# Review of Masterpiece Model’s 1/48 Scale Luna Spaceship From Destination Moon



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

In 1950 the movie Destination Moon was released, and told the story of man’s first attempt to reach the moon by rocket. It was the second major motion picture made about manned space travel, with Rocket Ship X-M being the first. Honestly, the acting in the movie is poor and the story line is weak, but the science behind the space flight is based in fact (for what was known at the time). It is pretty entertaining and won the Academy Award for Best Special Effects. Most importantly it gave us a very cool rocket design named Luna, which looks pretty much like a glorified German V-2 missile.
For many years about the only Luna model available came from Lunar Models. It was out of resin and in 1/200 scale (9” tall). I built this model myself a long time ago. In the past few years Pegasus Hobbies came out with plastic Luna models in both 1/144 scale (12.5” tall) and 1/350 scale (5” tall). The largest Luna model available is made by Masterpiece Models and came out in 2011. It is in 1/48 scale (37.5” tall) and the same size as the two studio miniatures built for the movie. This kit is the focus of this “in-the-box” review. When it originally came out the price was $299.00, but I paid $199.00 for mine (plus about $47.00 for shipping across the US). I have to believe the original price was reduced due to low sales. I think this because I tried to research the model before buying it, but was unable to find a single review or photo of a built up model on the Internet. I believe a lot of classic sci-fi modelers are probably curious about a large scale Luna kit, so that is one of my main reasons for submitting this post. Let’s see what is what… 


Image 01: Box art for the latest Destination Moon DVD issue.


Image 02: My build of Lunar Models resin Luna diorama.


Image 03: Here is Masterpiece Models cover art for the model from their website (Masterpiece Models). It is a really nice pro-built job.


Image 04: Here is the very large shipping box the model came in. To save cost Masterpiece Models does not provide any other box. 


Image 05: The entire model (including the base) consists of only six parts and is made out of resin. 


Image 06: The instructions for the model are sparse and consist of one page. Detailed instructions are not really required on a model with so few parts.


Image 07: Here is a photo of me holding the main hull, which is a hollow cast resin. This is good because it greatly reduces the weight of the part and makes assembly much easier. I included this photo to better convey the large size of the model.


Image 08: Another overall view of the hull is shown, with the background light penetrating part of the hollow casting.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Image 09: Here is a close up image of the upper casing showing the pre-drilled ladder rung locating holes, evenly spaced and straight as an arrow. It is a BIG bonus having these, as adding them down the length of the hull would be extremely difficult and time consuming. The kit does not include the small diameter wire that has to be cut and formed into the ladder rungs. 


Image 10: Shown is another image of the upper hull highlighting the scribed lines representing a window opening and exit hatch.


Image 011: This photo is at the middle of the hull and shows additional scribed details not on the smaller models.


Image 12: Here is the lower section of the hull showing two locating holes for one of the large fins, although each large fin has only one locator pin. Many resin models do not include any locating pins or locating pin holes so this is very helpful. 


Image 13: Another shot of the uniform ladder rung holes.


Image 14: A close up photo of one of the fin locating holes is shown, which will be drilled out before any connection is made during construction.


Image 15: Here are the locating holes for the balance “leg” that goes on the opposite side of the smaller top fin. I believe the bump above the holes is supposed to be sanded away.



Images 16 and 17: These two images are close up shots of the seam line connection between the two hull halves made during the casting process. As you can see there is a considerable amount of sanding that will be required to eliminate this. This will not be a problem as long as the hollow casting of the hull has the thickness to do this.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Images 18 and 19: Here is the engine exhaust opening. I am not sure where the basis of this detail came from, as the partial full size lower rocket mock up in the movie doesn’t reveal anything.



Images 20 and 21: The single, smaller top fin is shown here. Oddly enough it does not include a locator pin. I assume this is because the top fin is very thin compared to the two larger fins. For some reason the scribed lines representing the rudder are not included and will have to be added.




Images 22 to 24: Close up images of one of the landing supports. There are some tiny pin holes in the resin, but they are not too numerous. For the most part, the resin’s finish (to the touch) comes across more like rough plastic instead typical poured resin. 


Image 25: The kit’s fins are straight with no warping, as shown in this photo.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Image 26: Here is a photo of the flat connection side on one of the large fins. It shows air-pocket casting voids all along the edges. These flaws will have to filled and repaired. The center section of the flat side will also have to be cut and recessed so the fins can lay flush against the hull.



Images 27 and 28: These photos of the fin show the sharp points and soft curves are well formed.




Images 29 to 31: Photos of the balance leg, which will require some sanding and clean up.





Images 32 to 35: Here are photos of the base. One of the good things about the base is it includes recesses where the rocket’s fins/leg will sit on it. Due to its size and weight, I believe small metal pins will be required to secure the rocket to the base. The outside of the base has been formed to resemble a wooden base, which looks really sharp. The surface is made to look like the moon surface in the movie, which actually looks more like desert cratering. Overall the base is a really good casting.

Conclusion: Masterpiece Models Luna spaceship is good for a resin kit offering. However, like almost all resin kits it is not on the level of typical injection styrene kits available today. Even though there are only six pieces, this is not a kit for beginners and will take considerable sanding and painting skills to produce a high quality display. Personally, I am excited about building this model and plan to make it my next project, but I am aware of the extra effort that will be required.

_Note: There is a company called Shapeways in New York (www.shapeways.com) that sells 3D printed sculptures. They offer a 1/48 scale set of Astronaut figures that are patterned after the spacesuits used in Destination Moon. Having these figures should really open up the diorama possibilities._

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Thanks for that wonderful in depth review!

Please post pictures of the finished kit when you get it done- love to see it in all it's retro-glory!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

All those ladder rungs! Ugh!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I believe that 'bump' over the holes for the jackstand leg is meant to represent the hatch the leg emerges from and may also serve as additional support for when the leg is glued on.

Clearly it's in the wrong place and too uniform to be a pour stub, or so it seems to me.

We're never shown the mechanism in action and only hear a whine when they call out for the leg to be extended, but recall that it IS extended and not a fixed part of the hull like the wings. Just a thought. 

This looks to be quite an interesting build. Good Luck!


----------



## crazy mike (Aug 26, 1999)

Y3a said:


> All those ladder rungs! Ugh!


How 'bout winding wire around a square tube for consistency?


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Richard Baker/Y3a/Steve H/crazy mike-Thanks for the comments.

Y3a/crazy mike-I think adding the ladder rungs will not be too difficult, just time consuming and tedious. Bending the thin wire with a straight edge metal ruler should do the trick.

Steve H-I have seen other debates on this website about whether the landing leg is retractable or fixed. I agree with you that it was probably retractable. The Jackill Technical Readout drawings of the Luna show a retractable leg, even revealing how it is located in the hull (on their cutaway view). 

I did want to mention another detail about Masterpiece Models that I think is important. I purchased this kit about four months ago, but only closely inspected it within the last couple of weeks. During my inspection I noticed one the the large fins had a poorly formed section on one of the edges. I sent an e-mail MM with photos of the defective part and asked for a replacement. They apologized about the part and shipped a replacement by USPS Priority mail within two days. I was impressed by the good customer service.

I do plan on posting photos, as soon as I have something worthwhile to look at.

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Phillip1 said:


> ...Y3a/crazy mike-I think adding the ladder rungs will not be too difficult, just time consuming and tedious. Bending the thin wire with a straight edge metal ruler should do the trick...


I don't suppose those ladder rung holes are conveniently spaced so you could use little pieces of wire that are already preformed into a workable shape? Like, say, staples?


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Zombie_61-I do not believe the drilling centers match the size of "standard" staples. I think thicker ladder rungs would look better and be easier to work with.

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Beautiful kit... BIG...


Why am I reminded of Thunderbird 3 so much?


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Oh how I wish I had THIS version of "Luna." Mine is solid, and weighs a ton! If that ain't enough, the left half is MUCH heavier than the right. Placed on it's side, it rolls IMMEDIATELY to a heavy-side down position. My concern is the instability this will cause when posed upright.

Many methods of hollowing this thing out have passed through my mind, and none of them are appealing. It appears that cutting the hull into forward, mid, and aft sections, and then hollowing out each piece separately has the best chance of success.

BTW, has anyone calculated the ACTUAL ratio of the ogive shape? Over the years I have noted several different numbers for this, which appear to be casual estimates. This Masterpiece model is from a cast of one half of the studio model, so measurements of this casting should reveal the exact ogive shape. Performing a highly accurate tracing of the outline of the hull is not a simple task.


Tom


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

taneal1-Although I say the kit is a hollow casting, probably about 50% of the interior is solid cast. The thickness of the body ranges anywhere from 1/16" to 1" thick! The cast parts are what I call "old" school resin, which means they are fairly crude. My kit's body part also is out of balance and will roll on a level surface. Once the fins are added I do not think this will be an issue. I would also recommend against cutting the body in sections, since getting all the cuts lined up would be a nightmare. As far as the hull shape goes I think it looks correct when comparing it to the movie miniature.

Fellow Modelers-I have started working on this project. So far, as expected, it has proven to be a challenge. Listed below are several in-progress photos.

https://i.postimg.cc/W3Hvy7Cm/036.jpg
This photo shows a sample of the thousands of pinholes that were revealed when the body was sanded to remove the flaws. Yikes!

https://i.postimg.cc/Pq6JtY0J/037.jpg
The pinholes were eliminated by brushing multiple coats of of enamel semi-gloss MM Light Ghost Gray paint and then sanding the excess away. Not fun. 

https://i.postimg.cc/bJsJddjT/018.jpg
A close up shot of the upper section. The body included pre-drilled ladder rung holes but they ended up being crooked both vertically and horizontally so they were filled. I tried to re-drill them two different times but was never happy with the alignment so they were filled one final time. The varying thickness of the body can be seen through the observation window opening that has been drilled out.

https://i.postimg.cc/63gQZwWN/029.jpg
Here is the body after the final coat of primer was applied. As you can see the pinholes are gone and the surface is smooth but it took over fifty hours to achieve this.

Phillip1


----------



## Kolarson (Oct 2, 2018)

Thanks for the review, that kit looks really nice. Can't wait to see it finished.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Fellow Modelers,

I have finished this project! It was a difficult build but I stuck with it and the final display turned out really nice. Below are two photos.


This one shows the entire diorama. I included myself in the photo to show the large size (about 38" tall).


Here is a close up showing the the base, equipment and a couple of the Shapeways 3D printed figures.

Thanks for looking.

Phillip1


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

That's a great build! At that size, must be super impressive in person.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

The rocket is nice, too!


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> Fellow Modelers,
> 
> 
> Here is a close up showing the the base, equipment and a couple of the Shapeways 3D printed figures.



Great job Phillip1!


What do you think of the Shapeways crew for accuracy? Did you have any issues with painting them?


Thanks for any info,


Tom


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Fozzie/Milton Fox Racing-Thanks for the compliments. They are appreciated. 

taneal1-Thanks for the compliment. Concerning the Shapeways figures, I was very pleased with them. The set I ordered contained nine figures, all in different poses. They do offer more than one option on the material used to make the parts. The highest quality material almost doubles the price. I had several back and forth e-mails with Shapeways Customer Service and they told me if you plan on detail painting, then the highest quality material was recommended because it provides the smoothest surface. I opted to follow their advice. I got the set about a week after I ordered it, which indicates they were in stock. I was impressed by the quality. The detail was accurate to what you see in the movie, as well as being clean and crisp. The parts had a texture to them, but it was not a distraction. When I was painting them I noticed enamel paints did not adhere to the material as well as they would to styrene plastic. Because of this I was not able to do any hard masking. Instead I used Liquid Mask, which cleaned up easily with water. The set was a good purchase for me because it allowed me to turn my rocket model into a rocket diorama.

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## Hobby Dude (Aug 7, 2019)

Nice kit, it looks tough. I love those V-2 cigar style rockets, sleek and unique!:grin2:


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Honestly, it was a difficult kit to build even though there were only a handful of parts. Of course it was out of resin, which makes any kind of build MUCH hard (in my opinion). I agree the Luna design is really attractive and probably the best of all the 1950's sci-fi movie rockets. 

Phillip1


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> Images 18 and 19: Here is the engine exhaust opening. I am not sure where the basis of this detail came from, as the partial full size lower rocket mock up in the movie doesn’t reveal anything.



Hi Phillip,


Here are two photos showing the engine exhaust on the full-size filming mockup:


















...and one from the display cutaway:










No resemblance to the model depiction, that I can detect. The model comes from a cast of one side of the original movie model kept by George Pal, which I doubt had this type of nozzle -- but you never know... Have you tried emailing Masterpiece and inquiring?


Tom


PS I am seeing the attached images at the bottom of the this post. Is there any way to remove them as they are redundant...


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> Concerning the Shapeways figures, I was very pleased with them. The set I ordered contained nine figures, all in different poses. They do offer more than one option on the material used to make the parts. The highest quality material almost doubles the price.



Thanks for the info, it certainly appears you made the correct choice!


Tom


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> Fellow Modelers,
> 
> I have finished this project! It was a difficult build but I stuck with it and the final display turned out really nice. Below are two photos.
> 
> ...



Gotta LOVE this scale! Magnificent job - especially considering all the seam and pinhole work.


BTW, I presume that despite the seriously offset center-of-gravity, the ship is stable on the display base?


Thanks for any info,


Tom


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve H said:


> I believe that 'bump' over the holes for the jackstand leg is meant to represent the hatch the leg emerges from


There is *no* "hatch" or door covering the retracted leg. When retracted there is a visible open slit in the hull due to the mismatch of leg and hull shape.



Steve H said:


> and may also serve as additional support for when the leg is glued on.


If the top of the leg touches the bottom of the 'bump', given the hollow hull, this seems a reasonable assumption.



Steve H said:


> We're never shown the mechanism in action and only hear a whine when they call out for the leg to be extended.


FWIW, the "jacks" they are referring to are vertically-mounted jack screws located at the base of the 3 airfoil-shaped fins. They are intended to balance the ship on an uneven surface. After the reply 'Jacks down' from the General, pilot Jim Barnes tells him 'you can cut out your gyros.' The gyros are no longer necessary to maintain balance so they are cut off.

Interestingly, in an early Destination Moon script, screenwriter Robert A. Heinlein had "Luna" unable to take off from the Moon due to an excessively tipped ship. The crew visually inspect the three "jacks" at the base of the fins and determine these jacks are unable to bring the ship close enough to vertical to launch. So clearly they are referring to the three *jack screws*, not the fourth leg. This plot detail was recycled in George Pal's later sci-fi movie "Conquest of Space." ...And sorta used in the recent movie,"The Martian," despite the fact that a high wind velocity in extremely low pressure air could not tip the ship over.

I have never found any info regarding when the leg is in the retracted position. Would they wait until *after* touchdown to extend it? 

Legend has it that the ship appeared dangerously unstable on the original three leg design, so an additional fourth leg was added. If forward, rearward, or lateral motion existed at touchdown, or the surface was not flat, then for stability it would seem *prudent* to touch down on four legs rather than three. IMO, the leg appears strong enough for a hard touchdown, so why not use it?

Given the low-drag shape of the leg, and the brief time the ship would spend transiting Earth's atmosphere due to its rapid acceleration, drag loss would be minimal. However, since it's retractable, presumably it would be retracted immediately after launch.

Would the leg be retracted for re-entry? In 1950 it was believed that a vehicle returning from space could graze the atmosphere to reduce its velocity. To avoid excess heating, it would then perform a pull-up and coast 'outside' the atmosphere to cool off. Several of these encounters would reduce the ship's velocity to allow an un-powered glide to touchdown. Later, it was determined that heating was far more severe than expected, especially during the pull-up, and the rate of cooling much less, so this type of re-entry would be unsuccessful due to over-heating. Would the leg be retracted to avoid heat damage?

Pardon my long-winded reply, but it's fun to speculate.

Tom


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Tom,

Thanks for the comments. I enjoy the speculation and you are educating me on several things I did not know about the movie! 

>BTW, I presume that despite the seriously offset center-of-gravity, the ship is stable on the display base? *I drilled locating holes in the rocket pod bottoms and through the base, then used wooden dowel pins and 5-Minute epoxy to lock everything together. The rocket is very securely fixed.

>The model comes from a cast of one side of the original movie model kept by George Pal, which I doubt had this type of nozzle -- but you never know... Have you tried emailing Masterpiece and inquiring? During construction I saw some of the photos you posted showing the engine exhaust. I knew the kit did not match it but it did not matter since the discharge of the rocket sits very close to the ground so it is nearly impossible to see into this area after the rocket is attached to the base.


>FWIW, the "jacks" they are referring to are vertically-mounted jack screws located at the base of the 3 airfoil-shaped fins. They are intended to balance the ship on an uneven surface. After the reply 'Jacks down' from the General, pilot Jim Barnes tells him 'you can cut out your gyros.' The gyros are no longer necessary to maintain balance so they are cut off. I never knew that about the jack screws. Very interesting! I did include a "scratch built" landing leg cover plate on my model because I assumed there was one. It may not be accurate but it looks cool. Concerning the landing support leg, according to the jackill cutaway drawings this leg was retractable and is shown in the retracted position in the drawings. See the drawing below.


Thanks
Phillip1*


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> Thanks for the comments. I enjoy the speculation and you are educating me on several things I did not know about the movie!


Don't get me started on comments/speculation regarding the movie... >



> TOM SAID: BTW, I presume that despite the seriously offset center-of-gravity, the ship is stable on the display base?
> 
> PHILLIP1 REPLIED: I drilled locating holes in the rocket pod bottoms and through the base, then used wooden dowel pins and 5-Minute epoxy to lock everything together. The rocket is very securely fixed.


You couldn't do more than that -- was it necessary, or precautionary?



> TOM SAID: FWIW, the "jacks" they are referring to are vertically-mounted jack screws located at the base of the 3 airfoil-shaped fins. They are intended to balance the ship on an uneven surface.
> 
> *PHILLIP1 REPLIED: I did include a "scratch built" landing leg cover plate on my model because I assumed there was one. It may not be accurate but it looks cool. Concerning the landing support leg, according to the jackill cutaway drawings this leg was retractable and is shown in the retracted position in the drawings. See the drawing below.*
> 
> ...


Do you have a photo of your installed landing gear cover? I'm curious to see what you came up with...

A Chesley Bonestell drawing of spaceship Luna shortly after Earth departure depicts two crew members standing on the hull. The ventral strut is shown in the retracted position within a narrow dark-colored slit in the white hull. It's certainly possible there is a door covering the retracted strut; but due to the darker color of the slit, IMO it's the edge of the retracted RED strut that we're actually seeing. If it's a door, the color would match the hull, and CB would simply have drawn a black outline around its edge. Possible a color drawing will emerge one day and we'll know for certain.

Do you have a larger version of this Jackill drawing? I have the same size as in your post. I'm curious regarding some of the details he shows. The gyros and the mechanism depicted inside the vertical stabilizer for example.

Although the most common belief is that the ventral strut simply 'folded' upward like a jack knife; prior to seeing this Jackill drawing I came up with the same method he is showing. Per the movie cutaway/Luna construction views, the strut would fit into the hull without any internal interference, and the curve of the strut *at least* approximates that of the ogive hull. The actual curvature of the strut could certainly be constructed to perfectly conform to the hull shape. Thus, if this speculation actually *is* the designed method of extension/retraction then it certainly *would* have this required shape. I'm not sure the drawings are precisely correct, and the full-size mockup is unlikely to have been constructed to the necessary degree of accuracy, but again the strut shape certainly approximates the ogive hull shape and could be an exact fit.

See my Animated Gif below which includes my speculation regarding the control switch which I believe activates an electric motor.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

>You couldn't do more than that -- was it necessary, or precautionary? *The rocket is very tall and heavy so you have to permanently secure it to the base with some sort of pins (wood/plastic/metal). If you do not do this then even a small knock or bump could spell disaster when moving it from place to place. Only the three fins have to be pinned to the base. Once that is done the support leg can be added with only a small amount of glue, as it is not required to provide any support.*

>Do you have a photo of your installed landing gear cover? I'm curious to see what you came up with..*See the photo below. I was just trying to replica/replace the raised area that Masterpiece Models provided above the support leg.*


>Do you have a larger version of this Jackill drawing? I have the same size as in your post. I'm curious regarding some of the details he shows. The gyros and the mechanism depicted inside the vertical stabilizer for example. *This is the largest I found on the internet. I actually tried to order the Luna drawing set from jackill while I was building the model, but it appears he is temporarily out of business. Paypal accepted my payment but I never got the drawings or a response from jackill. After a couple of months I filed a refund claim with Paypal. Jackill never responded so they ruled in my favor and I got my money back. It's really too bad as I would still like to buy these.*

>See my Animated Gif below which includes my speculation regarding the control switch which I believe activates an electric motor. *This is really cool! Certainly a lot of work would need to be done to the rocket hull to show the support leg opening. Note the landing leg is straight and does not have a curve that matches the hull.*

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> *Note the landing leg is straight and does not have a curve that matches the hull.*



Looks curved to me:






















Have you noticed the draftsman working on a "blueprint" type of plan in the movie? I have what is purported to be a poster-sized copy of this. On this drawing the Ventral Strut is most definitely curved. Interestingly, in the data block on the plans the ventral strut is listed as an official change to the original design, and it is even dated.

The strut itself, whether curved or straight has an aerodynamically clean cross section, so unless they were concerned regarding re-entry heating, I really don't understand why they made it retractable. But for some reason they did. It wouldn't have to fit perfectly in the "well", it could easily have extended above the hull somewhat, or below it and still be protected. It certainly could have the ogive shape along the outer edge, but did it?

The cutaway model that is shown to the financiers, and the silver model which is shown in the hangar at Barnes Aircraft (which is the George Pal model used to make the mold for Masterpiece models) appear to have straight or almost straight outer edges on the strut. However, the full-size mockup looks more curved.

Structurally and aerodynamically, there is no advantage to a straight strut v. a curved shape on the outer edge. If a *real* Luna had been built, the Ventral Strut would have the same ogive shape as the hull so it would fit flush when retracted, because there is simply no reason not to do so.


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Tom,

From your posted photos the Pegasus support leg part IS curved (as well as the full size mock up-to a lesser degree). For whatever reason the support leg in my Masterpiece Models kit was straight with no curve. In the jackill drawing it looks like the leg is straight as well. It could be this is one of those technical details that was only given "halfway" consideration since there was never any filming related to its function. I will always believe the main reason it was included on the model is to keep it from tipping over, since the fins were at the 9, 12 and 3 o'clock position. 

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Phillip1 said:


> It could be this is one of those technical details that was only given "halfway" consideration since there was never any filming related to its function.


I agree 100%. You stated the above much better than I did. The full-size "set" Ventral strut is obviously NOT a moveable structure, but was only something that appeared in the background, so this feature was not represented. It is also not depicted in the 'educational' short featuring Hollywood star, Woody Woodpecker...



Phillip1 said:


> I will always believe the main reason it was included on the model is to keep it from tipping over, since the fins were at the 9, 12 and 3 o'clock position.


Yup. They actually state this fact in several publications. It simply looked too unstable,and was unquestionably an add-on feature.

For some reason this discussion triggered a memory of my Luna/Destination Moon research. Many years ago I did some feasibility calculations regarding performance. i.e. Was this rocket capable of a Moon landing and return? Yes. But just barely. And good luck with the planned parachute landing. Talk about a "tip-over" issue!

There has been an attitude that the Earth "takeoff" g-forces were exaggerated for theatrical purposes. I disagree. The almost four minute climb to cutoff altitude would result in an initial 6g acceleration, peaking at 12g at the time of engine cutoff. Prior to the development of the custom made form-fitting couch developed by Project Mercury (only necessary because the Atlas booster was chosen) which allowed the astronaut to pull 20gs, the USAF had deemed 12g as the *absolute* limit for their 1956 MISS (Man In Space Soonest) concept. Without any practical training for g-force tolerance, they all would have unquestionably passed out.

As bad as the above stats are, following the launch from the Moon using the planned mass for the ship, the crew would be subjected to a whopping 30g! Considering the total mass removed from the ship due to the lack of fuel, the g-load would have been even higher. 

Tom


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Fellow Modelers,

I wanted to share my good fortune with you. My article on building the Luna-Destination Moon diorama is in the latest issue of Fine Scale Modeler (September 2020). If you are interested in this subject you might want to check it out. Attached are a few images that FSM did not use. 

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

Congrates on being published!


----------



## Phillip1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Thanks!

Phillip1


----------

