Revell 1/48th scale Apollo CM into a Lunokhod when I was a >kid. ...The shape of the lid is about the same as that of the CM heat shield, so I can see how that might work. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >...Yup. Again, very sloppy work, but the more I think about it, I have >this suspicion that they expected the kit to be displayed as one solid >stack and only rarely separated. On the other hand, having that peg at >the tip of the CM made repeated dockings with the LM far more >survivable than that thin goofy hook arrangement on the end of the >Revell 1/96 CM. Those usually survived one or two rendezvous at best. Yeah, that was pretty fragile.. the stand on the Monogram 1/32 scale CSM is also prone to tipping over. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >sunk below the holes, and if the rocket tipped over it usually didn't >tip very far. Not only that, but it had the two hold-down clips that snapped onto the base of the first stage...I never could figure out why they molded the base in yellow; it was the only yellow part in the kit. Ever have the Revell SST "two-in-one" (one with wings swept, one with them open) kit? It was also molded in a hideous shade of yellow for no reason I could ever understand. I'll bet it brings a pretty penny nowadays, the whole SST program was heading downhill at the time the model was released. Not so downhill that Monogram also release a kit of one... and Lindberg had small models of all three designs- Concorde, Tu-144, and the 2707 IIRC. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >it's still one of the most fun kits to have, even if it didn't have >the full gantry and only the pad :-( I've got one from their re-release a few years ago...about 90% of the parts in the kit are for the launcher, not the rocket and capsule. >* Redstone Booster and Mercury Capsule, Revell #H-1832 (1961), >Newsprint box art. I had one of those as a kid, that was a weird box. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >...Yeah, but it was *STILL* more fun to assemble than just gluing two >sides together, dammit! :-) It was certainly a novel approach to the problem; I wonder if they were influenced by the vacuformed sails on their sailing ships? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >...No, the opening legs were in the first release as well, although I got one on just about the day it came out, and at first the whole LM was just two pieces divided vertically IIRC; the more involved LM with the opening legs came along around a year or two later, and I felt cheated that my model didn't have one. I assume they were in a rush to get it on the market. I still want to see photographic evidence of that Revell 1/24th scale Gemini with the landing legs on it that you talk about; the landing gear doors on the 1/24th scale one aren't separate like the 1/48th scale one, so if they made one, they must have retooled it pretty severely to remove the landing gear...I'm pretty sure that by the time the 1/24th scale one was released the landing gear had been dropped from the Gemini program, and the model never had it. Does a vacuformed Rogallo parawing ring any bells in relation to a Revell Gemini kit? Something about that seems familiar to me. >the AM wasn't separate from the DM. The assembly was similar to that >on the 1/200 AMT version that got re-released a few years ago with >extra CSM stacks thrown in for reasons unknown but damn well >appreciated :-) On of the best "parts source" kits ever, if only for all those engine bells. A AMT SM engine bell is hanging off the second stage of the 1/144th Monogram Gemini/Titan conversion I made from the Titan II in the US/USSR missile set. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >ASTP, Revell probably considered it disposable enough for kids to buy >a new one whenever they broke it during a mission :-) Remember "The Science Service"? The guys with all the sticker books? That was the model that replaced the 1/48th scale Mercury/Gemini as your subscription prize. >(Why Aurora never did a line of space kits still bugs me. They did some missiles, and the X-15, though. I just wish somebody would do a 1/32 scale X-15 with removable XLR-99 engine and detailed cockpit...do you hear me, Hasegawa? Want a real envy attack? When I was a kid, I had the Strombecker Disney Satellite Rocket with the transparent body and paper insert innards, as well as the chrome BB metal satellite in the transparent nosecone. > Considering >their expertise in figure kits at the time, they should have been the >ones doing the Ed White kit, as well as a Neil Armstrong one.) They did do an astronaut: http://plmodels3.tripod.com/zorro.htm Pat >Not only that, but it had the two hold-down clips that snapped onto the >base of the first stage...I never could figure out why they molded the >base in yellow; it was the only yellow part in the kit. ...I'd forgotten about the hold-down clips :-) As for why yellow, it's probably for the same reason that Aurora's standard airplane stand was either clear or grey - the former because it looked neat, the latter because that's what they had in stock. >Ever have the Revell SST "two-in-one" (one with wings swept, one with >them open) kit? It was also molded in a hideous shade of yellow for no >reason I could ever understand. ...My understanding was that it was influenced by a couple of Boeing pre-production paintings, both of which had the SST in that very shade of yellow. IIRC, the actual mockup was white & Air Farce One blue. > I'll bet it brings a pretty penny nowadays ...Unassembled, probably so. That kit never was re-released, but then again it didn't sell all that well as it came out about five years too late. >It was certainly a novel approach to the problem; I wonder if they were >influenced by the vacuformed sails on their sailing ships? ...The way I understood it, it had to do with the fact that had they made the entire stage in plastic, the kit would have weighed about four times what it actually did, and even with the rollup tubing the damn thing was still pretty hefty. The running joke is that if you install all the resin part replacements and line the insides with cardstock *and* add an axial support to beef things up, you'll get the kit weight back up to what it would have been had it been shipped all in styrene. ...On a side note, I've heard of one suggestion for reinforcing the rollup tubing: Roll it up, glue it to one end, fill it up halfway with foam insulation, let it set, fill up to nearly the top, and once that sets and expands cut off what's sticking out and then cap off the stage. Apparently there's some really lightweight foam that you can get at the auto parts stores that works and doesn't give off too much caustic outgassing that could ruin the tubes. Not sure on the brands, tho. >I got one on just about the day it came out, and at first the whole LM >was just two pieces divided vertically IIRC; the more involved LM with >the opening legs came along around a year or two later, and I felt >cheated that my model didn't have one. I assume they were in a rush to >get it on the market. ...They must have corrected this *very* early in the run, as I got mine about the same time. Not surprising, as Bandai just released an A version of their totally overpriced TMP Enterprise, hot on the heels of their original TMP "E" kit. This time, they corrected some paint errors *and* made the deflector dish blue as it's supposed to be. Still didn't carve out the botanical gardens, tho. Dips... >I still want to see photographic evidence of that Revell 1/24th scale >Gemini with the landing legs on it that you talk about; the landing gear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >scale one was released the landing gear had been dropped from the Gemini >program, and the model never had it. ...I had the 1/24 version and the 1/48 one as well when they first came out. The 1/24 I had *did* have the landing gear. If I still had that kit, I'd even post a picture here just to piss everyone off :-). But that kit's gone with the ages along with the rest of my kits - very long story there, but it'll explain why I plan to actually *drop* Pop in the hole when it's time to cover him up with dirt. >Does a vacuformed Rogallo parawing ring any bells in relation to a >Revell Gemini kit? ...Nope. That's what really struck me odd as there being no Rogallo wing to go with it. Hell, if Monogram could create thick styrene chutes for their funky dragsters, why couldn't Revell do a simple vacuform one for their space kits? >On of the best "parts source" kits ever, if only for all those engine >bells. A AMT SM engine bell is hanging off the second stage of the >1/144th Monogram Gemini/Titan conversion I made from the Titan II in the >US/USSR missile set. ...Ok, clarify this one, Pat. Just one? >Remember "The Science Service"? The guys with all the sticker books? >That was the model that replaced the 1/48th scale Mercury/Gemini as your >subscription prize. ...Never did get into any of those collector's clubs like that. My 7'2" cousin steered me away from that path, as he'd gotten burned by Revell back when they started that mess in '62 or thereabouts. Seems they used it to dump a lot of their excess stock, and most of the kits available for "discount" were kits nobody wanted to buy in the first place. >They [Aurora] did some missiles, and the X-15, though. I just wish somebody would >do a 1/32 scale X-15 with removable XLR-99 engine and detailed >cockpit...do you hear me, Hasegawa? ...Hasegawa. Good kits, overpriced, but not as bad as Bandai. The Japs would get a *LOT* more Stateside business if they'd quit gouging on the shipping costs. >Want a real envy attack? When I was a kid, I had the Strombecker Disney >Satellite Rocket with the transparent body and paper insert innards, as >well as the chrome BB metal satellite in the transparent nosecone. ...I think you mentioned this before. I've *seen* one of these years ago. Some local modeller was showing off his collection at one of those Creation Con-Jobs, and had *five* Revell S-V's in various configurations, including some I thought were total bullshit until Mark Wade proved the designs existed at least on paper. He had one of those, although it was obviously rebuilt, and there's only so much you can do to repair clear plastic that's yellowed where the Testor's has gotten ancient. >They did do an astronaut: http://plmodels3.tripod.com/zorro.htm ...Yeah, I had that one too, with the goofy underscaled Gemini stand. This guy's paint job, however, sucks beyond compare :-) OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >This struck a chord with me. I _so_ wanted that Airfix Saturn V kit... You do know that they're still out there? I've got one sitting two feet from me at the moment...the one that blew my mind was the Monogram 1/32 scale cutaway Apollo CSM...which is three feet from me at the moment. Both the Monogram and Airfix Saturn V's have there good and bad points, the best one could be made by combining various parts of the two into one model. Of course, if you want something that will _really_ attract attention and mystify your guests, you lay your hands on one of these: http://www.realspacemodels.com/html/n1pg.htm Pat >>This struck a chord with me. I _so_ wanted that Airfix Saturn V kit... > >You do know that they're still out there? I've got one sitting two feet >from me at the moment... Me too ;-) >Of course, if you want something that will _really_ attract attention >and mystify your guests, you lay your hands on one of these: >http://www.realspacemodels.com/html/n1pg.htm I, dunno, I fancy one of these: http://www.polecataerospace.com/saturn_v_-_10.htm >I, dunno, I fancy one of these: >http://www.polecataerospace.com/saturn_v_-_10.htm ...You know, after seeing the title of this page, I can understand how some gals can be fooled into thinking three inches is "actually" twelve. [Cue Pat] OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > >Part of an old posting, regarding the tiny AMT Apollo CSM/LM kit: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >translucent twelve-fingered one.....excuse me....I seem to be drifting a > >bit." Dude, it's the glue. Don't slag the hippies when the glue's got you on the ceiling, channeling Werner von Braun. (;^> Yer Internet pal, dope-smoking, pro-Moon, pro-Mars, pro-Saturn hippie who had both the 1/48 CSM/LM and that really friggin' mean-assed Revell Saturn V. Fuckin' A, bubba. Signature"All over, people changing their votes, along with their overcoats; if Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash. ___________________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org >Dude, it's the glue. Don't slag the hippies when the glue's got you on the >ceiling, channeling Werner von Braun. (;^> ...Mike, this is your new .sig :-) OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > "Whoop-tee-doo for the young > space enthusiast whose parents gave him this tiny gift rather than the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they COULDN'T afford a DECENT Apollo model for little Timmy; and have > Buzz beat them to within an inch of their Miserable Red Lives Buzz would be beating them to buy his model. I got one for Ken as a joke, because I thought he'd be greatly amused by the simulation of launch, complete with countdown and engine sounds. It's not the most accurate model in the world but all the parts are there and it's very useful for showing people how things worked. The Apollo/CM/LM model is just one of the Buzz Aldrin Collection. Collect them all! Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >>Can't make aquariums out of Wintel machines. >>Viral infections would kill the fish in no time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how to salvage it by breaking off more pieces, then dropping it in the > fish tank where it would look cool like a sunken ship. After my Mom explained to me that hydrogen peroxide was water with an extra oxygen atom, I tried helping out some of our fish by "oxygenating" the water. That didn't work very well :(. > ...However, what Boltinoff failed to follow-up on in a later _Cap's_ > half-pager was the fact that, since most kids in the 60's used the > original Testor's Red Tube - the glue that made you so high that you > didn't give a sh.t that your model was thrown together in 30 minutes Rat Fink and other Ed Big Daddy Roth models couldn't be fully appreciated unless seen through the lens of a Testor glue buzz. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html >Rat Fink and other Ed Big Daddy Roth models couldn't be fully >appreciated unless seen through the lens of a Testor glue buzz. ...Oddly enough, I never *did* get the appeal of Ed Roth's "Rat Fink" scribbles. That's why I never did buy any of his kits *or* his t-shirts. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > After my Mom explained to me that hydrogen peroxide was water with an > extra oxygen atom, I tried helping out some of our fish by "oxygenating" > the water. That didn't work very well :(. I will never, *never* ask you for CPR... SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > After my Mom explained to me that hydrogen peroxide was water with an > extra oxygen atom, I tried helping out some of our fish by > "oxygenating" the water. That didn't work very well :(. A co-worker of mine worked at a pet store where they used hydrogen peroxide to revive fish that arrived in bad condition after shipment, the key is to only use a very small amount of it in proportion to the amount of water in the tank. > Rat Fink and other Ed Big Daddy Roth models couldn't be fully > appreciated unless seen through the lens of a Testor glue buzz. Weren't those ruby eye jewels cool? Pat >> After my Mom explained to me that hydrogen peroxide was water with an >> extra oxygen atom, I tried helping out some of our fish by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pat And the swivel arm was pretty neat. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html > Yet another reason to use a Mac: right-clicking and "Download Image As . > . ." works just fine in Safari. ;-p Huh? You have a Mac mouse that right clicks? Mine has no right or left. I do a sustained click to get Save As. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html > > Yet another reason to use a Mac: right-clicking and "Download Image As . > > . ." works just fine in Safari. ;-p > > Huh? You have a Mac mouse that right clicks? Mine has no right or left. > I do a sustained click to get Save As. OSX works fine with most two-button mice. At work I have a Logitech USB optical scroll wheel mouse that I plug into my iBook and "it just works" (TM). Apple may still pretend that a single-button mouse is superior but even they know better if they put the hooks for it into the OS. :-) SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> >OSX works fine with most two-button mice. At work I have a Logitech USB >optical scroll wheel mouse that I plug into my iBook and "it just works" >(TM). Apple may still pretend that a single-button mouse is superior but >even they know better if they put the hooks for it into the OS. :-) ...There's a two-pronged reason that Apple doesn't abandon the one-button mouse for a more versatile two-button one: 1) Apple raised a major stink years ago and tried to get other mice manufacturers to either license the mouse design from them or quit making one-button mice. All the manufacturers simply dropped the one-button design and went to two and even three-button ones - Logitech and Summagraphics being the leaders in the latter. Summa, in fact, had the *first* ballless LED mouse in 1985, and was far more accurate than 95% of the mice in use at the time. Apple actually went to court over it, but dropped their cases after it was pointed out that they really only had the rights to the one-button design due to an oversight on the part of their patent submissions people. Even then, they stole it from Xerox, so even if they had gone all the way it wouldn't have done them any good in the end. 2) Steve Jobs hates two-button mice *and* scroll-wheels. He's made this clear in interviews and Q&A sessions where the inefficiency of one-button mice is raised. As long as he runs the company, odds are they'll never abandon one button mice, at least as far as the hardware is concerned. The OS, on the other hand, is a different situation obviously. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr >2) Steve Jobs hates two-button mice *and* scroll-wheels. He's made >this clear in interviews and Q&A sessions where the inefficiency of >one-button mice is raised. Steve Jobs is a jerk. "If inventing the imac is so easy, what color should it be?" Pat >>2) Steve Jobs hates two-button mice *and* scroll-wheels. He's made >>this clear in interviews and Q&A sessions where the inefficiency of >>one-button mice is raised. > >Steve Jobs is a jerk. >"If inventing the imac is so easy, what color should it be?" ...And this coming from a man who *is* clinically color blind. OM Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > Yet another reason to use a Mac: right-clicking and "Download Image As . > . ." works just fine in Safari. ;-p Works just fine for me in firefox. Heck, it works just fine in IE, being as how I actually set up the IE security settings properly rather than just use the deaults like some random noob. =) > ...FYI, he's got right-click blocking enabled, but if you do a SAVE AS > from IE or any inferior browser, you can save these images to your > hard drive for background purposes. USA Today pages don't normally save very well, if it at all, but I find opening the pages in FrontPage makes them much easier to save. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.