scale model of space shuttle
Kwebsel
preferable the Columbia. I did some searching with Google, but I am
not sure which scale model is very detailled / close to the original.
The Revell Monogram Space Shuttle looks good to me, but the pictures
are not very detailed...
Can anyone recommend me a model? (kit or fully assembled)
Max Bryant
1/288 Academy
1/200 Hasegawa and Lindberg (best Hasegawa)
1/144 Revell, Minicraft, Airfix. Only Minicraft and Airfix may still be in
production. Airfix best
1/100 Tamiya currently oop
1/72 Monogram full stack or Revell Shuttle
Cheers,
Max Bryant
"Kwebsel" <kwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k67f4vsm8n3qcppr1...@4ax.com...
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
>Well here we go.
>1/288 Academy
>1/200 Hasegawa and Lindberg (best Hasegawa)
>1/144 Revell, Minicraft, Airfix. Only Minicraft and Airfix may still be in
>production. Airfix best
I built the Airfix kit as a kid, I seem to be remember being under
whelmed by the bay interior, even then.
>1/100 Tamiya currently oop
>1/72 Monogram full stack or Revell Shuttle
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
Tom Hiett
"Max Bryant" <li...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Well here we go.
> >1/288 Academy
> >1/200 Hasegawa and Lindberg (best Hasegawa)
> >1/144 Revell, Minicraft, Airfix. Only Minicraft and Airfix may still be in
> >production. Airfix best
>
> I built the Airfix kit as a kid, I seem to be remember being under
> whelmed by the bay interior, even then.
>
> >1/100 Tamiya currently oop
> >1/72 Monogram full stack or Revell Shuttle
Most real space kits are inaccurate as they are built of plans and
mock=ups abefore the real vehicles are done. I'm doing a Tamiya and did
the Revell 1/144. Neither has the science lab or interior covered in beta
cloth so nether looks right.
Tom
David Tietz
catalogs, they had a 1/162 scale shuttle. All of the pictures of it in the
catalog show it being the "Challenger", however.
-David Tietz
Kwebsel <kwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k67f4vsm8n3qcppr1...@4ax.com...
jsdeboo
> Well here we go.
> 1/288 Academy
> 1/200 Hasegawa and Lindberg (best Hasegawa)
> 1/144 Revell, Minicraft, Airfix. Only Minicraft and Airfix may still be in
> production. Airfix best
> 1/100 Tamiya currently oop
> 1/72 Monogram full stack or Revell Shuttle
If memory serves, there are/were 5 shuttles built (Challenger, Columbia,
Endeavor and 2 more), and we've lost 2 so far. As far as appearence, aren't
these all identical?
--
John S. DeBoo
jsd...@abq.com
Balsa Boy
> If memory serves, there are/were 5 shuttles built (Challenger, Columbia,
> Endeavor and 2 more), and we've lost 2 so far. As far as appearence, aren't
> these all identical?
No, there are some subtle and not-so-subtle differences. Columbia had her
own unique look, differing from her sisters primarily in the wing glove area. If
you look at Columbia, the upper portion of the fore wing glove section was
black, where the other orbiters are white. It was found early on that these
regions didn't get as hot as expected, therefore they didn't require the more
robust black tiles there. Also, Columbia sported a black pod atop her stabilizer
for several years which was used for an IR camera designed to look down upon
the vehicle to record re-entry heating on the upper surfaces. Various NASA
logos were changed over the years too, most notably the old 'worm' logo which
was replaced with the reincarnated NASA 'whoosh' meatball a few years back.
William H. Shuey
Tom Hiett wrote:
>
> Most real space kits are inaccurate as they are built of plans and
> mock=ups abefore the real vehicles are done.
FWIW We've had some similar problems with kits of current aircraft too.
Everybody in a hurry to be the first to get a kit on the market and what
we get is a prototype or FSD model instead of the production bird.
Bill Shuey
Rick Dickinson
alleged to have written:
>If memory serves, there are/were 5 shuttles built (Challenger, Columbia,
>Endeavor and 2 more), and we've lost 2 so far. As far as appearence, aren't
>these all identical?
There were 6 that flew (OV-101 only flew on sub-orbital test flights):
Name Designation First Mission/Date
Enterprise OV-101 Taxi test / February 15, 1977
Columbia OV-102 STS-1 / April 12, 1981
Challenger OV-99 STS-6 / April 4, 1983
Discovery OV-103 41-D / August 30, 1984
Atlantis OV-104 51-J / October 3, 1985
Endeavor OV-105 STS-49 / May 7, 1992
Endeavor was built as a replacement for Challenger. Discovery,
Atlantis, and Endeavor are still in service.
There are also a number of "mockups" at various locations around the
country. See http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/orbiter/
for a pretty darn good list of these.
The sci.space.shuttle FAQ has some more good info, at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4411/faq-e.htm
To answer your second question, there are a number of appearance
differences ranging from the trivial (different name painted on the
side) to the substantial (different tile/carbon composite material
arrangements). If you're looking to model a specific orbiter, search
the NASA web site for photos of the particular vehicle you're
interested in.
Hope this helps!
- Rick "Why am I still awake?" Dickinson
--
What did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead.
--Schroedinger's wife
Tom Hiett
Its the problem with some aircraft, but it seems like the majority of the
space kits have the problem, and they usually don't get redone later as
most aircraft does.
Tom
Jerry Irvine
Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:41:48 -0700, jsdeboo <jsd...@abq.com> is
> alleged to have written:
>
> >If memory serves, there are/were 5 shuttles built (Challenger, Columbia,
> >Endeavor and 2 more), and we've lost 2 so far. As far as appearence, aren't
> >these all identical?
>
> There were 6 that flew (OV-101 only flew on sub-orbital test flights):
>
> Name Designation First Mission/Date
> Enterprise OV-101 Taxi test / February 15, 1977
> Columbia OV-102 STS-1 / April 12, 1981
> Challenger OV-99 STS-6 / April 4, 1983
> Discovery OV-103 41-D / August 30, 1984
> Atlantis OV-104 51-J / October 3, 1985
> Endeavor OV-105 STS-49 / May 7, 1992
OV-100 fell into a black hole.
>
> Endeavor was built as a replacement for Challenger. Discovery,
> Atlantis, and Endeavor are still in service.
>
> There are also a number of "mockups" at various locations around the
> country. See http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/orbiter/
> for a pretty darn good list of these.
>
> The sci.space.shuttle FAQ has some more good info, at
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4411/faq-e.htm
>
> To answer your second question, there are a number of appearance
> differences ranging from the trivial (different name painted on the
> side) to the substantial (different tile/carbon composite material
> arrangements). If you're looking to model a specific orbiter, search
> the NASA web site for photos of the particular vehicle you're
> interested in.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> - Rick "Why am I still awake?" Dickinson
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
Bob Kaplow
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:41:48 -0700, jsdeboo <jsd...@abq.com> is
> alleged to have written:
>
>>If memory serves, there are/were 5 shuttles built (Challenger, Columbia,
>>Endeavor and 2 more), and we've lost 2 so far. As far as appearence, aren't
>>these all identical?
>
> There were 6 that flew (OV-101 only flew on sub-orbital test flights):
Specifically, it only flew the drop / approach tests after being carried
aloft on the back of the 747. It had no engines of its own.
Challenger was originally built as a test vehicle, but it was determined
that it would be less expensive to flight convert Challenger than Enterprise
or a new from scratch orbiter.
And IIRC the original plan was to build a fleet of 5. But budget cuts
limited it to a maximum of 4.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century
Zack
Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor. Unfortunatly,
Columbia and Challenger are no longer in service.
Challenger was originally a test vehicle used for vibration testing in the
early days of the shuttle system, and was later contracted to be converted
from a test bed to an orbital vehicle in '82. NASA had contracted with
Rockwell to make an extra set of major componets in the case of orbitor was
damaged in some way. When the Challenger was lost, NASA decided to build a
replacement from those spare parts and named it Endeavor.
As for the config of the vehicles yes they are similar. They are indenticle
in shape and size, but the design of the tiles on the leading edge of the
wings, nose, vertical stabalizer, and the elevons has changed over the years
through use and refurbishment.
GOD's speed Columbia and crew.
Jerry Irvine
kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
> And IIRC the original plan was to build a fleet of 5. But budget cuts
> limited it to a maximum of 4.
It turns out that was a VERY expensive budget cut.
Jerry
Darren J Longhorn
wrote:
>To answer your second question, there are a number of appearance
>differences ranging from the trivial (different name painted on the
>side) to the substantial (different tile/carbon composite material
>arrangements). If you're looking to model a specific orbiter, search
>the NASA web site for photos of the particular vehicle you're
>interested in.
...and the particular period. As you say stuff changed over time.
Tom Hiett
Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
>
> >To answer your second question, there are a number of appearance
> >differences ranging from the trivial (different name painted on the
> >side) to the substantial (different tile/carbon composite material
> >arrangements). If you're looking to model a specific orbiter, search
> >the NASA web site for photos of the particular vehicle you're
> >interested in.
>
> ...and the particular period. As you say stuff changed over time.
There used to be a vehicle by vehicle log somewhere on the NASA site with
the particulars on each and the updates they had been through but I
couldn't find it last week.
Tom
Rick Dickinson
alleged to have written:
>OV-100 fell into a black hole.
The following quote from the sci.space.shuttle FAQ, part E, at
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4411/faq-e.htm>, should
explain the number sequence:
---> While there have been five shuttles capable of flying into space,
---> there have been more than that number of shuttle air frames
---> built:
--->
---> STA-095 Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory, bldg 16, JSC
---> MPTA-098 part of Shuttle-C mockup at Langley (different from
---> OV-098)
---> OV-098 * Pathfinder (MSFC mockup, * = honorary number)
---> OV-099 Challenger (formerly STA-099)
---> OV-101 Enterprise
---> OV-102 Columbia
---> OV-103 Discovery
---> OV-104 Atlantis
---> OV-105 Endeavour
--->
---> MPTA = Main Propulsion Test Article
---> OV = Orbiter Vehicle
---> STA = Structural Test Airframe
--->
---> In order of their first mission, the five shuttles built for
---> space travel were named Columbia (102), Challenger (099),
---> Discovery (103), Atlantis (104), and Endeavour (105). Of these
---> all are still in service except for the Challenger, which was
---> destroyed in the 1986 accident.
--->
---> Enterprise (101) was a test vehicle used for the Approach and
---> Landing tests in the late 1970's; although there were plans to
---> refit it for spaceflight, eventually it seemed easier to rebuild
---> one of the structural test articles instead, which is why
---> Challenger's "OV" number seems out of sequence with the rest.
--->
---> MPTA-098 was put on the test stand in Stennis to test the SSME's.
---> It wasn't a full airframe, just the aft structure used to support
---> the engines. It was later integrated into a Shuttle-C mockup.
--->
---> Pathfinder (098*) just a plywood mock-up used to fit check the
---> various facilities used to support the shuttle. Originially it
---> only looked vaguely reminicent of the shuttle. It was later
---> refurbished to look like a real orbiter and went on display in
---> Japan. It is now on display at the Alabama Space and Rocket
---> Center near Huntsville, AL, mated to a spare ET and a pair of
---> filament-wound composite SRB's.
--->
---> STA-095 is housed at the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory
---> (SAIL) at JSC, where it is used for checking out the orbiter
---> software in a more "real" environment. Various sensors are placed
---> througout the simulated payload bay to simulate the details like
---> the time it takes a signal to travel from one end of the shuttle
---> to the other.
--->
---> Note that the code number refers to "series" and "vehicle"
---> number, so OV-101 was series 1, orbiter 01; OV-099 was series 0,
---> orbiter 99. There is no OV-100 since that would mean series 1,
---> orbiter 00.
So, I was slightly mistaken in listing Challenger as OV-99. It should
have been listed as OV-099. The leading zero is significant, and I
should not have dropped it in my previous response.
- Rick "OV-EREASY" Dickinson
Jerry Irvine
Rick Dickinson <r...@notesguy.com> wrote:
> The leading zero is significant, and I
> should not have dropped it
We all know that!
G008 Jerry