# My Jupiter 2 Hull Drawings



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I can't find the thread I originally posted these on so I guess I'll just have to start a new one. I posted some of these a few years back and most just before the Moebius kit was released but I've cleaned them up finally gotten them scanned properly and thought I'd post a preview here. Jeez, they did a great job of scanning these! I'll be posting the full size versions to Photobucket with all my other stuff, soon. 
The various shapes were discovered with the help of a few hard core Jupiter 2 fans here. These different shapes really do all exist.


Moved attachments to:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Jupiter 2 Hull Drawings/


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

My 100' Jupiter 2 is what I'm hoping to do with a 24" model. Instead of a 1/24 interior, I want to put in a 1/48 interior. The only external changes the Jupiter 2 would need are a smaller upper deck hatch (which was never seen on any of the miniatures anyway so how can it be "wrong"?) and double the number of steps on the landing gear. 
I see there's a thread on "Making the Jupiter 2 Make Sense". There's a better way of doing the viewports without changing them from the original design. But that's another post.
(Edit: does anyone remember the location of the thread with the hull shapes discussion? There was a good explanation of these various shapes there. Does anyone know the location of the thread where I originally posted my Jupiter 2 hull drawings. I remember I really got blasted there for suggesting that a half inch added to the top hull would allow a 1/24 scale interior to fit into a 1/24 hull And leave room for working landing gear. "No Fat Jupiter 2s!!! was about the kindest response. But that thread had a discussion of my design choices. Darned if I can find them??)
For now here's the rest of "The Spotter's Guide to the Jupiter 2":


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Um...the 48" Hero's gear doesn't show all the holes in the gear leg sides. The last one is partially hidden by the lower hull.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

You know, I knew that, too. Totally forgot. Thanks. I'll re-space those holes. The landing gear themselves are still the right size, tho, as their dimensions are determined by the hull contours. Just those stupid cut outs... Rats.
Something else I forgot was that somewhere along the line, was that I'd decided that 100' for a Jupiter 2 was the smallest possible working diameter, probably too small. I was leaning more toward a scale 150' diameter when (Polar Lights or ~1/72 scale) inside a 24" saucer. These are 1/48 interior drawings that I did 20-some years ago superimposed on the 24" drawing. Very rough drawings. My more recent thinking was to make the Jupiter 2 big enough that the forward facing control panels in both the upper and lower control rooms are free standing islands that allow the astronauts room to walk around and stand right at the observation windows. I always thought those huge, Seaview 1st season-like windows would have been what Irwin Allen would have done if he'd had modern fx. And I'd give the pilot a cabin, near the main controls no less.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

well I still think of the Jupiter 2 as a sleeper ship, and that the lower level should have been more cramped due to the crap they carried with them. I still say 60 feet is about right, and the 3rd deck never existed. To go a step further, I hated the pod, and my Moebius models' pod hatch has been filled over.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Hello starseeker. I see you're with a mind full of new ideas. I just hope that you have not given up you project to scratchbuilt both decks. For too long we do not see new photos. 

Nice to see you again on duty. :wave:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

No, Fernando, I intend to start painting the decks as soon as I get a chance. 
Y3a, I've posted corrected landing gear. Actually, it IS possible to make a dimensional error, if you forget that the thing pivots around its pivot point. What can I say, I'm no draftsman. So here are the corrected holes and the corrected dimensions. I went back and double checked it against, well, everything that you posted above, actually. I made some screen grabs of the landing, flipped a larger version of the leg prop photo, and used your side view of the folding process. I think it's really close. It scales almost identically with Ron Gross's drawing, a bit wider at one end, a bit narrower at the other. I think it's as good as were going to do until someone traces and measures and posts the prop. 
Leaving the 100' for discussion, altho' I think it's too small. 150' is too big, maybe. Split the difference to ~125' and I think that would be my perfect J2.

Forgot to mention: again, one of my intentions for posting these is to see if anyone can make any corrections, suggestions, etc. If I've left anything out, if anyone has any pictures of old Flat Top, particularly of the lower hull that might give a clue as to which lower hull it had, if anyone knows the size of what I'm calling the 12 1/2" miniature, as that is what early references called it. Some now say it was 16" but that seems too large compared to what Will picks up in Wish Upon A Star. Honest. Try it with your Moebius and see what you think.

Also, I've left the top domes a half spheres. That's what the blueprints show and a grab of the best orthographic shot of the J2 (the beginning of Visit to a Hostile Planet) shows a perfect half sphere when measured with calipers. I think that is the Hero miniature, too, as the rear landing gear foot cover seems to be recessed into the hull. As far as I know, all photos of all J2 miniatures show replacement, not original domes. So I'm sticking with what I see on screen.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Posted the full size attachments from this thread to:

http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Jupiter 2 Hull Drawings/


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Nice art! Your placement for the Space Pod door is off though. It is much more to the side than it is straight back from the viewport. The builders put it in on the wrong side of center from the set. You can tell this by how close it is to the round porthole next to the viewport. It is clearly visible in most shots! As a kid, and even today, I always considered that to be the porthole in the room next to the ladder, even though this was never incorporated into the miniature!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks!
One main reason for posting these drawings and photos is to provide a reference to other modellers. The other main reason is to get corrections and suggestions.
Started re-posting other sets of references (Chariot, Seaview, etc) to:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/home/jkirkphotos/allalbums
Adding some additional references where I can, as I just did with the Chariot folder. Will continue over the next week or so.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Hi SS,

Got a little niggling nit to pick with your Hero miniature landing gear - it does not have the "accordian" connector between the rod and landing pad that you show. There's a ball-and-socket joint there.

Paulbo


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

That I did not know. Thanks!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

You're welcome.

I forgot one other comment ... Nice drawings!

BTW - here's a photo of my Hero Landing Gear showing the ball and socket joint. I also noticed that your rods on the hero are a bit thick. (This is an photo of the kit parts - I removed my workbench and added the shadow.) http://www.paragrafix.biz/prodimg/PGX120/3.jpg


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The bare ball joint makes perfect sense: on the Forever dvd we see the Jupiter 2 miniature on fire at least once. Even fireproof gel wouldn't keep rubber flex tubing from burning. I wonder if early on (before fires and explosions) the miniature didn't have the flex covering but even then it might have interfered with the gravity driven foot deployment. 
I'll revise those bits soon. Thanks very much again.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Starseeker, just wanted to thank you for taking our comments, about your fine work, in the spirit it is intended. We want you to produce the best drawings with as much info correct as can be. So many times people who put their work up for all to see, take comments the wrong way. You are a class act!!!!!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

FINALLY! corrected the hero's landing gear in the Photobucket album.
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums... Drawings/?action=view&current=48inchHero.jpg 
Paulbo's totally correct about the strut being too thick. I studied the picture of the original gear and corrected the openings on the gear walls and scaled the strut to the space beside the openings. Added the ball joint because who am I to argue with someone who probably knows the gear better than anyone else on earth and left Paragrafix a credit. Thanks, Paulbo, for taking the time to post the great image!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Found this fabulous blueprint in a recent Profiles in History catalogue. Posted a higher res version here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums...tion=view&current=Gemini12GantryCorrected.jpg
The Gemini 12 depicted has a slightly different upper hull shape from the one I've studied out, but an even shallower bottom hull shape. My original G12 lower hull shape from screen grabs was about this shallow but I just couldn't accept it. I guess I'm going to have to now. Changed my G12 hull drawing to match. Hope you all have fun with this. And how come I've never seen this before?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I also added most of the other Jupiter 2 blueprints I've managed to gather from History and various websites to:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Fox LIS Blueprints/

Boy, I love the new Photobucket. It reminds me of the intuitiveness of DOS. Almost as much fun as early root canals.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Found this Jupiter 2 in a Profiles in History catalogue. According to the description, this is the 48" pod dropper, with original bottom light ring, that belonged to and was restored by Greg Jein. This is the same miniature previously pictured with all the windows cut in its hull and sitting on top of the launch pad (which is/was? also for sale). I can't believe what a mess it is. How warped and bent out of shape. I wonder how much of the unevenness and asymmetry was part of its original state? Also note: this appears to be the miniature I've been calling "old flat top". What does this mean for anyone who wants to build an "accurate" pod dropper? Ignore the shape of the miniature, I would think, and build it from what you see in your heart. Poor thing. What a mess. I suppose I'll have to revise my hull drawings accordingly but I just don't want to.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Found this Jupiter 2 in a Profiles in History catalogue. According to the description, this is the 48" pod dropper, with original bottom light ring, that belonged to and was restored by Greg Jein. This is the same miniature previously pictured with all the windows cut in its hull and sitting on top of the launch pad (which is/was? also for sale). I can't believe what a mess it is. How warped and bent out of shape. I wonder how much of the unevenness and asymmetry was part of its original state? Also note: this appears to be the miniature I've been calling "old flat top". What does this mean for anyone who wants to build an "accurate" pod dropper? Ignore the shape of the miniature, I would think, and build it from what you see in your heart. Poor thing. What a mess. I suppose I'll have to revise my hull drawings accordingly but I just don't want to.


Sad. Looks like an old hooker after a rough night.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Just received an email from a HT follower with this amazing document appended. Check out the date and the bottom right hand corner. Not only do they mention that the 12" miniature was 12", not 16", but the 10' WAS used! At least according to this. So if the 10' was filmed, did it ever end up on screen? 
Thank you so much, Deep Throat . Man, I love the people at Hobbytalk!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The two miniatures referred to in that memo are as it says, the 10 foot "Derelict" ship and the 12 inch Jupiter 2 to film with it.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry, that comma confused me. When it said Miniature Derelict, Comma, then 10' and 12" Spaceships without commas to seperate the latter into two, I thought the sentence was constructed as sentences in English are normally constructed, meaning a miniature Derelict AND (that would be the comma) the 10' and 12" spaceships (no commas). My mistake. I'll have to brush up on pidgin.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

starseeker said:


> Sorry, that comma confused me. When it said Miniature Derelict, Comma, then 10' and 12" Spaceships without commas to seperate the latter into two, I thought the sentence was constructed as sentences in English are normally constructed, meaning a miniature Derelict AND (that would be the comma) the 10' and 12" spaceships (no commas). My mistake. I'll have to brush up on pigeon.


No problem, they had to convey a lot of info in a small space. (Plus, I believe that "comma" is just an "artifact" on the copy, not actual punctuation. there is an actual comma 3 lines below, much smaller.) Since the Derelict miniature was about 10 feet in length and the Jupiter 2 was 12 inches wide, this is the conclusion I come to when I read that. They would not have used the 12 incher in the same filming "set up" as the Jupiter 2 landing, no matter the 4 foot or 10 foot. I would imagine it took quite a while to get all those great shots of the J2 orbiting the Derelict ship! The interior was more than likely another days work.


----------



## Avian (Feb 16, 2010)

^That's what I thought as well. I presume the 10' Derelict (quite the size, eh?) was later cannibalized for parts used elsewhere.

I'm planning on building a CG Derelict for use in the LIS web series, BTW.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Avian said:


> ^That's what I thought as well. I presume the 10' Derelict (quite the size, eh?) was later cannibalized for parts used elsewhere.
> 
> It was, most notably the Prison ship from "Condemned of Space" which also used parts from the fuel barge from the second season episode "Wild Adventure". It was also used in several episodes as set dressing, standing in for various pieces of alien tech.
> 
> ...


Looking forward to this.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Avian said:


> ^That's what I thought as well. I presume the 10' Derelict (quite the size, eh?) was later cannibalized for parts used elsewhere.
> 
> I'm planning on building a CG Derelict for use in the LIS web series, BTW.


Yup, in a few episodes, but in "His Majesty Smith" it is part of the set with people in the frame. It is the center ball and the smaller end ball, and stood about 5 or 6 feet high. Add the opening cone piece on the other end, and you have yourself a 10 foot Derelict miniature!


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

I noticed on the daily call sheet the name Hammeras listed. Edwin Hammeras was the younger brother of Ralph Hammeras, who won an Effects Oscar for 20,00 Leagues Under The Sea. Edwin also shot the miniatures for the TV show Supertrain.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Indeed, that 4 footer is a mess, and it sold for bigger bucks than I've got. I hope it went to a worthy home, and will some day be repaired and restored to it's original grandeur.


----------

