# Moebius and 2001 Products



## rkoenn

At Jaxcon yesterday I spoke for a few minutes with Frank and also picked up another LIS robot for a future build. There was also a display at the door by two Orlando guys, one is Adam Johnson (a 2001 expert), who have published 2001: The Lost Science and had some of the ships on display. I spoke with them for a bit and Johnson has been hired by Frank to provide all the technical details on the Discovery to help in making the kit which he said is going to be highly detailed and accurate. The license duration is very short ending sometime next year so Frank is only going to be able to produce the Discovery before losing his license, hence no Aries the guy said. But getting a good styrene Discovery is going to be fantastic.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Yeah, I was saddened to learn we'd only get two kits (newly-tooled Orion and the Discovery). Still, it's better than nothing -- and I'm sure both kits will be terrific.


----------



## djnick66

Meh thats the one 2001 kit I wouldn't buy. I don't like giant space ships in tiny scales like 1/10000.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Oh I am so excited about the Discovery. I am glad that is getting produced.


----------



## Bubba 123

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, I was saddened to learn we'd only get two kits (newly-tooled Orion and the Discovery). Still, it's better than nothing -- and I'm sure both kits will be terrific.


got any idea on; Discovery's dimensions?? & $$ ???

TY,
Bubba (The Senile) 123 :willy_nilly:


----------



## Steve H

Well, DJNick seems to think we're getting a small Discovery, I'm sure others have dreams of giant kits. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a kit around a foot or 18 inches long and priced under $50. I'm probably insanely optimistic about the price point.


----------



## John P

Too bad about the license duration, but he's chosen the right ship to represent the franchise. I'm hoping for 1/144 (30"). But something like 1/288 (Fantastic plastic uses that scale a lot) would still be about 15" long.


----------



## rkoenn

The 2001 expert guy said it would be a good product. I hate to go out on a limb but he might have said 1/144th scale but don't quote me on that one. That would make it about a meter long which while big wouldn't be outrageous. Frank has made some large models like the Seaview and others so I wouldn't say it would be a surprise. Lots of common parts in it either way so they would only have to model numerous parts one time and reproduce multiples of it. We'll have to wait and see, whatever, it should be good.


----------



## Richard Baker

I am sad we are only going to get one new kit from Moebius but I still find it amazing they were able to secure the license at all with that rat's nest of legal wiring that controls 2001 properties.

The Discovery is a good choice from the production point of view- even more efficient that the 1999 Eagle with repeatable parts. It also is the dominant ship in the film with the most screen time IIRC.

While a Space Pod and Aries would have been wonderful at least I have the Atomic City versions (well one 1:12 Pod and the 15" Aries on order). Hopefully if the Discovery sells well perhaps Moebius will try and renew the license.


----------



## Steve H

But that's a question I would have. Is the Discovery actually built up from a number of repeated identical units (which, as has been said, could greatly reduce tooling costs) or are there variations in those modules? I understand it may well be impossible to know 100% (combined with complications, such as if it's known if there were parts or segments of the miniature left undetailed because they would never be seen*) but I assume Adam Johnson has at least enough information to make the judgement call. 

*On 'unseen and thus not built' and the Discovery. I really have no idea if that thinking applies. On the one hand the miniature was so damn big they had to be thinking about how it was going to be shot and what the shots were. OTOH knowing Kubrick's style, he would never allow his options to be limited by a model and would insist on being able to shoot it 360 degrees and all three axis.


----------



## John P

Right? Considering he rebuilt the hotel exterior in The Shining just to get one last pickup shot.


----------



## djnick66

Steve H said:


> Well, DJNick seems to think we're getting a small Discovery, I'm sure others have dreams of giant kits. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a kit around a foot or 18 inches long and priced under $50. I'm probably insanely optimistic about the price point.


Unless its in something at least 1/72 or 1/48 its a small scale. Now if it was the size of Trumpeter's new 1/48 U Boat that would be a different story. I'd pay $600 for a real sized kit of it but $50 for an under 20 inch kit no.


----------



## RMC

djnick66 said:


> Unless its in something at least 1/72 or 1/48 its a small scale. Now if it was the size of Trumpeter's new 1/48 U Boat that would be a different story. I'd pay $600 for a real sized kit of it but $50 for an under 20 inch kit no.



its better than nothing !,....plus the fact it is the first styrene kit of this subject ever produced !


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> Right? Considering he rebuilt the hotel exterior in The Shining just to get one last pickup shot.


Didn't know that (not a horror or Stephen King fan, I realize that makes me some kind of Visigoth if not complete heathen.  ) but sure, that's how he was. 

I mean, I can think of several ways to 'cheat' the centrifuge* on the Discovery so no need to build that big complex set but man, MAN did he ever use the living daylights out of it. And it completely, successfully sells the illusion of being on a real ship. 

*You keep the shots tight on the actors, only build like 3 'segments' of the wheel with a slight curve to the floor, use matte paintings and composite action for a scene of 'one astronaut overhead of the other' and only do that once to establish the location. All of that would work but you could NEVER get that tracking shot of a guy running around the wheel.


----------



## scooke123

There are a lot of models out there is 1/144 scale esp the airliner kits so it would fit in well scale-wise with a lot of models. Plus it would fit on a shelf albeit a longer shelf. I'll take one in any scale though - who would have thought we would even be getting a model at this point?


----------



## Steve H

1/144 wouldn't be terrible. Price-wise it would probably fall out of my 'pocket money' security zone but it shouldn't be several hundred Dollars. 1/200 makes it a little smaller but also matching what appears to be the current 'airliner' preference. 

*hah* of course they could go 1/128 to match the Seaview.


----------



## John P

I've got Stargazer's 1/144 resin kit. That's a good size (30").


----------



## mach7

Any size would be good!

If it's under $150 I'll buy it.

I would have liked them to do the pod, but I'll take the XD-1.


----------



## Dr. Brad

I would have loved an Aries, but a decent-sized Discovery would be great!


----------



## Steve H

Dr. Brad said:


> I would have loved an Aries, but a decent-sized Discovery would be great!


Either one of those qualify in my 'kits Aurora shoulda made' grail kit list. 

It is a shame Moebius can't do both. Wouldn't that be fun for the upcoming 50th anniversary of 2001? (1968~2018)


----------



## Dr. Brad

Steve H said:


> Either one of those qualify in my 'kits Aurora shoulda made' grail kit list.
> 
> It is a shame Moebius can't do both. Wouldn't that be fun for the upcoming 50th anniversary of 2001? (1968~2018)


Yeah - that would have been great!


----------



## RMC

*Dont' forget, that Frank did re-pop the "Moonbus" and I am sure we will see it again ! *


----------



## John P

I was hoping for another issue of the Orion that corrected the mistakes Moebius made with their first issue.


----------



## mach7

A few months ago Moebius responded to my question about the Orion being reissued.

They said it would likely be re released in 2017.


----------



## Richard Baker

John P said:


> I was hoping for another issue of the Orion that corrected the mistakes Moebius made with their first issue.


The biggest issue with that kit was the wing thickness, wasn't it?
I have the first edition in my closet of doom and pondering getting the reissue to build instead...


----------



## Carson Dyle

John P said:


> I was hoping for another issue of the Orion that corrected the mistakes Moebius made with their first issue.


And your wish will come true.

:smile2:

Re: the Discovery: no idea as to scale, but the price will be under $150.00



Richard Baker said:


> The biggest issue with that kit was the wing thickness, wasn't it?
> I have the first edition in my closet of doom and pondering getting the reissue to build instead...


Yeah, wait for the reissue. I'm told by "reliable sources" that the tooling is all new. No clue as to the release date, but given the license concerns it's going to months from now rather than years.


----------



## rkoenn

John P said:


> I was hoping for another issue of the Orion that corrected the mistakes Moebius made with their first issue.


I think I heard from the guy at Jaxcon something about a more accurate re-release of the Orion. If I see the guy again I'll ask him.


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> I was hoping for another issue of the Orion that corrected the mistakes Moebius made with their first issue.





Richard Baker said:


> The biggest issue with that kit was the wing thickness, wasn't it?


That and the partial engraved panel detail, with less-than-satisfactory decals for the rest.


----------



## SUNGOD

Great we're getting a Discovery (if these are successful then maybe the licence can be renewed and we'll get more kits too) but let me get this straight......... 

We're getting a reissue of the Orion possibly with some fixes......and an all new tool Orion as well?


----------



## Carson Dyle

SUNGOD1 said:


> but let me get this straight.........
> 
> We're getting a reissue of the Orion possibly with some fixes......and an all new tool Orion as well?


There is no reissue. It's an all-new tool of the Orion. The scale will remain the same.


----------



## John P

That'll do!


----------



## mach7

Carson Dyle said:


> There is no reissue. It's an all-new tool of the Orion. The scale will remain the same.


Wow! thats a commitment. Moebius said the last Orion was an all new tool, so this will be a 2nd all new tool!

If the Orion is 1/144 scale, That would be a nice scale for XD-1 also.


----------



## Richard Baker

Quite frankly I was disappointed in Moebius's recent Orion- aside from the wings their decision of removing most of the hull engraving and just giving you a partial set of decals to replace it just made it more difficult. The original Aurora kit could look pretty good with a small effort, the new one required the builder to find a way to complete the paneling on their own or it would look half finished.
If they do release an all new tool with better wings and full hull paneling I will definitely get that one and use my existing kit th bash up a carg version (I love Stargazer's cargo Orion but just can't afford it)


----------



## Newbie123

Will it be "real" 1/144 scale or Moebius/Aurora's 165/170ish scale? 
And the much larger 1/144 Stargazer kit was exactly the same money that the Moebius kit was, once you added on the aftermarket bits that would have made it "accurate", or at least more detailed.


----------



## Richard Baker

I do not add aftermarket pieces on my builds with only a couple exceptions- sometimes they add up to be far more that the initial cost of the model itself. I like to scratch build my modifications and with the money saved I can get another kit or two...


----------



## Nektu

Is there any talk of a Aries 1B kit?


----------



## Richard Baker

Nektu said:


> Is there any talk of a Aries 1B kit?





rkoenn said:


> At Jaxcon yesterday I spoke for a few minutes with Frank and also picked up another LIS robot for a future build. There was also a display at the door by two Orlando guys, one is Adam Johnson (a 2001 expert), who have published 2001: The Lost Science and had some of the ships on display. I spoke with them for a bit and Johnson has been hired by Frank to provide all the technical details on the Discovery to help in making the kit which he said is going to be highly detailed and accurate. The license duration is very short ending sometime next year so Frank is only going to be able to produce the Discovery before losing his license, hence no Aries the guy said. But getting a good styrene Discovery is going to be fantastic.


No joy on the Aries


----------



## mach7

I have both the Original Aurora Orion and the Moebius Orion.

Both took different paths to surface detail, and both are valid. 

The Aurora kit with surface detail is WAY too heavy for the scale. But it looks nice,
Just very inaccurate.

The Moebius kit with decals is much more in scale, and looks nice.
Add a little weathering and it really starts to look good. 

No kit is perfect, but all are fun to build. Some just better than others.


----------



## John P

What killed me was the excuse that the "real" studio miniature had no engraving, just pencil lines and paint. But then Moebius comes out with Galactica Vipers that only exist in virtual CGI, and the kits have nice deep panel lines. As my wife's old Italian grandfather used to say, "Make up-a you mind."
_Lightly _engraved paneling is my prefrence.


----------



## John P

Newbie123 said:


> Will it be "real" 1/144 scale or Moebius/Aurora's 165/170ish scale?
> And the much larger 1/144 Stargazer kit was exactly the same money that the Moebius kit was, once you added on the aftermarket bits that would have made it "accurate", or at least more detailed.


As said above, same size as the Aurora kit.


----------



## mach7

John P said:


> What killed me was the excuse that the "real" studio miniature had no engraving, just pencil lines and paint. But then Moebius comes out with Galactica Vipers that only exist in virtual CGI, and the kits have nice deep panel lines. As my wife's old Italian grandfather used to say, "Make up-a you mind."
> _Lightly _engraved paneling is my prefrence.




Pool or a Pond.

It's the same with R2 and the Enterprise grid lines. 
"they are supposed to be there so we put them in even though they are just pencil on the studio miniature"

They interpolated what "should" have been.

And then the Big Eagle. 
They gave us an exact copy of the filming model, screws and all.

All I know is I have some really cool kits to build!

I'm happy, even if I partially filled those damn grid lines before they came out with the smoothy.


For me perfection would be representing what the "real" subject would look like in scale.


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> What killed me was the excuse that the "real" studio miniature had no engraving, just pencil lines and paint.


That makes as much sense as producing a kit of the Star Trek TOS Enterprise with a blank, featureless left side because the 11-foot filming model had no detail on that side. Most of us want a model of a fictional spacecraft, not a model of a model!

EDIT: Or, what *mach7* said.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> That makes as much sense as producing a kit of the Star Trek TOS Enterprise with a blank, featureless left side because the 11-foot filming model had no detail on that side. Most of us want a model of a fictional spacecraft, not a model of a model!
> 
> EDIT: Or, what *mach7* said.


LOL! See, I keep throwing that challenge out there. There are people who are just NUTS about needing, wanting to build their 1/350 Enterprise EXACTLY like the 11 foot miniature, SCREAMING because they don't yet have precise exact color matches, yet for all that nonsense nobody has ever removed detail to match the filming miniature. 

So, like you say, if your Enterprise has a left side, it ain't EXACTLY like the miniature. 

I think we probably agree, build it, paint it, whatever it is, the way YOU want it to look. Detail it as much as you want or go straight from the box. It's your kit, you're the one gonna be looking at it, make it so you're happy.


----------



## SUNGOD

Carson Dyle said:


> There is no reissue. It's an all-new tool of the Orion. The scale will remain the same.





Well if the detail's a lot better than the previous one I'm all for it.:smile2:


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> What killed me was the excuse that the "real" studio miniature had no engraving, just pencil lines and paint. But then Moebius comes out with Galactica Vipers that only exist in virtual CGI, and the kits have nice deep panel lines. As my wife's old Italian grandfather used to say, "Make up-a you mind."
> _Lightly _engraved paneling is my prefrence.






I'd find it very hard to disagree with that.


----------



## SUNGOD

scotpens said:


> That makes as much sense as producing a kit of the Star Trek TOS Enterprise with a blank, featureless left side because the 11-foot filming model had no detail on that side. Most of us want a model of a fictional spacecraft, not a model of a model!
> 
> EDIT: Or, what *mach7* said.




I'm in that camp too. As I've often said filming miniatures can be crude and I want a model of something that's supposed to be real on screen.

And maybe this will be a good move by Moebius just like what R2 did with the enterprise (giving us the grid and the more miniature like smooth saucer). That way everyone's pleased though I bet an Orion with much more physical detail will sell better.


----------



## spock62

Carson Dyle said:


> There is no reissue. It's an all-new tool of the Orion. The scale will remain the same.


Same scale? Why? Since they're making an all new tool, why not bump up the scale to 1/144? That way it will be in scale with not only the upcoming Discovery kit but multitudes of other 1/144 scale kits. Keeping the odd ball Aurora scale seems silly to me.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Same scale? Why? Since they're making an all new tool, why not bump up the scale to 1/144? That way it will be in scale with not only the upcoming Discovery kit but multitudes of other 1/144 scale kits. Keeping the odd ball Aurora scale seems silly to me.


I'm with you. The only thing that comes to mind is some odd desire to 'keep' the metaphorical 'Aurora memory' alive so you can put their new tool next to the classic Aurora and... I dunno. 

I think that with careful planning they could fit a 1/144 scale kit within the existing box. It would be very odd to believe they're keeping the new tool kit in 'Aurora Scale' just because they HAVE to fit it in the exact same size box. Again, I dunno. 

I'm sure there's a reason, maybe several reasons, but they likely won't seem reasonable to us. 

(want one potential reason? Their license MIGHT specify they can ONLY make an Orion kit if it's the original Aurora kit, any other scale is forbidden. It would be considered a NEW model and thus subject to new licensing fees. Yes licenses can be that foolish and specific.)


----------



## Richard Baker

I could see that restriction with the initial Orion and Moonbus repops, but now Moebius has the official license for all 2001 products- seems to me they can produce anything they want to,in whatever scale they choose.

Sadly only the Discovery looks to be really taking advantage of this opportunity, but a larger 1:144 New Tool Orion would be great.

If only Moebius had the manufacturing capability of Bandai- they make razor thin panel lines on the Star Wars kits...


----------



## SUNGOD

I suppose it is a bit surprising that they're doing another new tool in the same scale. I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at a larger Orion.....as long as it's a lot more detailed than the smaller kit with fine as possible panel lines (and much more of them). Maybe they can't do it larger but if it was larger the panel lines would look finer for a start.


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> . . . (want one potential reason? Their license MIGHT specify they can ONLY make an Orion kit if it's the original Aurora kit, any other scale is forbidden. It would be considered a NEW model and thus subject to new licensing fees. Yes licenses can be that foolish and specific.)


I suppose anything is possible, but that scenario seems unlikely. After all, the Moebius Orion isn't a re-released or reverse-engineered Aurora model (like the Moonbus) -- it's a totally new tool that happens to be the same size as the classic Aurora kit. 

But then, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer -- and I don't play one on television.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> I suppose anything is possible, but that scenario seems unlikely. After all, the Moebius Orion isn't a re-released or reverse-engineered Aurora model (like the Moonbus) -- it's a totally new tool that happens to be the same size as the classic Aurora kit.
> 
> But then, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer -- and I don't play one on television.


I agree it's a stretch. Not that much of one but still.

Here's my rational. IIRC they did not have the original Aurora tooling so they had to do a 'reconstruction' using a vintage kit and then 'cleaning' it up, is that somewhat close to the truth? If so, then they MIGHT be able to get around paying new, higher licensing fees by claiming they're just re-tooling that kit and 'sneaking' in a new master into that task. Hence, same size kit. 

Yeah, I know, it's twisty. But we've seen similar games, such as issuing vintage kits sans mentioning the original licensing. I believe the Munsters Koach has been issued as a 2-pack with the 'Drag-ula' show car, only this time pushing the Barris branding and not mentioning the Munsters on the cover. Of course this is most likely due to Moebius having the Munsters license and Round 2... doesn't.


----------



## mach7

One thing I find interesting is that the new tool Moebius Orion from a few years ago is exactly the same size as the Aurora kit and even has the engine room detail under the boat-tail. 

Could they have been locked into that size because the were reverse engineering with some Aurora parts and making new tools 
for most of the kit? 

For me the existing size is just about perfect, not that I would balk at a larger one.


Has anyone heard about a release date for the XD-1?


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> Here's my rational. IIRC they did not have the original Aurora tooling so they had to do a 'reconstruction' using a vintage kit and then 'cleaning' it up, is that somewhat close to the truth?


You're actually describing what Moebius did with the Moonbus. The new tooling was back-engineered from an existing unassembled kit. They made a few improvements like the window options and adding some locator pins and tabs that weren't on the original kit.

But the molds for the new Orion were created from all-new CAD files based on the studio miniature and/or drawings. It does make one wonder why the aft bulkhead has that molded-in detail, since it can't be seen unless you add your own engine detail and make the tail cone removable to display it.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> You're actually describing what Moebius did with the Moonbus. The new tooling was back-engineered from an existing unassembled kit. They made a few improvements like the window options and adding some locator pins and tabs that weren't on the original kit.
> 
> But the molds for the new Orion were created from all-new CAD files based on the studio miniature and/or drawings. It does make one wonder why the aft bulkhead has that molded-in detail, since it can't be seen unless you add your own engine detail and make the tail cone removable to display it.


OK, so, what if the 'all-new CAD files based on miniature/drawings' was a bit of bunkum, some hand waving because, as you say, why put that Aurora detail in place at all? Maybe reverse engineering from an existing kit was part of the process? A kit missing parts? Altho I have zero idea how THAT could move forward...

OTOH, as is always the case, one wishes for a time machine and the ability to talk to the Aurora people, when the kit is new, how things came to be, what reference did they have access to. When you think about it, there's no real reason the original Orion had that removable tail with the 'atomic engines' detail. It's interesting but not vital to the build like the interiors of the Flying Sub or Spindrift. Aurora made plenty of airliners without interiors.


----------



## spock62

Regarding panel lines, the new kit needs to have all the panels, no decals. And the lines need to be like what you get from a Tamiya or Hasegawa kit. Based on what Moebius has done with past kits, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Regarding panel lines, the new kit needs to have all the panels, no decals. And the lines need to be like what you get from a Tamiya or Hasegawa kit. Based on what Moebius has done with past kits, I'm not holding my breath.


Same problem as with R2 and the grid lines on the 1/350 Enterprise, eh? For some reason it's just impossible for our companies using 'turn key' operations overseas, they just cannot figure out what the Japanese companies (with their in-house prototype, engineering and tooling/molding operations) have been doing for decades. I think Dragon and Academy can even manage the hair thin barely there panel line. 

I know it's bound to be another "Dessert Topping!/ Floor Wax!" argument but I'm really of the thought that if a company can just admit that fine-scale panel lines are beyond them, they should make kits smooth and include decals for whatever panels or panel lines are needed.

Re-reading 'The art of Mike Trim' I am fascinated by how MUCH work was done with simple pencil lines and rulers or cellophane tape. What surprises me most is how they would then rub pencil onto a piece of paper and press THAT (paper with the rubbings against the paint of the model) down and rub it, transferring graphite onto the paint. amazingly time consuming but that does help explain the difficulty in color matching in some cases. Colored 'chart tape' was introduced at Century 21 in time for Captain Scarlet. Up to that point everyone was using paint or (rarely) painting cellophane tape.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Same problem as with R2 and the grid lines on the 1/350 Enterprise, eh? For some reason it's just impossible for our companies using 'turn key' operations overseas, they just cannot figure out what the Japanese companies (with their in-house prototype, engineering and tooling/molding operations) have been doing for decades. I think Dragon and Academy can even manage the hair thin barely there panel line.
> 
> I know it's bound to be another "Dessert Topping!/ Floor Wax!" argument but I'm really of the thought that if a company can just admit that fine-scale panel lines are beyond them, they should make kits smooth and include decals for whatever panels or panel lines are needed.
> 
> Re-reading 'The art of Mike Trim' I am fascinated by how MUCH work was done with simple pencil lines and rulers or cellophane tape. What surprises me most is how they would then rub pencil onto a piece of paper and press THAT (paper with the rubbings against the paint of the model) down and rub it, transferring graphite onto the paint. amazingly time consuming but that does help explain the difficulty in color matching in some cases. Colored 'chart tape' was introduced at Century 21 in time for Captain Scarlet. Up to that point everyone was using paint or (rarely) panting cellophane tape.




But then they might as well not bother doing a new tool Orion as the previous one had decals trying to look like panel lines. It would be nice to have Tamiya type lines but as long as they're not too trench like physical lines still look much better than decals.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Regarding panel lines, the new kit needs to have all the panels, no decals. And the lines need to be like what you get from a Tamiya or Hasegawa kit. Based on what Moebius has done with past kits, I'm not holding my breath.




They probably be won't be that fine but still agree that all the panels should be engraved.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Well, if they are doing another tooling of the space clipper, then yes, I really hope that they do it in 1/144.


----------



## fluke

I agree with some....all new Clipper tooling but staying so dang small ....just two inches longer would have been so nice....but this means a full license kit....with 2001 on the box and Pan Am decals...right?


----------



## fluke

Here is an idea....howsabout the first 500 Orion kits come with a plush Bush Baby!


----------



## John P

fluke said:


> Here is an idea....howsabout the first 500 Orion kits come with a plush Bush Baby!


Jenna or Barbara?


----------



## John P

Do I recall that when Moebius released that first Orion, that their license specifically specified that it was to be exactly the same size as the Aurora kit? If so, that may still be the case.


----------



## mach7

The Moebius Moonbus and the Orion 1st release were unlicensed. 

There are no logo's, or anything printed to identify 2001, the Kubrick estate, MGM, or the PanAm decals. 

They had to do that to get them to market without any licensing. 

The license if fairly recent. Last year Moebius told me on Facebook to expect a re-release of the Space clipper in 2017.
Later they announced that they had the official 2001 license. It could be that an all new tool was a requirement or that
they decided the subject needed too much work to fix the old tool. Whatever the case I'm happy it will be the same size as I still 
have the Paragrafix PE set to use.

Edit: We are all assuming Moebius will be re-releasing the Moonbus, Has anyone confirmed this?


----------



## rkoenn

Talking to that expert at Jaxcon all I can say is he mad it sound like MGM really had very little interest in licensing 2001 products. I say that near the end of our conversation when I asked about an Aries. That was when he told me the license ends sometime early in 2018. I quickly asked why, were they going to sell a license to someone else, and he said they just aren't very interested. That was about the end of our conversation but it made me wonder why MGM would be that way. Obviously they won't make much money on it so maybe it is that just drawing up the legal documents and going through the licensing process is actually more costly than the income from it. I'd dare say they really don't care if there are products out there based on a 50 year old movie from their vaults, no matter how important that movie was, and whether scifi modelers are biting at the bits for more products. Does anyone know if the garage guys pay any licensing fees on their products?


----------



## Steve H

I'm not at all sure we'll get the Pan-Am decals even with the official 2001 license. 

I remember Glenco did something clever with the Disney 'Mars Liner' rocket (old Strombecker TWA Space Liner) kit where they built a fake spaceline logo that just happened to be in the old TWA style, and if you carefully cut away letters you could...

I don't see how that could be done with that distinctive Pan-Am logo and mark. Maybe a similar 'workaround' dodge that's done with WW II German Aircraft kits and the National Markings of Germany of the time (which are banned in many places) where you have pieces that you 'assemble'. a blue roundel, some odd looking white lines, like that.


----------



## Steve H

rkoenn said:


> Talking to that expert at Jaxcon all I can say is he mad it sound like MGM really had very little interest in licensing 2001 products. I say that near the end of our conversation when I asked about an Aries. That was when he told me the license ends sometime early in 2018. I quickly asked why, were they going to sell a license to someone else, and he said they just aren't very interested. That was about the end of our conversation but it made me wonder why MGM would be that way. Obviously they won't make much money on it so maybe it is that just drawing up the legal documents and going through the licensing process is actually more costly than the income from it. I'd dare say they really don't care if there are products out there based on a 50 year old movie from their vaults, no matter how important that movie was, and whether scifi modelers are biting at the bits for more products. Does anyone know if the garage guys pay any licensing fees on their products?


Well, here's the thing. MGM no longer has a say when it comes to these things. They sold their catalog of films (except James Bond and some few others up to a specific year of release) to Warner Bros. some time back. 

Saying that I expect some big deal whoop for 2018 and the 50th anniversary of the film. I'm sure they will expect to license the living daylights out of that, and for much more money. Money Moebius may not be willing to pay. 

*hah* There would be a giant laugh, if Bandai picked up the license for the assumed prestige. I wouldn't count on that but hey, strange things happen.


----------



## mach7

PanAm rights are owned by a train shipping company in New Hampshire. They would need to get paid for any copywrited
name/logos.

I believe the Kubrick estate owns 2001, though I could be wrong.

Years ago I asked Moebius (Frank), when they still were on this forum, about licensing costs. Was Trek higher than say LIS.
His answer was - No it is all a standard fee structure-

And the short answer on garage kit is, Probably not. A few have but most operate under the radar.


----------



## Phillip1

This is tremendous news about a 2001 Discovery model being made available in styrene. Like John P, I purchased a Stargazer 1/144 resin Discovery kit years ago. After reviewing it a few days I returned it (per their return policy) because I felt being that building that ship out of resin would be extremely difficult (for me at least). Having the proper support through the length of the spine is always going to be an issue with that design. I am hopeful the kit is at least 30" long (or bigger) and I would gladly pay $150.00 for a styrene Discovery that large. This has been a dream kit of mine for decades and (like commented earlier) I never thought it would become available. If it is really large I might have to get two!

Phillip1


----------



## rkoenn

Steve H said:


> Well, here's the thing. MGM no longer has a say when it comes to these things. They sold their catalog of films (except James Bond and some few others up to a specific year of release) to Warner Bros. some time back.
> 
> Saying that I expect some big deal whoop for 2018 and the 50th anniversary of the film. I'm sure they will expect to license the living daylights out of that, and for much more money. Money Moebius may not be willing to pay.
> 
> *hah* There would be a giant laugh, if Bandai picked up the license for the assumed prestige. I wouldn't count on that but hey, strange things happen.


That statement about the 50th anniversary does make sense. I doubt they would tell Frank and that expert guy why they wouldn't extend it to "2018 and beyond" (the infinite)! They probably do have some special events and products being done by someone else for the 50th anniversary that are still under wraps. I saw the movie when I was about 14 in Cinerama theater in Tampa and it blew my mind. It was projected on a huge rounded screen by three projectors. I just read it wasn't filmed with the three cameras but on huge 70mm film and the initial theater run was shown from that film. I believe initially that was the only way to see the movie. It really cemented my desire to have a career with NASA and be a rocket scientist.


----------



## Carson Dyle

fluke said:


> I agree with some....all new Clipper tooling but staying so dang small ....just two inches longer would have been so nice....but this means a full license kit....with 2001 on the box and Pan Am decals...right?


Yes, this is a fully licensed kit. Not sure about the decals, but I'm assuming the kit will be accompanied by PanAm markings.

I'll try and find out more about the scale. Pretty sure it's the same as the Aurora/ Moebius model, but I'll see if I can get a confirmation one way or the other.


----------



## Steve H

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, this is a fully licensed kit. Not sure about the decals, but I'm assuming the kit will be accompanied by PanAm markings.
> 
> I'll try and find out more about the scale. Pretty sure it's the same as the Aurora/ Moebius model, but I'll see if I can get a confirmation one way or the other.


Honestly, I would be shocked and amazed (and quite pleased of course) if the new tool kit includes honest-to-gosh Pan Am markings. 

Pan Am paid for product placement, and did 'co-op' tie-in advertising but that doesn't automatically transfer rights to visual copyrighted and trademarked material (i.e. the distinctive logotype and symbols of Pan Am) to the underlying (overarching?) ownership of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Yet we live in a world where anything can happen. I would, as referenced above, be happy to be wrong.


----------



## SUNGOD

It's great they got the 2001 licence but I wonder if like before they could just have got away without any licensing? Nobody really cares what words are on the box and the people who will be building these (older gits like us) will soon find out about any 2001 kits. I've got the pre-built Moonbus and can't say the lack of the words 2001 a Space Odyssey bothers me. Unless the actual ships are copyrighted of course.


----------



## mach7

If the PanAm logo isn't in the kit its no biggie. It's available aftermarket. 

My limited understanding is you cant copyright a ship design, just the words/titles/printings.

This came up years ago when Semroc released a MarsLander Rocket. The decision seemed to
be that as long as none of the original Estes instructions/packaging/decals were copied there was nothing 
Estes could do. They weren't selling their kit at the time.
It got grey because they called it a Mars Lander and some of the decals were similar.

If memory serves Monogram's "The Invaders" saucer avoided paying Quinn Martin royalties on the re release 
By removing all QM logos.


----------



## SUNGOD

But I wouldn't be surprised if the Star Wars and Trek ships images have been copyrighted. And one example that I'm fairly sure that's been copyrighted is the Tardis.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD1 said:


> But I wouldn't be surprised if the Star Wars and Trek ships images have been copyrighted. And one example that I'm fairly sure that's been copyrighted is the Tardis.


But see, that's a very unusual case, the TARDIS. 

See, that old Type 40 was locked into its disguise as a 'common' early '60s Police Box. I have no idea how common the Police Box was in England, for some reason I tend to think it was a mostly London thing but since the show was broadcast across the nation surely it must be assumed children would understand 'Police Box' as a real thing. There is no real equivalent to anything in America except maybe the neighborhood Fire Alarm that would be attached to either telephone poles or standalone stations near corners. Anyway. 

The Police Box was created for civic duty, which means it was designed and paid for with public funds. Does that make the actual physical image public domain? Of course NOW the Police Box is no more except for maybe a few in museums and Doctor Who. 

Actually it's quite the interesting question.


----------



## rkoenn

mach7 said:


> If the PanAm logo isn't in the kit its no biggie. It's available aftermarket.
> 
> My limited understanding is you cant copyright a ship design, just the words/titles/printings.
> 
> This came up years ago when Semroc released a MarsLander Rocket. The decision seemed to
> be that as long as none of the original Estes instructions/packaging/decals were copied there was nothing
> Estes could do. They weren't selling their kit at the time.
> It got grey because they called it a Mars Lander and some of the decals were similar.
> 
> If memory serves Monogram's "The Invaders" saucer avoided paying Quinn Martin royalties on the re release
> By removing all QM logos.


I was always curious about the Semroc/Estes relationship. I talked with Carl a couple of times at NARAMs but never asked about that. I never heard of any lawsuits. Maybe Estes and Semroc just want to give rocketeers good products and don't care completely about money which is unique in today's business environment. I'm trying to think if Semroc ever did an Estes kit in production but that would probably cause some friction. I built a Mars Lander, which I am certain was an Estes original, way back around 1970 and then did a Semroc about 10 years ago. It is a level 5 for certain and a classic rocket build, not an RTF or plastic piece of crap.


----------



## mach7

Thats a nice Mars Lander! I built a clone just before Semroc released their kit.

One interesting thing I found on the R2 Enterprise/F-104 kit just released:










Not only does CBS get a legal copy write protection, so does Lockheed!

"All body designs of vehicles are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Lockheed Martin.."

Interesting development.


----------



## Steve H

Interesting indeed! Of course it helps that Lockheed is still in existence.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> But see, that's a very unusual case, the TARDIS.
> 
> See, that old Type 40 was locked into its disguise as a 'common' early '60s Police Box. I have no idea how common the Police Box was in England, for some reason I tend to think it was a mostly London thing but since the show was broadcast across the nation surely it must be assumed children would understand 'Police Box' as a real thing. There is no real equivalent to anything in America except maybe the neighborhood Fire Alarm that would be attached to either telephone poles or standalone stations near corners. Anyway.
> 
> The Police Box was created for civic duty, which means it was designed and paid for with public funds. Does that make the actual physical image public domain? Of course NOW the Police Box is no more except for maybe a few in museums and Doctor Who.
> 
> Actually it's quite the interesting question.




By the time I was growing up in the 70s there was still police boxes around outside London but they were more modern (not half so nice looking) ones. I think there is still one or two Tardis looking ones (or at least there was until recently). I'm sure one is in London.

Anyway I suppose it doesn't make much difference at the moment as Moebius has the 2001 licence.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> Thats a nice Mars Lander! I built a clone just before Semroc released their kit.
> 
> One interesting thing I found on the R2 Enterprise/F-104 kit just released:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does CBS get a legal copy write protection, so does Lockheed!
> 
> "All body designs of vehicles are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Lockheed Martin.."
> 
> Interesting development.




Interesting to see that. I'm sure it's only the last few years that companies like Lockheed have started charging licence fees.


----------



## spock62

SUNGOD1 said:


> Interesting to see that. I'm sure it's only the last few years that companies like Lockheed have started charging licence fees.


Yes, this has been going on for a few years. All model kit manufacturers now have to pay royalties and licensing fees to aircraft companies (and auto companies too). The aircraft companies had argued that kit manufacturers should pay to use their designs and intellectual property in their kits. The aircraft companies won so now kit manufacturers have to pay fees...which they pass on to us!


----------



## rkoenn

spock62 said:


> Yes, this has been going on for a few years. All model kit manufacturers now have to pay royalties and licensing fees to aircraft companies (and auto companies too). The aircraft companies had argued that kit manufacturers should pay to use their designs and intellectual property in their kits. The aircraft companies won so now kit manufacturers have to pay fees...which they pass on to us!


Except we the tax payers are paying for all those military planes they build and they are already living off our taxes. That seems unfair that they can charge even more and really, it is absolutely meaningless in the amount of money these companies deal in.


----------



## spock62

rkoenn said:


> Except we the tax payers are paying for all those military planes they build and they are already living off our taxes. That seems unfair that they can charge even more and really, it is absolutely meaningless in the amount of money these companies deal in.


Agreed. That was the argument against it (plus kit manufacturers felt raising the price of their kits would hurt sales), but none of that mattered in the end.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Yes, this has been going on for a few years. All model kit manufacturers now have to pay royalties and licensing fees to aircraft companies (and auto companies too). The aircraft companies had argued that kit manufacturers should pay to use their designs and intellectual property in their kits. The aircraft companies won so now kit manufacturers have to pay fees...which they pass on to us!





That's the problem. I am surprised though they're charging for older aircraft like the Starfighter. It's a beautiful machine but I thought it would have been mainly new aircraft (like the Raptor) they'd charge for. Unless the newer ones are more expensive?


----------



## SUNGOD

Looking at the Orion kits we've had so far. One thing I'd like to see done better is not having the entire fuselage in 2 parts. I don't know about anyone else but I think the seamline running right down the middle all the way to the front spoils the look. I don't know much about tooling technology but if some of it could be done in sections then I think it would be a lot better.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD1 said:


> Looking at the Orion kits we've had so far. One thing I'd like to see done better is not having the entire fuselage in 2 parts. I don't know about anyone else but I think the seamline running right down the middle all the way to the front spoils the look. I don't know much about tooling technology but if some of it could be done in sections then I think it would be a lot better.


Well, they could do it Bandai style with frames and panels, seams following major panel lines, that sort of thing. It would allow for very complex shapes to be captured accurately. 

Moebius won't do that.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> Well, they could do it Bandai style with frames and panels, seams following major panel lines, that sort of thing. It would allow for very complex shapes to be captured accurately.
> 
> Moebius won't do that.


Actually, aside from hearing that they're doing a new-tool of the ship, we don't know anything about this new Moebius kit. Hopefully, we'll get some solid info soon.


----------



## John P

Almost every airplane model ever made comes in two halves with a seam for us to fill and sand. Don't know why you'd expect any different.


----------



## spock62

SUNGOD1 said:


> Looking at the Orion kits we've had so far. One thing I'd like to see done better is not having the entire fuselage in 2 parts. I don't know about anyone else but I think the seamline running right down the middle all the way to the front spoils the look. I don't know much about tooling technology but if some of it could be done in sections then I think it would be a lot better.


Moebius would have to use slide molds to do a one piece fuselage. Wouldn't hold my breath for that, it's more expensive so they won't do it.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> Almost every airplane model ever made comes in two halves with a seam for us to fill and sand. Don't know why you'd expect any different.




True but many like the Corsair, Zero and P47 I've got have the cowling moulded separately. Even that makes quite a difference.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Moebius would have to use slide molds to do a one piece fuselage. Wouldn't hold my breath for that, it's more expensive so they won't do it.





Probably but even if it's just the nose section moulded separately (like the aircraft cowling sections I've mentioned) I think that could make quite a difference. Just like the engine cowlings on the Galactica Vipers.


----------



## spock62

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, this is a fully licensed kit. Not sure about the decals, but I'm assuming the kit will be accompanied by PanAm markings.
> 
> I'll try and find out more about the scale. Pretty sure it's the same as the Aurora/ Moebius model, but I'll see if I can get a confirmation one way or the other.


Any more info yet?


----------



## Carson Dyle

spock62 said:


> Any more info yet?


The scale is confirmed as being the same as the Aurora/ Moebius re-pop. The reason is $. Moebius was determined to keep the cost down on this one.


----------



## spock62

Carson Dyle said:


> The scale is confirmed as being the same as the Aurora/ Moebius re-pop. The reason is $. Moebius was determined to keep the cost down on this one.


If cost is such a big issue, why not just reissue the original with some fixes as was originally planned? Will the new- tool version be any more accurate? Will it have finely recessed panel lines for all the panels? If not and it ends up as just a slightly better version of the original, what's the point? Especially at the oddball scale of 1/190. Maybe they should put the funds to better use, like making an Aries or space station (w/miniature Orion clipper). If they're going to nickel and dime these kits, why bother?


----------



## Richard Baker

Personally I think it is a freak'n miracle Moebius was able to secure any type of License for 2001 at all- 

I am disappointed that they did not decide to go with a 1:144 Orion. Problem will be for those who already ought they last kit of this subject (like me) will need to be given a real good reason to buy another kit that is pretty much the same. If the kit was larger then that would have gone a long ways to help repeat sales.


----------



## Steve H

Carson Dyle said:


> The scale is confirmed as being the same as the Aurora/ Moebius re-pop. The reason is $. Moebius was determined to keep the cost down on this one.


I hate to admit it, but that makes some sense.

If they are only going to be able to exploit the license for a limited time, cutting as much production cost as possible in order to increase the profit margin is just sensible.

I suggest that this likely means no Pan Am decals. 

but like others say, how can a new-tool kit be cheaper than re-working existing tooling? Unless there IS no existing tooling because they went with aluminum-filled epoxy molds with beryllium inserts. I dunno.

I do hope that this is a gem of a kit and not another ball of "Oh, but why did they do THAT?" situation.


----------



## Carson Dyle

spock62 said:


> If they're going to nickel and dime these kits, why bother?


I believe the intension was to keep the price point as low as possible for the benefit of the buyer. The fact that all new, more accurate tooling is being created is a good thing, no? You have to understand, Moebius is lucky if they see anything resembling a "profit margin" on any of these retro sci-fi subjects. They make their money on truck models, lol. The sci-fi stuff is a serious labor of love, and it's a miracle some of these kits get made in the first place. As far as I'm concerned Moebius has a pretty good track record. Unlike some companies, they actually bring new kits to market every now and again (as opposed to simply repackaging the same old plastic over and over).

Forgot to ask about the decals, but will see what I can find out. Not really a big deal either way, as I'm sure they'll be made available as an affordable aftermarket item if they aren't included with the kit.

BTW, there is a story behind the "new tooling," but I'll let Frank go into all that if and when he feels like it. I'm just happy that some of the inaccuracies found on the old Orion(s) will be corrected.


----------



## SUNGOD

Obviously I can understand Moebius wanting to keep the costs down on everything they do but the only problem is.......keeping the costs down does sometimes mean kits that should have been a lot better and half hearted. 

I get the impression that keeping costs down led to the previous Orion which to me and many others wasn't very good.

I for one would pay more for top quality and everyone else should be prepared to pay more also if they want decent kits. This isn't the 70s anymore where kits were a lot cheaper, and look at Round 2's Eagle for instance which is great quality, it's not what some people would call cheap for a model kit but from what I gather it's sold well.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> If cost is such a big issue, why not just reissue the original with some fixes as was originally planned? Will the new- tool version be any more accurate? Will it have finely recessed panel lines for all the panels? If not and it ends up as just a slightly better version of the original, what's the point? Especially at the oddball scale of 1/190. Maybe they should put the funds to better use, like making an Aries or space station (w/miniature Orion clipper). If they're going to nickel and dime these kits, why bother?





Good points but I'd definitely like to see a much better Orion. Get that right first (and the Discovery) and then maybe later down the line we could get a space station and Aries.


----------



## Richard Baker

I just hope the new retooled kit has enough improvements to justify scrapping the last retooled kit I have.


----------



## Richard Baker

SUNGOD1 said:


> Good points but I'd definitely like to see a much better Orion. Get that right first (and the Discovery) and then maybe later down the line we could get a space station and Aries.


Perhaps if these new kits sell so well there will be enough motivation on everyone's part to extend/reapply for the license


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> I just hope the new retooled kit has enough improvements to justify scrapping the last retooled kit I have.




Well I built the old Airfix kit years ago as close as possible to the filming miniatures scheme (complete with Pan Am decals) but if this new one from Moebius is good then I'll probably repaint that in some different looking scheme so you could do something like that instead of scrapping it?


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Perhaps if these new kits sell so well there will be enough motivation on everyone's part to extend/reapply for the license




Hopefully. On that Revell poll a while back I seem to remember the 2001 ships all had some of the highest votes out of everything on there. I know we haven't seen anything concrete yet but I like that a Discovery and a new tool Orion are being talked about at least. If the last Orion was what I'd hoped for then I'd probably be wanting one of the other ships instead but seeing as the Orion's such a great design I like the chance of getting something better.


----------



## RMC

........I am still waiting on the 1/35 space pod and chariot


----------



## spock62

Carson Dyle said:


> I believe the intension was to keep the price point as low as possible for the benefit of the buyer.


So, Moebius is keeping the Orion in a nonsense scale...for our benefit? I seem to recall most folks on this forum (and others) complaining about the small scale, along with other issues. Pretty sure most wouldn't mind paying a little more for a larger scale kit. Besides, have you checked the prices of their kits? They're mostly on the high side of the spectrum, for styrene kits.



Carson Dyle said:


> The fact that all new, more accurate tooling is being created is a good thing, no?


 So, is the entire kit a new tool, or just the wings? Based on your comment below, it's unclear, at least to me.



Carson Dyle said:


> You have to understand, Moebius is lucky if they see anything resembling a "profit margin" on any of these retro sci-fi subjects. They make their money on truck models, lol. The sci-fi stuff is a serious labor of love, and it's a miracle some of these kits get made in the first place.


So, because their losing money on the sci-fi kits, I should be grateful to them for producing a half-baked version of one of the most iconic spaceships in sci-fi history? Sorry, but they can do better and they know it. If Moebius is losing money on their sci-fi kits, maybe they should stick to car/truck models and call it a day. Better then treating a spacecraft from an iconic movie like an afterthought. 



Carson Dyle said:


> Forgot to ask about the decals, but will see what I can find out. Not really a big deal either way, as I'm sure they'll be made available as an affordable aftermarket item if they aren't included with the kit.


Actually, it is a bit of a big deal. The kit will obviously be more expensive then the original due to new tooling costs, licensing, and the fact that it costs more to produce a kit today than it did when the original came out. Since I'm sure "2001 A Space Odyssey" will be plastered all over the box, the least Moebius could do is add Pan-Am decals!



Carson Dyle said:


> BTW, there is a story behind the "new tooling," but I'll let Frank go into all that if and when he feels like it. I'm just happy that some of the inaccuracies found on the old Orion(s) will be corrected.


So, will it or will it not be an all new tool kit? Or is it just some parts (wings?) that will be new tool and the rest the original tool? Also, you say some of the inaccuracies will be addressed, not all of them? Again, it sounds like a partial new tool, after all if Moebius did a complete new tool, why wouldn't they address all of the inaccuracies?

Here's what I think is happening: Moebius, due to lack of time and money, can only produce one really good kit for 2001. They, rightfully so, chose that kit to be the Discovery. Unfortunately, the cost and time of producing that kit will leave little left for the Orion. So, they decided to do a version of the original plan (updating the original kit using the existing tooling). That means a few of the inaccuracies fixed, no recessed panel lines, probably no new decals (Pan-Am) and the same nonsense scale Aurora used back in 1968. Or, this is a completely new tool kit. But, if that's the case, it will be the same as the original with just some updates, for just more money, which seems like a waste of money and time. If they fixed all the inaccuracies, added panel lines and decals, it might be worth a look. But if it just ends up being a slightly nicer version of the original (ver. 1.5?), I don't see it being that big of a success.

Sorry, but I don't understand how Moebius can go thru the trouble of getting the license for such a iconic movie and then produce a sort of half-hearted kit. Especially, as they did a half-hearted effort with the original. Hopefully, more effort will be put into the Discovery.



SUNGOD1 said:


> Obviously I can understand Moebius wanting to keep the costs down on everything they do but the only problem is.......keeping the costs down does sometimes mean kits that should have been a lot better and half hearted.
> 
> I get the impression that keeping costs down led to the previous Orion which to me and many others wasn't very good.
> 
> I for one would pay more for top quality and everyone else should be prepared to pay more also if they want decent kits. This isn't the 70s anymore where kits were a lot cheaper, and look at Round 2's Eagle for instance which is great quality, it's not what some people would call cheap for a model kit but from what I gather it's sold well.


Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Steve H

RMC said:


> ........I am still waiting on the 1/35 space pod and chariot


Hey! That used to be my line! 

(wasn't one of the original comments years ago something like 'we're going to make this a mixed media kit because it's cheaper and faster to produce' or some such? Myself, I'd much prefer pure styrene plastic with PE supplements rather than overpriced resin see also that Flying Sub wheel/claw kit)


----------



## Tiberious

I have an Orion in my stockpile somewhere, not sure why as I don't feel like the kit did justice to the source material. The Discovery however is very significant and important to me. I have an old resin job floating around somewhere that I never bothered to build due to lack of quality. The Discovery deserves nothing less than Moebius' full attention. The ship is iconic and this is the first time it's seen styrene (to my knowledge) so it needs to fill the needs of the enthusiasts if it's going to sell. I won't buy another half-baked ship, already have one I don't want.

That said, I have faith that Frank won't skimp on these kits.

Tib


----------



## John P

So I guess I'll just do the other three Orions I bought last time in some other delivery company colors...


----------



## ssgt-cheese

Why not a pizza brand name delivery markings?


----------



## SteveR

ssgt-cheese said:


> Why not a pizza brand name delivery markings?


Or a brand of chicken wings called "extra thick wings!"


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> But that's a question I would have. Is the Discovery actually built up from a number of repeated identical units (which, as has been said, could greatly reduce tooling costs) or are there variations in those modules?.


There are three different modules types, but each type is identical


----------



## Steve H

Stargazer1 said:


> There are three different modules types, but each type is identical


OK, and no 'in your face' obvious variations that would, if omitted, would ruin the proposed kit? Like, as a hypothetical example, there's one of the 'c' modules (calling the three types a, b, c-duh  ) that has a VERY OBVIOUS model kit part that none of the other 'c' modules has.

If Moebius built the kit by tooling those a, b,c modules and duplicated them (x) times, it would be accurate enough?


----------



## Carson Dyle

spock62 said:


> So, Moebius is keeping the Orion in a nonsense scale...for our benefit? I seem to recall most folks on this forum (and others) complaining about the small scale, along with other issues. Pretty sure most wouldn't mind paying a little more for a larger scale kit. Besides, have you checked the prices of their kits? They're mostly on the high side of the spectrum, for styrene kits.
> 
> I get that you wish the kit was bigger. I’m sure Moebius regrets having to disappoint you. They made an informed business decision to release a completely retooled Orion in the same scale as the Aurora kit. If you don’t like it don’t buy it.
> 
> So, is the entire kit a new tool, or just the wings? Based on your comment below, it's unclear, at least to me.
> 
> I think I’ve been pretty clear on the subject. It’s a complete retool.
> 
> So, because their losing money on the sci-fi kits, I should be grateful to them for producing a half-baked version of one of the most iconic spaceships in sci-fi history? Sorry, but they can do better and they know it. If Moebius is losing money on their sci-fi kits, maybe they should stick to car/truck models and call it a day. Better then treating a spacecraft from an iconic movie like an afterthought.
> 
> Your sense of entitlement is astonishing. Moebius is taking great pains to produce an accurate version of the Orion. You disagree with their decision with regard to scale. Fine. But what’s with the snide, uninformed remarks about alleged "half-baked" craftsmanship? What’s with the pissy attitude in general? You write:_ “If Moebius is losing money on their sci-fi kits, maybe they should stick to car/truck models and call it a day?”_ WTF? Did Moebius's dog crap on your yard or something? No other company has come close to consistently releasing the sorts of high quality, super accurate retro sci-fi kits Moebius has. They kill themselves to get this stuff right, or as right as they can given time and resources. I just don’t get the resentment and bitterness. You haven’t even _seen_ the Orion yet and you’re whining like a bitch. No wonder Moebius avoids these forums like the plague.
> 
> Actually, it is a bit of a big deal. The kit will obviously be more expensive then the original due to new tooling costs, licensing, and the fact that it costs more to produce a kit today than it did when the original came out. Since I'm sure "2001 A Space Odyssey" will be plastered all over the box, the least Moebius could do is add Pan-Am decals!
> 
> Uh, for the record, we don’t know that decals will not be included. The assertion that they won't is pure speculation on someone's part. I suspect decals will be included, but I'm prepared to live with the consequences in any event. Worst case "doomsday" scenario, builders will have to spring for a set of aftermarket decals. But, please, merciful Lord Jesus, let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that!
> 
> Here's what I think is happening: Moebius, due to lack of time and money, can only produce one really good kit for 2001. They, rightfully so, chose that kit to be the Discovery. Unfortunately, the cost and time of producing that kit will leave little left for the Orion. So, they decided to do a version of the original plan (updating the original kit using the existing tooling). That means a few of the inaccuracies fixed, no recessed panel lines, probably no new decals (Pan-Am) and the same nonsense scale Aurora used back in 1968. Or, this is a completely new tool kit. But, if that's the case, it will be the same as the original with just some updates, for just more money, which seems like a waste of money and time. If they fixed all the inaccuracies, added panel lines and decals, it might be worth a look. But if it just ends up being a slightly nicer version of the original (ver. 1.5?), I don't see it being that big of a success.
> 
> Speculate all you want, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. For the umpteenth time, it’s a completely new tooling. Every effort is being made to ensure accuracy, but as anyone who’s ever worked on one of these things can tell you, you could spend years trying to get it “perfect” and still fall short. Even so, Moebius is committed to producing the best, most accurate, most affordable Orion they can under the circumstances. If that’s not good enough then I don’t know what to tell you. Somehow we’ll all just have to get on with our lives despite Moebius's blatant disregard for your personal modeling demands.
> 
> Speaking of getting on with our lives, I’m out of here. I’d like to be able to post updates, but doing to is just too depressing. Only on HobbyTalk could news of a COMPLETELY RETOOLED Orion model be interpreted as a “FU” to model makers and a blemish on the legacy of "2001."
> 
> Happy complaining.


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> OK, and no 'in your face' obvious variations that would, if omitted, would ruin the proposed kit? Like, as a hypothetical example, there's one of the 'c' modules (calling the three types a, b, c-duh  ) that has a VERY OBVIOUS model kit part that none of the other 'c' modules has.
> 
> If Moebius built the kit by tooling those a, b,c modules and duplicated them (x) times, it would be accurate enough?



A module on the '54ft' Discovery is some 27 inches long... in say 144 scale that module is 1 1/4 inches. Even a large kit part on the original module, would be 'lost' on a 1/144 module. As you may know I did a kit of the Discovery in 1/144 and did make every effort it get it 'right'. so yes duplicated modules are as you say accurate enough :grin2:

It might be worth mentioning that the two filming models had slightly different module configurations fitted on them.


----------



## John P

Well, we chased another one away. Good job, kids. :freak:


----------



## John P

Stargazer1 said:


> As you may know I did a kit of the Discovery in 1/144 and did make every effort it get it 'right'.


I take the box out and fondle the parts every few months. I'll get around to it _some _day!!


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> I take the box out and fondle the parts every few months.


Whatever floats your boat, John. :wink2:


----------



## Tiberious

John P said:


> Well, we chased another one away. Good job, kids. :freak:


who'd we chase away this time? I didn't notice anyone quitting the boards.
BTW love your UPS Orion!

Tib


----------



## Steve H

Tiberious said:


> who'd we chase away this time? I didn't notice anyone quitting the boards.
> BTW love your UPS Orion!
> 
> Tib


Carson was saying he was out, but in context I would assume he means this thread in specific. 

It's regretful. Part of the problem is we were getting conflicting information, both from people who generally are 'in the know' and it made people crazy. "new tool" "partial new tool" and all that. 

Part of that is, we, the great unwashed, have no idea what question was asked, HOW it was asked, and what the exact context of the answer is. Consider: If it was desired to re-pop the Moebius Orion (as distinct from the Aurora kit) but their kit was made from a 'disposable' tooling, then indeed, it would be necessary to create a new tool. Semantics. 

The complete phrasing should be "all new tool created from a new master". This is completely unambiguous. 

And Carson didn't help matters, I'm sorry to say, with a statement that if only glanced at, skimmed, comes across as "We should be grateful for whatever Moebius makes because they do it as a favor to us"

I KNOW, from reading his posts all these years, he had no intention of saying that. He knows full well that Moebius, like Round 2, is a company in business to make a profit. Any kit released is going to break even at the very least (based on pre-orders from retailers and wholesellers) or it's just not going to be made. They don't make models as a favor, they make them to make money. Now, what subjects they pick, I'm sure there's some research to make sure there's a market for their kit. I think the only gamble I would say they took was the LiS Derelict. man, THAT was a left field surprise, wasn't it?

So, I am 100% sure Carson wasn't saying we're all crap for not bowing down to Moebius and accepting ANYTHING they release regardless of any flaws, errors or mistakes. 

Now, saying all that, I'm a'gonna make him mad at me if he reads this. I think he's completely mistaken and this kit is not going to have the Pan Am decals. If cost is such a factor in its production that a slight enlarging to 1/144 scale is beyond consideration they surely aren't going to spring for the extra licensing fee for the Pan Am logos. 

(two suggestions. One, by making this statement I am helping to ensure that the decals ARE included because I would then be wrong and people would laugh and mock me for this, and two, how about re-scaling the Orion to the current 'airline scale' of 1/200? Slightly smaller kit but now compatible with stuff)

Come back, Carson. It's not that bad.


----------



## SUNGOD

Carson Dyle said:


> spock62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Moebius is keeping the Orion in a nonsense scale...for our benefit? I seem to recall most folks on this forum (and others) complaining about the small scale, along with other issues. Pretty sure most wouldn't mind paying a little more for a larger scale kit. Besides, have you checked the prices of their kits? They're mostly on the high side of the spectrum, for styrene kits.
> 
> I get that you wish the kit was bigger. I’m sure Moebius regrets having to disappoint you. They made an informed business decision to release a completely retooled Orion in the same scale as the Aurora kit. If you don’t like it don’t buy it.
> 
> So, is the entire kit a new tool, or just the wings? Based on your comment below, it's unclear, at least to me.
> 
> I think I’ve been pretty clear on the subject. It’s a complete retool.
> 
> So, because their losing money on the sci-fi kits, I should be grateful to them for producing a half-baked version of one of the most iconic spaceships in sci-fi history? Sorry, but they can do better and they know it. If Moebius is losing money on their sci-fi kits, maybe they should stick to car/truck models and call it a day. Better then treating a spacecraft from an iconic movie like an afterthought.
> 
> Your sense of entitlement is astonishing. Moebius is taking great pains to produce an accurate version of the Orion. You disagree with their decision with regard to scale. Fine. But what’s with the snide, uninformed remarks about alleged "half-baked" craftsmanship? What’s with the pissy attitude in general? You write:_ “If Moebius is losing money on their sci-fi kits, maybe they should stick to car/truck models and call it a day?”_ WTF? Did Moebius's dog crap on your yard or something? No other company has come close to consistently releasing the sorts of high quality, super accurate retro sci-fi kits Moebius has. They kill themselves to get this stuff right, or as right as they can given time and resources. I just don’t get the resentment and bitterness. You haven’t even _seen_ the Orion yet and you’re whining like a bitch. No wonder Moebius avoids these forums like the plague.
> 
> Actually, it is a bit of a big deal. The kit will obviously be more expensive then the original due to new tooling costs, licensing, and the fact that it costs more to produce a kit today than it did when the original came out. Since I'm sure "2001 A Space Odyssey" will be plastered all over the box, the least Moebius could do is add Pan-Am decals!
> 
> Uh, for the record, we don’t know that decals will not be included. The assertion that they won't is pure speculation on someone's part. I suspect decals will be included, but I'm prepared to live with the consequences in any event. Worst case "doomsday" scenario, builders will have to spring for a set of aftermarket decals. But, please, merciful Lord Jesus, let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that!
> 
> Here's what I think is happening: Moebius, due to lack of time and money, can only produce one really good kit for 2001. They, rightfully so, chose that kit to be the Discovery. Unfortunately, the cost and time of producing that kit will leave little left for the Orion. So, they decided to do a version of the original plan (updating the original kit using the existing tooling). That means a few of the inaccuracies fixed, no recessed panel lines, probably no new decals (Pan-Am) and the same nonsense scale Aurora used back in 1968. Or, this is a completely new tool kit. But, if that's the case, it will be the same as the original with just some updates, for just more money, which seems like a waste of money and time. If they fixed all the inaccuracies, added panel lines and decals, it might be worth a look. But if it just ends up being a slightly nicer version of the original (ver. 1.5?), I don't see it being that big of a success.
> 
> Speculate all you want, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. For the umpteenth time, it’s a completely new tooling. Every effort is being made to ensure accuracy, but as anyone who’s ever worked on one of these things can tell you, you could spend years trying to get it “perfect” and still fall short. Even so, Moebius is committed to producing the best, most accurate, most affordable Orion they can under the circumstances. If that’s not good enough then I don’t know what to tell you. Somehow we’ll all just have to get on with our lives despite Moebius's blatant disregard for your personal modeling demands.
> 
> Speaking of getting on with our lives, I’m out of here. I’d like to be able to post updates, but doing to is just too depressing. Only on HobbyTalk could news of a COMPLETELY RETOOLED Orion model be interpreted as a “FU” to model makers and a blemish on the legacy of "2001."
> 
> Happy complaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carson I'm sure everyone's grateful for the updates and even though some people might get slightly carried away I bet just about everyone's
> interested to see what Moebius is going to do with a new tool Orion and are glad we're getting another chance for something better.
> 
> But this is a forum after all and everyone (Moebius included) should know by now we can be a bit obsessive. That comes with the territory and it's the same with people who build cars, tanks and aeroplanes etc. The complaining on this site is minor compared to some sites.
> 
> And surely it's people 'complaining' that's possibly getting us a better Orion? And as far as I can see it's only really the Orion (plus the original Galactica) that have got some flak.
> 
> 99% of the comments on here are positive about Moebius. Again the Orion as far as I remember is the one people complained about so maybe that complaining will have done some good if we get a much better Orion.
Click to expand...


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Carson was saying he was out, but in context I would assume he means this thread in specific.
> 
> It's regretful. Part of the problem is we were getting conflicting information, both from people who generally are 'in the know' and it made people crazy. "new tool" "partial new tool" and all that.
> 
> Part of that is, we, the great unwashed, have no idea what question was asked, HOW it was asked, and what the exact context of the answer is. Consider: If it was desired to re-pop the Moebius Orion (as distinct from the Aurora kit) but their kit was made from a 'disposable' tooling, then indeed, it would be necessary to create a new tool. Semantics.
> 
> The complete phrasing should be "all new tool created from a new master". This is completely unambiguous.
> 
> And Carson didn't help matters, I'm sorry to say, with a statement that if only glanced at, skimmed, comes across as "We should be grateful for whatever Moebius makes because they do it as a favor to us"
> 
> I KNOW, from reading his posts all these years, he had no intention of saying that. He knows full well that Moebius, like Round 2, is a company in business to make a profit. Any kit released is going to break even at the very least (based on pre-orders from retailers and wholesellers) or it's just not going to be made. They don't make models as a favor, they make them to make money. Now, what subjects they pick, I'm sure there's some research to make sure there's a market for their kit. I think the only gamble I would say they took was the LiS Derelict. man, THAT was a left field surprise, wasn't it?
> 
> So, I am 100% sure Carson wasn't saying we're all crap for not bowing down to Moebius and accepting ANYTHING they release regardless of any flaws, errors or mistakes.
> 
> Now, saying all that, I'm a'gonna make him mad at me if he reads this. I think he's completely mistaken and this kit is not going to have the Pan Am decals. If cost is such a factor in its production that a slight enlarging to 1/144 scale is beyond consideration they surely aren't going to spring for the extra licensing fee for the Pan Am logos.
> 
> (two suggestions. One, by making this statement I am helping to ensure that the decals ARE included because I would then be wrong and people would laugh and mock me for this, and two, how about re-scaling the Orion to the current 'airline scale' of 1/200? Slightly smaller kit but now compatible with stuff)
> 
> Come back, Carson. It's not that bad.






Good points but I don't want to see a smaller Orion at all. Plus if we don't get the Pan Am decals I'm not that bothered as some aftermarket people will do them anyway. That's how I got the ones for my Airfix kit.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD1 said:


> Good points but I don't want to see a smaller Orion at all. Plus if we don't get the Pan Am decals I'm not that bothered as some aftermarket people will do them anyway. That's how I got the ones for my Airfix kit.


Bigger is generally better with a model, altho sometimes too big creates its own problems. Myself, I would accept a slightly smaller Orion in 1/200 because it would be nice to put it on a runway next to some other airliners. Naturally that means trying to figure out where the landing gear actually goes(there are generally accepted assumptions based on filming miniature detail but there's valid arguments that those places aren't where the wheels are) and what it would look like and all that but hey, it's part of the fun.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Bigger is generally better with a model, altho sometimes too big creates its own problems. Myself, I would accept a slightly smaller Orion in 1/200 because it would be nice to put it on a runway next to some other airliners. Naturally that means trying to figure out where the landing gear actually goes(there are generally accepted assumptions based on filming miniature detail but there's valid arguments that those places aren't where the wheels are) and what it would look like and all that but hey, it's part of the fun.





Obviously there's limits but I always prefer big ships to have big kits. I think a smaller Orion though would be a non starter as it would probably have even less detail than the current kit. You'd have a job putting any physical panel lines on that.

Maybe it's because R2 are a bigger company but surely if a big chunk of plastic (the Eagles) can sell........big 2001 kits could sell too? The Eagle's still a hugely popular design and so are the 2001 ships.


----------



## SUNGOD

And here's why I'd like to see a fair size Discovery.......

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/54/ed/2a/54ed2a7030c44db0875f91cf55ea0744.jpg

I know Moebius can't re-produce every little detail but there's quite a few panel lines on there etc. I hope we don't get a kit with a bland ball. One that has no panel line detailing. I don't want an Orion decal job on the Discovery.


----------



## David3

a full Discovery would be one of my grail kits 
however because its such a long beast it really can't be made to a good cost effective scale and retain the beautiful detailing 
its also kind of awkward to display
so i'd actually like to see a large scale (maybe 1:35ish) faithfully detailed Discovery Command module on its own
this would be so much easier to display and one from which, if the modeller wanted to, could add either their own scratch-built modules or after-market extensions at a later time.


----------



## SUNGOD

David3 said:


> a full Discovery would be one of my grail kits
> however because its such a long beast it really can't be made to a good cost effective scale and retain the beautiful detailing
> its also kind of awkward to display
> so i'd actually like to see a large scale (maybe 1:35ish) faithfully detailed Discovery Command module on its own
> this would be so much easier to display and one from which, if the modeller wanted to, could add either their own scratch-built modules or after-market extensions at a later time.




I can't see them just making the command module on it's own. I don't think that would go down too well. 

Although still not quite enough detail for me the Stargazer resin kit has a reasonable amount of detail (notice the engraved lines especially on the command module)..........


Starship Modeler - Stargazer's 1/144 Discovery Built


So if it's around that size I think a good amount of detail can be done. I really don't think Moebius can skimp on the detail with this......otherwise it will be half hearted. People want detail on something like this and as much of it as possible. I'm sure everyone will agree with that.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD1 said:


> And here's why I'd like to see a fair size Discovery.......
> 
> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/54/ed/2a/54ed2a7030c44db0875f91cf55ea0744.jpg
> 
> I know Moebius can't re-produce every little detail but there's quite a few panel lines on there etc. I hope we don't get a kit with a bland ball. One that has no panel line detailing. I don't want an Orion decal job on the Discovery.


It's a beautiful thing and filled with subtle detailing that LOOKS like functional stuff. 


Two examples: That extra plating on the back of the 'ball' makes me think it's additional shielding to help protect the centrifuge. Detail where the ball meets the spine makes me think that's a shear point and 'escape' rocket motors. There appears to be plenty of access panels for whatever. 

Now, I have no idea if those speculations above happen to match actual, 'canon' explanations or if there's never been any discussion at all (because few have seen pics like this what with Kubrick's obsession on destroying stuff lest it resurface in some 'B' movie like many of the props and sets from Forbidden Planet) but that's a sign of the QUALITY of the work, that everything SEEMS to have a reason, a logic.


----------



## mach7

The issue is a few Veruca salt's.

I'm not sure what all the confusion is about. 

Carson said we were getting an ALL NEW tool Orion, the size of the original Aurora.

What is the confusion?

If you don't want an orion as stated DON'T BUY IT!

I for one am very happy that they are doing new kits.

Thank you Moebius for making so many of the kits I've wanted for decades.

Thank You Carson for keeping us informed on the progress.


----------



## Steve H

Hey, here's a dumb Discovery question! Are there ANY indications of vernier thrusters of some form, or does it appear they were using the old fashion 'flywheel and brake' system that was the assumed way to steer a rocket back in the '50s? 

I wonder because of the clear and obvious thrusters on both the Pod and the Aries 1b.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> It's a beautiful thing and filled with subtle detailing that LOOKS like functional stuff.
> 
> 
> Two examples: That extra plating on the back of the 'ball' makes me think it's additional shielding to help protect the centrifuge. Detail where the ball meets the spine makes me think that's a shear point and 'escape' rocket motors. There appears to be plenty of access panels for whatever.
> 
> Now, I have no idea if those speculations above happen to match actual, 'canon' explanations or if there's never been any discussion at all (because few have seen pics like this what with Kubrick's obsession on destroying stuff lest it resurface in some 'B' movie like many of the props and sets from Forbidden Planet) but that's a sign of the QUALITY of the work, that everything SEEMS to have a reason, a logic.





It's incredible and like just about everything in the film way ahead of it's time. Thankfully though some things did survive like the Aries.


----------



## stargazer

The only part I got wrong (the engine bell) see here. Due to interpreting incorrectly the (poor) photos of that area available at the time.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/kd_disc_FigSG1.jpg

Since then new pictures have emerged, and I have made new masters for this part (which are currently with the caster).


----------



## John P

Tiberious said:


> who'd we chase away this time? I didn't notice anyone quitting the boards.


Post # 115. Read Carson's last full paragraph.


----------



## Nektu

Well, I have to agree with Carson. People here sound bitter, critical, and resentful about yet another new release from Moebius.... To me that's just crazy! Maybe some of you weren't around in the 70s and 80s, when we dreamed of such kits existing. Seriously.. you never thought half of these would happen. We were jumping for joy at Lunar Models, and their mixed bag of stuff. It was all there was!
I think if you have it in you to bitch so much.. by all means, start your own company and crank out better stuff. Until then, think before you air out your thoughts here. Really. 
Get off your soapboxes with all the criticism of what you are or are not getting from guys like Frank at Moebius. 
Really, you just mess it up for those of us who love this stuff. If you don't like it, don't buy it! If you can do better.. get to it.
K


----------



## Steve H

Well, Nektu, I think you're missing the point. What I see is frustration and a customer base that feels like an opportunity is being lost. You're echoing exactly the feeling that got some folk riled in the first place, i.e. "shut up you idiots! Be grateful for whatever you get no matter what flaws it may end up having because!!" 

And that doesn't go down well with most folk. 

Here's what people are saying, in regards to that opportunity that may already be lost. "We weren't happy with the neither fish nor fowl kit that was the Moebius Orion. That kit wasn't a straight up repop of the Aurora, and it ended up with more errors than that venerable, beloved model. If you're doing an all new tooling of an all new master, why not take that one more step and scale it at 1/144."

Myself, I'm maybe a little confused by 'saving money by keeping the new tool the same size as the Aurora/Moebius Orion' thinking because if the plastic is so expensive that the extra used for a slightly larger kit pushes the profit/loss equation into the 'loss' column, that's WAY too tight a margin to even consider MAKING the kit. If it's that tight ANYTHING that happens- increase of shipping cost, increase in plastic cost, yet another hiccup in the Won/Dollar exchange rate, China imposing some new fee or tax for any reason- BANG the kit loses money and it was all meaningless. 

Careful engineering of the parts would allow the parts to fit within the pre-existing box style. 

I guess it's a good thing I don't run a company. I'd be inclined to throw the dice and say "Go ahead, make it in 1/144. Make it work. We'll sell them like hotcakes" I'm a crazy man. I believe that an announcement that an all new tool from an all new master designed with the latest information to make the most accurate kit of the Orion in styrene plastic ever, THAT would generate excitement in the community. 

But I'm not in charge, nor influential or have the ear of the Powers That Be.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> Well, Nektu, I think you're missing the point....


This is for all of my "fans" out there (being sarcastic for those of you that didn't pick up on it):

"Missing the point", so does Carson Dyle and a few others. When Mr. Dyle wrote that some of the inaccuracies would be addressed, I took him at his word. Some means just what it says, hard to misinterpret that. To reply and then say that Moebius will produce the best, most accurate version says something else. Not my fault he didn't make himself clear with the 1st comment.

When he writes that _"BTW, there is a story behind the "new tooling,"_ I take it that, due to the words new tooling being in quotes, the kit would not be a totally new tooled kit. Using quotes like that is called _Scared Quotes_. Scare quotes are used to cast doubt on a word or phrase, or to emphasize that the word or phrase is being used as a euphemism. Kind of like when someone writes _I "love" to pay taxes to the IRS._, you understand that the person really doesn't "love" to pay taxes.

Instead of reading and comprehending what I wrote, Mr. Dyle appears to have gotten "triggered" when he saw that I wasn't a "true believer" of all things Moebius. So, seeing red, he did what some other Moebius sycophants do...go on the attack and accuse the individual of all manner of things and call him a bunch of names. Unfortunately, this has become "just another day" on the Moebius forum here at HobbyTalk.

Of course, Mr. Dyle decided to go one step further and declare that he can no longer be a part of this thread, he's too "depressed", so no more updates for the rest of you! All this just to help cement the idea that I some horrible person who's ruining this thread, and as one poster put it, I'm "messing it up" for the rest of you (whatever that means).

The problem is this, if anyone writes anything less then glowing comments about Moebius products, certain individuals take the critique personally and decide for themselves that the "offending" individual needs to be put down. What happened to the idea that this forum is for expressing our thoughts on Moebius products, both positive and negative? 

Funny, when other companies make decisions or products that people are disappointed in, they're far game for any and all criticism. But not Moebius, they're untouchable.

When Revell releases their latest round of inaccurate, box scale Star War kits, many of us criticize them, and rightfully so. But, while some disagree, I don't recall any hate being thrown at either side of the argument.

So, just to be clear, I don't feel entitled, I'm not resentful or hold any bitterness at Moebius for doing a kit in a certain way, just disappointed as this is their 2nd go at it and it's less than what I think it should be. And being critical is not the same as "whining like a bitch". And no, I don't expect 100% accuracy when I say I'd like an accurate kit. Instead of telling me how I feel, how about asking for clarification from me, like I do from others, before labeling me? How about acting like the adults you supposedly are?

People want to feel free to express their opinions on upcoming and current Moebius kits, even if those feelings are ones of disappointment. So, instead of the name calling and misrepresenting of what a person wrote and telling them to "start their own company", how about acting in a civil manner?

Also, I did not "chase" Mr. Dyle away. He made the choice on his own. Not my fault that he can't handle opinions other than his own. It's so easy to be big and bold and play the bully when your sitting behind a keyboard, I'd bet good money most of the sh*t said to me here would never happen in public.

One last thing, I could care less if Mr. Dyle or the other butt-hurt, snowflakes ever posted here again. If they can't handle opposing points of view, they shouldn't be on any forum, let alone this one.


----------



## rkoenn

Tiberious said:


> who'd we chase away this time? I didn't notice anyone quitting the boards.
> BTW love your UPS Orion!
> 
> Tib


Carson Dyle, read 5 posts up. I am an easy going guy myself and sometimes know that some modelers get anal about things like accuracy, specific product desires, rivet counts, etc. I enjoy the hobby, nothing is going to be perfect and getting bent out of shape is a waste of your time. I know I will be buying Frank's Discovery, loving it, building it, and maybe wishing he also had time to do an Aries but not griping or getting frustrated about it. Plastic modeling is fun, not to get heartburn over.


----------



## SUNGOD

Nektu said:


> Well, I have to agree with Carson. People here sound bitter, critical, and resentful about yet another new release from Moebius.... To me that's just crazy! Maybe some of you weren't around in the 70s and 80s, when we dreamed of such kits existing. Seriously.. you never thought half of these would happen. We were jumping for joy at Lunar Models, and their mixed bag of stuff. It was all there was!
> I think if you have it in you to bitch so much.. by all means, start your own company and crank out better stuff. Until then, think before you air out your thoughts here. Really.
> Get off your soapboxes with all the criticism of what you are or are not getting from guys like Frank at Moebius.
> Really, you just mess it up for those of us who love this stuff. If you don't like it, don't buy it! If you can do better.. get to it.
> K




Nektu.....Spock's perfectly entitled to say his opinions on a *Moebius forum* just like you're entitled to say what you said.

If he was being rude or threatening etc I can understand but all he was doing is stating his opinion. If you don't like his opinion fair enough but do you want people just to shut up and say nothing? Did you read what I said about the previous Orion and why we might actually be getting another attempt? 

As I've often said 99% of comments on here are positive about Moebius but it's mainly the Orion that's been a bone of contention. Everyone on here respects Moebius but that doesn't mean everything we say has to always be positive. If somebody would prefer something done a bit differently would you rather they just shut up and said nothing?


----------



## Steve H

As a person who has been not only building kits since the '60s, I'm well and firmly aware of the advances and surprises in the model kit biz. I look at the landscape and see so MANY kits made, by major companies, that would have been laughed at, mocked if one said they would happen back in those days. 1/35 scale German WW II 'Elefant' super heavy tank in styrene? Impossible. Various American heavy and superheavy tank prototypes? Never. 1/72 scale B-36? No way! 1/48 scale German Sub? HA! 

Not to mention all the beloved SF kits. 

No, we do indeed live in a time of wonder. But that just means our expectations are higher. As information improves, as knowledge grows, we expect more and better. Would the world have been pleased if R2's 1/350 Enterprise had been nothing but a straight-on enlargement of the '60s AMT kit? I rather strongly doubt it. 

Saying THAT, that doesn't mean any company, ANY company gets a free pass. My money is limited. I don't want to spend it on a kit that isn't the best possible it could be. Didn't people give Moebius some hell over the recent revision release of the Flying Sub? I seem to recall that there were panels with missing detail (likely caused in the modifications to make a pre-built FS release) and the initial response was "Oh, well, go ahead and buy Paul's PE set then" and that didn't sit well. I *think* Moebius was going to tell the Chinese factory to do a running change to fix that but, ya know, I never heard if it was done. I CAN tell you that the revised FS kit that sells in Japan is missing that detail. Saw it on a kit review. Those kits arrived recently. So, no fix? no running change? 

See? So, where the trust? Where's the 'care for the customers' that we should be so grateful for? 

I tend to be in the 'trust but verify' category myself. I'd like to see the words "A new tool generated from an all new master" appear in regarding the upcoming Orion. That I will have some faith in. 

Does that make me a hater? I don't see how.


----------



## TAY666

Steve H said:


> Myself, I'm maybe a little confused by 'saving money by keeping the new tool the same size as the Aurora/Moebius Orion' thinking because if the plastic is so expensive that the extra used for a slightly larger kit pushes the profit/loss equation into the 'loss' column, that's WAY too tight a margin to even consider MAKING the kit. If it's that tight ANYTHING that happens- increase of shipping cost, increase in plastic cost, yet another hiccup in the Won/Dollar exchange rate, China imposing some new fee or tax for any reason- BANG the kit loses money and it was all meaningless.


It's not that the plastic is expensive, it is the tooling.
As the tooling gets bigger, the cost increase exponentially.
Bigger molds = more steel, more engineering, more fiddling with balancing the sprues, and most importantly, larger press size. The bigger the mold, the larger the machine needed to run said mold. Larger presses cost more per hour to run.

That would of course be in addition to the higher plastic cost, added cost for bigger packaging, higher shipping costs, and higher storage costs for warehousing the molds when not in use.


----------



## Steve H

TAY666 said:


> It's not that the plastic is expensive, it is the tooling.
> As the tooling gets bigger, the cost increase exponentially.
> Bigger molds = more steel, more engineering, more fiddling with balancing the sprues, and most importantly, larger press size. The bigger the mold, the larger the machine needed to run said mold. Larger presses cost more per hour to run.
> 
> That would of course be in addition to the higher plastic cost, added cost for bigger packaging, higher shipping costs, and higher storage costs for warehousing the molds when not in use.


See, I get all that. I'm sure the Chinese 'turn key' factory uses Beryllium inserts in steel tool carriers, so if your tooling fits within the allowed space you should be golden. The size difference between the current 'Aurora' scale and actual 1/144 is small and should be well within the limitations. So the effort comes to arranging the parts, designing the sprue trees to do the job. Well if they're ALREADY making new tooling that's already factored in. 

The only way your statement makes sense is if the factory is using a pre-existing CADCAM (or whatever format, I'm sure there's been evolution in the past 20 years  ) layout to cut the tooling. And if they are using a pre-existing CAD to cut beryllium, it's surely not 'a new tool' in the sense of what's been discussed, it's just cutting new metal for an existing master. See?

So, yeah. If people were asking Moebius to make a new Orion in 1/100, no question that would incur all kinds of additional costs. This isn't what people are suggesting. I am positive there is a way to make the small scaling change and make it work within existing parameters.


----------



## SUNGOD

I haven't got a clue when it comes to the tooling process. All I know is it's expensive but also surprising someone hasn't figured out how to make kits cheaper by now.

Is the general consensus the Discovery 'might' be 1/144?


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD1 said:


> I haven't got a clue when it comes to the tooling process. All I know is it's expensive but also surprising someone hasn't figured out how to make kits cheaper by now.
> 
> Is the general consensus the Discovery 'might' be 1/144?


Well, there HAVE been advances, probably more than I know. Originally tools, molds were machined by hand from tool steel, a very hard kind of steel. It was an exacting process, more an art than anything else. Then came using a pantograph, a way to follow the contours of parts of a master model then reduce it to the size desired (or, depending, it might be 1-1 copying), guiding the milling head, but it still required hand finishing to make sure everything was just right. 

Problem with the process is, you pretty much have to figure on making tens of thousands of a thing because that solid tool steel mold was big and heavy and there wasn't much you could do with it other than make that one thing. (of course the steel could be re-cut to alter the mold if you wanted. Kenner was pretty good at altering their tooling for various toys and figures, and of course we all know about when AMT decided that their Star Trek: The Motion Picture Enterprise really needed a kind of faux wood grain...  )

There was money to be made from selling unneeded tools because they could be melted down and recycled. 

Then somewhere along the way, someone figured out that beryllium was almost as hard as tool steel, so if you cut your molds in beryllium, and mounted THAT in a carrier, a shell if you will, of tool steel, you could save money because you then switch out the plates of beryllium for the molds of other products. As I understand it that's pretty much still how it's done, except for the milling, which now is all computer driven. Bandai, as one example, generally doesn't even make a physical master to pantograph from, it's all digital. First it's sent to a 3-D printer to test look and fit and assembly, then when it's tweaked they cut metal and make the kit. Supposedly they can go from 'green light' to finished kit on store shelves in 2 months. 

Now, there WAS an innovation, I believe it came from South Korea, where a company used a special epoxy resin mixed with aluminum powder to make a tool blank, which would then be machined and used. What I understand is this kind of mold wears out pretty quickly, good for maybe 5000 shots. It's not great for fine detail. The positive is, combined with CADCAM (or whatever the programs are called now) it is fairly cheap to create a new tool if it's desired. I *believe* the worn out resin tool is chemically dissolved and the aluminum powder is recovered to be reused but I'm not sure of that. Bandai experimented with resin tools with their early Evangelion robot kits. They weren't well received kits, being soft in detail and lacking the usual crazy mobility. Better kits came later, traditionally molded. 

So that's what I know of the process. It still requires some very special skills, there's still an element of art to it, and you still need sucking huge machines to do it.


----------



## SUNGOD

You know a lot more than me about it. I'm not surprised that those resin tools wore out though. Even I know that steel is the way to go for that.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> The size difference between the current 'Aurora' scale and actual 1/144 is small and should be well within the limitations.


No so small, really. This is my original Aurora next to Stargazer's 1/144 cargo version. 1/144 is over 19" long.


----------



## John P

SUNGOD1 said:


> Is the general consensus the Discovery 'might' be 1/144?


There is absolutely NO information whatsoever yet from Moebius on what scale it will be.


----------



## scooke123

John P said:


> No so small, really. This is my original Aurora next to Stargazer's 1/144 cargo version. 1/144 is over 19" long.


That size difference would probably double the cost of the kit. Would need a bigger box for sure and boxes are a huge expense.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> No so small, really. This is my original Aurora next to Stargazer's 1/144 cargo version. 1/144 is over 19" long.


Welp. Nothing like a photo to make anything more understandable. I had thought it might work out to maybe half an inch or so but yeah, that's fairly substantial. 

With really careful parts breakdown I think that could still fit inside the existing Aurora-style box (fuselage made from maybe 10 parts, for one) but yeah, THAT would take a great deal of effort.

I stand educated, or as some might say, 'schooled'.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Much as I regret having posted to this thread in the first place, there are, in fairness to Moebius, two points I feel obliged to clarify.

Having stated that the forthcoming Orion kit would feature all new tooling I subsequently posted: 



Carson Dyle said:


> I'm just happy that some of the inaccuracies found on the old Orion(s) will be corrected.


This was interpreted by some to mean that Moebius was electing to fix certain inaccuracies found on earlier versions of the Orion while ignoring others. The implication being that, despite ample evidence to the contrary, Moebius is too lazy, cheap or indifferent to go the distance required to produce a reasonably accurate spaceship model. 

On the contrary, Moebius researches these subjects quite vigorously. Unfortunately, as I discovered first hand while working on the Moebius Proteus, no matter how hard you work to “get it right,” the occasional detail still falls through the cracks. Hell, I’m STILL discovering information about the full-scale Proteus months after I stopped working on the model (courtesy of that great piece of previously unseen reference material that, inevitably, falls into one’s lap the minute after it’s too late to take advantage of). Point being, when I said “some inaccuracies will be corrected” it was with the understanding that, by its very nature, no mass-produced, factory-made plastic model kit will ever be 100% accurate. This should go without saying, and I suspect most of you took my original post in the spirit it was intended. For those who didn’t, I hope this clears things up for you.

Which brings me to the second point I want to clear up; the absurd accusation that I’m incapable of being critical of Moebius’s kits. As anyone who’s followed my Proteus build thread can tell you, I’ve gone out of my way to locate and identify that model’s (relatively few) shortcomings – and, what’s more, I’ve taken the time to post my fixes for those areas and details I found to be wanting. In some cases the errors are as much my fault as Moebius’s, and in any case it’s not like I’ve tried to hide them or pretend they don’t exist – just the opposite. 

Despite assertions to the contrary, Moebius has no problem owning its mistakes. At the same time, they stand by their business decisions with regard to cost, scale, etc. The Orion will not be perfect, anymore than any model kit is ever perfect. But neither will it be the shoddy afterthought of a product some here have suggested. Moebius may not always get it right, but they do make a serious effort. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but I think we can all agree there’s a difference between pointing out inaccuracies and offering suggestions vs. making snide remarks and jumping to unfounded conclusions. Honestly, that kind of “feedback” doesn’t help anybody. No one is getting rich off these kits. They really are a labor of love. You don’t have to like them. You don’t have to buy them. But it’s mistaken to believe the people who make them don’t care about creating the best product they can, given the time and resources available. 

Final comment: My business relationship with Moebius began and ended with the Proteus. The comments I’ve posted here and elsewhere re: Moebius’s kits are my own, and may not reflect the views of Moebius.

Over and out.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> There is absolutely NO information whatsoever yet from Moebius on what scale it will be.




I know but the only reason I said it 'might' be that scale is because rkoen said this.......

*I hate to go out on a limb but he might have said 1/144th scale but don't quote me on that one.*


and it was discussed.


----------



## Trek Ace

If a kit is too perfect, it almost takes some of the fun out of building it. This has been a recent observation of mine on having built several of the recent Bandai _Star Wars _kits. They are soooo good, so well-engineered, that I almost don't have the same amount of satisfaction when I complete them. It's a strange feeling, and not one that I am accustomed to in my _many_ decades of building models.

I have greatly enjoyed Moebius' line of model kits. None of them would I consider "perfect", but all of them I would consider to be satisfying. All of them have exhibited some sort of challenge needing correction during construction, whether it be re-contouring the hemispherical instead of cylindrical underside of the large TV _Seaview_'s flying sub bay and doors (along with a myriad of other concerns), to resolving the lack of detail and too-thin wings of the Orion spaceplane. Because of these challenges, when completed, they were immensely satisfying, because during the process of building them, I got to be a _modeler_, rather than just an assembler.

In the end, while I greatly appreciate the hard work and determination of modeling companies to "get it right" on the details (and they _should_ make that effort); if there isn't something to fix, or re-scribe, or scratchbuild a detail when building a model kit, that level of extreme satisfaction and joy that arises from it's completion and meeting those challenges is somehow reduced, or even, at worst, non-existent. It's just "done".

I greatly look forward to the upcoming Moebius _2001 _kits, the _Proteus_, _Star Trek_, _Batman_, and whatever may be coming down the line, because I know that during the process of building them, I will get to feel what it is to be a _modeler_ once again.


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> Welp. Nothing like a photo to make anything more understandable. I had thought it might work out to maybe half an inch or so but yeah, that's fairly substantial.
> 
> With really careful parts breakdown I think that could still fit inside the existing Aurora-style box (fuselage made from maybe 10 parts, for one) but yeah, THAT would take a great deal of effort.
> 
> I stand educated, or as some might say, 'schooled'.



ah....Ok, Before this gets out of control. (i will try to try to cut a long story short)

The reason I made my orion kit the size it is, was because it HAD to be that size at the minimum, in order to fit an accurate interior made in 144 scale, (for which I had studio plans with sizes given for 1/1 scale, e.g. a full size set). Also given that at the time there just was no reference at all for the size of the orion exterior!. So the 'Known' 144 interior size was the 'driver' for the external size of my kit.

Now however years later, a three view plan of the orion turned up ! In the btm right corner of the plan is the usual " issued" box in which the scale of the drawing is listed as 1/1. (model is full size to the drawing) There is also a long arrow from nose to tail along which says 175 feet ! 

So ok not withstanding that it is odd to have a 'full size dimension' on a 1/1 plan... but IF that is the intended external size of the Orion, the interior will not fit... without 'cheating' it to. So, the Aurora and Moebius and Airfix kits are all some 13 3/4 inches long, if that were 144 scale then these orions would be 165 ft long if 'real' And at 175 ft long (as on the plan) orion would be 14 5/8" long in 144 scale, some 7/8 inches longer than the three kits mentioned above. (Tail Antena not included in all above)


----------



## Richard Baker

To clarify my issue with the situation is that I have sitting in my closet of doom the last retooled Moebius Orion kit. I bought it before all the observations about the wing thickness being wrong- I in fact like how the wings were done because the original Aurora kit never left me with the impression that they were in fact engines. I did not care for the way the panels lines were substituted with a partial decal sheet, the non-scale lines never bothered me with the Aurora kit.

My problem is that I already have a kit in the stash and now Moebius is releasing yet another retooled version of it. I do not have much of a modeling budget and I have to pick and choose where those funds go. If the kit was larger then it would be a no brainer, but I have to look at what changes Moebius chooses to make to improve it over the release I already have and that is where I am worried. I want the best most of course, but I cannot afford to keep buying the same kit over and over again. 

I am hoping Moebius does make significant changes, enough to justify buying the new kit.


----------



## SteveR

My take on new 2001 kits?

"I'm just jazzed they're making them, man."


----------



## Steve H

Stargazer1 said:


> ah....Ok, Before this gets out of control. (i will try to try to cut a long story short)
> 
> The reason I made my orion kit the size it is, was because it HAD to be that size at the minimum, in order to fit an accurate interior made in 144 scale, (for which I had studio plans with sizes given for 1/1 scale, e.g. a full size set). Also given that at the time there just was no reference at all for the size of the orion exterior!. So the 'Known' 144 interior size was the 'driver' for the external size of my kit.
> 
> Now however years later, a three view plan of the orion turned up ! In the btm right corner of the plan is the usual " issued" box in which the scale of the drawing is listed as 1/1. (model is full size to the drawing) There is also a long arrow from nose to tail along which says 175 feet !
> 
> So ok not withstanding that it is odd to have a 'full size dimension' on a 1/1 plan... but IF that is the intended external size of the Orion, the interior will not fit... without 'cheating' it to. So, the Aurora and Moebius and Airfix kits are all some 13 3/4 inches long, if that were 144 scale then these orions would be 165 ft long if 'real' And at 175 ft long (as on the plan) orion would be 14 5/8" long in 144 scale, some 7/8 inches longer than the three kits mentioned above. (Tail Antena not included in all above)


I don't think there's any risk of this getting any more out of control than it already is (depending on point of view of course  ) but I think this, again falls into the caution of 'can one trust the size of a movie/TV set?', at least as a metric of and compared to the 'evidence of scale' of an effects miniature.

Take the practical reality of the centrifuge of the Discovery. I'm sure many people feel it must be 'full size' because Kubrick built the thing, so then knowing that size they fit it into the miniature of the Discovery, and maybe it doesn't quite fit. Maybe it's too small, maybe it's too large. People forget all the support equipment that HAS to be there. The ring has to be thicker than the set ('wider' and 'taller') to accommodate equipment, shielding, air/water/waste management and so on. In other words, the physical dimension of the set was as big as Kubrick could make it for a practical effect on the soundstage AND ALLOWING FOR THE HUGE BANKS OF LIGHTS NECESSARY FOR FILMING. HUGE banks of lights. Because that's what you needed then. Same for every set. Lots and lots of lights. 

Room for lights. Room for the camera and crew. Sets are 'bigger on the inside' 

It's always a conflict, the needs of a set vs. the reality of the miniature. 

So saying all that, I'm greatly interested in what Stargazer is saying here. My initial impulse, just my 'gut check half-a**ed guess' that scaling up the Aurora-scale Orion to 1/144 really isn't a huge change after all. Huh. How about that?


----------



## stargazer

"It's always a conflict, the needs of a set vs. the reality of the miniature". 

Indeed... but in the case of the Orion, all someone had to do to resolve that fit problem for all time, would be to have put 213 ft and not 175 on the drawing, the draughtsman could easily have done what I did with the same two sets of drawings.:nerd:

Or even better the size of the orion actually drawn on the drawing, 42 inches or whatever it was.


----------



## John P

Stargazer1 said:


> ah....Ok, Before this gets out of control. (i will try to try to cut a long story short)
> 
> The reason I made my orion kit the size it is, was because it HAD to be that size at the minimum, in order to fit an accurate interior made in 144 scale, (for which I had studio plans with sizes given for 1/1 scale, e.g. a full size set). Also given that at the time there just was no reference at all for the size of the orion exterior!. So the 'Known' 144 interior size was the 'driver' for the external size of my kit.
> 
> Now however years later, a three view plan of the orion turned up ! In the btm right corner of the plan is the usual " issued" box in which the scale of the drawing is listed as 1/1. (model is full size to the drawing) There is also a long arrow from nose to tail along which says 175 feet !
> 
> So ok not withstanding that it is odd to have a 'full size dimension' on a 1/1 plan... but IF that is the intended external size of the Orion, the interior will not fit... without 'cheating' it to. So, the Aurora and Moebius and Airfix kits are all some 13 3/4 inches long, if that were 144 scale then these orions would be 165 ft long if 'real' And at 175 ft long (as on the plan) orion would be 14 5/8" long in 144 scale, some 7/8 inches longer than the three kits mentioned above. (Tail Antena not included in all above)


Well ain't THAT kick in the pants! :lol:


----------



## spock62

Stargazer1 said:


> So, the Aurora and Moebius and Airfix kits are all some 13 3/4 inches long, if that were 144 scale then these orions would be 165 ft long if 'real' And at 175 ft long (as on the plan) orion would be 14 5/8" long in 144 scale, some 7/8 inches longer than the three kits mentioned above. (Tail Antena not included in all above)


So, in order to make the new tool Orion kit match a standard aircraft scale (1/144) (based on the 175' length), it would mean _adding less than an inch to the overall length_? We're being told that the reason Moebius is staying with the original Aurora box scale is to save his customers $$$. How much more would adding 7/8" of an inch possibly add???



Richard Baker said:


> ...I did not care for the way the panels lines were substituted with a partial decal sheet, the non-scale lines never bothered me with the Aurora kit.
> 
> My problem is that I already have a kit in the stash and now Moebius is releasing yet another retooled version of it. I do not have much of a modeling budget and I have to pick and choose where those funds go. If the kit was larger then it would be a no brainer, but I have to look at what changes Moebius chooses to make to improve it over the release I already have and that is where I am worried. I want the best most of course, but I cannot afford to keep buying the same kit over and over again.
> 
> I am hoping Moebius does make significant changes, enough to justify buying the new kit.


Agree. I have very limited kit funds and can't afford to buy a kit that may only be slightly better than one I already have. Like I said before, if the new kit, despite the odd scale, looks significantly better than the original, I would consider buying it. But if it's just a warmed-over version of the original, what would be the point? I hoping this kit will really do the original movie prop justice, but we'll have to wait and see the final product to make that determination, and I would imagine that's quite a few months away.


----------



## stargazer

John P said:


> Well ain't THAT kick in the pants! :lol:



Don't get me wrong... :thumbsup:I think that my Orion is still the better deal sizewise as everything fits, rather than some arbitrary size on a plan that there seems no rhyme or reason for. :grin2:


----------



## SUNGOD

Trek Ace said:


> If a kit is too perfect, it almost takes some of the fun out of building it. This has been a recent observation of mine on having built several of the recent Bandai _Star Wars _kits. They are soooo good, so well-engineered, that I almost don't have the same amount of satisfaction when I complete them. It's a strange feeling, and not one that I am accustomed to in my _many_ decades of building models.
> 
> I have greatly enjoyed Moebius' line of model kits. None of them would I consider "perfect", but all of them I would consider to be satisfying. All of them have exhibited some sort of challenge needing correction during construction, whether it be re-contouring the hemispherical instead of cylindrical underside of the large TV _Seaview_'s flying sub bay and doors (along with a myriad of other concerns), to resolving the lack of detail and too-thin wings of the Orion spaceplane. Because of these challenges, when completed, they were immensely satisfying, because during the process of building them, I got to be a _modeler_, rather than just an assembler.
> 
> In the end, while I greatly appreciate the hard work and determination of modeling companies to "get it right" on the details (and they _should_ make that effort); if there isn't something to fix, or re-scribe, or scratchbuild a detail when building a model kit, that level of extreme satisfaction and joy that arises from it's completion and meeting those challenges is somehow reduced, or even, at worst, non-existent. It's just "done".
> 
> I greatly look forward to the upcoming Moebius _2001 _kits, the _Proteus_, _Star Trek_, _Batman_, and whatever may be coming down the line, because I know that during the process of building them, I will get to feel what it is to be a _modeler_ once again.



But there's nothing wrong with being a "kit assembler". Even sticking together and painting a Bandai kit requires some skill. If you want to be a 'true' modeller then build something from scratch or create an incredible diorama. 

The only time I have that feeling is finishing off older kits and making them look good but even then sometimes they can be really frustrating and not much fun and I bet most people don't enjoy having to correct glaring inaccuracies or bad fitting kits. I know no kit will ever be perfect but as you said yourself manufacturers should try to get it right.

They can't pander to people liking to test their skills as some people aren't so good at that anyway and want something they can put together quickly with the minimum of stress. Especially as some people don't just build sci fi and build many other things as well with limited time.


----------



## Steve H

I don't mind slight inaccuracies on the whole, prefer them to not be there if it's simply a matter of research that SHOULD have been done, but I have to say, if it's a big mistake, it just makes me tend to shelve the kit. I'll TRY to fix things if it's within my limited skill set (hint: completely building new wings for the Orion ain't in that box.  ) ) but often times I'll get partway into it and just give up and again, box on the shelf with "I'll come back to that" on it. 

The Aurora Orion was 'good enough' for my needs. It sounds like the Moebius version would have been a 'on the shelf' kit.


----------



## scooke123

Its a fictional vehicle - coulda been 175 feet, maybe 213 feet maybe some other figure. When I watch the movie the Orion isn't onscreen a whole lot of the time, not many close-up detailed shots either. When I look at the Aurora kit or the first Moebius kit they both look like what I saw onscreen - close enough for me anyway!


----------



## Richard Baker

If the basic geometry and proportions are accurate usually everything else can be fixed as you build/detail it. How much work that will take is a judgment call- I have a number of kits which I keep setting further back in the queue because I could build & enhance several other kits by the time I could finish one of those.

Building was much easier before the VCR/DVD & the Internet. The original AMT Enterprise looked great to me- holding it in front of the old black & white TV at home it seemed to be a great replica of what I enjoyed watching each week. Now in this wonderful age of information we can see what the filming model looks like in infinitesimal detail and we can figure out from blueprints & set measurements how everything is supposed to fit. This is going to make any model kit hard to please.

The Aurora kit looked pretty good to me- the strange layered detail on the wings I just thought was there to make it look cool. The Moebius kit looked pretty good also (although mentioned above I did not care for the lack of hull paneling). It was not until people started posting about the wing thickness I noticed it. I am not sure what else would need to be fixed with this new retool, I am sure there is a laundry list out there somewhere people are filling out now. 

The Discover kit is the one I am really anxious for- it would be great to have it in 1:144 but then again I was happy to get a 9 inch one until I discovered was a recast. If these new kits sell well I am hoping Moebius can find a way to extend the License, if not then we wil at very least has a styrene Discovery, a kit I have been wanting since the sixties.


----------



## SUNGOD

Same here. I didn't notice the wing thickness at all. The only thing I really noticed was the lack of physical detail. 

That was what put me off buying the kit. And of course if any new kit is the same it'll put me off that too.


----------



## SUNGOD

One thing I hope they do with the Discovery also is to make the windows in clear plastic. Even if it doesn't have an interior (though it would be nice to have a bit of an interior in the ball section).


----------



## Richard Baker

Whatever Moebius does not do the aftermarket will take care of- I see bothr resin and photoetch Pod Bay interiors options and a Command Deck for sure.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Whatever Moebius does not do the aftermarket will take care of- I see bothr resin and photoetch Pod Bay interiors options and a Command Deck for sure.




It must be tricky for Moebius to decide on how much to do but I think any windows should be in clear plastic at the very least. 

I would like to see Moebius do a bit of an interior but whether they will or not who knows. Even a little EVA pod or two would be cool.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> One thing I hope they do with the Discovery also is to make the windows in clear plastic. Even if it doesn't have an interior (though it would be nice to have a bit of an interior in the ball section).


I could see, as a rough expedient, including either a color printed cardboard faux interior (one side unmanned cockpit, the other side with one of them in the seat), or maybe an additional clear plastic 'scrim' that a decal can be applied to, again with and without astronaut- so the simple installing of a LED would give the right look. Yes, full interior would be nice but I do think that would end up being something Paul would have to make


----------



## Richard Baker

Moebius did take some heat for leaving the Viper Mk7 cockpit rather unfinished and depending on the aftermarket people to complete.

The Flight Deck is rather easy with just something to busy it up behind the windows, but the Space Pod Garage is another mater. If you open up the doors you will have a very clear view inside that needs something.

Just curious- how big with the Command Sphere be if the model kit does come in at 1:144?


----------



## SUNGOD

I know it's easy for me to say but I think they should do as much of an interior as possible and if that increases the price then so be it. As I've often said I don't think plastic kit manufacturers should pander to the aftermarket. The aftermarket guys will always find something to do anyway.

After all most sci fi ship kits have an interior where applicable. Something like the Tie Fighters which have a similar ball shape and an interior. Of course it all depends on how big it is too.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Moebius did take some heat for leaving the Viper Mk7 cockpit rather unfinished and depending on the aftermarket people to complete.
> 
> The Flight Deck is rather easy with just something to busy it up behind the windows, but the Space Pod Garage is another mater. If you open up the doors you will have a very clear view inside that needs something.
> 
> Just curious- how big with the Command Sphere be if the model kit does come in at 1:144?




Yes leaving things unfinished for the aftermarket like that isn't a good idea to me (and looks like many other people too). The Discovery has quite a big long window so unless the kit is tiny (which itself might not be a good idea) it needs something as far as I can see. I know R2's Eagles don't have an interior on the pods but that would be a lot of extra plastic and the windows are supposed to be tinted.

As for the size I'm useless at working that out so can't help there.


----------



## mach7

I think at 1/144 the CM would be about 4.5 Inches.

I think Steve H has the right idea about cardboard interior or decals. 
The Cardboard worked relatively well for the derelict and is inexpensive.

Myself, I would like to see a separate add on kit from Moebius with a full Podbay/cockpit.
Kind of like what R2 did with the pilot parts for the big Enterprise.

But seeing as this project (and the orion) are probably very far along in the design phase, it's probably too late.

In any event I'm looking forward to this, A lot! And if Moebius does not do an interior someone else will.

Now that I think about it, Can you imagine what Paragrfix will come up with!?
It will be very nice!


----------



## SUNGOD

I'd prefer to see any interior included with the kit but I'd definitely pay if Moebius did the interior as a separate kit.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> I think at 1/144 the CM would be about 4.5 Inches.
> 
> I think Steve H has the right idea about cardboard interior or decals.
> The Cardboard worked relatively well for the derelict and is inexpensive.
> 
> Myself, I would like to see a separate add on kit from Moebius with a full Podbay/cockpit.
> Kind of like what R2 did with the pilot parts for the big Enterprise.
> 
> But seeing as this project (and the orion) are probably very far along in the design phase, it's probably too late.
> 
> In any event I'm looking forward to this, A lot! And if Moebius does not do an interior someone else will.
> 
> Now that I think about it, Can you imagine what Paragrfix will come up with!?
> It will be very nice!


I was thinking, with a decal, it could either be applied to its own clear plastic 'backer' to be illuminated like a translight thing, or a white piece of plastic and lit from above or below. 

The cardboard cockpit image would be for people who just want to build the kit and not fiddle with stuff. (sheepishly raises hand to show he'd be one of those builders  ) 

And Paul, I expect he'd do his most amazing work to date with Discovery add-ons. One thing I could see, the framing around the outside of the spine modules that was removed just before filming. Maybe that would be its own fret (several frets? probably), but I'm sure it'll be desired by some. 

I'm pretty sure that any included Space Pods will need replacement arms. 

Cockpit and pod bay, obviously. Emergency (well, actually, just a plain old 'man size' lock so they didn't have to depressurize the entire pod bay for a simple spacewalk) airlock? Not a bad idea. 

The one thing I keep coming back to, can they make the spine strong enough (and still in scale) to hold everything without sagging or bowing? I'm worried they may over-simplify.


----------



## mach7

I would think the spine would need a metal rod insert.


----------



## SUNGOD

Well Moebius included a metal rod for the streetlamp with the Mars Attacks kit so maybe that's not out of the question. As long as it's made from non corrodable metal.


----------



## JeffBond

I have no special insight into this but in terms of packaging and costs, it would make sense for Moebius to leave the metal rod out entirely and have the builder purchase that separately. I realize this would be a bit unusual if it would be a necessary component to support the model, but it would allow Moebius to package the kit in a much smaller, more manageable box size that would save them money in packaging and shipping costs and would likely reduce the price of the kit. With the rod left out you could probably package the Discovery in a box around 12"x12," whereas with the rod you're talking about a box 25 or 30" long? That's a huge difference.


----------



## robn1

A shorter two or three piece rod that threads together would solve both problems, and should be strong enough to support the model.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> A shorter two or three piece rod that threads together would solve both problems, and should be strong enough to support the model.


I was thinking 'telescoping' segments of brass tube myself. Threaded rods would be good, esp. if one wanted a 'single point' stand at the nominal mid point (where the big antenna lives) block. They could thread into a 3-way 'joint' that has a threaded connector for a stand. 

One thing I hope is they DON'T try to use solid styrene plastic rods for the spine. I could see that turning into a nightmare.


----------



## mach7

No matter what we get, I see this as being a substantial total investment.

I'm expecting $75 for the kit. I'm sure a resin add on set will be available from someone. 
Probably another $50. Pauls PE set, who knows a basic detail would probably be around $20
but a full PE pod bay and cockpit could end up being considerably more.
A light kit.
Maybe some extra decals.
Small resin spacepods and a resin Frank Poole.
A huge black monolith.

The list is endless.

Come to think of it, a half sphere painted like Jupiter would be a very nice base.


----------



## Steve H

One of the 'missing' pieces in the movie 2001 is how was Discovery built. I assume in orbit, so was there a 'construction shack' in low Earth orbit, or Lunar orbit? It's generally assumed that with a nuclear propulsion system Discovery would have been boosted on its way by chemical rockets until it was safe to light the atomics. 

gaaaa, now I want to dig out the novel. I seem to recall that Discovery was built for some other mission but it was re-tasked for Jupiter because of the Monolith Signal. It's callsign is more a reflection of that re-tasking than any kind of a 'serial number' so there may well have been other ships like Discovery and isn't that an interesting thought.


----------



## SUNGOD

JeffBond said:


> I have no special insight into this but in terms of packaging and costs, it would make sense for Moebius to leave the metal rod out entirely and have the builder purchase that separately. I realize this would be a bit unusual if it would be a necessary component to support the model, but it would allow Moebius to package the kit in a much smaller, more manageable box size that would save them money in packaging and shipping costs and would likely reduce the price of the kit. With the rod left out you could probably package the Discovery in a box around 12"x12," whereas with the rod you're talking about a box 25 or 30" long? That's a huge difference.




Probably. Only thing is though it can be a pain trying to find things like this. It's always a pain trying to find weights for aircraft models so they don't tail sit.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> No matter what we get, I see this as being a substantial total investment.
> 
> I'm expecting $75 for the kit. I'm sure a resin add on set will be available from someone.
> Probably another $50. Pauls PE set, who knows a basic detail would probably be around $20
> but a full PE pod bay and cockpit could end up being considerably more.
> A light kit.
> Maybe some extra decals.
> Small resin spacepods and a resin Frank Poole.
> A huge black monolith.
> 
> The list is endless.
> 
> Come to think of it, a half sphere painted like Jupiter would be a very nice base.




I'd like to see Moebius do a good interior and space pods. I think that would be a neat touch for the kit and I'd pay more than $75 for it. I'd pay around $120 (£90) for a really good kit.

They're doing the Proteus with an interior so I can't see why the Discovery can't have one as well.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I'd like to see Moebius do a good interior and space pods. I think that would be a neat touch for the kit and I'd pay more than $75 for it. I'd pay around $120 (£90) for a really good kit.
> 
> They're doing the Proteus with an interior so I can't see why the Discovery can't have one as well.


Apples and oranges I'm afraid. 

Discovery was the usual series of sets on a soundstage unconnected with the giant miniatures. 

Proteus, the prop WAS the set. It could be figured that the look of the exterior was the least amount of design that they could hope moviegoers would believe was a functioning submarine.


----------



## fire91bird

SUNGOD said:


> I'd like to see Moebius do a good interior and space pods. I think that would be a neat touch for the kit and I'd pay more than $75 for it. I'd pay around $120 (£90) for a really good kit.
> 
> They're doing the Proteus with an interior so I can't see why the Discovery can't have one as well.


Well, the Proteus is 1:32 scale with huge windows, for one reason. It requires an interior. Although a Discovery at 1:144 would be large, the main window will be tiny and the visibility of the interior is going to be limited. It seems logical and cost-effective for Moebius to do a minimal interior. My thought is 1:144 is probably the largest scale they will consider (that would be approx. 38 inches), so anything smaller and the interior is even less visible. Remember, we actually know nothing of the kit. This is all speculation and navel-gazing of course, just attempting to keep the expectations reasonable.


----------



## mach7

In the book, Discovery was built for the Jupiter mission. After the TMA-1 signal the mission was re planed to go to Saturn.

In the book Saturn is where the the TMA-1 signal is sent. 

For the movie, Kubrick could not get a satisfactory Saturn. They did get a good looking Jupiter so the movie was re-written 
for Jupiter as the mission.

The book was already written by that point so it stayed with Saturn as the mission.

Firebird is indeed correct. This is all speculation at this point. 38 inches is long, but manageable for display because it is so
thin. That scale would allow for acceptable detail. I'm hoping that with the spine being basically 3 modules repeating it can
be done in that scale cost effectively. A 4-5 inch CM should not be too expensive. 

But I'll take any scale!


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Apples and oranges I'm afraid.
> 
> Discovery was the usual series of sets on a soundstage unconnected with the giant miniatures.
> 
> Proteus, the prop WAS the set. It could be figured that the look of the exterior was the least amount of design that they could hope moviegoers would believe was a functioning submarine.




True but they seem to be going for it with that kit so it would be nice to see a lot of effort put into the 2001 kits. I think it's fair to say that even though many people want a Proteus.......2001 is probably a lot more well known and there's a lot more fans of the 2001 ships than the Proteus.


----------



## SUNGOD

fire91bird said:


> Well, the Proteus is 1:32 scale with huge windows, for one reason. It requires an interior. Although a Discovery at 1:144 would be large, the main window will be tiny and the visibility of the interior is going to be limited. It seems logical and cost-effective for Moebius to do a minimal interior. My thought is 1:144 is probably the largest scale they will consider (that would be approx. 38 inches), so anything smaller and the interior is even less visible. Remember, we actually know nothing of the kit. This is all speculation and navel-gazing of course, just attempting to keep the expectations reasonable.






But don't forget many aircraft kits have interiors that end up hardly being seen. I spent ages with my B17's interior but hardly any of it can be seen now. It's just nice to know it's there.

Obviously as you point out scale is an issue but I'd argue that instead of doing a minimal interior they do the maximum that can feasibly be done for the scale even if you can't see much of it. The Discovery does have a big long window after all.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> In the book, Discovery was built for the Jupiter mission. After the TMA-1 signal the mission was re planed to go to Saturn.
> 
> In the book Saturn is where the the TMA-1 signal is sent.
> 
> For the movie, Kubrick could not get a satisfactory Saturn. They did get a good looking Jupiter so the movie was re-written
> for Jupiter as the mission.
> 
> The book was already written by that point so it stayed with Saturn as the mission.
> 
> Firebird is indeed correct. This is all speculation at this point. 38 inches is long, but manageable for display because it is so
> thin. That scale would allow for acceptable detail. I'm hoping that with the spine being basically 3 modules repeating it can
> be done in that scale cost effectively. A 4-5 inch CM should not be too expensive.
> 
> But I'll take any scale!



THAT'S what was tickling the back of my brain, that 'memory sector' that wasn't overwritten by time. 

Thank you!

And yes it is all speculation. Moebius might want a small kit, maybe 1/1000 scale-or not, that's way too tiny, maybe 1/500. Or go 1/700 to be 'waterline' scale. Or they may want an insanely huge kit and go 1/100 scale, with options for R/C submarine use. 

(hey, it's a thing. People have been taking the 1/350 Enterprise and Refit Enterprise kits among others and 'flying' them underwater. SOMEBODY will do that if the Discovery is large enough  )


----------



## fire91bird

SUNGOD said:


> But don't forget many aircraft kits have interiors that end up hardly being seen. I spent ages with my B17's interior but hardly any of it can be seen now. It's just nice to know it's there.
> 
> Obviously as you point out scale is an issue but I'd argue that instead of doing a minimal interior they do the maximum that can feasibly be done for the scale even if you can't see much of it. The Discovery does have a big long window after all.


Well, at 1:144 scale, that window is proportionally long, but not very big. It's more likely Moebius will focus on the more visible aspects of the ship and depict only what can be seen through that window.


----------



## mach7

As a point of reference, here is a printed 1/1000 Discovery, Aries 1B, Orion, and Moonbus along
with the Moebius Moonbus and Orion.

1/1000 is a VERY small XD-1, about 6.5 inches.


----------



## Richard Baker

Nice!
I noticed the novelization behind the models - first edition I believe, I still have mine that I read just after watching the film.

Where did you find the 1:1000 Discovery? While the Moebius kit is Grail, it would be great to have a Discovery displayed with the 1:1000 Trek and Yamato


----------



## John P

For further reference, this is Stargazer's 1/144 Discovery's CM. The finished model would be 30" long, and the CM is 3 1/4" in dia. (It's in top/bottom halves - that little gap will go away with a tiny squeeze when I glue it)


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> For further reference, this is Stargazer's 1/144 Discovery's CM. The finished model would be 30" long, and the CM is 3 1/4" in dia. (It's in top/bottom halves - that little gap will go away with a tiny squeeze when I glue it)




If it's the same size as that or bigger then I think Moebius should definitely do a cockpit. I don't know about anyone else but I don't want to see anything smaller than that as it'll be much harder to do good detail, and I think a Discovery model should have as much detail as possible.


Plus......even if the lower doors are shut a little Eva pod would be a nice touch


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> For further reference, this is Stargazer's 1/144 Discovery's CM. The finished model would be 30" long, and the CM is 3 1/4" in dia. (It's in top/bottom halves - that little gap will go away with a tiny squeeze when I glue it)


Said it before, saying it again, there's nothing like a decent picture to really help put something into perspective. 

That seems a reasonable, do-able size. Shamefully, it also makes me think of a '2001' Madball. 

If they omitted the pod bay interior (don't laugh, I can see it as a rational cost-saving decision. Not the RIGHT one but I can see it.) the only serious task is going to be that huge engine section. Making a pod bay interior is an all-or-nothing deal, they can't half-a** it. That also means making decent Pods.

ETA: It's a real shame they've got such a short-term license with whomever. It must be a real pisser they can't exploit the 50th Anniversary with a bunch of kits. Of course they don't seem to have the resources to chuff out, say, 5 or 6 new-tool 2001 kits. 

(what would I do, besides Discovery and the Orion? Large scale Pod, Aries 1b, figure kit with Monolith, Ape-man on one side and Astronaut on the other, MAYBE the Space Station. Maybe. )


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Said it before, saying it again, there's nothing like a decent picture to really help put something into perspective.
> 
> That seems a reasonable, do-able size. Shamefully, it also makes me think of a '2001' Madball.
> 
> If they omitted the pod bay interior (don't laugh, I can see it as a rational cost-saving decision. Not the RIGHT one but I can see it.) the only serious task is going to be that huge engine section. Making a pod bay interior is an all-or-nothing deal, they can't half-a** it. That also means making decent Pods.
> 
> ETA: It's a real shame they've got such a short-term license with whomever. It must be a real pisser they can't exploit the 50th Anniversary with a bunch of kits. Of course they don't seem to have the resources to chuff out, say, 5 or 6 new-tool 2001 kits.
> 
> (what would I do, besides Discovery and the Orion? Large scale Pod, Aries 1b, figure kit with Monolith, Ape-man on one side and Astronaut on the other, MAYBE the Space Station. Maybe. )




What they'll do with the pod bay obviously we don't know (I'd like a nice attempt too) but if we're getting a decent size kit then I'd say try and do the cockpit as detailed as possible for the scale as unlike the pod bay it can't be hidden behind doors.

It's a shame they've got such a short term licence but I definitely think they've picked the right 2 to start off with. The Discovery's probably the top of everyone's 2001 wants lists and the original Orion they did was lacking so another attempt is welcome.


----------



## Zombie_61

SUNGOD said:


> ...It's always a pain trying to find weights for aircraft models so they don't tail sit.


Sorry for going off-topic, but stop by your local tire shop and ask if you can have a handful or two of the old weights they removed from the wheels when they balanced new tires. There will probably be an old bucket or other kind of receptacle next to the balancing machine(s) at least partially filled with them. The clips are sheet metal, but the weights are relatively soft lead that can be cut to the size (and weight) you need to balance out your "tail sitters". The shop is just going to dispose of them anyway, so it can't hurt to ask.


----------



## John P

Zombie_61 said:


> Sorry for going off-topic, but stop by your local tire shop and ask if you can have a handful or two of the old weights they removed from the wheels when they balanced new tires. There will probably be an old bucket or other kind of receptacle next to the balancing machine(s) at least partially filled with them. The clips are sheet metal, but the weights are relatively soft lead that can be cut to the size (and weight) you need to balance out your "tail sitters". The shop is just going to dispose of them anyway, so it can't hurt to ask.


Buy a box of BBs, or a bag of birdshot for reloading.
When I gave up on reloading my own ammo, I had a box of .45 and a box of 9mm hardball slugs leftover. I've been using those for weights for years.


Get one of these and you'll never want for weights again:
Eagle 25-lb. Bag Magnum Lead Shot : Cabela's


----------



## stargazer

I would like to reply to several posts concerning scale

From the book 2001: A Space Odyssey.
“Discovery measured almost* 400 ft end to end but the little universe occupied by her crew lay entirely inside the 40 ft sphere of the pressure hull”. (*Underline is mine)

Concerning Size.

Facts. The diameter of the Discovery pressure sphere(CM) can be divided EXACTLY into Discovery's length 9 times (9 X ratio). This is true for both 'larger and smaller' studio models, and by counting pixels from movie frame grabs or a studio still of a side-on image of Discovery. So you only need to know either the diameter of the sphere or the length of the ship to determine the size of the other, if you know only one)

A Pod, a 'person' and the pod bay doors (10 ft dia), are the only objects seen in the movie 'outside' the Discovery (and in the same movie frame for size comparison) The pod is about 1/6 the Dia. of the CM (as filmed). The full size pod has a known diameter of 81 inches (from studio plan) and a person is, say 6 ft tall in a space suit. A scale model pod was made at 1/6th of the full size pod. (13.5 inches diameter.) 

Problem is, the large discovery model (known generally as the 54 ft model) was either built longer than the stated 54 ft.... Or was indeed made the size given (54ft) and made at a scale of about 1/6.6 (and not 1/6th.which would match the model pod). In either case the Pod is slightly out of scale to the Discovery model exterior.

So what does this mean? Taking into account all the above, if the Discovery were 'real' it would have a CM 40 ft in dia. and (40ft X 9 ratio) is 360 ft.long... (The size of Discovery stated in the book)

Problem is that at this size (40ft) most of the full size 1/1 sets will not fit into the CM... If you cheat the pod deck a bit to fit, most of it will, the centrifuge will not fit... but that makes room for a 'proper fit' for the flight deck level !

Bigger.

Some bits of the full size sets (and all the pod bay deck level )... WILL fit, if you use the 52 ft dia size (given on the 7th Jan 1966 issue plan, (for the pod deck level). But nothing else will, unless you 'cheat' it in. 

To NOT cheat anything to fit, you need to increase the whole CM to 60 ft Dia. in order to fit the whole interior into it. (inc Centrifuge). I have drawn plans for this.

The point is that a person, a pod and the pod bay doors at 10ft dia, are of a 'constant size'. (and maybe the 1/1 dish too, as a person is seen standing close next to it in a studio back lot photo... Btw using the guy for scale I made it some 12ft dia.) You can make the exterior as large as you like. but these three elements must stay the same... and only make sense placed with a 40 ft CM.

At this size a 1/144 model of discovery is some 30 inches long with a CM 3.3 inches dia and a pod .56" dia.. and pod bay doors at 10/12ths inch dia. :grin2:


----------



## Steve H

And hence my speculation that the centrifuge is actually larger than it would 'really' be in order to make room for lights, the camera, blah blah blah. 

(I think in reality it wouldn't be spinning to give 1g, more likely 1/6g, just enough to keep them healthy.)

Once again the ghost of 'production reality Vs the reality of the miniature' shows up at the banquet.


----------



## SteveR

The TARDIS effect is a given, isn't it?


----------



## mach7

I believe it was stated in the book that the Centrifuge was spun to lunar gravity. So 1/6 makes sense.

But I'm going from memory here.


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> The TARDIS effect is a given, isn't it?


Surprisingly, not. 

Read earlier when Stargazer mentioned he scaled his Orion spaceplane to the size of the flight cabin set which resulted in a larger physical model than what published stats call for. It's a BEAUTIFUL model but by some metrics it would be 'wrong'. 

Ya know what? It's emotion Vs. logic. One SEES an actor on a set, sees people interacting. This 'feels' real, it's objective reality (the illusion of film) because we SEE it. 

But keeping in mind 'production reality' is logic. It requires stepping away from 'what one sees' to consider the needs of production. How to get the MASSIVE amount of light is needed to create the image desired (even if what WE see on the screen seems dark), the proper focus, the proper depth of field. How to get the camera into position (MUCH easier now but three-strip Technicolor, or three-camera Cinerama shoots took so much space, those things were HUGE) and the necessary crew (bare minimum of 2- operator and focus puller), plus sound and any mechanical effects and...

Probably the most famous example is the Galileo shuttle from Star Trek. It's generally accepted that the physical prop on the stage wasn't actual 1/1 scale to the design, but when the actors are walking around it, touching it, we see it as real. Then we cut to the interior and we see actors standing, talking, doing things, that seems real. Our minds 'gloss over' the few shots of actors coming out of the stage prop WAY hunched over at the door. 

Conversely we look at the Proteus from Fantastic Voyage, we SEE the whole dang interior (OK, technically maybe 80%) thru those improbably large windows and when they cut to 'inside' for dialog and action there IS no conflict because they basically built the set and wrapped the sub exterior around it. In this case the 'logic' that rears its head is "but windows that large would be dangerous on any sub that had to go deeper than, say, 30 feet and where is there room for this and that and the other things?" and we tell our brains to shut up, often by noticing how well that wetsuit fit Raquel Welch. 

The thing is, when there's a conflict between emotion and logic hits, people get REALLY upset and there's no real way to reconcile. Back to Galileo. The conflict between the exterior and interior is real, enough to be a factor in the making of a new kit. If they make the shuttle to the dimensions of the stage prop, a screen-accurate recreation of the interior set (in scale, it's important to say that) is impossible. If they enlarge the exterior to fit that set then it won't match what we see on the show (and will be insanely obvious if you place figures around it for a diorama), and if you take the compromise position, make the exterior match the prop, make the interior screen accurate but shrink the scale so it fits, THAT won't work. The only other reasonable course of action would be to make the model of the prop, scaled to the physical measurements of that, and completely omit ANY interior. Heck, go full out, make the interior exactly like the prop-mostly empty, visible frame and supports out of camera view of the door, etc. 

Any of these courses would make a significant consumer segment shout like Lemongrab from Adventure Time: "UNACCEPTABLE!!!"

Logically, it's a mug's game to fit any interior into an effects miniature. That's never ever going to stop people from WANTING to do that.


----------



## stargazer

Surprisingly, not. 

" Read earlier when Stargazer mentioned he scaled his Orion spaceplane to the size of the flight cabin set which resulted in a larger physical model than what published stats call for. It's a BEAUTIFUL model but by some metrics it would be 'wrong" 

Its is interesting... And why I like 2001 so much, it is a conundrum... A problem to be solved.

When I made the Orion years ago there was NO "published stat" of its size. The interior was the only thing to logically base its exterior size on... as there was and is no external clue ! , no known door size, because there was no 1/1 scale external door set made. Nor was a 81inch pod seen near it. 

With the Discovery, we now have a similar problem.. When I made it there was no published stat (Unless you count the book) however the 'new' published stat says 52 feet dia, (and so 9 X 52' = 468 ft long). But this is not what you see in the movie due to 'Known' external reference clues... So is this stat to be used... or ignored ? :wink2: 

A 1/144 scale discovery at this size would be a CM 4.3" Dia and 39 inches long (and a Pod in proportion would be over 8 1/2 ft Dia. scaled up to Full size.


----------



## Steve H

Stargazer1 said:


> Surprisingly, not.
> 
> " Read earlier when Stargazer mentioned he scaled his Orion spaceplane to the size of the flight cabin set which resulted in a larger physical model than what published stats call for. It's a BEAUTIFUL model but by some metrics it would be 'wrong"
> 
> Its is interesting... And why I like 2001 so much, it is a conundrum... A problem to be solved.
> 
> When I made the Orion years ago there was NO "published stat" of its size. The interior was the only thing to logically base its exterior size on... as there was and is no external clue ! , no known door size, because there was no 1/1 scale external door set made. Nor was a 81inch pod seen near it.
> 
> With the Discovery, we now have a similar problem.. When I made it there was no published stat (Unless you count the book) however the 'new' published stat says 52 feet dia, (and so 9 X 52' = 468 ft long). But this is not what you see in the movie due to 'Known' external reference clues... So is this stat to be used... or ignored ? :wink2:
> 
> A 1/144 scale discovery at this size would be a CM 4.3" Dia and 39 inches long (and a Pod in proportion would be over 8 1/2 ft Dia. scaled up to Full size.


Well, the REAL question is, is a model of the Discovery meant to be a portrayal of a real vehicle, or is it nothing more than a copy of the filming miniature? ONE of the filming miniatures I should say. 

As you say, the main way to figure a size/scale is by comparing to human reference points. The airlock door and the Pod bay door. One is a rational assumption (the airlock door is not going to be 10 feet tall nor is it 4 feet tall), the other is a 'best guess' based on, wait for it... visual (emotional) assumptions from actors on the interior set. 

Now. The airlock, you want that as small as you can (because it's a hole in the pressure hull) but it has to be large enough to pass a fully suited astronaut and whatever reasonable hand-held equipment he may be called upon to carry either in or out of the vehicle. 

Pod Bay doors, they were rather clever in this. Normally, you would want room to maneuver a pod safely in and out, but they went the extra step to have the Pod maintenance pedestal/platform extend to launch the Pod. One assumes the Pod is physically secured to that platform to keep it from floating about and crashing into things every time Discovery altered direction. 

The central flaw is, THREE Pod bay doors is just crazy from a pressure hull point of view. Only thing I can figure is it was thought it would be necessary to launch all three Pods simultaneously to perform the mission. 

Onward. We see a number of shots of actors walking around the bay, including near the doors. We see them near the Pod so we have that visual measure (which may not be 'true', again. The Pods may need to be a bit larger to carry their fuel and atmosphere and room for mechanical stuff). If we trust that visual measure.

I say build it so it looks like what we see and don't sweat the rest.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Well, I'm thankful Frank is willing to spend the money on a new tool for the Orion. I have to admit that their first Orion was the first time I was disappointed in a Moebius model. Look forward to the new kit as well as the Discovery.


----------



## Steve H

Stargazer, I want to be sure I'm not coming across poorly. You've designed some amazing impressive garage kits. I don't fault your research or your skill. My comments are meant to take the context of "what a rivet counter may think" regarding scale fidelity to the... well, whatever. Construction plans, actual miniature measurements, whatever. Your kits look great and I don't care if they're 'scaled' based on stage interior sets or from a description in a book or if you measured from a bubblegum card. Let the rivetcounters bitch and moan in their tiny worlds.


----------



## Steve H

Capt. Krik said:


> Well, I'm thankful Frank is willing to spend the money on a new tool for the Orion. I have to admit that their first Orion was the first time I was disappointed in a Moebius model. Look forward to the new kit as well as the Discovery.


Remember, what we WANT is precise phrasing. "New tool from an all new original digital master" is desired.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> Sorry for going off-topic, but stop by your local tire shop and ask if you can have a handful or two of the old weights they removed from the wheels when they balanced new tires. There will probably be an old bucket or other kind of receptacle next to the balancing machine(s) at least partially filled with them. The clips are sheet metal, but the weights are relatively soft lead that can be cut to the size (and weight) you need to balance out your "tail sitters". The shop is just going to dispose of them anyway, so it can't hurt to ask.





Thanks I'll look into that. I have used things like nuts and bolts in the past but I always find it halts the building process somewhat. It's always handy when companies like Tamiya include weight in kits like the Gloster Meteor and Me262.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Remember, what we WANT is precise phrasing. "New tool from an all new original digital master" is desired.



I wonder what reference they'll use?


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Thanks I'll look into that. I have used things like nuts and bolts in the past but I always find it halts the building process somewhat. It's always handy when companies like Tamiya include weight in kits like the Gloster Meteor and Me262.


Back in the stone age ('70s) clay was often used for nose weight, because it could be packed in whatever space was available. Some would mix clay with lead fishing weights. Mind, in our modern, hyper sensitive world, lead may no longer be used for fishing weights.


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> Stargazer, I want to be sure I'm not coming across poorly. You've designed some amazing impressive garage kits. I don't fault your research or your skill. My comments are meant to take the context of "what a rivet counter may think" regarding scale fidelity to the... well, whatever. Construction plans, actual miniature measurements, whatever. Your kits look great and I don't care if they're 'scaled' based on stage interior sets or from a description in a book or if you measured from a bubblegum card. Let the rivetcounters bitch and moan in their tiny worlds.


Crike No... I like your posts. I am also trying to get across that it is not so straightforward about what is meant, when folk ask for 1/144 scale, and often when you make a decision for scale on one model. it don't follow that the same decision is right for another. 

BTW the only craft in 2001 that the interior will fit into the exterior without cheating it is the moonbus.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> Back in the stone age ('70s) clay was often used for nose weight, because it could be packed in whatever space was available. Some would mix clay with lead fishing weights. Mind, in our modern, hyper sensitive world, lead may no longer be used for fishing weights.


How many .45 caliber bullets does it take to hold the nose down on a 1/48 scale resin XP-67?
http://www.inpayne.com/models/planes/xp-67-29.jpg


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> Back in the stone age ('70s) clay was often used for nose weight, because it could be packed in whatever space was available. Some would mix clay with lead fishing weights. Mind, in our modern, hyper sensitive world, lead may no longer be used for fishing weights.


Lead wheel weights are being phased out -- they're already banned in several states, including California. Your local tire shop should have plenty of old lead weights that need to be properly disposed of, and they probably won't mind if you grab a handful or two. (Just make sure there isn't an EPA inspector around.)


----------



## SUNGOD

My old man used to make lead soldiers when he was a kid. I don't know how much he handled the stuff but it didn't seem to affect him though.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> My old man used to make lead soldiers when he was a kid. I don't know how much he handled the stuff but it didn't seem to affect him though.


It's not the handling so much, it's the ingesting. I'm not sure how much damage inhaling fumes from the crucible he melted the lead it might potentially cause but again, that's pretty short-term in relation to eating it. See also all the panic over lead in paint. 

The discontinuing of lead in fishing weights and shotgun pellets is, again, more about fish and wildlife ingesting it.

IIRC concentrations of lead cause problems with the brain, maybe other nerve damage. So not a good idea to be eating it. Myself, I would tend to think that lead shotgun pellets, bullets and fishing weights don't really impact the ecosystem as much as is feared, but hey, I could be wrong. It just seems there would have to be a WHOLE LOT of detached fishing weights to have a chance that EVERY fish would ingest a fatal or DNA damaging amount, but again, I may be suffering from using all that lead-based enamel paint in my youth.


----------



## Richard Baker

It is not so much the ingesting a fatal amount (or enough to damage DNA), it is that anything that eats the fish will get the lead also.


----------



## Paulbo

stargazer said:


> Problem is, the large discovery model (known generally as the 54 ft model) was either built longer than the stated 54 ft.... Or was indeed made the size given (54ft) and made at a scale of about 1/6.6 (and not 1/6th.which would match the model pod). In either case the Pod is slightly out of scale to the Discovery model exterior.


The problem originated from the model of the space pod. It was made too big so not only did it mess up the 1/1 scale ratio between the two, but ... it meant they had to rebuild the doors on the Discovery miniature to allow the pod model to enter and exit.


----------



## Steve H

Paulbo said:


> The problem originated from the model of the space pod. It was made too big so not only did it mess up the 1/1 scale ratio between the two, but ... it meant they had to rebuild the doors on the Discovery miniature to allow the pod model to enter and exit.


Interesting! So, let's play speculation! What is the 'correct' solution for the best model kit? Reduce the Pod (the tiny, tiny Pod) to its 'correct' size and reduce the Pod Bay doors, or replicate 'as-is' ?

And which miniature was altered? The 'close up' Crew Module or the full body complete ship? Both? I don't think the full ship miniature had opening doors and all that, did it? gaaaaa.


----------



## SUNGOD

Guy's bad news I'm afraid. It looks like Moebius is much further along with the 2001 Discovery than we thought and there's actually a test shot doing the rounds.........


http://res3.graysonline.com/handler...&id=8511724&s=n&index=0&ts=635655343370070000


I don't know about anyone else but I think it has some serious accuracy issues. The spine looks way to short to me and it just doesn't look right.:frown2:


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Guy's bad news I'm afraid. It looks like Moebius is much further along with the 2001 Discovery than we thought and there's actually a test shot doing the rounds.........
> 
> 
> http://res3.graysonline.com/handler...&id=8511724&s=n&index=0&ts=635655343370070000
> 
> 
> I don't know about anyone else but I think it has some serious accuracy issues. The spine looks way to short to me and it just doesn't look right.:frown2:


Hmmm, and I question the color.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Hmmm, and I question the color.




Definitely. I don't know what Moebius were thinking. That metallic stuff could affect the white when it's painted on.


----------



## stargazer

Paulbo said:


> The problem originated from the model of the space pod. It was made too big so not only did it mess up the 1/1 scale ratio between the two, but ... it meant they had to rebuild the doors on the Discovery miniature to allow the pod model to enter and exit.


Hi I have very extensively studied all the existing plans, The pod bay doors are 10 ft dia on both the inside and outside of the full size pod bay set, and a 81 inch dia pod on its platform will go through them! 

The full size pod(s) is 81 inches dia. It says so on studio plans and was indeed built that size. The Larger model pod was indeed made 1/6 th the size of the full size pod. So there is no discrepancy no mistake with that model either.

The model pod was/is intended to go with the '54ft' Discovery model. If the pod is 1/6 scale (which it is) then you would expect the 54 ft model to be 1/6 scale also. Here are the figures for that. The 54 ft model had a CM 72 inches in dia. ( It gives this Dia. on studio plans). So at 1/6 scale a 6 ft CM scales up to 36 ft dia (if real) (and 9 x 36ft) is 324 ft long. this is clearly too small and is where I feel, the discrepancy is between it and the full size set. Where the full size doors scale down at 1/6 scale to 20" dia, and the doors on the 6 ft dia CM PLANS are at 1/6 scale 18" dia.

Interestingly I have a few references from the time that mention a "60 ft discovery". (and even an 80ft one)
This would have a CM 80 inches in Dia. and so would work out at being exactly 1/6th scale. Same as the pod. I think that this was the intended size, but for whatever reason the discovery model/plans got made smaller... hence the scale discrepancy. This would not have been accidental the studio plans as mentioned indicate the 'smaller' 6 foot dia. size.


(BTW The difference in door diameter in either case would be 2 " )


----------



## Richard Baker

I am probably wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the large Discovery Command Sphere and the Full size Pod were both built using the same Sphere as a source.


----------



## stargazer

Richard Baker said:


> I am probably wrong, but I think I read somewhere that the large Discovery Command Sphere and the Full size Pod were both built using the same Sphere as a source.


 You are Right you did read that.
It was me years ago... when I speculated about the Size discrepancy before. The Discovery would have to be 60 ft long.... and if so, that was a possibility. ~ 80" CM ~80" pod you get the idea it might. I now lean toward the Discovery being built out of scale with the pod.


----------



## RMC

any pics of the new discovery by MOEBIUS ?


----------



## JeffBond

The model is in development; no one has seen any images of it yet.


----------



## RMC

JeffBond said:


> The model is in development; no one has seen any images of it yet.


gotcha,........thanx jeff :smile 2:


----------



## xsavoie

Lunar Models made a 30 inches long Discovery spaceship and I do not consider it oversized. The spine is very narrow and is part of most of the ship. Surely it would not be more expensive than the Seaview made by Moebius.:grin2:


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

My understanding is the models from 2001 are not subject to copyright and can be produced at will as all previous models save the Aurora & Moonbus (which where tied in to the film) and the Kubrick estate have given their blessings to the production of model kits. However, a licence is required to tie the model kits into the film, which obviously brings additional kudos and perhaps sales.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

rkoenn said:


> At Jaxcon yesterday I spoke for a few minutes with Frank and also picked up another LIS robot for a future build. There was also a display at the door by two Orlando guys, one is Adam Johnson (a 2001 expert), who have published 2001: The Lost Science and had some of the ships on display. I spoke with them for a bit and Johnson has been hired by Frank to provide all the technical details on the Discovery to help in making the kit which he said is going to be highly detailed and accurate. The license duration is very short ending sometime next year so Frank is only going to be able to produce the Discovery before losing his license, hence no Aries the guy said. But getting a good styrene Discovery is going to be fantastic.


My understanding and I believe it's commonly accepted that the filming miniatures from 2001 are not subject to copyright and furthermore the Kubrick estate has given its blessing to model kit production. However, what is subject to copyright is tying in the models and use of name logos et al to the film. This of course gives additional kudos, and more sales potential.


----------



## Steve H

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> My understanding is the models from 2001 are not subject to copyright and can be produced at will as all previous models save the Aurora & Moonbus (which where tied in to the film) and the Kubrick estate have given their blessings to the production of model kits. However, a licence is required to tie the model kits into the film, which obviously brings additional kudos and perhaps sales.


I'm curious how you come to this conclusion.

The distinctive images from the movie and the use therein are clearly covered by copyright, which is currently in the hands of Warner Brothers after Warners bought up the MGM library of titles. 

What this means is, if you're a garage kit maker dealing in a hundred or so hand-made models, you can get away with it but if you're a company making styrene plastic kits and investing hundreds of thousands of Dollars to mass produce a kit, you're on the radar. Moebius having original Aurora tooling and just not identifying a kit as from 2001 may get a pass (I'm not sure how they got away with recreated tooling but that's a whole other topic). 

In other words, if they decided to make a plastic kit of the Discovery only not call it that, maybe call it "Jupiter mystery exploration ship" or something, I suspect strongly Warner Bros. would still come down hard on them. 

Luckily we don't have to worry about such speculation, because Moebius does in fact have a license and hopefully we'll soon see some test shots or prototype art.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

Steve H said:


> In other words, if they decided to make a plastic kit of the Discovery only not call it that, maybe call it "Jupiter mystery exploration ship" or something, I suspect strongly Warner Bros. would still come down hard


That's entirely correct furthermore Warners don't own the rights to 2001. 

Why were Moebius and Airfix allowed to produce the 2001 clipper with impunity.


----------



## Richard Baker

Moebius produced the Orion and Moonbus IIRC with special permission as long as they kept it with the original Licensed tooling (I believe it was 'grandfathered in' with the original Aurora agreements). That is why both kits are not larger, more elaborate but follow the original release. They did manage to add some new optional parts for the Moonbus to correct the window misinterpretation.

Iconic ship designs are like any other graphic associated with a production. You cannot make an Enterprise and call it something else and get by with it unless you are a below the radar garage kit company. When you see the Discovery there is no question as to where it is from. You might need to pay extra to put 2001 on the box, but the people who control the license watch for infringement.

I think Airfix got involved through a production sharing agreement similar to how Moebius and Revell-Germany cross market kits.

Personally I find it astounding Moebius was able to secure the 2001 license at all. There are a number of people with expensive lawyers who control it and it is almost impossible to get them to agree on anything. There are several books ready to print that are being held up due to trying to secure permissions- IIRC the Kubrick estate is the most difficult. 

I do hate that the license is such a short term thing- perhaps it is the best that could be negotiated at the time. Licenses expiring has caused problems before- the NuBSG Raptor is being held up because of a renewal complication and I think the Round 2 Nu-E was cancelled while in preproduction because they took too long to get the kit ready so by the time the pattern was ready they had not enough time to produce/sell it officially.

If the Discovery and retooled Orion sell very well I am hoping Moebius will get the license renewed- love to see a 1:32 Space Pod and 1:48: Aries 1B in styrene


----------



## SteveR

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> ... furthermore Warners don't own the rights to 2001.


Sorry, I think they do, though shared with MGM in some corporate fashion. 
https://www.warnerbros.com/2001-space-odyssey


----------



## Steve H

SteveR said:


> Sorry, I think they do, though shared with MGM in some corporate fashion.
> https://www.warnerbros.com/2001-space-odyssey


It was part of the first 'deconstruction' of MGM, where MGM, to avoid bankruptcy, sold its back catalog of films (I believe the original cutoff date was 1972, I'm probably wrong) to Warner Bros. MGM held on to its catalog of TV shows, and the associated libraries (Orion and...oh crap, the others -United Artists and the like. I'm just running off memory here) for a time then had to sell them off. Then MGM made a deal with Sony (nee Columbia) for Distribution for home video, then THAT went away and they signed a deal with 20th Fox for distro of home video and it's really a big pile of noodles all twisted around. The one thing that MGM has held onto during all this nonsense is the James Bond Franchise. Which is probably going to have to be re-booted again. 

Sony may have rights to parts of the MGM TV catalog. Sony is really aggressive in those 'high band' cable channels like Get TV and I think Comet. 

It's possible the Kubrick Estate owns 2001, but the deal made to make the movie gives the studio control of licensing. Used to be MGM, now it's Warners. Kubrick Estate may have veto power (Warners can't re-edit the movies for one thing) but I'm pretty darn sure the contract Moebius has is with Warners, not the Kubrick Estate.


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> It was part of the first 'deconstruction' of MGM, where MGM, to avoid bankruptcy, sold its back catalog of films (I believe the original cutoff date was 1972, I'm probably wrong) to Warner Bros. MGM held on to its catalog of TV shows, and the associated libraries (Orion and...oh crap...)...


My heart goes out to anyone attempting to negotiate a 2001 licence.


----------



## Richard Baker

SteveR said:


> My heart goes out to anyone attempting to negotiate a 2001 licence.


It was deemed impossible until Moebius accomplished it.


----------



## scotpens

Richard Baker said:


> It was deemed impossible until Moebius accomplished it.


Hell, if Tom Lowe was able to untangle the web of Batman/Batmobile rights to give us an all-new Batmobile model kit, anything's possible!


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

Thanks for the Reply Richard,



Richard Baker said:


> Moebius produced the Orion and Moonbus IIRC with special permission as long as they kept it with the original Licensed tooling (I believe it was 'grandfathered in' with the original Aurora agreements). That is why both kits are not larger, more elaborate but follow the original release. They did manage to add some new optional parts for the Moonbus to correct the window misinterpretation.


There was no mention of 2001 on any of the packaging, that was not a co-incidence also the Pan Am "meatballs" were omitted from from the Moebius Orion kit to avoid any hint of copyright infringement, with Pan Am as much as anything, despite being defunct the logos are still subject to copyright.

They were many reasons the the kits were back engineered: Not least it kept the production costs down, Aurora had access to the original MGM AD drawings, therefore the kits were ostensibly accurate anyway. There is no such thing as 'grandfathering' as licensing is concerned it does not makes sense - once a license term is complete it's finito Benito, unless one negotiates a new one.

Whilst us 2001 devotees may think there is a good market for these kits. However, in reality the market is a niche of a niche with extremely tight margins and little room for error.



Richard Baker said:


> conic ship designs are like any other graphic associated with a production. You cannot make an Enterprise and call it something else and get by with it unless you are a below the radar garage kit company. When you see the Discovery there is no question as to where it is from. You might need to pay extra to put 2001 on the box, but the people who control the license watch for infringement.


You can't compare the Star Trek franchise to 2001 they are entirely different beasts, with 2001 you can do precisely as you suggest above and that is what Airfix an Moebius have done to date, as long as one avoids tying it back to the film you are fine with 2001 model kits. Which is helped by the Kubrick's estates blessings as regards 2001 models witnessed by Airfix and Moebius and a plethora of garage kits some of which are not insignificant ala Scott Alexander's underwriter models. Tell me any one that has received a C&D order for producing a 2001 kit? Yet, the merest hint with other franchises sees the hammer come down.




Richard Baker said:


> think Airfix got involved through a production sharing agreement similar to how Moebius and Revell-Germany cross market kits.


This again is not true, Airfix first produced the Orion in 1969 when they were wholly an independent UK based kit manufacturer. Airfix produced the Orion by sending their production personnel to watch the film and make a best guess, that is why it is not an accurate model. The first Airfix boxing came with the Pan Am "meatballs", subsequent repops in the '70s and 80s omitted those decals and had their own design. The last re-issue Airfix reintroduced the Pa Am decals, but they were was not featured on the box art or promoted as such. The only thing stopping Airfix repoping the Orion is they currently have no interest in sci-fi what so ever, but rather concentrating on their core business of British subject matter from the '50s and 60s.

Onto the ownership of the film, it is owned by the Kubrick estate and licensed out, this is not an unusual arrangement as many music artists do this with their respective back catalogues some of which I have personally worked on, so I have an insight onto how things like this work.

I hope that clarifies matters.

Marty.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

Steve H said:


> Steve H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how you come to this conclusion.
> 
> The distinctive images from the movie and the use therein are clearly covered by copyright, which is currently in the hands of Warner Brothers after Warners bought up the MGM library of titles.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but not the models, I didn't come to this conclusion, I know. Warners only have the rights to distribute the film/the media,the rights holders are the Kubrick estate.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve H said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this means is, if you're a garage kit maker dealing in a hundred or so hand-made models, you can get away with it but if you're a company making styrene plastic kits and investing hundreds of thousands of Dollars to mass produce a kit, you're on the radar. Moebius having original Aurora tooling and just not identifying a kit as from 2001 may get a pass (I'm not sure how they got away with recreated tooling but that's a whole other topic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moebius don't have the original Aurora tooling, their two 2001 kits they have produced to date were back engineered from kits - their last two 2001 kits have as much standing legal as the Airfix Orion that has been in and out of production for nearly 50 years. Tell me a 2001 kit manufacturer that has been jumped on? We are talking some expensive models here £5-10k a chuck in some instances. Now tell me how many Star Wars garage kits manufactures have been stamped on very quickly?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve H said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if they decided to make a plastic kit of the Discovery only not call it that, maybe call "Jupiter mystery exploration ship" or something, I suspect strongly Warner Bros. would still come down hard on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said below WB only distribute the media, they are not the rights holder and yes you can precisely do what you say.
> 
> Marty
Click to expand...


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

mach7 said:


> PanAm rights are owned by a train shipping company in New Hampshire. They would need to get paid for any copywrited
> name/logos.
> 
> I believe the Kubrick estate owns 2001, though I could be wrong.


Correct on both counts.

Marty.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Thought I'd just mention that I posted a link to my build of the 2001 Orion space plane that I recently finished. It's in the Hobby Talk sci-fi modelling section. Whether I take another crack at it will depend on what Moebius does with the new one.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Moebius officially announced at Wondercon that the 2001 Discovery will be 1:144 scale or 43.33". They will also be producing a 1:6 LIS Robot with a seamless bubble.


----------



## stargazer

Opus Penguin said:


> Moebius officially announced at Wondercon that the 2001 Discovery will be 1:144 scale or 43.33". They will also be producing a 1:6 LIS Robot with a seamless bubble.


 

It says 40 inches long on the box.
40 inches long in 1/144 scale, would give a sphere ~4.4 inches dia, and (52 ft dia. and 480ft long if real).


(a full 144 pod deck will fit into this, but you would have to cheat the flight deck level and centrifuge to fit) .


----------



## John P

Pics from Wondercon:
Moebius Models 2001 Discovery Update! ? CultTVman Fantastic Modeling


----------



## Steve H

stargazer said:


> It says 40 inches long on the box.
> 40 inches long in 1/144 scale, would give a sphere ~4.4 inches dia, and (52 ft dia. and 480ft long if real).
> 
> 
> (a full 144 pod deck will fit into this, but you would have to cheat the flight deck level and centrifuge to fit) .


mmm. But for the purposes of the model, one doesn't need the centrifuge so that can be removed from the equation. 

Of course it would be nice to have a 'cutaway' command sphere with a beautiful full interior...but THEN it would probably be better if it were like a 'Visible Man' kit where you take things apart to reveal more detail. After all, the centrifuge from the 'outside' is nothing more than an odd lumpy somewhat asymmetrical (on the sides) wheel. 

The pod bay is the big deal. It's the selling point. That's the really visible thing.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Ah yes - another sci-fi subject where the inside was bigger on the inside (or smaller on the outside).


----------



## SUNGOD

Glad to see it's not a tiny little model. Should look impressive as long as the detail's top notch.:smile2:


----------



## Opus Penguin

stargazer said:


> It says 40 inches long on the box.
> 40 inches long in 1/144 scale, would give a sphere ~4.4 inches dia, and (52 ft dia. and 480ft long if real).
> 
> 
> (a full 144 pod deck will fit into this, but you would have to cheat the flight deck level and centrifuge to fit) .


Yep. Actually you are correct. The site said 43.33" so I went with that. But your measurements were what was posted by Moebius.

Even so ... still a big model.


----------



## robn1




----------



## Steve H

Boy, I really hope that kit has something more than kit plastic for the spine. AH! He said a steel rod! YAY!

Per earlier discussion, carefully note "Warner Bros. finally got a merchandising program together" so nerny nerny nerny. 

Did I miss discussion on if there was to be a pod bay interior? Or will Moebius 'plus up' by making that a separate (probably expensive resin) add-on set? 

I am assuming that the pod bay interior will be a separate kit in order to keep the MSRP of the Discovery down.


----------



## Chrisisall

Nice! But I'd literally have nowhere to put it in my home once assembled! My 3' Moebius Seaview is STILL lookin' for a permanent spot!!! LOL


----------



## Steve H

Chrisisall said:


> Nice! But I'd literally have nowhere to put it in my home once assembled! My 3' Moebius Seaview is STILL lookin' for a permanent spot!!! LOL


Yeah. 

I mean, I'm really glad they're going 1/144, that's big enough for decent detail yet not so big it takes over one's living room, but there's that little voice in me that still wishes, in addition, for a 'desk size' model maybe a foot long, or a bit more. Aurora-style 'box scale' but with modern detail and attention to accuracy (and not costing $100 or more  ) 

Since I have no idea if they intend to include a Pod Bay interior or do that as a separate add-on kit, it would be nice if they included a pod and some astronaut figures for those that don't want to deal with the Pod Bay detailing and lighting but want to make a mini diorama of, say, the spacewalk to check the antenna, or the attempt to return when HAL refused to open the door. 

Plus they could sell the pod and astronauts as one of their 'mini kits' like the Flying Sub and Spindrift. Or make it a 'gimmie' at cons or all manner of promotional things.


----------



## SUNGOD

I hope we're getting plenty of decent physical panel lines on this though (unlike the Orion).


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I hope we're getting plenty of decent physical panel lines on this though (unlike the Orion).


Are you able to view the video a few posts back? I don't know if it's region locked.

Reason I ask, next to the Discovery is a built Orion spaceplane. Built but undecorated, maybe unpainted. I can't tell if that's the original Moebius version or the discussed 'new tool' kit. It's just sitting there, no special signage, no promotion. 

It's a good enough shot that the old defects should be instantly visible.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> Are you able to view the video a few posts back? I don't know if it's region locked.
> 
> Reason I ask, next to the Discovery is a built Orion spaceplane. Built but undecorated, maybe unpainted. I can't tell if that's the original Moebius version or the discussed 'new tool' kit. It's just sitting there, no special signage, no promotion.
> 
> It's a good enough shot that the old defects should be instantly visible.


The Orion looks like the original kit. Thick wing, so-so decals, etc. They probably didn't have the updated version ready to display, so they went with what they had. 

Discovery looks good though. Hopefully there will be a Pod garage, with Pods and a flight deck or at least make the Pod bay doors separate parts to help with scratch builders/aftermarket guys.


----------



## Steve H

At the VERY least separate doors! I mean come on. I'd think that would make it easier to mold with better definition around the area and not the mushy detail that would probably result.


----------



## Zombie_61

On a semi-related note, I wonder if Frank Winspur and Adam Savage were separated at birth?


----------



## SteveR

Discovery kit??? Styrene????


----------



## Phillip1

This is awesome news! Over 40" length! Over 600 pieces! The 3D Printer prototype parts look incredible, and per the interview with Moebius they will be ready to begin making the tooling in two weeks! I am more excited about this kit than the Proteus, and it was a really big dream kit!

Phillip1


----------



## Bubba 123

Phillip1 said:


> This is awesome news! Over 40" length! Over 600 pieces! The 3D Printer prototype parts look incredible, and per the interview with Moebius they will be ready to begin making the tooling in two weeks! I am more excited about this kit than the Proteus, and it was a really big dream kit!
> 
> Phillip1


Moebius, needs to ADD an "In-Scale" Pod to this kit Too :wink2:

Bubba (The Senile) 123 :willy_nilly:


----------



## Richard Baker

We really still do not know much about this kit- there is hope it will have a Pod Garage w/Pods and Command Deck. What Moebius does mot include will certainly be taken care of by multiple aftermarket providers.


----------



## Steve H

Yeah, it would be nice to know about the Pod Bay.

And I'm still of the mind that if they do make the Pod Bay a separate add-on kit (like the weapons for that Galactica ship) I really, seriously think they should still include one Pod with the kit for display. I think a couple of astronauts would be a good idea as well but the very least one Pod.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Are you able to view the video a few posts back? I don't know if it's region locked.
> 
> Reason I ask, next to the Discovery is a built Orion spaceplane. Built but undecorated, maybe unpainted. I can't tell if that's the original Moebius version or the discussed 'new tool' kit. It's just sitting there, no special signage, no promotion.
> 
> It's a good enough shot that the old defects should be instantly visible.



Unfortunately I can't watch it but there again my pc isn't running that well at the moment. From what I've read it's probably the original one.


----------



## JeffBond

The Orion on display at Wonder Con was the previously-released kit.


----------



## RMC

has anyone heard about pricing regarding pricing ?


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Yeah, it would be nice to know about the Pod Bay.
> 
> And I'm still of the mind that if they do make the Pod Bay a separate add-on kit (like the weapons for that Galactica ship) I really, seriously think they should still include one Pod with the kit for display. I think a couple of astronauts would be a good idea as well but the very least one Pod.





I'm all for a pod bay even as a separate kit but to me the most important thing is the surface detail (as well as the accuracy of course). 

Did anyone see that 3D render in the flesh? Obviously it's far from the finished product but from the photo's I've seen there doesn't appear to be many physical panel lines on the command module.

If there isn't at least as much panel line detail as Stargazers kit then I think that'll be disappointing...........


http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/kd_disc_Fig23.jpg

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/kd_disc_Fig18.JPG

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/kd_disc_Fig16.jpg


----------



## Steve H

RMC said:


> has anyone heard about pricing regarding pricing ?


Nopes. I think logic says easily over $100 USD. I'll repeat my bet from over at the SF model board of 5000 Quatloos that the MSRP will be $149.99 USD.  (this would be for a kit without a Pod Bay interior)

It would be nice if they could manage under $100 and I don't mean $99.99. 

But pay attention. This is just a wild a** guess based on a variety of factors and knowledge base. Others will think other numbers, some based on hope, some on utter fantasy.


----------



## SUNGOD

I don't care how much it costs. Just get it right.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I don't care how much it costs. Just get it right.


Now now, let's not go too absolute here. I'm pretty sure if they wanted $5,000 USD for a 1/144 scale Discovery kit, that's KIT, not super duper pre-built quasi prop replica, just the kit, you'd probably say "thanks but no"


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Now now, let's not go too absolute here. I'm pretty sure if they wanted $5,000 USD for a 1/144 scale Discovery kit, that's KIT, not super duper pre-built quasi prop replica, just the kit, you'd probably say "thanks but no"





I've got a $5000 cheque waiting.:grin2: Seriously though obviously I'm not talking 100s of Dollars or Pounds but I'm not expecting it to be cheap. I'd rather pay more for more detail etc.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I've got a $5000 cheque waiting.:grin2: Seriously though obviously I'm not talking 100s of Dollars or Pounds but I'm not expecting it to be cheap. I'd rather pay more for more detail etc.


Oh, I don't disagree, I'm just having a little fun. And I agree with you. 

See, like so many genre kits, I think it tends to be a one-shot 'chance of the lifetime' deal. If Round 2 screws up a Star Trek Enterprise, if the license changes hands there'll be a chance to get it right. Star Wars, we're seeing that now when you chart the difference between the old MPC, the Fine Molds, and the current Revell and Bandai releases. Still don't know what's going on with those Dragon kits announced a couple years back. 

But Discovery, that's a one-shot deal. Even if someone else picked up the 2001 license (Dragon, Bandai, Revell Germany, heck even Round 2) they are most likely going to focus on 'recreating Aurora' again and do the Moonbus, the Orion spaceplane and maybe risk a large scale Pod kit. Discovery is trouble. It's big and delicate and really, as much as I would LOVE a 'box scale' kit maybe a foot long, there would be just a crap ton of compromise in the making. So Moebius has to get this right because there is no second chance. They CAN do it, they just have to ride that Chinese factory day and night to make sure they don't screw up.


----------



## spock62

Over on the Moebius Facebook page, Frank mentioned that the price of the Discovery will be $200. For that price I hope it will include the flight deck, pod bay and pods.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Over on the Moebius Facebook page, Frank mentioned that the price of the Discovery will be $200. For that price I hope it will include the flight deck, pod bay and pods.


Hurm. Yeah, I'm thinking it'd best have that Pod Bay interior at that price. Wish they'd comment on that. Kinda bothersome.

$200 USD MSRP really seems on the high end of what the retailers will accept. If every hobby shop and online store makes it 'special order only' I fear we're looking at a real low production run.

And if there's a separate Pod Bay kit, and if that's a $200 resin deal, ow. 

Darn it.


----------



## xsavoie

So it will be made of styrene or resin. At that price it should include an HAL 9000,right Dave.:grin2:


----------



## electric indigo

Shipping cost for the large box because of the two steel rods will probably kill oversea sales...


----------



## mach7

If the kit is 43 in long, the spine should be around 36-39 inches long. A 2 piece rod would be less than 20 inches and could be placed diagonally in the box. That would be a reasonably sized box.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Oh, I don't disagree, I'm just having a little fun. And I agree with you.
> 
> See, like so many genre kits, I think it tends to be a one-shot 'chance of the lifetime' deal. If Round 2 screws up a Star Trek Enterprise, if the license changes hands there'll be a chance to get it right. Star Wars, we're seeing that now when you chart the difference between the old MPC, the Fine Molds, and the current Revell and Bandai releases. Still don't know what's going on with those Dragon kits announced a couple years back.
> 
> But Discovery, that's a one-shot deal. Even if someone else picked up the 2001 license (Dragon, Bandai, Revell Germany, heck even Round 2) they are most likely going to focus on 'recreating Aurora' again and do the Moonbus, the Orion spaceplane and maybe risk a large scale Pod kit. Discovery is trouble. It's big and delicate and really, as much as I would LOVE a 'box scale' kit maybe a foot long, there would be just a crap ton of compromise in the making. So Moebius has to get this right because there is no second chance. They CAN do it, they just have to ride that Chinese factory day and night to make sure they don't screw up.





This is why I hope they go all out for as much detail as possible for the size and if it costs more then so be it.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Hurm. Yeah, I'm thinking it'd best have that Pod Bay interior at that price. Wish they'd comment on that. Kinda bothersome.
> 
> $200 USD MSRP really seems on the high end of what the retailers will accept. If every hobby shop and online store makes it 'special order only' I fear we're looking at a real low production run.
> 
> And if there's a separate Pod Bay kit, and if that's a $200 resin deal, ow.
> 
> Darn it.




I think it's a fair price for a styrene Discovery as this kit like all styrene kits will cost a lot to tool up. I don't even mind paying a bit more as long as it's good.


----------



## RMC

*re: pricing of Discovery*



spock62 said:


> Over on the Moebius Facebook page, Frank mentioned that the price of the Discovery will be $200. For that price I hope it will include the flight deck, pod bay and pods.




I just looked at moebius facebook and I DID NOT see where it will retail for $200 bucks !


----------



## spock62

RMC said:


> I just looked at moebius facebook and I DID NOT see where it will retail for $200 bucks !


On the post about the "rocket" section of the Discovery kit, in the comments, a fellow from Australia asks what the cost would be. Frank said the kit will be $200.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> On the post about the "rocket" section of the Discovery kit, in the comments, a fellow from Australia asks what the cost would be. Frank said the kit will be $200.


I'm sorry but this must be 'silly saturday' for me or something because suddenly I'm giggling and trying to figure out the mechanics of turning the Moebius Discovery into a flying model rocket...

I mean, 6 D-class motors should do it, right?


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> I'm sorry but this must be 'silly saturday' for me or something because suddenly I'm giggling and trying to figure out the mechanics of turning the Moebius Discovery into a flying model rocket...
> 
> I mean, 6 D-class motors should do it, right?


No, that would be WAY too much thrust. 6 C motors or 3 D's should work fine.

Put some clear fins on the drive section and have it eject the CM at apogee to deploy the parachute.

Or better yet, have a pod door eject and a pod and a Frank come out!

It's all very doable


----------



## scotpens

^^ Hell, if Estes could make flying model rocket versions of the TOS Enterprise and Klingon ship, anything's possible!


----------



## Newbie123

spock62 said:


> Over on the Moebius Facebook page, Frank mentioned that the price of the Discovery will be $200. For that price I hope it will include the flight deck, pod bay and pods.


Ouch. It may be my last remaining grail kit, but that's out of my range.

Huh, when I just signed in to HT, Firefox gave me the warning that the HT login is insecure and that if I do choose to log in, make sure it's not a password that I use anywhere else. That's never happened before. It says to contact the site administrator. So if you're listening, site administrator, red lights (or the FFox equivilant) are flashing. Here's Firefox's more info:
https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Protect-your-privacy/Insecure-password-warning-in-Firefox/ta-p/27861
Chrome doesn't do this. Yet.


----------



## Zombie_61

Newbie123 said:


> ...Huh, when I just signed in to HT, Firefox gave me the warning that the HT login is insecure and that if I do choose to log in, make sure it's not a password that I use anywhere else. That's never happened before. It says to contact the site administrator. So if you're listening, site administrator, red lights (or the FFox equivilant) are flashing. Here's Firefox's more info:
> https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Protect-your-privacy/Insecure-password-warning-in-Firefox/ta-p/27861
> Chrome doesn't do this. Yet.


Firefox has been doing this since the last update (52.0.2). It's a bit of a pain-in-the-youknowwhat because it doesn't allow you to use the "autofill" feature for usernames and/or passwords even if you have that feature enabled. I guess Hobby Talk isn't as secure as they'd like it to be.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

I tagged the above posts concerning mozilla firefox support page and log in issues for administrative review.

If you or others continue to have problems you can also post them into the issues and help forum as need.

Hobbytalk.com Sites Issues and Help Section - HobbyTalk

TIA-MFR

(I will snip these related post series into a new thread over there in a few day...)


----------



## Zombie_61

Milton Fox Racing said:


> I tagged the above posts concerning mozilla firefox support page and log in issues for administrative review.
> 
> If you or others continue to have problems you can also post them into the issues and help forum as need...


From my perspective it isn't a problem as much as a minor inconvenience. There are three or four forums of this type that I visit regularly, and this has happened on all of them simply because there is no "https://" at the beginning of the web addresses; for whatever reason, Mozilla has suddenly decided this is a security issue. It has not prevented me from logging onto any of these forums, Hobby Talk included.

To be clear, I'm posting this information in hopes that it will help the Hobby Talk administrators determine whether or not this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I don't think it's a serious issue, but I don't have a hacker's mentality and don't know what kind of information they could possibly steal from a forum like this.


----------



## SUNGOD

I had to download Firefox to use this site as it wasn't accepting IE any more but FF is a bloody pain. Keeps crashing with me and it's slow loading pages and not just on this site.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

The situation is exactly as zombie 61 describes above. :cheers2:


Here is the follow up from VS...



vs-Admin said:


> Hey,
> 
> These are warnings that all browsers are implementing to let users know that the site they are on is not https. Despite what it says, your information is secure here.
> 
> ~Sheena


----------



## RMC

milton fox racing said:


> the situation is exactly as zombie 61 describes above. :cheers2:
> 
> 
> Here is the follow up from vs...



get back on subject !......


----------



## Richard Baker

RMC said:


> get back on subject !......


It would be great to make a sticky for connection/downloading/uploading issues and move the above discussion there. That way if anyone in the future has the same problem they do not have to go through pages of a discussion about the Moebius 2001 model kits to find help.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> ^^ Hell, if Estes could make flying model rocket versions of the TOS Enterprise and Klingon ship, anything's possible!


Oh sure, but those were models specifically designed (and modified) to be flying model rockets. A similar re-imagining of the Discovery would likely use a thin tube for the spine with a decal wrap for all the modules and the huge antenna would be right out. 

I think you'd need to apply 'more power' to loft the Moebius Discovery kit as-is. Remember, ANYTHING can fly with enough power behind it. 

What will be fascinating to see is what happens when those people who take large spaceship kits and install R/C submarine gear to 'fly' them underwater get their hands on Discovery. Wow that will be something to see.


----------



## stargazer

Just A heads up. Due to the new Discovery kit coming out soon. I am no longer going to produce my Discovery Kit.
when the last of the current stock have gone that will be it....No more.


Best
Ian (Stargazer)


----------



## Phillip1

$200.00 is a lot to pay for any model, but if the Moebius Discovery meets the following criteria:
>over 40" in length
>made out of styrene plastic
>has really good, sharp detail
>good design support for the spine
then I will not hesitate to purchase it as soon as it is available.

Phillip1


----------



## Steve H

Phillip1 said:


> $200.00 is a lot to pay for any model, but if the Moebius Discovery meets the following criteria:
> >over 40" in length
> >made out of styrene plastic
> >has really good, sharp detail
> >good design support for the spine
> then I will not hesitate to purchase it as soon as it is available.
> 
> Phillip1


I think from what has been shown and mentioned so far, this kit will meet your criteria.

Question: Would the lack of interior details be a deal-breaker for you? No pod bay, no cockpit, no pods?


----------



## SUNGOD

At the end of the day though it doesn't 'need' to have a pod bay interior to be a good Discovery kit (even though it would be nice). It could just have the doors moulded shut but if we're getting another Orion....i.e....no panel lines....just decals then that could be a deal breaker for me.


----------



## spock62

At $200, the kit is expensive, especially if no interior is included. Not sure, but I think this will be the most expensive styrene kit Moebius has produced. But, if you consider this a "holy grail" kit & have the disposable income, $200 will be a small price to pay.


----------



## SUNGOD

I think most people realise the days of expecting a new kit like this to be around the 50 or 70 Dollar mark are over.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I think most people realise the days of expecting a new kit like this to be around the 50 or 70 Dollar mark are over.


Just us old people looking at stuff and going "it would be better if that was $30 USD" 

It's appalling how quickly I've become used to kit prices. And it's all over. There's new stuff coming out in Japan that would have been maybe $15 USD just 10 years ago are hitting shelves at $25 and up (note: I'm using USD as equal to the Yen just for simplicity's sake.). OTOH they ARE making more complex and detailed kits so maybe more use of multi-part sliding molds and multi-point and color plastic injection is part of the increases.


----------



## electric indigo

SUNGOD said:


> At the end of the day though it doesn't 'need' to have a pod bay interior to be a good Discovery kit (even though it would be nice). It could just have the doors moulded shut but if we're getting another Orion....i.e....no panel lines....just decals then that could be a deal breaker for me.


Judging from the prototype, we do get panel lines. I'm more concerned that these are a tad heavy one more time.


----------



## John P

stargazer said:


> Just A heads up. Due to the new Discovery kit coming out soon. I am no longer going to produce my Discovery Kit.
> when the last of the current stock have gone that will be it....No more.
> 
> 
> Best
> Ian (Stargazer)




Butbutbut...


----------



## Richard Baker

Steve H said:


> Just us old people looking at stuff and going "it would be better if that was $30 USD"
> 
> It's appalling how quickly I've become used to kit prices. And it's all over. There's new stuff coming out in Japan that would have been maybe $15 USD just 10 years ago are hitting shelves at $25 and up (note: I'm using USD as equal to the Yen just for simplicity's sake.). OTOH they ARE making more complex and detailed kits so maybe more use of multi-part sliding molds and multi-point and color plastic injection is part of the increases.


I still remembering buying my first release AMT Enterprise for $2.50...

The kits now being released are very sophisticated and well engineered. Now that I am married and have a family to support I have a very limited budget for my hobby- and a closet full of kits yet unbuilt which make it hard to justify spending big bucks on a single kit.

The Discovery is different though- it is both iconic and a grail. I watched 2001 on a full Cinerama screen and I still watch it on BluRay today. While I do hope Moebius will include an interior for the Pod Bay and Command Deck, it is not a deal killer for me. I will get the kit and then set it aside, waiting for whatever enhancements to complete what Moebius did not include.

Personally I think even if Moebius has their version of the interior pieces there will be a booming market for aftermarket editions- the Pod Bay has an incredible amount of detail which almost demands a 3D printed unit to fully realize.


----------



## Phillip1

Steve H-_Question: Would the lack of interior details be a deal-breaker for you? No pod bay, no cockpit, no pods? _

It would not. I am not really interested in having an interior for this kit, and will not have any pod bay doors open even if it is an option. If a pod is included I might attach it to a wooden base the Discovery will be mounted on, but it will not be attached to the Discovery itself in any way.

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by stargazer
> Just A heads up. Due to the new Discovery kit coming out soon. I am no longer going to produce my Discovery Kit.
> when the last of the current stock have gone that will be it....No more.
> 
> 
> Best
> Ian (Stargazer)
> 
> 
> Butbutbut...


Go ahead, read the line. "When the last of the current stock have gone that will be it"

So buy it now. 

(I know, I know, it's an expensive garage kit and money is always tight. Just saying there is an option NOW for those that want to)


----------



## SUNGOD

electric indigo said:


> Judging from the prototype, we do get panel lines. I'm more concerned that these are a tad heavy one more time.





I can't really make out any from the photos but I'd rather them a bit heavy than none at all. I know people moaned about the heavy panel lines on the original Galactica but because the Discovery is a much smaller ship slightly heavy panel lines won't matter so much at all.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> Go ahead, read the line. "When the last of the current stock have gone that will be it"
> 
> So buy it now.
> 
> (I know, I know, it's an expensive garage kit and money is always tight. Just saying there is an option NOW for those that want to)


I have one! I'm just sad that such an amazing, beautiful, well-engineered kit will disappear!


----------



## xsavoie

*Does size matter.*

Would a 30 inches long Discovery make all the difference in price and production quantity. If a 30 inches long Discovery be around $100.00 per kit, wouldn't it make more sense to produce such a kit instead. Is it a final decision to produce a 40 inches long Discovery.:surprise:


----------



## robn1

I think the decision was to make it 1/144 scale, which just works out to 40". I'd prefer a regular scale over something made to size. And it's long but short and narrow, it's like displaying a baseball bat.


----------



## FlyAndFight

1/144 scale and 40 inches is perfect for me. I certainly hope it does come with an interior and the ability to light it up. This is definitely one of my grails and I would want for Moebius to go all out on it's options. But even if they don't, I'm sure the after-market will fill in the blanks, if you will.


----------



## scotpens

SUNGOD said:


> I can't really make out any from the photos but I'd rather them a bit heavy than none at all. I know people moaned about the heavy panel lines on the original Galactica but because the Discovery is a much smaller ship slightly heavy panel lines won't matter so much at all.


IIRC, the "hero" Discovery model from the movie was over 50 feet long! Naturally, in scaling that beast down to 40" or so, many of the greeblies and other surface details simply won't show up. Panel lines have to be heavier than strictly accurate scale or else they'll be invisible.



robn1 said:


> I think the decision was to make it 1/144 scale, which just works out to 40". I'd prefer a regular scale over something made to size. And it's long but short and narrow, it's like displaying a baseball bat.


Or the big Moebius Seaview!


----------



## SUNGOD

scotpens said:


> IIRC, the "hero" Discovery model from the movie was over 50 feet long! Naturally, in scaling that beast down to 40" or so, many of the greeblies and other surface details simply won't show up. Panel lines have to be heavier than strictly accurate scale or else they'll be invisible.




That's true and I don't have a problem with the lines being a bit heavier.


----------



## SUNGOD

xsavoie said:


> Would a 30 inches long Discovery make all the difference in price and production quantity. If a 30 inches long Discovery be around $100.00 per kit, wouldn't it make more sense to produce such a kit instead. Is it a final decision to produce a 40 inches long Discovery.:surprise:





A 30 inch Discovery is for wimps! A larger 40 inch is for us true men.:laugh:


----------



## John P

If you want a 30" one, get one of Stargazer's resin kits while you still can!


----------



## Newbie123

robn1 said:


> I think the decision was to make it 1/144 scale, which just works out to 40". I'd prefer a regular scale over something made to size.


If the pod is 80" in diameter, which just about everyone in the world agrees it is, and you start measuring the pod against the pod bay doors, and then the pod bay doors against the sphere, and then the sphere against the length of the Discovery, as Stargazer and other rivet counters (including me) have done, you'll find that the Stargazer kit at 30" IS 1/144 scale. A 40" kit would be about 1/108 scale. Aka, box scale. Love to know the designer's reasoning. With this size of Discovery, at 1/144 scale, a proportional pod would be 106" (almost 9') in diameter. Which it certainly wasn't in the film.

Stargazer's well-documented reasoning is here:
2001 a space odyssey, 2001, space odyssey,


----------



## Steve H

Newbie123 said:


> If the pod is 80" in diameter, which just about everyone in the world agrees it is, and you start measuring the pod against the pod bay doors, and then the pod bay doors against the sphere, and then the sphere against the length of the Discovery, as Stargazer and other rivet counters (including me) have done, you'll find that the Stargazer kit at 30" IS 1/144 scale. A 40" kit would be about 1/108 scale. Aka, box scale. Love to know the designer's reasoning. With this size of Discovery, at 1/144 scale, a proportional pod would be 106" (almost 9') in diameter. Which it certainly wasn't in the film.
> 
> Stargazer's well-documented reasoning is here:
> 2001 a space odyssey, 2001, space odyssey,


Well, again, nothing is perfect when it comes to movie miniatures and the real world. There is what is desired, there is what is planned, there is what is built and there is how it is filmed. And all of it falls under needing to remember "this is not a real vehicle" so there can be no absolutes, only opinion and interpretation. 

For example, isn't there already a flaw in this method of measurement? Something about the pod being overscale due to what was used as it's base shape, so the bay doors needed to be enlarged to accommodate the pod miniature? Or am I thinking of something else?

It seems to me a more true metric is the airlock hatch.

And I had a depressing revelation the other day. The wonderful Aries 1b ship has an interior layout that is completely impossible given the physical space provided. That whole optical illusion of the stewardess getting food and walking 'up' to the cockpit? That room can't exist! It's in theory under the passenger cabin but when you look at photos of the miniature the engines (and one assumes the fuel tank) take up all the space and seem to butt right up against the cabin floor! I can't even figure out how one gets from the cabin to the hatch that's shown! And while the cockpit is perfectly logical for zero-g flight, there's no way for the pilots to leave their seats when they land on the moon! Except maybe roll out of the seat and fall down in 1/6 g. 

So, to quote Monty Python: It's only a model.


----------



## SUNGOD

I've never thought about the dimensions of the interiors in relation to the outside of the ships in 2001. I just assumed as they put so much effort into realism with the film (and my god does it still look like it was made yesterday) that they'd worked everything out with the miniatures. Still.......maybe everything can be squeezed up a bit to fit in if there's an interior.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> And I had a depressing revelation the other day. The wonderful Aries 1b ship has an interior layout that is completely impossible given the physical space provided. That whole optical illusion of the stewardess getting food and walking 'up' to the cockpit? That room can't exist! It's in theory under the passenger cabin but when you look at photos of the miniature the engines (and one assumes the fuel tank) take up all the space and seem to butt right up against the cabin floor! I can't even figure out how one gets from the cabin to the hatch that's shown! And while the cockpit is perfectly logical for zero-g flight, there's no way for the pilots to leave their seats when they land on the moon! Except maybe roll out of the seat and fall down in 1/6 g.
> 
> So, to quote Monty Python: It's only a model.


Stargazer's 1/144 Aries has the option of installing the complete cockpit, or the complete passenger deck with a shortened cockpit. There's no way to have BOTH complete rooms.


----------



## Richard Baker

The Aries cockpit was also a redress of the Orion cockpit set - onlybthing that really bugs me is the the view out the windows when it lands is impossible. The cockpit windows would be facing straight up when it descends


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> And I had a depressing revelation the other day. The wonderful Aries 1b ship has an interior layout that is completely impossible given the physical space provided. That whole optical illusion of the stewardess getting food and walking 'up' to the cockpit? That room can't exist! It's in theory under the passenger cabin but when you look at photos of the miniature the engines (and one assumes the fuel tank) take up all the space and seem to butt right up against the cabin floor!


And that whole "walking 180 degrees and ending up upside-down" business is totally unnecessary. Look at the astronauts on the International Space Station -- they just float from one part of the station to another. The trick shot was just an excuse to use the old rotating-set gimmick.

The zero-gravity toilet bit is still funny, though.


----------



## spock62

FYI: On the Moebius Facebook page, Frank wrote that the Discovery kit will not have an interior.


----------



## Richard Baker

Aww shucks


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> FYI: On the Moebius Facebook page, Frank wrote that the Discovery kit will not have an interior.


But no word on if a. it was designed to have an interior and b. interior sold separately. 

Actually, point (a) is pretty important. If the command module were designed and engineered in a way that whatever supports and pins and such are essential for everything to line up correctly and be held securely, and removal of same to put an interior inside makes it a real pain to build, that's a bad thing.

I know, many would say "ha! impossible!" but you'd be surprised. I was looking at a Bandai hobby site with pictures of the upcoming 1/4 scale BB-8 droid, and you'd think it was the most simple thing in the world, just two hemispheres you glue together, right? Wrong. It's got this strange series of shapes you snap together that fill the inside, which not only supports the shell but allows all the functions to work, the different arms and other stuff seen in the movie. It's a real complex deal.

Now, mind, Discovery doesn't call for anything that tricky, but I could easily picture some structure that fills the sphere that the central spine steel rod fits into, and if you remove that structure the weight of the sphere and interior is too much for the plastic 'mount points' seen on the miniature (which looks alot like some form of escape rocket engine bells) to hold securely. 

So, let's hope they go with what I took a guess at, designing the sphere for an interior kit that is sold separately.


----------



## RMC

*moebius probably left out the interior so we dont' get killed on pricing
at least paragraphix will probably produce a PE interior :smile2:*


----------



## Steve H

RMC said:


> *moebius probably left out the interior so we dont' get killed on pricing
> at least paragraphix will probably produce a PE interior :smile2:*


That's my thought. Adding a decent, well researched and designed interior would likely add at least $50-80 USD to the MSRP and honestly, I'm concerned that the current projection of it being $200 USD is just over the line for comfort as a 'stocking' item for many hobby shops. (that is, everybody will be glad to special order it but few will buy stock to sit on the shelf waiting for that impulse purchase)

Paul would (will  ) do a fantastic job with the PE needs of the kit but I do think it would need some substantial resin (or 3D printed?) work to look right. Somebody will need to get sculpting on some pods in scale. (note weasel-wording to avoid the 'is this really 1/144 scale' arguments.  )


----------



## stargazer

well the interior of my discovery (and pods) are a 1/144 scale model of the full size studio sets.


As these are already mastered it would take little work to make them fit the kit sphere.


----------



## Steve H

stargazer said:


> well the interior of my discovery (and pods) are a 1/144 scale model of the full size studio sets.
> 
> 
> As these are already mastered it would take little work to make them fit the kit sphere.


An excellent and far sighted idea! 

But I would caution for value of "it would take little work to make them fit the (Moebius) kit sphere" I would suggest adding "depending on how that sphere is assembled" because you may need to engineer some supports to secure your parts to the Moebius kit. 

BTW, did you see what a Japanese builder was able to achieve with your Discovery garage kit? 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...-incredible-japanese-stargazer-discovery.html

He couldn't have done all that if your kit wasn't the high quality it is. 

(the funny thing? When I first saw that subject line I somehow assumed that a Japanese fan of Star Trek had found something totally unknown about the USS Stargazer from ST:TNG.  )


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> An excellent and far sighted idea!
> 
> But I would caution for value of "it would take little work to make them fit the (Moebius) kit sphere" I would suggest adding "depending on how that sphere is assembled" because you may need to engineer some supports to secure your parts to the Moebius kit.
> 
> BTW, did you see what a Japanese builder was able to achieve with your Discovery garage kit?
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...-incredible-japanese-stargazer-discovery.html
> 
> He couldn't have done all that if your kit wasn't the high quality it is.


well if you guys can find the spheres exact dia, and the sphere thickness.!!! I can make it work. Yes I did see the build mentioned (I am green with envy)
but I have in mind contacting him for castings he did for the interior.
useful for this new kit... You know of course I already did an interior for the Mob, moonbus.


----------



## spock62

RMC said:


> *moebius probably left out the interior so we dont' get killed on pricing
> at least paragraphix will probably produce a PE interior :smile2:*


That's assuming that if Moebius included interior parts, the kit would cost more than the cost of the kit and aftermarket parts separately. Either way, you'd end up paying more, if you wanted an interior. 

The way Moebius is doing it is great for people that don't want an interior or feel an aftermarket one would end up being better than what Moebius would provide.

IMHO, a kit of this cost should include interior parts.


----------



## SUNGOD

RMC said:


> *moebius probably left out the interior so we dont' get killed on pricing
> at least paragraphix will probably produce a PE interior :smile2:*





Thing is............I think most people have pretty much made it clear they'd pay more for more detail.


----------



## SUNGOD

Also it's one thing to have the pod doors closed as then there doesn't need to be interior detailing *BUT*............I hope no interior detail doesn't mean we don't get a window transparency with some bridge detail. 

That along with Orion type surface detail (i'e. a bland smooth surface without panel lines) could be a deal breaker for me. 

That would be like if the recent Moebius Mk1 Viper was like the old Revell Galactica Viper with the solid windows before they upgraded it with transparent windows and interior detail, or some new aircraft kit that has a solid canopy so you can't see inside. Not good enough for a modern kit.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> That's assuming that if Moebius included interior parts, the kit would cost more than the cost of the kit and aftermarket parts separately. Either way, you'd end up paying more, if you wanted an interior.
> 
> The way Moebius is doing it is great for people that don't want an interior or feel an aftermarket one would end up being better than what Moebius would provide.
> 
> IMHO, a kit of this cost should include interior parts.


Yeah, I gotta go along with that. Some of the 'grail' kits from the distant past, the heyday of Aurora, it's a judgement call on some details, variable depending on scale/size. With the big Flying Sub kit, they pretty much had to include the interior because of the memories of the old Aurora kit, but if you wanted the barely seen wheels and manipulator claws (something completely alien to the vast majority of people who would have that passing interest in a new Flying Sub kit) you needed to pony up large money for the 'professional garage kit' add-on. But if they had released their Jupiter II kit with only a 'hero miniature' faked-out interior with the full upper deck set re-creation* a 'pro garage kit' costing more than the J2 kit itself, I suspect the buying public would have rejected it soundly.

If Moebius was making a 'box scale' Discovery, about a foot long or so (and darn it, I think they still should. It would be a HUGE seller in the 'pre-built model' market), not including a pod bay makes sense. They can get away with it,Aurora would have done it that way, it would be too small to have the 'wow' factor as seen in Stargazers' excellent garage kit. But we're talking a (nominally) 1/144 scale large kit, large EXPENSIVE kit and it seems sad that "pod bay interior details not included" is the choice they made. 

They still should include a pod and an astronaut figure. I figure they probably won't do that either. 

*note: I offer this alternate past on the assumption of there being no 'cultural memory' of an Aurora Jupiter II that Moebius would feel obliged to imitate ala my Flying Sub comments above, but then I recalled that we DID get a faux Aurora J2, the earlier Polar Lights version. so, a template that had to be followed to a point. Moebius gave up trying to do anything with the impossible lower deck.


----------



## John P

Well, if there isn't an interior, I hope they at least make the pod bay doors separate pieces, so we don't have to dremel them open and destroy them .


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> Well, if there isn't an interior, I hope they at least make the pod bay doors separate pieces, so we don't have to dremel them open and destroy them .


I've been saying the same thing. I've approached it from a very practical view (or so I think  ), it's better and easier for them to get all that door area detail sharp and crisp and accurate if they have the doors as separate parts. It just makes sense from a tooling standpoint. Plus they might save a little money by only having one mold for the door and shoot it three times (along with some other part that can be duplicated the same way, maybe among the engine cluster parts?)

If they decide to mold the pod bay doors as part of the command sphere, I suspect there'll be some loss of detail and accuracy there. So of course that's what they'll end up doing.


----------



## spock62

Have a feeling the pod bay doors will not be separate, nor will we see a clear part for the flight deck, the usual Moebius cost-cutting measures. If this was a smaller kit, as Steve H mentioned, I wouldn't see a problem with no interior. But at 1/144ish scale AND at a price tag of $200, the omission of interior parts (and possibly no clear parts/molded on bay doors) is a big minus to me.

I'll hope for a smaller scale (12") version that will fit in my avalible display space and at a cost my wallet will allow...but I'm not holding my breath. :|


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Have a feeling the pod bay doors will not be separate, nor will we see a clear part for the flight deck, the usual Moebius cost-cutting measures. If this was a smaller kit, as Steve H mentioned, I wouldn't see a problem with no interior. But at 1/144ish scale AND at a price tag of $200, the omission of interior parts (and possibly no clear parts/molded on bay doors) is a big minus to me.
> 
> I'll hope for a smaller scale (12") version that will fit in my avalible display space and at a cost my wallet will allow...but I'm not holding my breath. :|




I think a clear window and at least a bit of a flight deck should be standard. The ship can be displayed with the pod doors closed but the flight deck is visible no matter what and some people will want to light it.

It's great that Moebius is attempting 2001 kits but not so great if this is going to be another half arsed attempt like the Orion.


----------



## Steve H

Pardon me as I rant a tiny bit. 

We used to have communication with Moebius back in the day. It was friendly overall, but there would at times be hard questions asked and some frankly (ha! see what I did there? never mind  ) intentionally obnoxious behavior (such as the great "When are we going to get a 1/32 scale Spindrift?" "Stop asking about a 1/32 scale Spindrift!!" "Yeah but when we getting that?" nonsense) so the official contact and communication died the death, because 'just can't deal with the stupidity' anymore. OK, valid. but this is the 21st Century and the mayfly media (Facebook, Twitter, all that) is just a sewer, and that's all there is to it. The way to deal with that mess is to a. don't promise what you can't deliver and b. don't lie or shade the truth because that ALWAYS falls apart. People are smart. People are informed. Some people actually know stuff that even a company head may not know. 

So how does all that apply to the Moebius Discovery?

"Don't lie don't shade" solves everything. 'We're making a kit of the Discovery, we've got some fantastic people doing the reference work to make it great. It's going to retail at $200 USD, and it will not have a pod bay or cockpit interior. We've made this difficult choice to try and keep the price down, our original spec for a full interior pushed the retail price over $300 and that just wasn't going to work for the retailers, they would not support it. So, no interior but we're working with some key aftermarket people who will fill that gap. We've made it easy, with separate pod bay doors, separate airlock door, and a separate 'backing plate' on the cockpit. We're doing the full color cardboard 'fake cockpit' for those that don't want to bother with the aftermarket stuff but who also don't want just black windows. We're proud and excited to bring the Discovery to the plastic kit world!' 

Right there, all the major concerns answered in one swoop. No secrets, nothing violating NDAs, it's all information THEY KNOW RIGHT NOW because they've been made when they started the work with the Chinese factory. 

But that simple communication doesn't happen because it's 'our fault' for daring to ask these questions. We're not supposed to ask, just accept whatever comes out. 

Ya know, if not us, just who the heck is the market for a $200 model kit, hah? I don't see a whole lot of people popping by the local hobby shop with a few hundred bucks burning a hole in their pocket that will buy a Discovery as a freakin' IMPULSE PURCHASE, do you?

I would think, in a difficult niche market, selling a boutique product, courting your consumer base would have some value. People going to their local hobby shop and asking about reserving a kit is called 'generating interest'. Of course with a $200 USD kit most everybody is going to haunt the internetwebs looking for the best price but that's a whole other problem.


----------



## robn1

The price may seem stiff especially without the interior. But I did some checking on similar sized kits, mostly ships and submarines, and they seem to be in similar price points. And they are subjects that sell in greater numbers and don't have the intricate surface details of Discovery. Heck the new Trumpeter 1/48 U-boat with interior lists for $600!

Sure I'm bummed about the kit having no interior, but it would be lacking in detail and would scream for after market enhancement anyway.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> The price may seem stiff especially without the interior. But I did some checking on similar sized kits, mostly ships and submarines, and they seem to be in similar price points. And they are subjects that sell in greater numbers and don't have the intricate surface details of Discovery. Heck the new Trumpeter 1/48 U-boat with interior lists for $600!
> 
> Sure I'm bummed about the kit having no interior, but it would be lacking in detail and would scream for after market enhancement anyway.


Sure, you're pointing out the 'Otaku Lament'. Mainstream subjects are afforded more prestige compared to our lowly fantasy kits. Trumpeter can leverage that giant beautiful U-Boat as a 'technology demonstration', showcase the quality of work, the fine-ness of detail, the fidelity to accuracy, the engineering of parts fit, and build business for their 'turn key manufacturer' side. Regretfully Moebius and Round 2 can't do that as they rely on just such operations for the actual manufacture of their kits. Anyway, even if on paper Trumpeter loses money on that kit it will be judged successful. 

The world as a whole doesn't give jack crap that Moebius made a Jupiter II, The Seaview, the Flying Sub, the Proteus... 

Giant ship kits, like giant aircraft and giant tanks, are their own über niche boutique markets, but they're MAINSTREAM. They're kits of real things in the real world. Our beloved subjects are just fantasy, mere toys for kiddy movies. Even something as famous as 2001, with all the impact on popular culture that has sprung from it, it's just not real. To the masses the only difference between Forbidden Planet and 2001 is one has a monster and rayguns and the other is slooooow and the people are dull and boring. (yes, I know, WE know of the huge gulf that separate the two films and the technological triumphs that allowed 2001 to be made, but that at BEST is 'film nerd' stuff and even today, the film nerd is not allowed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the sports nerd)

So what if Moebius had gone 'all-in' with Discovery? Full interior, pods, astronauts, even including a lighting kit, special base, all that. Picture a $450-500 USD kit. Go even further, that they rode the Chinese factory harder then they've ever overseen a factory in the past and there are zero mistakes, flaws, compromises in the final kit. Panel lines so fine and delicate it would make Hasegawa's engineers commit ritual suicide from personal shame. Assembly so precise it's almost a 'shake the box and the kit is built' situation. the perfect Discovery plastic model kit. 

And they'd sell maybe 500. maybe. Call it under 2000 worldwide. It could well pitch the company into bankruptcy. That's a real hard failure to walk away from and it would very much kill any desire for any more large kits from them. 

But that's all just speculation.


----------



## spock62

robn1 said:


> The price may seem stiff especially without the interior. But I did some checking on similar sized kits, mostly ships and submarines, and they seem to be in similar price points. And they are subjects that sell in greater numbers and don't have the intricate surface details of Discovery. Heck the new Trumpeter 1/48 U-boat with interior lists for $600!
> 
> Sure I'm bummed about the kit having no interior, but it would be lacking in detail and would scream for after market enhancement anyway.


Ummm, comparing a 50"+, 1000 piece kit to the Discovery is not an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## robn1

spock62 said:


> Ummm, comparing a 50"+, 1000 piece kit to the Discovery is not an apples to apples comparison.


My point is that the price point is viable for a more mainstream subject, and I mentioned other kits similarly sized to Discovery costing about the same. If the Trumpeter kit was scaled back to match the Discovery in size it would still most likely be well over $200.


----------



## SUNGOD

Hold on folks............are people forgetting the enormous amount of votes the 2001 ships got on that recent Revell poll?

The 2001 ships got more votes than the Eagles so I think there's plenty of people willing to pay good cash for these ships. I'd quite happily pay more than $200 for these ships if they're good. 

And people seem to be forgetting that most of these aren't going to be bought by casual buyers in a hobby shop. They'll probably be ordered by us older gits on the internet. People who grew up with these ships in the 70s.

If Moebius are reading this (and it's obvious they do read these boards from time to time)..............if there's no plans to do a bit of a flight deck and clear window then please reconsider. Surely that at least should be *standard on a modern kit like this*. And stick the price up if necessary. We'll pay it.


----------



## spock62

Not every modeler has the kind of "disposable" income to allow them the blow hundreds of dollars on a plastic kit. That's why many companies make the same subjects in different scales (i.e. 1/72, 1/48, 1/32, etc.). R2 does it to a certain extent with their Star Trek kits (1/2500, 1/1000, 1/350), Moebius should consider doing the same ( like they did with their Seaview & BSG).


----------



## scooke123

$200 is stretching the limits of a lot of modelers - I'll pass at that price even if it had a full interior but I still want to see everyone who wants this kit to be able to get it. I think the guys at Moebius have at least a little bit of experience in marketing kits at this point. They owe us nothing in the way of updates. If you look at the actual number of modelers who will actually buy this kit I am surprised they are attempting it at all. I'm sure at $200 they won't be able to retire of this subject. If it was so easy to develop, market and bring a model to the public I'm sure there would be a lot more companies out there. I personally don't agree that raising the price higher will get thousands of modelers to buy it. In fact I think it would kill it and any future gambles that are out there. And it is a gamble - are any of you willing to put up the capital to produce a kit of this size? I highly doubt it. Everyone should see what's going to happen before crying how terrible the kit will be without an interior. Just my thoughts on it - I admit I am no expert on model companies or their operations.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Hold on folks............are people forgetting the enormous amount of votes the 2001 ships got on that recent Revell poll?
> 
> The 2001 ships got more votes than the Eagles so I think there's plenty of people willing to pay good cash for these ships. I'd quite happily pay more than $200 for these ships if they're good.
> 
> And people seem to be forgetting that most of these aren't going to be bought by casual buyers in a hobby shop. They'll probably be ordered by us older gits on the internet. People who grew up with these ships in the 70s.
> 
> If Moebius are reading this (and it's obvious they do read these boards from time to time)..............if there's no plans to do a bit of a flight deck and clear window then please reconsider. Surely that at least should be *standard on a modern kit like this*. And stick the price up if necessary. We'll pay it.


I think it's safe to say that the "include a full interior" train has left the station and is way way down the track at this point. 

Mind, they COULD do an 'all-in' deluxe release later, IF they designed for it. After all, if R2 can near double the price of their 22" Eagle by simply including a mass-produced promotional poster, an autographed postcard and a decal sheet, then surely Moebius could charge $400 USD for an 'interior included' version of Discovery.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Not every modeler has the kind of "disposable" income to allow them the blow hundreds of dollars on a plastic kit. That's why many companies make the same subjects in different scales (i.e. 1/72, 1/48, 1/32, etc.). R2 does it to a certain extent with their Star Trek kits (1/2500, 1/1000, 1/350), Moebius should consider doing the same ( like they did with their Seaview & BSG).




I'm far from rich with loads of disposable income but we can't expect models like this to come cheap. They cost a lot to tool up. I know a guy who said he didn't have enough money for the new Eagles and yet when I saw him a few days later he'd bought some new chairs for his patio that cost him £100 (he had some decent chairs already) and pointlessley had his car windows tinted which cost god knows how much.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> I think it's safe to say that the "include a full interior" train has left the station and is way way down the track at this point.
> 
> Mind, they COULD do an 'all-in' deluxe release later, IF they designed for it. After all, if R2 can near double the price of their 22" Eagle by simply including a mass-produced promotional poster, an autographed postcard and a decal sheet, then surely Moebius could charge $400 USD for an 'interior included' version of Discovery.




Possibility I suppose. Doesn't seem to have done R2 any bad (the new cargo Eagle looks great too) but if they do that then I think it should be a plastic interior. 

All I hope is at least the window is transparent. It'll look naff if it's opaque. 

And we get decent panel lines of course too.:smile2:


----------



## Dr. Brad

Well, if they were to do a Discovery in another scale, 1/350 would be great, just to display alongside a Trek Enterprise model in that scale!


----------



## SUNGOD

Dr. Brad said:


> Well, if they were to do a Discovery in another scale, 1/350 would be great, just to display alongside a Trek Enterprise model in that scale!





I'm not really sure of the point in saying that as we know the scale and it's not going to be 1/350th (thankfully I have to say as there's more chance of getting good detail with 1/144th).


----------



## stargazer

from Steve H post 339


"So, no interior but we're working with some key aftermarket people who will fill that gap".


Ok then so that looks like my doing a aftermarket interior based on my models interior is dead in the water, if another garage kit maker has already been selected to do it.


----------



## Steve H

stargazer said:


> from Steve H post 339
> 
> 
> "So, no interior but we're working with some key aftermarket people who will fill that gap".
> 
> 
> Ok then so that looks like my doing a aftermarket interior based on my models interior is dead in the water, if another garage kit maker has already been selected to do it.


Well, no, no... That wasn't a direct quote, that was my attempt to anticipate the press release/forum comment they SHOULD have made, it's not a statement of fact. I'm sorry, I thought the context is clear. 

And, really, IF this WAS true and someone was picked by Moebius, so what? Your product may be better, more accurate, have detail overlooked by someone else. The aftermarket has plenty of examples of competing products. 

So, don't pack it in just yet.


----------



## spock62

SUNGOD said:


> I'm far from rich with loads of disposable income but we can't expect models like this to come cheap. They cost a lot to tool up. I know a guy who said he didn't have enough money for the new Eagles and yet when I saw him a few days later he'd bought some new chairs for his patio that cost him £100 (he had some decent chairs already) and pointlessley had his car windows tinted which cost god knows how much.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but there is another way to look at this. The fellow you mentioned will get more use out of patio chairs and tint for his car then he would from a plastic model. It's a matter of priorities. 
Personally, I suffered a huge financial loss due to the Great Recession, and never truly recovered. So, yes, spending $200 on a kit I don't even have display space for is a bit much. I know I'm not the only one that feels prices for these kits are getting ridiculous, especially when you have to consider purchasing aftermarket parts to make up for what the manufacturer refuses to include in their $200 kit!
To me this is a kit for the very few, not the many. Add to that the info we've heard about the clipper redo (sounds like just a wing upgrade), no Aries planned and, for me, the 2001 kits are a bit of a let down.


----------



## scotpens

spock62 said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but there is another way to look at this. The fellow you mentioned will get more use out of patio chairs and tint for his car then he would from a plastic model. It's a matter of priorities.


Well, I know I'll get more pleasure and satisfaction from building a model than from patio chairs or tinted car windows. At least I have my priorities straight! :laugh:


----------



## John P

Shirley they could at least include a clear windshield, so we can see the aftermarket cockpit. Shirley.


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> Shirley they could at least include a clear windshield, so we can see the aftermarket cockpit. Shirley.


----------



## Bwain no more

SUNGOD said:


> Hold on folks............are people forgetting the enormous amount of votes the 2001 ships got on that recent Revell poll?


Apparently REVELL has. >
Tom


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but there is another way to look at this. The fellow you mentioned will get more use out of patio chairs and tint for his car then he would from a plastic model. It's a matter of priorities.
> Personally, I suffered a huge financial loss due to the Great Recession, and never truly recovered. So, yes, spending $200 on a kit I don't even have display space for is a bit much. I know I'm not the only one that feels prices for these kits are getting ridiculous, especially when you have to consider purchasing aftermarket parts to make up for what the manufacturer refuses to include in their $200 kit!
> To me this is a kit for the very few, not the many. Add to that the info we've heard about the clipper redo (sounds like just a wing upgrade), no Aries planned and, for me, the 2001 kits are a bit of a let down.




He'll get more use out of admiring his Eagle. The guy's an Eagle nut and he won't spend the money to get the new kit. He didn't need those things at all.

I'm not saying you haven't gone through some hardship but most people can afford to put a bit aside each week to buy one of these. Whether these will be a let down or not who knows but this is why I'd rather pay a bit more so they're not a let down.


----------



## SUNGOD

scotpens said:


>




Even Leslie Neilson thinks we need a clear windshield!:smile2:


----------



## Steve H

Patio chairs, useful. Not that he''ll get much use out of them unless the average weather has changed in England since I visited in '68. 

But window tint on the auto, THAT is a thing more of vanity rather than practical need. Often what happens is one will get tinting done and they think they're all cool and mysterious and 'ballin' ' like some street racer then the Police roll up and cite them for too dark tinting and they get fined and told to remove the tint. 

Just you watch, Sungod. It's gonna happen. Then he really won't be able to afford an Eagle.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> But window tint on the auto, THAT is a thing more of vanity rather than practical need. Often what happens is one will get tinting done and they think they're all cool and mysterious and 'ballin' ' like some street racer then the Police roll up and cite them for too dark tinting and they get fined and told to remove the tint.


Don't know about England, but here in Florida, auto window tint is pretty much a necessity!


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Don't know about England, but here in Florida, auto window tint is pretty much a necessity!


And air conditioning!

Like Arizona, Nevada and Texas, take away window tint and A/C and it's almost uninhabitable for parts of the year!

(plus Florida: Mosquitoes. )


----------



## RMC

Ok,.....what does a/c and auto tint have to do with the discovery??????????????????????????????

I hate it when a topic gets hijacked ! .......I wish the "children" would learn to stay on topic !


----------



## Steve H

RMC said:


> Ok,.....what does a/c and auto tint have to do with the discovery??????????????????????????????
> 
> I hate it when a topic gets hijacked ! .......I wish the "children" would learn to stay on topic !


Context: The greater discussion on the issue of overly expensive 'big' models. $200 USD for a kit of the Discovery that will not include an interior. Referencing the R2 22" Eagle and its 'plus up' version that really has little of value for double the price.

Reality check: It's just a couple of posts, dude. relax. 

Lecture: Rather than wasting bandwidth complaining about a momentary digression, why not create a positive effect by contributing to the discussion-at-large? Lead by example.


----------



## Capt. Krik

OK, the facts are that Moebius is producing a model of the Discovery from 2001. The kit will be around 40 inches in length with 600 pieces and will not contain any interior pieces. The kit will retail for about 200 dollars. These are the facts as they stand right now and seem highly unlikely to change.

You as the consumer have a choice. Send an affirmative to Moebius by purchasing the kit. Let Moebius know they screwed up by not purchasing the kit. Simple, isn't it? 

I think Frank has a pretty good idea on how to balance price point and kit quality. OK, the Odyssey was a mistake but it's one of the few Moebius has made. I will admit at $200 I want to see the kit before I commit that much cash for a model kit. If I think it's worthy I'll buy it, if it.s not I won't.


----------



## Steve H

Capt. Krik said:


> OK, the facts are that Moebius is producing a model of the Discovery from 2001. The kit will be around 40 inches in length with 600 pieces and will not contain any interior pieces. The kit will retail for about 200 dollars. These are the facts as they stand right now and seem highly unlikely to change.
> 
> You as the consumer have a choice. Send an affirmative to Moebius by purchasing the kit. Let Moebius know they screwed up by not purchasing the kit. Simple, isn't it?
> 
> I think Frank has a pretty good idea on how to balance price point and kit quality. OK, the Odyssey was a mistake but it's one of the few Moebius has made. I will admit at $200 I want to see the kit before I commit that much cash for a model kit. If I think it's worthy I'll buy it, if it.s not I won't.


You speak truth and reason. 

Here's the problem in today's world. You pretty much HAVE to decide if you're going to buy a kit like this beforehand, because if you wait until reviews it may be too late.

That's a little dramatic of course. Kits will be available but maybe not at a discount, or even MSRP. There will without doubt be the scalper market holding onto kits at double MSRP. And they'll keep holding onto those kits at that price. 

Here's the thing. The retail chain (wholesellers, distributors, shops both B&M and online) has told Moebius that $200 MSRP is just fine for that kit. Solicitations and offers for reservation should soon start appearing. At this point Moebius is pretty much locked in. The question is, will reservations add up enough to eat up the minimum production number they've had to commit to? I would guess that would be the stereotypical 5000 units. 

So, are there 5000 people who will spend $200 USD (plus or minus reservation discount and shipping of course) on this Discovery SIGHT UNSEEN? Let's say almost. That means it's probably a one-shot release (plus the absurdly short licensing window). 

Speculators will, of course buy some. Some people who don't have money concerns will buy several. People who build kits as an income source would be wise to stock up, altho I don't know how many fans have room for a kit as big as this will be built and on a stand. 

It's a shame Moebius doesn't (seem to) have the resources to multi-task. A 12 inch 'baby Discovery' kit would be a HUGE seller and have terrific mass-retail potential as one of their pre-assembled display item. They would cover the market with Big Expensive Kit for the obsessed maniac crowd and a small 'box scale' Aurora-style kit for the casual or room-challenged fan. But then again they wouldn't price such a kit in the $30 range, it would probably end up $60 and thus sour the interest some. Ah well. 

anyway. I suggest for the best price on the big Discovery you'd probably be best off getting it now (when the reservations open up), you could always sell it if any revealed flaws make owning it unpleasant.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Steve H said:


> You speak truth and reason.
> 
> Here's the problem in today's world. You pretty much HAVE to decide if you're going to buy a kit like this beforehand, because if you wait until reviews it may be too late.
> 
> That's a little dramatic of course. Kits will be available but maybe not at a discount, or even MSRP. There will without doubt be the scalper market holding onto kits at double MSRP. And they'll keep holding onto those kits at that price.
> 
> Here's the thing. The retail chain (wholesellers, distributors, shops both B&M and online) has told Moebius that $200 MSRP is just fine for that kit. Solicitations and offers for reservation should soon start appearing. At this point Moebius is pretty much locked in. The question is, will reservations add up enough to eat up the minimum production number they've had to commit to? I would guess that would be the stereotypical 5000 units.
> 
> So, are there 5000 people who will spend $200 USD (plus or minus reservation discount and shipping of course) on this Discovery SIGHT UNSEEN? Let's say almost. That means it's probably a one-shot release (plus the absurdly short licensing window).
> 
> Speculators will, of course buy some. Some people who don't have money concerns will buy several. People who build kits as an income source would be wise to stock up, altho I don't know how many fans have room for a kit as big as this will be built and on a stand.
> 
> It's a shame Moebius doesn't (seem to) have the resources to multi-task. A 12 inch 'baby Discovery' kit would be a HUGE seller and have terrific mass-retail potential as one of their pre-assembled display item. They would cover the market with Big Expensive Kit for the obsessed maniac crowd and a small 'box scale' Aurora-style kit for the casual or room-challenged fan. But then again they wouldn't price such a kit in the $30 range, it would probably end up $60 and thus sour the interest some. Ah well.
> 
> anyway. I suggest for the best price on the big Discovery you'd probably be best off getting it now (when the reservations open up), you could always sell it if any revealed flaws make owning it unpleasant.


All valid points, Steve! Although I won't see the actual kit before it's release I'm counting on Frank to release plenty of photos of the kit parts when the first test shots are ready. Based on what I've seen so far I'm impressed. Right now I intend to buy the kit.

However, if I miss getting the kit, well it's hardly a life shattering event.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Patio chairs, useful. Not that he''ll get much use out of them unless the average weather has changed in England since I visited in '68.
> 
> But window tint on the auto, THAT is a thing more of vanity rather than practical need. Often what happens is one will get tinting done and they think they're all cool and mysterious and 'ballin' ' like some street racer then the Police roll up and cite them for too dark tinting and they get fined and told to remove the tint.
> 
> Just you watch, Sungod. It's gonna happen. Then he really won't be able to afford an Eagle.



Lol! You're probably right.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> And air conditioning!
> 
> Like Arizona, Nevada and Texas, take away window tint and A/C and it's almost uninhabitable for parts of the year!
> 
> (plus Florida: Mosquitoes. )



All beautiful places but that heat would kill me.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> You speak truth and reason.
> 
> Here's the problem in today's world. You pretty much HAVE to decide if you're going to buy a kit like this beforehand, because if you wait until reviews it may be too late.
> 
> That's a little dramatic of course. Kits will be available but maybe not at a discount, or even MSRP. There will without doubt be the scalper market holding onto kits at double MSRP. And they'll keep holding onto those kits at that price.
> 
> Here's the thing. The retail chain (wholesellers, distributors, shops both B&M and online) has told Moebius that $200 MSRP is just fine for that kit. Solicitations and offers for reservation should soon start appearing. At this point Moebius is pretty much locked in. The question is, will reservations add up enough to eat up the minimum production number they've had to commit to? I would guess that would be the stereotypical 5000 units.
> 
> So, are there 5000 people who will spend $200 USD (plus or minus reservation discount and shipping of course) on this Discovery SIGHT UNSEEN? Let's say almost. That means it's probably a one-shot release (plus the absurdly short licensing window).
> 
> Speculators will, of course buy some. Some people who don't have money concerns will buy several. People who build kits as an income source would be wise to stock up, altho I don't know how many fans have room for a kit as big as this will be built and on a stand.
> 
> It's a shame Moebius doesn't (seem to) have the resources to multi-task. A 12 inch 'baby Discovery' kit would be a HUGE seller and have terrific mass-retail potential as one of their pre-assembled display item. They would cover the market with Big Expensive Kit for the obsessed maniac crowd and a small 'box scale' Aurora-style kit for the casual or room-challenged fan. But then again they wouldn't price such a kit in the $30 range, it would probably end up $60 and thus sour the interest some. Ah well.
> 
> anyway. I suggest for the best price on the big Discovery you'd probably be best off getting it now (when the reservations open up), you could always sell it if any revealed flaws make owning it unpleasant.





Interesting points but I'm not sure a much smaller Discovery would sell as well as a big Discovery. I think people want as much detail as possible on this even if the pod bay doors are shut. I think at the very least they've chosen the right size.


----------



## SUNGOD

Capt. Krik said:


> OK, the facts are that Moebius is producing a model of the Discovery from 2001. The kit will be around 40 inches in length with 600 pieces and will not contain any interior pieces. The kit will retail for about 200 dollars. These are the facts as they stand right now and seem highly unlikely to change.
> 
> You as the consumer have a choice. Send an affirmative to Moebius by purchasing the kit. Let Moebius know they screwed up by not purchasing the kit. Simple, isn't it?
> 
> I think Frank has a pretty good idea on how to balance price point and kit quality. OK, the Odyssey was a mistake but it's one of the few Moebius has made. I will admit at $200 I want to see the kit before I commit that much cash for a model kit. If I think it's worthy I'll buy it, if it.s not I won't.




The Odyssey???


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Interesting points but I'm not sure a much smaller Discovery would sell as well as a big Discovery. I think people want as much detail as possible on this even if the pod bay doors are shut. I think at the very least they've chosen the right size.


An important thing to remember, while we are the 'end users', the REAL customers, the most important people to Moebius, are the retailers. 

Wholesale, Brick and mortar, online, these are the people who really take the risk by spending money in hopes, HOPES of making a profit. if retail says no, a kit will not get made (unless, and Moebius would never take this chance, they had such faith in the face of such retailer refusal they would spend their own capital to manufacture and warehouse (and sell and ship) a model in hopes that customer demand would drag retail into ordering.) .

So saying that, a $200 MSRP model kit is a HUGE risk. It will take up a great deal of shelf space (thus preventing other kits from being displayed). If ANY store orders more than one for stock I would be so shocked I might well pass out. Surely it would make my monocle pop right out of my eye socket. 

But let's take the hypothetical. Moebius, in a sudden fit of "hey, let's listen to that Steve guy!" that defies all expectations, whips together a small kit of the Discovery. it's about 12 inches long, no interior but really impressive detail (Bandai quality). they package it in a real Aurora style box and just for the fun of it refer to is as "the kit Aurora should have made, only better!" Let's pretend they also put a $29.99 MSRP on it. 

Now, the retailers have another option. A smaller kit with a smaller price that takes less room, that's worth taking a chance on. That's worth maybe stocking 2 or three on the shelf. That's worth promoting. 

maybe even Hobby Lobby buys some cases for national distro. 

Plus, Moebius gets to increase the return on investment on the tooling as they whip it out as one of their pre-finished 'nerd trophy' collector's items. Suddenly anyone with under $100 can have a Discovery on their desk, on their bookshelf, wherever.

and maybe The National Air and Space Museum buys a bunch of cases for their gift shop. Not to mention NASA and the 'rocket park' over in Huntsville, and on and on and on. 

So, that would be, again, smart business. Large, deluxe kit for we nerds, and a nice, affordable, decent smaller kit for the masses. Win/Win. 

(gee, I think I did this same math regarding R2' 22" Eagle...  )

Not gonna happen. Can't. Even if they see it as a grand idea they can't do it because there seems to be a big dose of "we can't do anything if it's Not Invented Here" going on. They don't have a filter that can pick up the 'signal' from all the 'noise' they hated to deal with. Even if a person they trusted came to them and suggested this idea, still couldn't happen. 

oh well.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> An important thing to remember, while we are the 'end users', the REAL customers, the most important people to Moebius, are the retailers.
> 
> Wholesale, Brick and mortar, online, these are the people who really take the risk by spending money in hopes, HOPES of making a profit. if retail says no, a kit will not get made (unless, and Moebius would never take this chance, they had such faith in the face of such retailer refusal they would spend their own capital to manufacture and warehouse (and sell and ship) a model in hopes that customer demand would drag retail into ordering.) .
> 
> So saying that, a $200 MSRP model kit is a HUGE risk. It will take up a great deal of shelf space (thus preventing other kits from being displayed). If ANY store orders more than one for stock I would be so shocked I might well pass out. Surely it would make my monocle pop right out of my eye socket.
> 
> But let's take the hypothetical. Moebius, in a sudden fit of "hey, let's listen to that Steve guy!" that defies all expectations, whips together a small kit of the Discovery. it's about 12 inches long, no interior but really impressive detail (Bandai quality). they package it in a real Aurora style box and just for the fun of it refer to is as "the kit Aurora should have made, only better!" Let's pretend they also put a $29.99 MSRP on it.
> 
> Now, the retailers have another option. A smaller kit with a smaller price that takes less room, that's worth taking a chance on. That's worth maybe stocking 2 or three on the shelf. That's worth promoting.
> 
> maybe even Hobby Lobby buys some cases for national distro.
> 
> Plus, Moebius gets to increase the return on investment on the tooling as they whip it out as one of their pre-finished 'nerd trophy' collector's items. Suddenly anyone with under $100 can have a Discovery on their desk, on their bookshelf, wherever.
> 
> and maybe The National Air and Space Museum buys a bunch of cases for their gift shop. Not to mention NASA and the 'rocket park' over in Huntsville, and on and on and on.
> 
> So, that would be, again, smart business. Large, deluxe kit for we nerds, and a nice, affordable, decent smaller kit for the masses. Win/Win.
> 
> (gee, I think I did this same math regarding R2' 22" Eagle...  )
> 
> Not gonna happen. Can't. Even if they see it as a grand idea they can't do it because there seems to be a big dose of "we can't do anything if it's Not Invented Here" going on. They don't have a filter that can pick up the 'signal' from all the 'noise' they hated to deal with. Even if a person they trusted came to them and suggested this idea, still couldn't happen.
> 
> oh well.



Well I'm certainly no expert and those are interesting points but I think it's fair to say if you're a 2001/Discovery fan then not only will you find out about this kit (even if it's not in hobby shops...which unfortunately are a dying breed) but you'll buy it as well. Same with the Eagles. Some people might say they're not going to buy because it's too big and expensive but I bet 99% of those people will in the end. I also think it's fair to say that Moebius aren't going to do a smaller version now as it seems the scale has been decided (and I prefer it larger anyway).

And it does annoy me sometimes when people say they haven't got enough space. 

What they usually mean is they haven't got enough space to *display* all the models they have. Well all I can say is.........join the club.

I've got loads of models but at least 80% of them are in storage in boxes as I haven't got the room to display them all.


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> The Odyssey???


I'm drawing a blank too. 
WHAT Odyssey?


----------



## RMC

Steve H said:


> Context: The greater discussion on the issue of overly expensive 'big' models. $200 USD for a kit of the Discovery that will not include an interior. Referencing the R2 22" Eagle and its 'plus up' version that really has little of value for double the price.
> 
> Reality check: It's just a couple of posts, dude. relax.
> 
> Lecture: Rather than wasting bandwidth complaining about a momentary digression, why not create a positive effect by contributing to the discussion-at-large? Lead by example.


hey DUDE,............it always happens tho !


----------



## stargazer

John P said:


> I'm drawing a blank too.
> WHAT Odyssey?




I think he meant ORION


----------



## mach7

Just a couple of points.

1. Your local hobby shop is a thing of the past. Any hobby company that bases a business decision on them will be disappointed.

2. Model companies do not make scale/detail/option decisions based on these, or any other forum directly.

3. By the time we hear about it, the big decisions have already been made.

4. Moebius, R2, Revell, and all usually do a good job with what they release, based on realistic, real world compromises.

5. Plastic models are getting expensive. It's very common to see aircraft, ship, and armor kits well north of $200.

6. A 40+ inch XD-1 priced at $200 with no interior is completely in line with current kit prices.

7. I'll be buying at least 1


----------



## Steve H

Mach7, I agree about the regretful truth about local hobby shops, but like comic book stores and regular book stores, there still is enough of a presence out there that it's a factor. It's narrow and tight, no question, not a doubt about it. 

(I have to write this because there's no 'mostly like and agree but for a point or two I quibble with' button.  )

Because there's still wholesellers, distributors, one-stops. I don't think there's any one online store that is THE place, the One Big Customer that is buying most of the product produced by Moebius and Round 2. I'm sure CultTVman and Starship Modeler do decent business but not enough to 'carry the load' (that is, the single sale to the company pays the production costs so anything sold to other outlets becomes profit) of a product run.

Which is good, overall. The failure of Suncoast and the crash of home video in 2006 was supposed to spell the death of physical media (niche market first, general product later but soon) yet DVD and BD hang on (much to the anger of Hollywood, yes they resent home video and have since it came into being yet they looooovvvve the money and blah blah). You don't WANT to depend on one buyer being the company that keeps you in business, that's a huge risk.

Brick and Mortar stores still matter. Maybe not a driving force like the '60s and early '70s but they still matter. It's a narrow, ragged, scary edge but they still matter. 

(I suspect that 20 linear feet of AMT/MPC/Lindberg car kits at every Hobby Lobby in the USA is doing a lot to keep R2's doors open)


----------



## Zathros

*I know I'm probably going to be ganged up on this, but I'd love to know what Frank is smoking when he made the decision to make this Discovery so %$^**% BIG.I know of very few builders that have that kind of spare space to display kits of this size..same with the Proteus, but to a lesser extent. I use my dining room table to DINE on...Not sure just how many of these are going to sell..At least he was smart enough to make a smaller Seaview..Unfortunately, as much as I wanted the seaview, Proteus, and the discovery..I have nowhere to place em once they are done...just pisses me off.. *


----------



## Richard Baker

The Discovery is a natural for hanging- that is how I am going to do mine. 

On the other hand, the Proteus is going to be problematic- I am most likely going to have to box up some displays to give it room

If Moebius ever decides to make a 1:350 Discovery I would be all over that as well- I really like displaying craft from different universes together in the same scale...


----------



## scotpens

Zathros said:


> *I know I'm probably going to be ganged up on this, but I'd love to know what Frank is smoking when he made the decision to make this Discovery so %$^**% BIG.I know of very few builders that have that kind of spare space to display kits of this size..same with the Proteus, but to a lesser extent.*


*

Link to Discovery framegrab

There were two Discovery miniatures used in the film. The smaller model was 15 feet long and the big one was over fifty feet long! I think 40 inches is the perfect size for a model kit. Anything smaller will lose so much of that greebly detail that it'll be a joke.

As for having enough space to display the finished model, any true geek will make the space!*


----------



## Capt. Krik

SUNGOD said:


> The Odyssey???


My bad, that should have been Orion. Time to go back on the meds no matter what the voices in my head say.


----------



## John P

scotpens said:


> Link to Discovery framegrab
> 
> There were two Discovery miniatures used in the film. The smaller model was 15 feet long and the big one was over fifty feet long! I think 40 inches is the perfect size for a model kit. Anything smaller will lose so much of that greebly detail that it'll be a joke.
> 
> As for having enough space to display the finished model, any true geek will _make_ the space!


Ironic that you linked to a microscopic, barely seeable photo of the ship. :lol:


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> Ironic that you linked to a microscopic, barely seeable photo of the ship. :lol:


The image I linked to is 1920 by 1080 pixels. It shows up fine in Firefox. In Chrome, the image is shrunk for some reason.

If you're using Chrome, try going to the "Customize and Control" menu (upper right corner) and select "New Incognito Window." Then paste the image page's URL into the address bar and see what happens.


----------



## Richard Baker

Showed up small in my Firefox as well as chrome...

oh well- I had heard about the smaller Discovery, I think it was for the long shot we see when it is in Jupiter space and perhaps part of the astronaut recovery scene...


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> The image I linked to is 1920 by 1080 pixels. It shows up fine in Firefox. In Chrome, the image is shrunk for some reason.


There is something funky about it. I'm using Firefox (48.0.2 for Mac) and it's a tiny picture. I also read it as a .png file and not the usual .jpeg. Now usually .png pictures are large things, as least the ones I get sent by a friend (WHO NEVER LABELS THEM ARGH *ahem*) tend to be large-ish.

so on the off chance it was just the way it was displayed I downloaded it and it comes out as a 30kb file at 200 x 113

(technical note I am NOT GOOD AT ALL with graphics handling programs so that's the best I can come up with)

Dunno what's happening but I see a small Discovery as well. sorry.


----------



## Zathros

scotpens said:


> Link to Discovery framegrab
> 
> There were two Discovery miniatures used in the film. The smaller model was 15 feet long and the big one was over fifty feet long! I think 40 inches is the perfect size for a model kit. Anything smaller will lose so much of that greebly detail that it'll be a joke.
> 
> As for having enough space to display the finished model, any true geek will _make_ the space!


*Scot, you are certainly entitled to your size preference. In my case, I am not looking to duplicate the Miniatures used in the film. I am looking for a model that would be reasonably accurate, and that I won't need a dinner table to display it on, nor do I want to bang my head on it as it hangs from my ceiling, and based on that, Moebius' vehicle kits are not for me. And its a shame Frank chose that size in my case as I like the Discovery, but will definitely not purchase it, or the Proteus. Must be nice to have a massively large enough house to be able to dedicate 1 room for only 3 or 4 models...lol *


----------



## Steve H

This is why I think making 'small' and 'large' versions of the same subject is sensible. Seeing what Bandai has been able to accomplish with their 'vehicle model' small Star Wars kits makes me think that a foot long Discovery could look very good indeed.

Of course I just may be a tad delusional in believing that Moebius is able to ride that Chinese factory hard enough to make that quality of detail happen. 

but ya know, if Moebius has a business model that tells them $100 USD and up kits are keeping the doors open, bless them for doing it. And I'll miss them dearly when China restructures all their deals and prices go nuts.


----------



## SUNGOD

Capt. Krik said:


> My bad, that should have been Orion. Time to go back on the meds no matter what the voices in my head say.




I had my suspicions that's what you meant and not the old Greek myth.:smile2:


----------



## SUNGOD

Zathros said:


> *I know I'm probably going to be ganged up on this, but I'd love to know what Frank is smoking when he made the decision to make this Discovery so %$^**% BIG.I know of very few builders that have that kind of spare space to display kits of this size..same with the Proteus, but to a lesser extent. I use my dining room table to DINE on...Not sure just how many of these are going to sell..At least he was smart enough to make a smaller Seaview..Unfortunately, as much as I wanted the seaview, Proteus, and the discovery..I have nowhere to place em once they are done...just pisses me off.. *



Thankfully I think to most of us they must have been smoking something good. I know we can't have endless large models as we'd be living on the street outside our houses but something like the Discovery needs a big model for all that detail. Again I can't display everything (my finished 1/72 Skipjack's in a box at the moment) but some models need to be big and this is one.


----------



## SUNGOD

scotpens said:


> Link to Discovery framegrab
> 
> There were two Discovery miniatures used in the film. The smaller model was 15 feet long and the big one was over fifty feet long! I think 40 inches is the perfect size for a model kit. Anything smaller will lose so much of that greebly detail that it'll be a joke.
> 
> As for having enough space to display the finished model, any true geek will _make_ the space!




Exactly. And it's not as if it's a huge bulky thing. It's very thin ship and a long shelf on a wall will hold it nicely even for someone who's got virtually zero space.


----------



## spock62

As many of you have the cash and display space for the Discovery kit, there are many others who don't. Why is this so hard to comprehend? And many of us don't want to hang it from the ceiling either. I have no problem that Moebius is making the kit, but I wish they would do a smaller (12" to 15") version for those of us with cash/display space issues. Remember, not all modelers that would be interested in the Discovery have unlimited finances and endless display space. 

Wouldn't be surprised if this kit becomes one of those kits that you hardly see built, either because few were bought due to price or, because of limited display space, those that were bought were never built.


----------



## Zombie_61

John P said:


> I'm drawing a blank too.
> WHAT Odyssey?


It's right there in the title of the movie: "2001: A Space _Odyssey_".


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> As many of you have the cash and display space for the Discovery kit, there are many others who don't. Why is this so hard to comprehend? And many of us don't want to hang it from the ceiling either. I have no problem that Moebius is making the kit, but I wish they would do a smaller (12" to 15") version for those of us with cash/display space issues. Remember, not all modelers that would be interested in the Discovery have unlimited finances and endless display space.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised if this kit becomes one of those kits that you hardly see built, either because few were bought due to price or, because of limited display space, those that were bought were never built.




It's hard to comprehend because most people (myself included) haven't got room to display all their models either. As I said most of my collection is in boxes and plastic tubs. You don't need to have a display place to buy this. And on the subject of cash I know things are tighter when it comes to extra finances for many people (myself included again) but I'll put aside some each week to get this (if it's good of course).


----------



## Trek Ace

I think most people who build this kit will be surprised just how small and how little space it really takes up. It's basically a 3' baton with a 4" ball on one end, and a tapered box with cones on the other.

Since the kit won't be out until next year for the 50th Anniversary, there is plenty of time to start setting aside $10-15 per month for the kit. Then, when it is released, you will have most or all of the amount needed for the kit by basically choosing to forego a few lattes at Starbucks every month.

Also, I imagine there will be certain online retailers who will offer substantial discounts for pre-orders, many with free shipping.


----------



## SUNGOD

Trek Ace said:


> I think most people who build this kit will be surprised just how small and how little space it really takes up. It's basically a 3' baton with a 4" ball on one end, and a tapered box with cones on the other.
> 
> Since the kit won't be out until next year for the 50th Anniversary, there is plenty of time to start setting aside $10-15 per month for the kit. Then, when it is released, you will have most or all of the amount needed for the kit by basically choosing to forego a few lattes at Starbucks every month.
> 
> Also, I imagine there will be certain online retailers who will offer substantial discounts for pre-orders, many with free shipping.





Exactly. I fail to see how anyone can't find enough space for a plastic baton with a ball on the end. It won't actually be that big.


----------



## Newbie123

No, it's not going to be that big at all. ?? Couple days ago I did an experiment to figure out the space I'll need for the mingy 1/144 Stargazer Discovery I just bought. Took a 3.5" diameter tube 30" long and set it on my workbench. You can do the same for the bigger Moebius kit. Find a 4 or 4.5" tube 40" long or make one out of a rolled up newspaper or something. And then figure out where you want to display it. The long spine is pretty thin, it's true, so you could snuggle tall models up against it and save some space. One consideration about display, tho', is if there is any decent surface detail this is probably a model that you'll want to see up close, so hanging it out of the way might not be the optimum choice.


----------



## terryr

Steve H said:


> Mach7, I agree about the regretful truth about local hobby shops, but like comic book stores and regular book stores, there still is enough of a presence out there that it's a factor. It's narrow and tight, no question, not a doubt about it.
> ...
> 
> Brick and Mortar stores still matter. Maybe not a driving force like the '60s and early '70s but they still matter. It's a narrow, ragged, scary edge but they still matter.


One local hobby store is mainly remote control cars and helicopters. Another is half airsoft. Their stuff costs hundreds of dollars. Neither have brass tube or plastic strip in stock. 

'Radio Shack' was full of components to build stuff. Now they have phone plans for hundreds of dollars.

Locally we had one of the best magazine stores anywhere. The old couple retired and sold out to their employees. 5 or 8 years later they went broke, because people stopped buying magazines. I'm not sure of the years because I stopped going too.

Businesses have to change with the times or die out. Sometimes the customers just disappear anyway. I used to be on certain websites every day. Now I haven't been on some in years. Others have a tenth the traffic they used to.
Every popular night club or restaurant I went to closed down after 4 or 5 years. Many of the malls have become medical clinics for old folks. [The food court is full of them hanging around all day. Don't they have homes?! ]

Many countries were the world powers once. Now they're not. If a country can fall, why not anything?


----------



## stargazer

"mingy"


Is that good??


----------



## Newbie123

Well, if 40" is Small (??), then 30" must be verging on Really Small. Altho' when I look at a tube that diameter and that long sitting on my workbench as I try to get a feel as to how big a base it's going to need (almost 6" x 36" if I want to put a clear case over top, which I might with this one), it don't seem all that inconsequential a hunk o' space. In fact, I have to wonder where I'm going find 3 continous feet of quasi-vacuum 8" - 12" high and 6" deep. But a volume 25% larger still? No, I'd say 30" is a wonderful thing. As for a 15" Discovery, probably only Bandai could put the level of detail onto plastic that the 2001 craft demand. A resin and etch kit might manage it, too. But 12" or even 18" for the Discovery? That would be truly mingy. And a bad thing.


----------



## Steve H

terryr said:


> One local hobby store is mainly remote control cars and helicopters. Another is half airsoft. Their stuff costs hundreds of dollars. Neither have brass tube or plastic strip in stock.
> 
> 'Radio Shack' was full of components to build stuff. Now they have phone plans for hundreds of dollars.
> 
> Locally we had one of the best magazine stores anywhere. The old couple retired and sold out to their employees. 5 or 8 years later they went broke, because people stopped buying magazines. I'm not sure of the years because I stopped going too.
> 
> Businesses have to change with the times or die out. Sometimes the customers just disappear anyway. I used to be on certain websites every day. Now I haven't been on some in years. Others have a tenth the traffic they used to.
> Every popular night club or restaurant I went to closed down after 4 or 5 years. Many of the malls have become medical clinics for old folks. [The food court is full of them hanging around all day. Don't they have homes?! ]
> 
> Many countries were the world powers once. Now they're not. If a country can fall, why not anything?


Of course. Often the failure is due to sheer mis-management (boy I have stories  ), sometimes it's due to changing tastes and cultural shifts, most times it's due to a thing I'm struggling to find a better name for, the item/concept stopped being a 'cheap,disposable' option. 

So here's what going on with our hobby. For the last 40-some years the very idea of 'building a thing' has completely fallen out of favor. Building a radio. Building a car from junker parts. Building a tree fort from found materials. Building a model kit. Yes, there are people who still do these things. Some children do these things encouraged by their parents or more likely grandparents. But CULTURALLY it's just no longer 'something everybody does'. It's not part of our shared heritage. Kids don't see it being done, kids don't hear about how these things are done, there's no sense of the neighborhood kids getting together to show off things they do. 

Then, specifically to model building, there's the fact that it's no longer a 'cheap, disposable' hobby. Of course that started with the oil shock of the '70s and the different periods of inflation and currency exchange rates going way off the rails, but then you add on to it various 'cultural problems' like 'sniffing airplane glue gets you high, so watch out about who has some' and 'spray paint is used to disfigure public property so watch out about who has some' and now of course the increase of 'huffing' making spray paint once again something to be stigmatized. 

So hobby shops, selling evil glue and paint (why, that makes them almost like head shops in the '70s!), with increasing prices on plastic kits that nobody wants to build because nobody learns the desire to build (and yes, I know BIG broad brush here. it's trends, not isolated events  ) struggle to get by selling wargames ("Wargames! WAR? that's bad!") I mean Dungeons and Dragons (But that's SATANIC!!) I mean collectable card games...what I'm getting at is they try to find SOMETHING that has the low cost high profit that model kits used to have and they just can't do it. So they fail and close and consolidate and then everyone starts buying online to get the best price (a natural reaction to the insane inflation of plastic kit prices) and THAT kills more stores because rather than try and compete in some way (and there are ways) they start stocking R/C stuff and drones (there's a market due to bust any time now from glut) and sometimes try to convert to 'pop culture junk' stores. 

Kit companies try to find some way to encourage some form of building with their pre-painted, pre-deco'ed, snap or screw together 'play models', toys you build and the industry has somehow reverted to the mid-60s/early '70s when that was the main segment of the Japanese kit business (and imported here by the boxcar full by companies like Paramount and Entex and MRC and others) but there's no path created by these modern 'play models'. No next stage. And they're STILL expensive. 

There will be a continued interest in plastic kits for some time, but it's likely that at least here in the U.S. it may turn into a very small, almost club-like affair as 3D printing becomes cheaper and better (but will it ever reach 'common use' status like inkjet printers? I'm not sure). 

It makes me depressed. I try not to think about it as much as I did here.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

A kit that size would fit nicely over the top of any doorframe in your house. those areas go virtually unused anyway.

It won't really take up that much more volume than the seaview, since except for the command "ball" and the engine block, it's mostly negative space...


much like this forum has become


----------



## spock62

Funny how a lot of you think making smaller scale, affordable kits of larger scale, expensive kits is silly. Doesn't seem the kit manufacturers feel the same way.....

From the Moebius Facebook page, on a post dated 3/9/17: A guy suggests they do a "micro-sized" version in 1/72. Frank replies; "It's a *very real possibility*..."

From the Space:1999 Props & Ships Facebook page (also a link on the Round 2 Facebook page), on a post dated 4/19/17 titled "Jamie Hood poll": Jamie posts the following:

"Alright, Space:1999 fans. Round 2 wants your input. This is an official, but unscientific and NON-BINDING poll and we are coming exclusively to the Space:1999 Props & Ships group as a token of appreciation to its members for the support given to Round 2 and our kits. 
IF we were to start planning a smaller scale lineup of Space:1999 ships, what scale do you think it should be? _Factors to keep in mind... Accuracy possible at a given scale... *shelf space*... smaller may allow us to offer a wider array of ships and possibly deliver more quickly."_

The choices are 1/72, 1/96 & 1/144. To date, out of 444 votes, *366 want 1/72 kits*.

Guess the idea of smaller, cheaper sci-fi kits isn't such a far-fetched idea after all.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Funny how a lot of you think making smaller scale, affordable kits of larger scale, expensive kits is silly. Doesn't seem the kit manufacturers feel the same way.....
> 
> From the Moebius Facebook page, on a post dated 3/9/17: A guy suggests they do a "micro-sized" version in 1/72. Frank replies; "It's a *very real possibility*..."
> 
> From the Space:1999 Props & Ships Facebook page (also a link on the Round 2 Facebook page), on a post dated 4/19/17 titled "Jamie Hood poll": Jamie posts the following:
> 
> "Alright, Space:1999 fans. Round 2 wants your input. This is an official, but unscientific and NON-BINDING poll and we are coming exclusively to the Space:1999 Props & Ships group as a token of appreciation to its members for the support given to Round 2 and our kits.
> IF we were to start planning a smaller scale lineup of Space:1999 ships, what scale do you think it should be? _Factors to keep in mind... Accuracy possible at a given scale... *shelf space*... smaller may allow us to offer a wider array of ships and possibly deliver more quickly."_
> 
> The choices are 1/72, 1/96 & 1/144. To date, out of 444 votes, *366 want 1/72 kits*.
> 
> Guess the idea of smaller, cheaper sci-fi kits isn't such a far-fetched idea after all.


And ya know? I was making that argument several years ago. I think you were as well. Love for a 22" Eagle but a new 12" (would that technically be 11" to be correct?) should be considered as well, because all the reasons I've harped on over and over. 

And so NOW it's a good idea, huh? 

Hey, here's another. Make a new Eagle with transporter pod, then make a kit of all the specialty pods. Give people options without the need to buy a fleet of Eagles just to have different pods. 

Watch. They won't do that then 3 years later put the idea on a poll. 

ETA: I have a hint of a feeling that the limited edition Eagle (twice the price for almost nothing added!) didn't move as well as they thought it would, and even maybe the upcoming Cargo Eagle just might be meeting a little bit of retailer resistance. That's the kind of thing that might trigger just such a poll.


----------



## SteveR

SUNGOD said:


> Exactly. And it's not as if it's a huge bulky thing. It's very thin ship and a long shelf on a wall will hold it nicely even for someone who's got virtually zero space.


Yep. The shelf can be shallow.


----------



## Newbie123

Wrong thread, sorry.


----------



## Trek Ace

spock62 said:


> Funny how a lot of you think making smaller scale, affordable kits of larger scale, expensive kits is silly. Doesn't seem the kit manufacturers feel the same way.....
> 
> From the Moebius Facebook page, on a post dated 3/9/17: A guy suggests they do a "micro-sized" version in 1/72. Frank replies; "It's a *very real possibility*..."
> 
> From the Space:1999 Props & Ships Facebook page (also a link on the Round 2 Facebook page), on a post dated 4/19/17 titled "Jamie Hood poll": Jamie posts the following:
> 
> "Alright, Space:1999 fans. Round 2 wants your input. This is an official, but unscientific and NON-BINDING poll and we are coming exclusively to the Space:1999 Props & Ships group as a token of appreciation to its members for the support given to Round 2 and our kits.
> IF we were to start planning a smaller scale lineup of Space:1999 ships, what scale do you think it should be? _Factors to keep in mind... Accuracy possible at a given scale... *shelf space*... smaller may allow us to offer a wider array of ships and possibly deliver more quickly."_
> 
> The choices are 1/72, 1/96 & 1/144. To date, out of 444 votes, *366 want 1/72 kits*.
> 
> Guess the idea of smaller, cheaper sci-fi kits isn't such a far-fetched idea after all.


I believe the results of that poll to be somewhat erroneous. The original MPC Eagle kit is actually closer to 1/96 scale than the Round 2-stated scale of 1/72. The rationale being that if the 22" kit is referred to as "1/48", and it is roughly twice the size of the old MPC Eagle kit, then that kit should be 1/96 and NOT 1/72, which, at 1/72, would make it about 16.5" long in comparison to the 1/48 22" Eagle kit.

I believe that when most people responded, they were wanting something in the original Eagle kit size (1/96), but mistakenly selected 1/72 because of the incorrect labeling.


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> I believe the results of that poll to be somewhat erroneous. The original MPC Eagle kit is actually closer to 1/96 scale than the Round 2-stated scale of 1/72. The rationale being that if the 22" kit is referred to as "1/48", and it is roughly twice the size of the old MPC Eagle kit, then that kit should be 1/96 and NOT 1/72, which, at 1/72, would make it about 16.5" long in comparison to the 1/48 22" Eagle kit.
> 
> I believe that when most people responded, they were wanting something in the original Eagle kit size (1/96), but mistakenly selected 1/72 because of the incorrect labeling.


I always thought for some foolish reason that the old MPC Eagle was closer to 1/87, but that was by eyeball and how some HO figures looked next to the model, which, as we now know, has some serious issues regarding 'model size' Vs 'live action set size' and blah blah blah. 

Me, either a kit somewhere 11 to 12 inches long (and thus roughly half the size of the 22" Eagle and more in the spirit of the MPC kit) or 'true' 1/72 is good enough for me. Personally, the slightly larger size of true 1/72 is slightly more pleasing if for no other reason than being able to put it on the runway with 1/72 aircraft.


----------



## spock62

Trek Ace said:


> I believe the results of that poll to be somewhat erroneous. The original MPC Eagle kit is actually closer to 1/96 scale than the Round 2-stated scale of 1/72. The rationale being that if the 22" kit is referred to as "1/48", and it is roughly twice the size of the old MPC Eagle kit, then that kit should be 1/96 and NOT 1/72, which, at 1/72, would make it about 16.5" long in comparison to the 1/48 22" Eagle kit.
> 
> I believe that when most people responded, they were wanting something in the original Eagle kit size (1/96), but mistakenly selected 1/72 because of the incorrect labeling.


On Jamie's post, he notes how big the Eagle & Hawk would be for each of the three scales. I doubt there was any confusion by the people taking the poll, unless they lack an understanding of the English language.


----------



## Richard Baker

Back to the thread topic of Moebius and 2001 kits-

While I do hate the total cost of this kit- $200 plus whatever an aftermarket interior would cost, I am glad it is in production. When I moved I lost a LOT of display space but I will find room to hang this kit. It would be terrific if this sells well enough to motivate a license renewal.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> Back to the thread topic of Moebius and 2001 kits-
> 
> While I do hate the total cost of this kit- $200 plus whatever an aftermarket interior would cost, I am glad it is in production. When I moved I lost a LOT of display space but I will find room to hang this kit. It would be terrific if this sells well enough to motivate a license renewal.


With hanging, I hope you're planning on multiple attachment points and not just two, one forward one aft. 

Thing I'm thinking of, while they say they're including a couple of steel rods to stiffen the spine, it's all stressed to be supported from below. So I think you need at least 6 points to suspend it, three along the spine aft of the midpoint, and three forward. That should even out the stress.

I'm assuming the usual fishing line and not thick twine


----------



## Richard Baker

That's my thinking- fortunately I have a dropped ceiling so attaching the top support strip that the lines attach to will be simple. Weight will not be an issue as much as structural stress as you mention


----------



## Capt. Krik

I'm sure most of you have seen this but Cult has the Discovery up for pre-order at 149.95! Still a good chunk of change but more acceptable. Hell, 50 bucks is 50 bucks.


----------



## mach7

I put mine on pre-order today!


----------



## Phillip1

I just pre-ordered mine as well!

Phillip1


----------



## RMC

*I just pre-ordered a 2001 "Discovery" from culttvman :smile2:*


----------



## SUNGOD

It'll probably be about £300 by the time it's gets over here.


----------



## Warspite

SUNGOD said:


> It'll probably be about £300 by the time it's gets over here.


Who knows, maybe Revell-Germany might rebox the Discovery the way the did the Galactica kits.


----------



## SUNGOD

Warspite said:


> Who knows, maybe Revell-Germany might rebox the Discovery the way the did the Galactica kits.




Possibility I suppose. I've got the Revell Skipjack which I picked up cheap whilst the Moebius version was much more.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I pre-ordered mine as well!


----------



## RMC

Warspite said:


> Who knows, maybe Revell-Germany might rebox the Discovery the way the did the Galactica kits.



how does REVELL have anything to do with the Discovery ?........explain ?


----------



## Warspite

RMC said:


> how does REVELL have anything to do with the Discovery ?........explain ?


Revell-Germany reboxed the Moebius Battlestar Galactica, Viper Mk II and Mk VII, Cylon Raider and Cylon figure. Hoping it might happen again with the Moebius Discovery model.


----------



## RMC

*..........I dont think so on this one because Frank said that the liscense had a time limit*


Warspite said:


> Revell-Germany reboxed the Moebius Battlestar Galactica, Viper Mk II and Mk VII, Cylon Raider and Cylon figure. Hoping it might happen again with the Moebius Discovery model.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

RMC said:


> *..........I dont think so on this one because Frank said that the liscense had a time limit*


If Revell saw it as commercial venture, there is nothing stoping the obtain a license and buying shots from Moebius, just have they have done with Fine Molds and thier Star Wars Kits. That said I'm not holding my breath on this happening.

Marty...


----------



## FlyAndFight

Checking in to see if there were any updates...


----------



## SUNGOD

Haven't seen any updates.


----------



## Zombie_61

Updates? We ain't got no updates. We don't need no updates. I don't have to show you any stinking updates!


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

That sounds like an update though!?!


----------



## Steve H

Are there any updates on the status of the update? I like to try to keep up to date.


----------



## Richard Baker

I stopped updating when I upgraded to marriage...


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I stopped updating when I upgraded to marriage...


Ah, processor limitations.


----------



## spock62

Speaking of updates: https://culttvman.com/main/sneak-peak-2001-reissues-box-art-from-moebius/

The Moonbus is a straight reissue, which we all knew. 

The Orion is also a reissue, but with (supposedly) improved tooling (as mentioned on the CultTVman site). Originally, we were told that the Orion would be all new tooling, then that changed to improved tooling, primarily of the wing (make it thinner). Well, based on the photo of the kit on the box, it looks to be the same exact kit as originally released, i.e. no changes.

The only difference I noticed was that the cockpit windows now have framework, unlike the original kit which had no frames molded on the clear part, but this might be painted on/photo retouched. 

The wings are still too thick, the panel lines are still depicted by decals (which still only give you about 50% of the panel lines/shaded panels) and there is no "Pan-Am" logo. In fact, the only thing that has changed is the scale. Since this kit is the same scale as the original Aurora kit, it was always thought to be a non-standard scale, around 1/163 or there about, now it's magically changed to 1/144! 

So much for improved. :frown2:


----------



## John P

Oh well.


----------



## RMC

*I think they should stayed with the original box art...... :|*


----------



## Richard Baker

At least this way I get to save money and build the first edition Orion kit I already have...


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Speaking of updates: https://culttvman.com/main/sneak-peak-2001-reissues-box-art-from-moebius/
> 
> The Moonbus is a straight reissue, which we all knew.
> 
> The Orion is also a reissue, but with (supposedly) improved tooling (as mentioned on the CultTVman site). Originally, we were told that the Orion would be all new tooling, then that changed to improved tooling, primarily of the wing (make it thinner). Well, based on the photo of the kit on the box, it looks to be the same exact kit as originally released, i.e. no changes.
> 
> The only difference I noticed was that the cockpit windows now have framework, unlike the original kit which had no frames molded on the clear part, but this might be painted on/photo retouched.
> 
> The wings are still too thick, the panel lines are still depicted by decals (which still only give you about 50% of the panel lines/shaded panels) and there is no "Pan-Am" logo. In fact, the only thing that has changed is the scale. Since this kit is the same scale as the original Aurora kit, it was always thought to be a non-standard scale, around 1/163 or there about, now it's magically changed to 1/144!
> 
> So much for improved. :frown2:


I believe that when this was announced, I was one of those being skeptical about the 'all new tooling' statement, and I KNOW I called it on the Pan-Am decals.

Being right doesn't make me happy in cases like this.


----------



## Richard Baker

I am just wondering if anyone offered a set of replacement wings for the Orion with the correct thickness...


----------



## Gox Blowby

hello, after reading thru the thread, I didn't see any discussion of changes to the Moonbus kit. Will the new 2017 Moonbus be identical to the 2010 Moebius release?


----------



## Gox Blowby

Apologies, somehow I'm reading this in reverse and did not find Spock62's note


----------



## SUNGOD

I have the pre-built Moonbus but could be tempted to buy it in kit form too but I've virtually zero interest in the Orion if it hasn't been retooled. Probably the worst Moebius kit to me and a wasted opportunity.

Maybe one day we'll get a larger much better tooled Orion.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I am just wondering if anyone offered a set of replacement wings for the Orion with the correct thickness...


If anyone isn't, I suspect it's a product that may well appear. The wings are such a critical aspect of the overall look, yeah, not fixing that is just nuts. Not getting it right the FIRST time is somewhat shocking.


----------



## mach7

Steve H said:


> I believe that when this was announced, I was one of those being skeptical about the 'all new tooling' statement, and I KNOW I called it on the Pan-Am decals.
> 
> Being right doesn't make me happy in cases like this.



As was posted earlier, PanAm rights are owned by a railroad firm. 
This probably isn't Moebius's decision.

I've already ordered the TSDS decals.


----------



## Zombie_61

mach7 said:


> As was posted earlier, PanAm rights are owned by a railroad firm...


PanAmtrak?


----------



## terryr

Zombie_61 said:


> PanAmtrak?


Railroad to the stars.

The future ain't what it used to be. Put a smokestack and wheels on the Orion, like a 1960s toy.


----------



## spock62

SUNGOD said:


> I have the pre-built Moonbus but could be tempted to buy it in kit form too but I've virtually zero interest in the Orion if it hasn't been retooled. Probably the worst Moebius kit to me and a wasted opportunity.
> 
> Maybe one day we'll get a larger much better tooled Orion.


Originally, before Moebius got the 2001 license, they said the Orion would be reissued with some tooling improvements, I think Frank mentioned the wings being redone, but don't quote me on that.

Then, after hearing Moebius had the 2001 license, we were told, on this thread no less, that Moebius was doing an all new tool of the kit. Then, we found out it would be just a retooling of the wings, as we had originally heard. Now it looks like just a straight reissue of the original kit.

My guess is that due to the limited time frame that Moebius has the license, they just don't have the time to redo some or all of the Orion kit, much less to make other new tool kits such as the Aries (this was mentioned earlier on this thread).

Maybe if they can extend the license in 2018 and beyond, Moebius might revisit the Orion and produce a new kit that addresses the issues of the current one. But, again, don't quote me on this!


----------



## mach7

Good points, also Moebius might have had to use an old kit for the box because the revised kit was not ready in time.


----------



## scooke123

True - it would be best to wait and see if the wings are changed before speculating how bad the kit is going to be.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> As was posted earlier, PanAm rights are owned by a railroad firm.
> This probably isn't Moebius's decision.
> 
> I've already ordered the TSDS decals.


As I think we discussed, it WAS Moebius' decision insofar everything comes to money, and if the current owners of the Pan Am trademark and logo wanted more than Moebius was willing to pay, it (accurate vintage decals approved by license holder) was not going to happen.

I mean, were I the person holding the copyright to Pan Am I sure as heck would have allowed the licensing for a minimal amount of money in order to cash in on nostalgia and put the brand out in the face of the public again. But I am known to be crazy.


----------



## Paulbo

I doubt it would be "for a minimal amount of money". If you've seen what currently produced Pan Am swag goes for now, you'd be shocked.


----------



## Steve H

Paulbo said:


> I doubt it would be "for a minimal amount of money". If you've seen what currently produced Pan Am swag goes for now, you'd be shocked.


I know that. It was the fantasy world of if I had ownership, MY thinking would have been to work with Moebius and not hold the logo hostage for an unreasonable payoff. 

Clearly why I'm not in charge of such things.


----------



## charonjr

I guess my memory is bad, I thought the Moebius Orion was 2 feet long with a complete interior....


----------



## Dr. Brad

Well, if Moebius doesn't have time to retool the wings, I hope they can at least improve on the panel decals they included the first time around.


----------



## John P

charonjr said:


> I guess my memory is bad, I thought the Moebius Orion was 2 feet long with a complete interior....


'Tis a lovely dream.


----------



## Steve H

charonjr said:


> I guess my memory is bad, I thought the Moebius Orion was 2 feet long with a complete interior....


You'd think, with all the 'push' for big kits with big pricetags, this would have been an obvious choice, a 'no-brainer' if you will. 

But no.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

spock62 said:


> Speaking of updates: https://culttvman.com/main/sneak-peak-2001-reissues-box-art-from-moebius/
> 
> The Moonbus is a straight reissue, which we all knew.
> 
> The Orion is also a reissue, but with (supposedly) improved tooling (as mentioned on the CultTVman site). Originally, we were told that the Orion would be all new tooling, then that changed to improved tooling, primarily of the wing (make it thinner). Well, based on the photo of the kit on the box, it looks to be the same exact kit as originally released, i.e. no changes.
> 
> The only difference I noticed was that the cockpit windows now have framework, unlike the original kit which had no frames molded on the clear part, but this might be painted on/photo retouched.
> 
> The wings are still too thick, the panel lines are still depicted by decals (which still only give you about 50% of the panel lines/shaded panels) and there is no "Pan-Am" logo. In fact, the only thing that has changed is the scale. Since this kit is the same scale as the original Aurora kit, it was always thought to be a non-standard scale, around 1/163 or there about, now it's magically changed to 1/144!
> 
> So much for improved. :frown2:



Are You basing all the above on the artwork - or do you have insider knowledge? 

Marty...


----------



## spock62

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> Are You basing all the above on the artwork - or do you have insider knowledge?
> 
> Marty...


Like I mentioned in my remarks, I'm basing my opinion on the box artwork. Having the kit, the wing thickness looks the same, details on the fuselage (as much as we can see) looks the same and the decals that we can see look unchanged. The only thing I noticed is that the cockpit windshield has the framing shown, something the original released lacked. But, like I mentioned, the frames could have been painted on/photoshopped on. If there are changes, based on comparing the original release to the photo on the box, there are none that are noticeable. Doesn't mean there aren't any changes, just that they can't be seen in the box photo. And no, I don't have any insider info.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> You'd think, with all the 'push' for big kits with big pricetags, this would have been an obvious choice, a 'no-brainer' if you will.
> 
> But no.




Especially as Moebius has done some huge kits. If a big Seaview can sell then surely a big or bigger Orion can as well.


----------



## Richard Baker

@g;


SUNGOD said:


> Especially as Moebius has done some huge kits. If a big Seaview can sell then surely a big or bigger Orion can as well.


If given a choice of a larger Orion or Moebius using the time an resources to make a different subject from 2001....

Unfortunately only the repops and the Discovery will hit the shelves before the license expires


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> @g;
> 
> If given a choice of a larger Orion or Moebius using the time an resources to make a different subject from 2001....
> 
> Unfortunately only the repops and the Discovery will hit the shelves before the license expires




That's the problem. I'm glad they're doing a Discovery though but let's hope it's not half-assed like the Orion. I want some nice engraved detail on there plus at least a cockpit and clear window.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> That's the problem. I'm glad they're doing a Discovery though but let's hope it's not half-assed like the Orion. I want some nice engraved detail on there plus at least a cockpit and clear window.


I strongly suspect you are going to be disappointed in that. I'm betting no cockpit, decals for windows. 

At BEST if they include clear windows they MIGHT do the cardboard faux cockpit interior. MAYBE. That extra buck or two might push the kit over budget. 

(that's meant to be a joke but you know, sometimes one wonders...)


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> I strongly suspect you are going to be disappointed in that. I'm betting no cockpit, decals for windows.
> 
> At BEST if they include clear windows they MIGHT do the cardboard faux cockpit interior. MAYBE. That extra buck or two might push the kit over budget.
> 
> (that's meant to be a joke but you know, sometimes one wonders...)




I hope not. I just can't see how including a transparent window and a bit of a cockpit would push any kit over budget. That should be standard on something like this. If the Seaview, Vipers, Jupiter 2 etc, etc could have that why can't the Discovery? I can understand having the pod doors closed and no interior there but not the cockpit. I know toolings are expensive but that doesn't make any sense to me seeing as Moebius have plenty of kits under their belt and aren't some company just starting up.


----------



## mach7

It's already been anounced on facebook, and posted hear earlier.

No interior at all.

see post 323


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> It's already been anounced on facebook, and posted hear earlier.
> 
> No interior at all.
> 
> see post 323


Yep.

Again, I do hope that at least they'll make the pod bay doors, airlock door and cockpit window area separate parts in anticipation of custom builds and aftermarket parts. If they fail in THAT simple, reasonable and logical area they may well be irredeemable.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

spock62 said:


> Like I mentioned in my remarks, I'm basing my opinion on the box artwork. Having the kit, the wing thickness looks the same, details on the fuselage (as much as we can see) looks the same and the decals that we can see look unchanged. The only thing I noticed is that the cockpit windshield has the framing shown, something the original released lacked. But, like I mentioned, the frames could have been painted on/photoshopped on. If there are changes, based on comparing the original release to the photo on the box, there are none that are noticeable. Doesn't mean there aren't any changes, just that they can't be seen in the box photo. And no, I don't have any insider info.


I personally would not take too much store in the box artwork, particularly given it's clearly a render. I'm curious how you have come to view on the kit decals.

I guess we will all have to wait and see.

Marty...


----------



## spock62

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> I personally would not take too much store in the box artwork, particularly given it's clearly a render. I'm curious how you have come to view on the kit decals.
> 
> I guess we will all have to wait and see.
> 
> Marty...


Yes, the artwork is a render and looks similar to what Moebius has done in the past with their Original Series Battlestar Galactica kits. But, assuming the render is based on the kit, it should reflect what the kit looks like. Regarding the decals, I wrote this: "Having the kit, the wing thickness looks the same, details on the fuselage (as much as we can see) looks the same _and the decals *THAT WE CAN SEE* look unchanged._". Can't make it clearer than that.

Like you wrote, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## spock62

Latest news on Discovery kit (tooling progress) from Moebius Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Moebius-Models-152580141448964/


----------



## mach7

Interesting photo's!

Trying to figure out whats what. I think I see the aft transition of the CM.


----------



## Dr. Brad

I doubt I'll get one of these, but I'm pretty happy for all of you who have been waiting a long time for this kit! It's looking pretty impressive.


----------



## John P

FYI, someone over at SSM said they asked Frank directly, and he said "Yes, clear windshield, yes separate pod bay doors." So, yay!


----------



## mach7

Cult has a photo from Moebius of the XD-1's CM. 

Looks good to me, doors are open as is the cockpit window.

https://culttvman.com/main/moebius-models-shares-a-discovery-image/


----------



## John P

Paging Stargazer Models and/or Blappy - resin interior required!


----------



## stargazer

John P said:


> Paging Stargazer Models and/or Blappy - resin interior required!


 


Working on it as we speak... (and Blappy is well primed !!) It would be better if I had an actual Kit sphere to work with (or even good measurements of doors/window location from one)... But I 'found' a clear plastic sphere of an exact 1/144 diameter to the expected 52ft Dia. (sigh) (nay, Deep Sigh.) and I have to do an ejumacated guess at the spacing/placing and diameter of the pod bay doors... Will post Pix soon ... well soon-ish.


And (Just now), looking at the pic from yesterday by mach7 my 'guess' looks pretty good... Can someone get hold of an inside sphere picture? so I can see if there is any 'detail' of any sort in there.


----------



## Steve H

stargazer said:


> Working on it as we speak... (and Blappy is well primed !!) It would be better if I had an actual Kit sphere to work with (or even good measurements from one)... But I 'found' a clear plastic sphere of an exact 1/144 diameter to the expected 52ft Dia. (sigh) (nay, Deep Sigh.) and I have to to an ejumacated guess at the spacing/placing and diameter of the pod bay doors... Will post Pix soon ... well soon-ish.
> 
> 
> And (Just now), looking at the pic from yesterday by mach7 my 'guess' is pretty good... Can someone get hold of an inside sphere picture?


Don't forget, it's not just the physical sphere size and internal volume you need to plan for, but also compensate for whatever construction/assembly method they use. It's *probably* going to just be 'edge glue and some alignment pins' but who knows.


----------



## mach7

A question for Stargazer.

I know you don't have any more info than the rest of us, but having produced your kit do you think
the added mass in the CM of your kit will have any adverse effect of the finished Moebius kit?
I'm hoping the metal rod spine insert will help.

I'm hoping not as I expect it will be supported at each end of the spine, behind the CM and in front of the drive.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> A question for Stargazer.
> 
> I know you don't have any more info than the rest of us, but having produced your kit do you think
> the added mass in the CM of your kit will have any adverse effect of the finished Moebius kit?
> I'm hoping the metal rod spine insert will help.
> 
> I'm hoping not as I expect it will be supported at each end of the spine, behind the CM and in front of the drive.


THAT is a really good question! If they didn't design the spine parts (metal rod and the plastic) to support the extra mass of an aftermarket (or Moebius designed add-on kit) interior, it's gonna be ugly and messy. 

Also uncool if the spine rod goes all the way thru the sphere. Good for support, terrible for an interior.


----------



## stargazer

Ok...:grin2:


To Steve H Yes that is why I would like to see the inside of the sphere......


To Mach 7 its all a question of finding balance points...Look, my Discovery though smaller, is going to be very much heavier (than this injection kit) by the fact of having a solid resin reactor unit, solid modules and solid parts behind the CM. and of course thicker walls on the CM itself.. All that resin sitting on a rod only 1/8 inch dia !!!. Does it bend under that weight?? Yes it does !.. IF you hold the model at both ends the centre (near the Antenna) will drop....Hold it in the middle and the ends will drop. BUT find a point just inward of the Reactor and CM, and the cantilever effect straightens the spine...just two points of support are needed... the overall extra mass in the CM due to an interior will just shift the balance point forwards a bit.


To Steve H the rod will not extend through the CM There is no reason for it to.


----------



## Steve H

Well, as to the rod potentially extending all the way into the CM sphere, I agree there's no reason for it to do so other than lazy engineering. 

In my defense, I've seen a LOT of lazy engineering over the years.


----------



## mach7

Thanks Stargazer!

Thats about what I expected, but It's nice to hear it from an expert.

I wish I had had the chance to pick up your kit, but I don't do SSM.


----------



## scooke123

In the picture it looks like 3 stands holding up the Discovery. looking at the picture on Cult's site it looks pretty open inside the sphere, doesn't look like a rod would be going all the way through it.


----------



## SUNGOD

Why that Discovery's looking pretty slick folks. Clear window, some nice surface detail and it's good how far Moebius is along with it so we don't have to wait years.:smile2:


----------



## Ducks and Witches

SUNGOD said:


> Why that Discovery's looking pretty slick folks. Clear window, some nice surface detail and it's good how far Moebius is along with it so we don't have to wait years.:smile2:


Looks like this is a good "compromise" kit if tooling costs are an issue. I really wish it had an interior considering the suggested retail price. But so glad it has a clear CM window and separate bay doors.  I was worried they cut corners to much like on the Interstellar ship and Iron Man kits. Both which should've had clear inserts at the very least.

BTW, Frank said more 2001 kits are being considered.


----------



## xsavoie

Certainly hope the Space Station and possibly 2001 Astronauts, in both Lunar and Discovery backpack options available in at least one eight scale.:grin2:


----------



## SUNGOD

Ducks and Witches said:


> Looks like this is a good "compromise" kit if tooling costs are an issue. I really wish it had an interior considering the suggested retail price. But so glad it has a clear CM window and separate bay doors. I was worried they cut corners to much like on the Interstellar ship and Iron Man kits. Both which should've had clear inserts at the very least.
> 
> BTW, Frank said more 2001 kits are being considered.





Yes it would have been a shame if there was no clear window. Clear parts make a huge difference.

Great to hear more 2001 kits are being considered.


----------



## SUNGOD

xsavoie said:


> Certainly hope the Space Station and possibly 2001 Astronauts, in both Lunar and Discovery backpack options available in at least one eight scale.:grin2:




I'd love the space station as well but as long as it has separate strips of clear windows too. Again it makes a huge difference.

Plus the Aries and a better Orion


----------



## SUNGOD

Looking at the Comic Con pics you can see the Discovery bending in the middle though so that'll need something really solid to strengthen it.


----------



## StarCruiser

I heard they intend to include a steel rod as a stiffener...


----------



## Richard Baker

Probably in two sections, joined at the Antenna Pod, to keep the box size reasonable


----------



## JeffBond

Yes; I've seen the part trees and basically everything that's included in the box--the rod is in two sections. But I assume you could easily purchase a rod that would go through the entire model in one piece with maybe a little bit of drilling involved.


----------



## mach7

JeffBond said:


> Yes; I've seen the part trees and basically everything that's included in the box--the rod is in two sections. But I assume you could easily purchase a rod that would go through the entire model in one piece with maybe a little bit of drilling involved.


Does the rod screw together? Or are the rods separate in the kit?


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> Does the rod screw together? Or are the rods separate in the kit?




I hope so otherwise it'll probably still bend in the middle.


----------



## fire91bird

There's a support near the middle under the antenna, in addition to the supports at either end.


----------



## SUNGOD

fire91bird said:


> There's a support near the middle under the antenna, in addition to the supports at either end.




I see. God...looking at the spine side on it's amazing how spindlly the original 2001 model makers decided to do it. Such an elegant but fragile looking design.


----------



## John P

One of the Discovery designs included guy wires bracing the whole length of the spine, but somebody decided that was too biplane-looking for a futuristic spaceship.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> One of the Discovery designs included guy wires bracing the whole length of the spine, but somebody decided that was too biplane-looking for a futuristic spaceship.


Those wires were there literally up to the last minute before the Discovery went in front of the camera. There are some pics out there (I recall them in some of the most recent books published) showing them in place as they finalize painting and weathering and last second detailing. 

I wonder if part of the decision was just to make a cleaner 'matt', the wires may have had the potential issue of vanishing and appearing or something. Of course today you can have ANYTHING hanging off your spaceship.


----------



## Richard Baker

IMO the extreme spindly nature of the final design is what makes it so great. It is visually obvious that this ship is meant for long distance deep space only- you cannot imagine it flipping around around like the Falcon.
BTW- I did not really care for the way we saw it tumbling in '2010'. While visually interesting, the supposed reason was that the centrifuge had seized up, transferring the angular momentum to the ships itself, but if that was the case it would be rotating along it's long axis instead.


----------



## Ducks and Witches

Steve H said:


> Those wires were there literally up to the last minute before the Discovery went in front of the camera. There are some pics out there (I recall them in some of the most recent books published) showing them in place as they finalize painting and weathering and last second detailing.
> 
> I wonder if part of the decision was just to make a cleaner 'matt', the wires may have had the potential issue of vanishing and appearing or something. Of course today you can have ANYTHING hanging off your spaceship.



I'm pretty sure most of the model work was shot "in camera". So there were no matte lines to deal with. Which is one of the reasons the effects hold up so well today.


----------



## Phillip1

The photos of the built up Discovery (with actual injections parts) looks fantastic. The detail is once again very impressive. I hope the final color of the styrene they use is a light gray to make painting a little easier. This kit is going to be great!

Phillip1


----------



## Bubba 123

Phillip1 said:


> The photos of the built up Discovery (with actual injections parts) looks fantastic. The detail is once again very impressive. I hope the final color of the styrene they use is a light gray to make painting a little easier. This kit is going to be great!
> 
> Phillip1


Agreed!! :wink2:
also maybe a scaled Pod, for @ least 1 of the "Bays", w/ door open.... 
Would hit a good thing too....
like they did for LOS "Derelict" (sp??) :wink2:

Bubba (The Senile) 123 :willy_nilly:


----------



## John P

Sorry, Bubba - no interior or pod is provided at all.
But don't worry, the aftermarket guys are on it.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> One of the Discovery designs included guy wires bracing the whole length of the spine, but somebody decided that was too biplane-looking for a futuristic spaceship.



Yes thankfully they didn't do that.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> IMO the extreme spindly nature of the final design is what makes it so great. It is visually obvious that this ship is meant for long distance deep space only- you cannot imagine it flipping around around like the Falcon.
> BTW- I did not really care for the way we saw it tumbling in '2010'. While visually interesting, the supposed reason was that the centrifuge had seized up, transferring the angular momentum to the ships itself, but if that was the case it would be rotating along it's long axis instead.




Definitely. As has often been said very skeletal like and delicate looking.


----------



## scotpens

John P said:


> One of the Discovery designs included guy wires bracing the whole length of the spine, but somebody decided that was too biplane-looking for a futuristic spaceship.


Early concept art for the _Discovery_ had solar panels running the length of the spine, but they were nixed because someone thought they looked too much like aerodynamic fins.


----------



## electric indigo

Meanwhile, in Japan:

2001: A Space Odyssey Orion III Space Clipper (Plastic model) Images List


----------



## David3

Richard Baker said:


> IMO the extreme spindly nature of the final design is what makes it so great. It is visually obvious that this ship is meant for long distance deep space only- you cannot imagine it flipping around around like the Falcon.
> BTW- I did not really care for the way we saw it tumbling in '2010'. While visually interesting, the supposed reason was that the centrifuge had seized up, transferring the angular momentum to the ships itself, but if that was the case it would be rotating along it's long axis instead.


hi richard, its a physics thing. there's a good explanation in the comments section here https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/89479/why-is-the-discovery-spinning-end-over-end-in-2010


----------



## John P

electric indigo said:


> Meanwhile, in Japan:
> 
> 2001: A Space Odyssey Orion III Space Clipper (Plastic model) Images List


Fat wing with square leading edge. No change from the last issue.
Oh well.


----------



## spock62

So, the Orion reissue is exactly like the original release, down to no Pan-Am decals? Seems someone on this forum called this out back in June. Now who was that, the name escapes me...:wink2:


----------



## Richard Baker

John P said:


> Fat wing with square leading edge. No change from the last issue.
> Oh well.


Any corrected aftermarket wings out there?


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> So, the Orion reissue is exactly like the original release, down to no Pan-Am decals? Seems someone on this forum called this out back in June. Now who was that, the name escapes me...:wink2:


Indeed.

Were I better at such things this would be a perfect place to drop a clip from ST:TMP, that hugely awkward reading when Nimoy appeared on the bridge.

"gasp" "Why, it's...it's Mr.

Spooock"


----------



## SUNGOD

I love the way it's emphasized on the back "panel decals" like that's a good thing. Oh well let's hope Moebius gives us a larger more detailed Orion in the future. 

At least we've got the Discovery to look forward to.


----------



## spock62

Posting on their Facebook page, Moebius is getting ready to have their annual "Founders Day" sale. In a response to a question asked concerning the reissue of the Orion, Frank posted a reply which contains this bit of info: *"Clipper is newly retooled as there was a factory accident, no other reason."*.

So I'm assuming this is where the confusion of whether of not the reissue of the Clipper is a new tool or not came from. Based on what was written, I'm guessing that the original tool was damaged beyond repair and Moebius decided to replace it with an exact duplicate. Too bad they didn't take the opportunity to fix the errors in the kit and scale it up to 1/144, but maybe time/lack of funds worked against that idea.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Posting on their Facebook page, Moebius is getting ready to have their annual "Founders Day" sale. In a response to a question asked concerning the reissue of the Orion, Frank posted a reply which contains this bit of info: *"Clipper is newly retooled as there was a factory accident, no other reason."*.
> 
> So I'm assuming this is where the confusion of whether of not the reissue of the Clipper is a new tool or not came from. Based on what was written, I'm guessing that the original tool was damaged beyond repair and Moebius decided to replace it with an exact duplicate. Too bad they didn't take the opportunity to fix the errors in the kit and scale it up to 1/144, but maybe time/lack of funds worked against that idea.


OK, see, this is the thing that annoys me no end. Communication fail.

I mean, it's obvious that this answer was known way back when all the speculation started. It's a simple, reasonable (altho a bit sketchy but nonetheless) answer. All that had to be done was phrase the very first press release to explain that, or barring that (too much info for the trade!), a follow-on to the fandom that spelled it all out, including any reasons why changes couldn't/wouldn't be made. 

Simple. Easy. Done. No heartache, no foiled expectations, no baseless speculation. Well, maybe some of that, we're fans, it's our nature. 

But no.

*sigh*


----------



## John P

Created new molds from scratch, but didn't fix the wing issue?
What a waste.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> OK, see, this is the thing that annoys me no end. Communication fail.
> 
> I mean, it's obvious that this answer was known way back when all the speculation started. It's a simple, reasonable (altho a bit sketchy but nonetheless) answer. All that had to be done was phrase the very first press release to explain that, or barring that (too much info for the trade!), a follow-on to the fandom that spelled it all out, including any reasons why changes couldn't/wouldn't be made.
> 
> Simple. Easy. Done. No heartache, no foiled expectations, no baseless speculation. Well, maybe some of that, we're fans, it's our nature.
> 
> But no.
> 
> *sigh*


Pretty much sums up how I feel. I would understand if other model kit companies were in the process of creating their own 2001 kits, since you don't want to give your competitors a heads up on what your doing, but only Moebius has the license, so what's the harm in letting your customers know what your up to?

The same thing happened with the whole "will there be clear parts/separate pad bay doors" for the Discovery debate. Moebius must have know very early on that they will be including those parts, why take so long to confirm this, by posting a snarky post on their Facebook page no less.

To me, they have a love/hate relationship with their customers. If you post complimentary remarks regarding their products, they eat it up. If you dare to ask questions, even as non-threatening as "will you include clear parts" or "will you fixed past mistakes in your new tool reissue", they treat you as an irritant to be ignored or talked down too. Never understood that kind of reaction.



John P said:


> Created new molds from scratch, but didn't fix the wing issue?
> What a waste.


Agreed. To me, if your going to spend the cash to redo all the molds from scratch, why not take the time to fix the issues the original kit had, including making it in 1/144 as opposed to the original Aurora "whatever" scale. Maybe time/money was against them. 

As it stands, this is a kit for someone who missed out on the original release or wants another kit for some reason. Those of us that bought the original and don't want another will pass.


----------



## Steve H

Well, my assumption is, and this is to be totally fair to Moebius, when the tooling for the Orion spaceplane was damaged, the tool could be re-milled via a digital backup, but it had to be zero changes requested because, surprise, the Chinese turn-key factory would demand extra payment and it likely would cost more than even starting from scratch, creating a 100% all new tool.

Because they're d**ks like that, or so I hear. 

But yes, recall the whole "Moebius is sick of fans nitpicking and questioning and other stuff!!" reason for leaving active participation here. Things got shockingly adversarial for a time. In some ways it was almost as if they chose directions to specifically NOT do what the fans wanted, just because the fans wanted it.

It's a shame. Lots of goodwill got burned because some folks could not learn the core lesson of the internet: signal-to-noise is always crap, but you need to LISTEN to that signal, no matter how much noise is around it. Man up. it's the world now.


----------



## Buc

or... a bunch of folks spending other people's money like it was their own.

If you want a better product... pull out your wallet.


----------



## Bubba 123

Steve H said:


> Well, my assumption is, and this is to be totally fair to Moebius, when the tooling for the Orion spaceplane was damaged, the tool could be re-milled via a digital backup, but it had to be zero changes requested because, surprise, the Chinese turn-key factory would demand extra payment and it likely would cost more than even starting from scratch, creating a 100% all new tool.
> 
> Because they're d**ks like that, or so I hear.
> 
> But yes, recall the whole "Moebius is sick of fans nitpicking and questioning and other stuff!!" reason for leaving active participation here. Things got shockingly adversarial for a time. In some ways it was almost as if they chose directions to specifically NOT do what the fans wanted, just because the fans wanted it.
> 
> It's a shame. Lots of goodwill got burned because some folks could not learn the core lesson of the internet: signal-to-noise is always crap, but you need to LISTEN to that signal, no matter how much noise is around it. Man up. it's the world now.


Moebius, is 1, of about 4 MFG's I buy From due t Quality & "Fit-Together" Issues. Being NON-Existent.... :smile2:
Also, I REALLY Like Their "PRE-Builds".. (Hint, Hint :grin2

Bubba (The Senile) 123


----------



## CapnTightpants

Bubba 123 said:


> Moebius, is 1, of about 4 MFG's I buy From due t Quality & "Fit-Together" Issues. Being NON-Existent.... :smile2:
> Also, I REALLY Like Their "PRE-Builds".. (Hint, Hint :grin2
> 
> Bubba (The Senile) 123


Unfortunately, there have been fit issues with The Penguin and The Riddler figures in their Batman 66 line.


----------



## Ducks and Witches

The undercarriage on the TOS Galactica was a nightmare. I never did get it right and have a 16th of an inch gap. The flight deck pylon sidewalls are a bugger too. But I would say generally speaking the Moebius kits are well engineered.


----------



## SUNGOD

Buc said:


> or... a bunch of folks spending other people's money like it was their own.
> 
> If you want a better product... pull out your wallet.




So people can just conjure up thousands of dollars out of thin air and start up a model company? 

People are entitled to have their view on things as long as it's not being abusive.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

John P said:


> Created new molds from scratch, but didn't fix the wing issue?
> What a waste.


It's clear what happened here, the moulds were damaged by the factory. The factory recut the moulds from the extant CAD back-up files at no or low cost. Any re-engineering would have been an extra over cost, given the model has limited appeal it was clearly not economically viable to do anything else, simples!

Marty...


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

Buc said:


> or... a bunch of folks spending other people's money like it was their own.
> 
> If you want a better product... pull out your wallet.



Bob on.

Marty...


----------



## John P

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> It's clear what happened here, the moulds were damaged by the factory. The factory recut the moulds from the extant CAD back-up files at no or low cost. Any re-engineering would have been an extra over cost, given the model has limited appeal it was clearly not economically viable to do anything else, simples!
> 
> Marty...


They shouldn't have yanked our hopes up by announcing it was retooled, or new-tooled, or whatever it was they said. It gave the impression it was being updated or corrected. Just say reissue.


----------



## John P

And the old "shut up unless you can do it better" argument is stupid, and has never held any water, especially when "doing it better" would require hundreds of thousands of dollars and forming one's own company. :freak:

It's perfectly normal for people to have opinions about products (and everything else), and perfectly acceptable for them to voice their opinions. This is a _discussion _board for frak's sake. Don't wanna see opinions of something, don't frakking _come _here.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> They shouldn't have yanked our hopes up by announcing it was retooled, or new-tooled, or whatever it was they said. It gave the impression it was being updated or corrected. Just say reissue.


Exactly right. 

I won't suggest that the mentioning of 'new tool' (which was actually simply duplicating the old tooling) was an intentional, cynical shot at grabbing money from fans who felt disappointed by the original Moebius issue of the kit.

I might suggest that this is how low-production run models are handled when 'disposable' tooling (used to be aluminum-filled resin, maybe now it's byrillium inserts) is employed. Fire up the CAD file, cut the tool, run off another 5,000 kits, call it a day.

Anyway, doesn't matter now. They boned up again due to not grasping communication reality in the modern world.


----------



## spock62

The "If you want it done better, start your own company" line has gotten old. It's the typical response given by those who can't handle an opinion other then the one they hold. As has been stated, people post their opinions on this board, and if you can't deal with opinions you disagree with, you shouldn't be on this board. 

Fact is Moebius screwed up the Orion kit. They had a chance to fix the kit. They made it sound like that was going to happen. At some point they made a decision not to fix the errors and waited till just before the kits reissue to tell us that there are no fixes done to the kit. 

While I understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for not fixing the errors, there is no reason to mislead their customers, especially when they have known for some time that the kit would be reissued without any fixes. Why they handled it this way is anyone's guess.


----------



## Buc

...and yet Frank isn't here... (just saying)


----------



## spock62

Buc said:


> ...and yet Frank isn't here... (just saying)


So? If you have a point to make, than just say it. If not, why bother? Just love these cryptic responses.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

spock62 said:


> Fact is Moebius screwed up the Orion kit. They had a chance to fix the kit. They made it sound like that was going to happen. At some point they made a decision not to fix the errors and waited till just before the kits reissue to tell us that there are no fixes done to the kit.


Imagination is a powerful deceiver.

It's your imagination that is at fault not Moebius.

Marty.


----------



## Richard Baker

From the Monsters in Motion product page:
"The Space Clipper Orion from the 1968 classic movie '2001: A space Odyssey' will be available again with all new improved tooling from studio reference material. Made of injected plastic parts the model will feature all new color graphic art with the 2001 artwork, assembly and painting instructions will also be included. 1/160 Scale Approx. 14 inches long, 35.56 centimeters"

I guess in this case they are just referring to the fact it is not the original Aurora kit tooling.


----------



## Paulbo

Monsters in Motion is not Moebius Models. What did Moebius Models post about the kit?

Perhaps this was just wishful thinking or sales hyperbole from MiM.


----------



## Marty_Hopkirk

spock62 said:


> The "If you want it done better, start your own company" line has gotten old. It's the typical response given by those who can't handle an opinion other then the one they hold. As has been stated, people post their opinions on this board, and if you can't deal with opinions you disagree with, you shouldn't be on this board.


No one has said start your own company, don't start that malarky, you and others have jumped to that conclusion - all Buc and others have done have pointed out it costs moneyto do what you are and others areadvocating, that's thier opinion and they are allowed it!



spock62 said:


> Fact is Moebius screwed up the Orion kit. They had a chance to fix the kit. They made it sound like that was going to happen. At some point they made a decision not to fix the errors and waited till just before the kits reissue to tell us that there are no fixes done to the kit.


How do you know that Moebius had chance to fix any perceived errors? Furthermore all Moebius have said they have replaced a damaged mould, nothing else.



spock62 said:


> While I understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for not fixing the errors, there is no reason to mislead their customers, especially when they have known for some time that the kit would be reissued without any fixes. Why they handled it this way is anyone's guess.


To my mind they did handle well, it was just punters were adding up 2 and 2 and coming up with 10 via thier own wishful thinking - as with all things 'tinternet this gained a degree of traction in the 'mob', a bit like the Kings clothes.

The bottom line is, we are modellers and surely the enjoyment of the hobby is fixing these perceived errors.

Marty...


----------



## Steve H

Paulbo said:


> Monsters in Motion is not Moebius Models. What did Moebius Models post about the kit?
> 
> Perhaps this was just wishful thinking or sales hyperbole from MiM.


Well, that's a valid thought, but honestly, I can't go along with it. That sure sounds like the ad hype from a retailer sell-sheet to me. Do they have a habit of making stuff up about upcoming releases?

Most retailers just don't have the time to cook up original content in re. product releases. They just copy/paste whatever is emailed to them by the manufacturer/wholeseller. 

OTOH, damning evidence can evaporate if people feel it's safer to 'save face'. I would not expect any of 'our' retailers to pop up and say "I got that email too" because it could hurt their relationship with Frank.

So, no 'Oriongate', right?


----------



## robn1

Marty_Hopkirk said:


> How do you know that Moebius had chance to fix any perceived errors?


How many years has it been since the last issue of the Orion?




Marty_Hopkirk said:


> Furthermore all Moebius have said they have replaced a damaged mould, nothing else.


The reissue announcement a few months ago stated that it was "newly tooled" with no mention of a damaged mold. Newly tooled or retooled is often used to describe changes, updates, corrections etc., so expectations of a corrected Orion were logical and predictable given the language of the announcement.


----------



## Marty Hopkirk

MiM appear to add thier own commentary to assist in selling stocks of thier kits, here is what they are saying about the very recently Moebius 2001 Moonbus:

_"The ultra-rare 1968 Aurora plastics 1:55 scale kit was briefly released in mid-1969 and then went into permanent retirement, due to a train wreck that later destroyed all the masters. Sought after by  collectors worldwide, originals can command up to $700.00 apiece._
_The Moon Bus from the 1968 classic movie '2001: A space Odyssey' was the flagship kit of Aurora's 1969 product line. The main image on the cover of its 1969 products catalog, it was the second '2001: A Space Odyssey' kit to be released, following the Pan Am Space Clipper and should have heralded a line of '2001' vehicles.This model kit will come in a full graphic Aurora styled paper wrapped box with the 2001 logo. Includes assembly instructions, 5 astronaut figures."_

Where as Cult and other retailers are little more circumspect.


Marty...


----------



## Marty Hopkirk

robn1 said:


> How many years has it been since the last issue of the Orion?


I'm not sure what you are driving at here?



robn1 said:


> The reissue announcement a few months ago stated that it was "newly tooled" with no mention of a damaged mold. Newly tooled or retooled is often used to describe changes, updates, corrections etc., so expectations of a corrected Orion were logical and predictable given the language of the announcement.


This expectation appears to have emanated from retailers and 'tinternet chatter. Not from Moebius.

Marty...


----------



## John P

Soooo.... A company puts out a kit with glaring errors that many experts on the subject point out, expressing their disappointment in an opportunity lost; a few years later they reissue it, stating "new tooling with improvements"; those who were disappointed hope that means the gross errors were fixed; we find out that's not the case and express our disappointment...

...and we're told we have no right to express our disappointment unless we can afford to start our own model company, and that our disappointment is _our own damn fault_ for being so stupid as to think a model company would respond to customer input, and hoping that "new tool" meant the errors were fixed.

(Note that, for example, Trumpeter once release a 1/32 Grumman Wildcat that was off in almost every dimensions and contour, and responded to customer complaints by pulling the kit from the market and starting over from scratch, reissuing a much, much more accurate kit later).

My reaction to this victim blaming and apologism is not publishable on a family bboard.


----------



## Buc

believe us... folks here have *no problem* expressing their opinions...

now, building a model kit?!?! ... well....


----------



## spock62

Carson Dyle said:


> *There is no reissue. It's an all-new tool of the Orion.* The scale will remain the same.





Carson Dyle said:


> The fact that *all new, more accurate tooling is being created* is a good thing, no?
> 
> BTW, there is a story behind the "new tooling," but I'll let Frank go into all that if and when he feels like it. I'm just happy *that some of the inaccuracies found on the old Orion(s) will be corrected.*





Carson Dyle said:


> spock62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is the entire kit a new tool, or just the wings? Based on your comment below, it's unclear, at least to me.
> 
> I think I’ve been pretty clear on the subject. *It’s a complete retool.*
> 
> For the umpteenth time,* it’s a completely new tooling.* * Every effort is being made to ensure accuracy*, but as anyone who’s ever worked on one of these things can tell you, you could spend years trying to get it “perfect” and still fall short. *Even so, Moebius is committed to producing the best, most accurate, most affordable Orion they can under the circumstances.*
> 
> 
> 
> So, all these postings are figments of my imagination? Mr. Dyle posted his comments based on info he got from the source...Moebius. Based on what he wrote at the time it sure sounded like Moebius was going to produce a new tool Orion with at least some of the originals inaccuracies corrected. And I know I read somewhere (I think it was on the Moebius Facebook page) that Frank had mentioned, before they had the 2001 license, that they were planning on reissuing the Orion with some changes, mainly to the wing.
> 
> These comments were posted by someone who worked on a project for Moebius and got their info on the Orion reissue straight from Moebius. Based on what was written, it's not surprising that most people expected a new-tool Orion with at least some of it's errors corrected.
> 
> Why this is so difficult to understand for some is puzzling to say the least.
Click to expand...


----------



## Marty Hopkirk

spock62 said:


> Carson Dyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, all these postings are figments of my imagination? Mr. Dyle posted his comments based on info he got from the source...Moebius. Based on what he wrote at the time it sure sounded like Moebius was going to produce a new tool Orion with at least some of the originals inaccuracies corrected. And I know I read somewhere (I think it was on the Moebius Facebook page) that Frank had mentioned, before they had the 2001 license, that they were planning on reissuing the Orion with some changes, mainly to the wing.
> 
> These comments were posted by someone who worked on a project for Moebius and got their info on the Orion reissue straight from Moebius. Based on what was written, it's not surprising that most people expected a new-tool Orion with at least some of it's errors corrected.
> 
> Why this is so difficult to understand for some is puzzling to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> Crucially, second hand info, not from Moebius. QED.
> 
> Marty...
Click to expand...


----------



## TAY666

Steve H said:


> Paulbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monsters in Motion is not Moebius Models. What did Moebius Models post about the kit?
> 
> Perhaps this was just wishful thinking or sales hyperbole from MiM.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a valid thought, but honestly, I can't go along with it. That sure sounds like the ad hype from a retailer sell-sheet to me. Do they have a habit of making stuff up about upcoming releases?
Click to expand...

MiM. 
Yes.
They are notorious for lying in their sales listings.
Saying things are in stock when they aren't. Outright lying about release dates. They also routinely exaggerate in their descriptions to help sell kits.


----------



## Jodet

John P said:


> And the old "shut up unless you can do it better" argument is stupid, and has never held any water, especially when "doing it better" would require hundreds of thousands of dollars and forming one's own company. :freak:
> 
> It's perfectly normal for people to have opinions about products (and everything else), and perfectly acceptable for them to voice their opinions. This is a _discussion _board for frak's sake. Don't wanna see opinions of something, don't frakking _come _here.


Stop making so much sense, it's making everyone else look bad.


----------



## spock62

Marty Hopkirk said:


> spock62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crucially, second hand info, not from Moebius. QED.
> 
> Marty...
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the individual that posted the info worked with Moebius on one of their kits (Proteus I believe). So, he got the info direct from Moebius. Maybe he misunderstood, or Moebius changed it's plans after he spoke to them, but there is no way for any of us to know that. Based on the info he gave, it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to believe that the Orion reissue would be a new-tool/partial new-tool and have, at least, some improvements.
> 
> Funny thing is that YOU seemed to agree with this too, based on your post from the Starshipmodeler site (last post on this page): Starship Modeler Discussion Forums - Login
> _"My understanding Moebius are tweaking thier existing moulds, rather than producing new moulds per se."_
> 
> And again, another of your posts on the same site (14th post on this page): Starship Modeler Discussion Forums - Login
> _"Yep, I read the original press release and and have close friends who have contributed- there will be minor adaptions to the mold to the wings."_
> This was response to a post asking "You seem very sure about the wings being the only thing being retooled. Do you have inside info from Moebius?"
> 
> This brings up two points a) your writing that since Moebius never said anything on this board about improving the kit, it's all hearsay. But, you admitted to having inside info that the kit would in fact have updated wings. So, either you were told this or you weren't, which is it?
> 
> Second, you claim here that the Orion has no errors. You made the same claim on the other forum, even when people showed you how the kit differed from the original miniature based on photos. Yet, you admitted that Moebius was making "minor adaptions to the mold of the wings". Why would they consider doing so if the kit is accurate?
> 
> So which is it, is the Orion accurate or not (in your opinion)? Did you receive info saying the kit was to have it's wings retooled or not? If Mr. Dyles info is "second hand" isn't yours too? Or are you just being difficult for the sake of it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Richard Baker

It really does not matter who said what or when- the bottom line is that the next release of the Orion is going to be identical to the initial Moebius release of the retooled Orion, flaws and all.
It is a decision Moebius made and while I am disappointed the wing issue has not been fixed when there was an opportunity, no amount of complaining will alter that choice (if that would do any good it would have happened already since there was plenty with the first issue).
My goal now is to try and find a replacement set of wings for the unbuilt kit I currently have- this is a wonderful opportunity for the aftermarkets,,,


----------



## lunadude

Richard Baker said:


> ...My goal now is to try and find a replacement set of wings for the unbuilt kit I currently have- this is a wonderful opportunity for the aftermarkets,,,


Well spoken!


----------



## Dave Metzner

Re tooled Orion is NOT identical to original Moebius kit. there are several revisions..This is an all new tool - replacing original tool that was damaged by one of our factory's contractors. Part layout is same as original but several details have been improved..
Not sure that new parts will fit old kit very well although new kit is based on 3D files of original kit


----------



## CapnTightpants

Marty Hopkirk said:


> MiM appear to add thier own commentary to assist in selling stocks of thier kits, here is what they are saying about the very recently Moebius 2001 Moonbus:
> 
> _"The ultra-rare 1968 Aurora plastics 1:55 scale kit was briefly released in mid-1969 and then went into permanent retirement, due to a train wreck that later destroyed all the masters. Sought after by collectors worldwide, originals can command up to $700.00 apiece._
> _The Moon Bus from the 1968 classic movie '2001: A space Odyssey' was the flagship kit of Aurora's 1969 product line. The main image on the cover of its 1969 products catalog, it was the second '2001: A Space Odyssey' kit to be released, following the Pan Am Space Clipper and should have heralded a line of '2001' vehicles.This model kit will come in a full graphic Aurora styled paper wrapped box with the 2001 logo. Includes assembly instructions, 5 astronaut figures."_
> 
> Where as Cult and other retailers are little more circumspect.
> 
> 
> Marty...


That train wreck allegedly happened while the Aurora molds were being transported from West Hempstead, NY to Monogram in Morton Grove, IL. The train wreck may well be an urban legend in modeling circles. Some have said Monogram looked over the new acquisttions and melted down what they had no use for.


----------



## CapnTightpants

Dave Metzner said:


> Re tooled Orion is NOT identical to original Moebius kit. there are several revisions..This is an all new tool - replacing original tool that was damaged by one of our factory's contractors. Part layout is same as original but several details have been improved..
> Not sure that new parts will fit old kit very well although new kit is based on 3D files of original kit


So-WEET!
BTW, I just picked up on the Moonbus Tuesday. Nice job!


----------



## John P

Dave Metzner said:


> Re tooled Orion is NOT identical to original Moebius kit. there are several revisions..This is an all new tool - replacing original tool that was damaged by one of our factory's contractors. Part layout is same as original but several details have been improved..
> Not sure that new parts will fit old kit very well although new kit is based on 3D files of original kit


Is the wing still too fat?


----------



## mach7

We will know soon enough.

I just preordered one from Cult. When it comes I'll post photos of it with my built 1st edition
Moebius and my un built vintage Aurora kit.


----------



## spock62

Dave Metzner said:


> Re tooled Orion is NOT identical to original Moebius kit. there are several revisions..This is an all new tool - replacing original tool that was damaged by one of our factory's contractors. Part layout is same as original but several details have been improved..
> Not sure that new parts will fit old kit very well although new kit is based on 3D files of original kit


Based on the photos shown on the bottom of the new box, the reissue looks exactly like the original, down to the decals. Whatever revisions where made must be very subtle. Could you fill us in on what those revisions are?


----------



## Buc

Dave Metzner said:


> Re tooled Orion is NOT identical to original Moebius kit...




aaaaaannnnddd here comes 37 MORE PAGES to this thread!!!!!

:crying:


----------



## spock62

Buc said:


> aaaaaannnnddd here comes 37 MORE PAGES to this thread!!!!!
> 
> :crying:


The whole point of the discussion about the Orion reissue is that, based on info that we heard, the kit would be an all new tool with some of the original kit's inaccuracies corrected. After much back and forth, we finally had someone (Dave Metzner) from Moebius respond writting: 

"Re tooled Orion is *NOT* identical to original Moebius kit. *there are several revisions*..This is an all new tool - replacing original tool that was damaged by one of our factory's contractors. Part layout is same as original* but several details have been improved*..
Not sure that new parts will fit old kit very well although new kit is based on 3D files of original kit."

All some of us would like to know is exactly WHAT has been revised and improved. Is that really too much to ask?

Sorry, but I don't understand why there is such a mystery behind the changes made. And, had Moebius just told their customers specifically what changes had been done to the kit when they first announced the reissue, we wouldn't be discussing this 37 pages later!


----------



## Steve H

See, if Dave had made that statement waaaay back when, so much 'noise' (in the thoughts of some) could have been avoided completely, as speculation would have been more focused.

So then yes, why encourage 'noise generation' by being silent. And the same now, dropping this vague info when specifics would have been easy-peasy?

One thing, I strongly suspect a fixed wing is NOT in the cards, as I wouldn't categorize that as 'several details have been improved' material. I think the 'improved details' will just be some panel lines here and there, maybe some bad 'trenches' reduced or something.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Hey! anybody want to see what the Discovery kit looks like?


----------



## scooke123

Lots of nice looking parts there!


----------



## stargazer

Very cool...But I need to see what the inside of the pressure sphere looks like, especially around the window and pod bay doors.


anyone in the know willing to help??


----------



## mach7

Wow! Thats impressive!

I take it from this that you will be producing a mask set?


----------



## stargazer

mach7 said:


> Wow! Thats impressive!
> 
> I take it from this that you will be producing a mask set?





Mask set ??


Interior.


----------



## mach7

I'm assuming that you, Stargazer, will be producing the interior. 

I'm also assuming/hoping Lou will be selling a paint mask set for the kit.

Does that clear up my post?


----------



## stargazer

mach7 said:


> I'm assuming that you, Stargazer, will be producing the interior.
> I'm also assuming/hoping Lou will be selling a paint mask set for the kit.
> Does that clear up my post?


 
It do...:thumbsup:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

mo photos..
and yes, as soon as I can figure out what needs masking


----------



## Opus Penguin

Maybe a mask to create the two or three different gray tones on the model. DOesn't the Discovery have some "aztec" type design on it?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

not as such. there are varying degrees of grays on random panels, but nothing I would call a pattern


----------



## mach7

Lou, I hope you can come up with something nice for this.

With Stargazers interior, hopefully your mask set, and some lights
XD-1 will probably end up costing me more than my PL Enterprise!

Stargazer, Do you see any showstoppers with your interior from Lou's
photo's?


----------



## stargazer

mach7 said:


> Lou, I hope you can come up with something nice for this.
> 
> With Stargazers interior, hopefully your mask set, and some lights
> XD-1 will probably end up costing me more than my PL Enterprise!
> 
> Stargazer, Do you see any showstoppers with your interior from Lou's
> photo's?


 

OH WOW THANK you Lou..... That is great.:x


Mach7 No showstoppers I guessed right about what to expect.:nerd:


Lou if you have this in your hands (as you seem to) is there any chance of some measurements ...To see if I got those right too..:grin2:


The external Dia of Sphere, thickness of sphere wall. Dia of pod bay door appertures. and spaceing apart of them (at narrowest) and distance between top of door aperture and sphere join. Also the diameter of the door itself (not the milled bevel). as seen in your pic XD1door.jpg (3 of 4)

and the distance between the front windscreen pillars (on the clear part). and the distance from the sphere join to the bottom and top of the windscreen slot. and the height and width of the windscreen slot (the empty area) where the 'glass' is XD1window insert.jpg (4 of 4)

As fine as pos.at least to the 16th inch or half mm please...... and please PM it to me if this info is somehow confidential...


Be fantastic if you could... and if nothing unexpected, it would mean I can carry on with the interior (which is mostly built), and hopefully have it ready to coincide with when the Discovery kit is sold.




.


----------



## John P

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Hey! anybody want to see what the Discovery kit looks like?


Holy Mother of God!


----------



## stargazer

Pictures


A, B , C, Posted by Lou... Thank you again


B (but other way around) fits into A....

C is underside of B.

My piece D fits into recess on C.

E is front on view and will be seen attached to the back of B.

more interior pix here

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=122490



.


----------



## SteveR

stargazer said:


> more interior pix here.
> Starship Modeler Discussion Forums - Login


Well, isn't that a sight for sore eyes. Lovely!


----------



## CapnTightpants

And I thought the 22" Eagle Transporter had a lot of repetitive sprues.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

CapnTightpants said:


> And I thought the 22" Eagle Transporter had a lot of repetitive sprues.


that's the only real way to make these kits practical. If you can minimize tooling, it's the way to go


----------



## stargazer

More parts made, and added to Flickr


https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums





Stargazer


----------



## mach7

Beautiful!


----------



## Nektu

wow.. amazing!


----------



## electric indigo

Considering the tinniness of things, the limited visual access, and the graphical nature of the designs, a papercraft approach would be also an option.

You'd still need fleshed-out pods, of course. Or are these part of the kit?


----------



## John P

electric indigo said:


> You'd still need fleshed-out pods, of course. Or are these part of the kit?


No pods in the Moebius kit.
Yes pods in Stargazer's interior kit.


----------



## John P

Somebody had asked about reference for painting the paneling pattern on the sphere. I found this in Piers Bizony's book:
http://www.inpayne.com/temp/discoball.jpg


----------



## Opus Penguin

John P said:


> Somebody had asked about reference for painting the paneling pattern on the sphere. I found this in Piers Bizony's book:
> http://www.inpayne.com/temp/discoball.jpg


That was me ... thanks for the pics!


----------



## stargazer

electric indigo said:


> Considering the tinniness of things, the limited visual access, and the graphical nature of the designs, a papercraft approach would be also an option.
> 
> You'd still need fleshed-out pods, of course. Or are these part of the kit?


 


This Build is of my 'Stargazer' Discovery model kit, and is certainly the best of many constructions that I have seen . The Interior is in a sphere that is about 1 inch (25mm) smaller in diameter than the New Moebius kit that I am currently making this after-marked kit for... this new interior kit will contain some parts unaltered from my kit as well as new parts re-made to suit the larger diameter command module of the moebius kit. Chandler (Of Japan) who's build is pictured here, will give an idea as to what to expect a interior to look like fitted into the Moebius discovery...The pods are just over 1/2 inch high btw.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums/72157686152843723


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

boiling down 350 pieces into sub assemblies


----------



## Dave Metzner

More like about 470 pieces, Lou.


----------



## Trek Ace

I recently saw the re-release of the 2001 Moon Bus at the local hobby shop. I was disappointed with the kit in that I was hoping for the Aurora-style packaging of the previous release with the _2001: A Space Odyssey_ text again gracing the box. Instead, it is packaged in a standard model car box.

I am still looking forward, though, to the release of the new _Discovery_ kit. I just wish that with the re-releases of the nostalgia pieces, that they would be packaged in the classic boxes and box art. That is half the fun of buying them!

Fortunately, I still have a few of the previous release of the Moon Bus on my shelf, so I will just be satisfied with those.


----------



## krlee

Trek Ace said:


> I recently saw the re-release of the 2001 Moon Bus at the local hobby shop. I was disappointed with the kit in that I was hoping for the Aurora-style packaging of the previous release with the _2001: A Space Odyssey_ text again gracing the box. Instead, it is packaged in a standard model car box.
> 
> I am still looking forward, though, to the release of the new _Discovery_ kit. I just wish that with the re-releases of the nostalgia pieces, that they would be packaged in the classic boxes and box art. That is half the fun of buying them!
> 
> Fortunately, I still have a few of the previous release of the Moon Bus on my shelf, so I will just be satisfied with those.


I bought one of the previous issues in the Aurora style boxes and never built it, decided to keep it for nostalgia. I recently decided to build another of these with a Space:1999 twist to it so I bought the new re-issue in the model car box and I am pleased with it. The fit of the parts is much better than the original Aurora kit, IIRC the Moebius kit is a new tool and not just a straight re-pop. If that is true, they did a great job.


----------



## stargazer

Some parts cast.


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4406/36374155564_d74e396efa_c.jpg


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4389/36395364083_16227cc0ef_c.jpg


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4434/36396454453_64c5c93d5e_c.jpg


----------



## John P

I'm thinking the best way to paint the spine might be to assemble it and dip it in a big bucket of white. :lol:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Dave Metzner said:


> More like about 470 pieces, Lou.


well, you know... math. :laugh:

yup... 478 if you include the stand parts


----------



## scotpens

krlee said:


> I bought one of the previous issues [of the Moebius Moonbus] in the Aurora style boxes and never built it, decided to keep it for nostalgia. I recently decided to build another of these with a Space:1999 twist to it so I bought the new re-issue in the model car box and I am pleased with it. The fit of the parts is much better than the original Aurora kit, IIRC the Moebius kit is a new tool and not just a straight re-pop. If that is true, they did a great job.


Moebius reverse-engineered new molds from an existing Aurora kit. They added a few improvements like the optional more-accurate windows and some locator tabs that weren't on the original.


----------



## stargazer

Lou I sent you a PM a few days ago...Thinking I am doing something wrong, and you did not receive it.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

stargazer said:


> Lou I sent you a PM a few days ago...Thinking I am doing something wrong, and you did not receive it.


I got it. 

I just love how hobby talk doesn't tell you when you have a new message...you have to keep looking at the notifications and then click thru to see what kind of note it is. that just makes all the sense in the world...


here's the first video on my Discovery build


----------



## stargazer

Watched the Video last night...Most excellent. Looking forward to part 2


If you don't glue the top on yet I might be able to get some interior parts to you.


----------



## Xenodyssey

Thanks for the first video, it's very informative.


----------



## ClubTepes

You are using MEK?

Be careful, that stuff is Cancer in a can.

Us a narrow necked container to keep fumes at absolute minimum.

I've got a can and have yet to open it.


----------



## Trek Ace

ClubTepes said:


> You are using MEK?
> 
> Be careful, that stuff is Cancer in a can.


Only in the state of California.


----------



## SUNGOD

Lou Dalmaso said:


> mo photos..
> and yes, as soon as I can figure out what needs masking





The Discovery looks like a nice kit but one small nitpick. I know that image of the door has been blown up and there's a bit of a glare but there seems quite a surface texture on it. 

Was that something you noticed on the ship whilst building it Lou? Great video btw!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

SUNGOD said:


> The Discovery looks like a nice kit but one small nitpick. I know that image of the door has been blown up and there's a bit of a glare but there seems quite a surface texture on it.
> 
> Was that something you noticed on the ship whilst building it Lou? Great video btw!


there is always a bit of texture on test shot parts. It is my understanding that the molds don't get a polishing until they have been approved and finalized. Once they polish the molds, the parts come out smooth


----------



## electric indigo

No no no - the texture is for the sulphur-coated 2010 version...


----------



## John P

Heh - is anybody going to build the orange version? That would be fun. :lol:


----------



## Richard Baker

John P said:


> Heh - is anybody going to build the orange version? That would be fun. :lol:


...and mount it on the wall with a spinner pivot!


----------



## electric indigo

I would build it if I had a Leonov to go with it.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Dave was so kind to send me a second generation testshot. It is made in white plastic and pretty smooth, not so textured as Lou's first generation one. I love that kit, the fit is excellent, as well as the engineering: Most seams are hidden under detail "plates", and the command sphere has its seam exactly along the raised detail near the equator. Would the seam be exactly IN the equator it would be very tough to get it smooth, but with the tiny shift to the detail area it is very well hidden.

Lou, will you make a mask for the flight deck window? The molded struts will be a bit difficult to paint, masks would be very welcome.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

John P said:


> Heh - is anybody going to build the orange version? That would be fun. :lol:


I made one a while ago from an old Comet Mini Metal Discovery. I call the vignette "Lagrange":


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Marco Scheloske said:


> Dave was so kind to send me a second generation testshot. It is made in white plastic and pretty smooth, not so textured as Lou's first generation one. I love that kit, the fit is excellent, as well as the engineering: Most seams are hidden under detail "plates", and the command sphere has its seam exactly along the raised detail near the equator. Would the seam be exactly IN the equator it would be very tough to get it smooth, but with the tiny shift to the detail area it is very well hidden.
> 
> Lou, will you make a mask for the flight deck window? The molded struts will be a bit difficult to paint, masks would be very welcome.


Marco,
The window masks were the very first thing I made.
Is your TS made of styrene or ABS?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

I'ld say it is styrene:










And it came with all the metal rods. 

Lou, can I buy a window mask set from you? I don't need other masks, as I will do all the painting by hand besides the basecoat, simply following the panel edges.


----------



## electric indigo

Marco, if you're under pressure, I can mask the windows for you. I've been pretty successful with bare metal foil


----------



## Marco Scheloske

No pressure, but it would be a nice reason to finally meet again. It's been a while now...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Marco,
PM me your address
Lou


----------



## SUNGOD

Lou Dalmaso said:


> there is always a bit of texture on test shot parts. It is my understanding that the molds don't get a polishing until they have been approved and finalized. Once they polish the molds, the parts come out smooth




I was forgetting you had test shots so hopefully that'll be sorted then. If I remember correctly there was a bit of a fuss about the texture on the new Galactica Vipers and big Round 2 Enterprise.


----------



## SUNGOD

Marco Scheloske said:


> Dave was so kind to send me a second generation testshot. It is made in white plastic and pretty smooth, not so textured as Lou's first generation one. I love that kit, the fit is excellent, as well as the engineering: Most seams are hidden under detail "plates", and the command sphere has its seam exactly along the raised detail near the equator. Would the seam be exactly IN the equator it would be very tough to get it smooth, but with the tiny shift to the detail area it is very well hidden.
> 
> Lou, will you make a mask for the flight deck window? The molded struts will be a bit difficult to paint, masks would be very welcome.




Interesting to read that and nice to see it in white plastic in your photo.


----------



## ausf

I can't wait for this one.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

oh it's a fun build! and fits perfectly above the typical window


----------



## SteveR

Lou Dalmaso said:


> oh it's a fun build! and fits perfectly above the typical window


Lou, is it too late to repaint the three stands to match the wall colour? You might get a nice floaty effect.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

SteveR said:


> Lou, is it too late to repaint the three stands to match the wall colour? You might get a nice floaty effect.


Ironically, I am thinking of putting a black panel on the wall for that very reason:grin2:


----------



## stargazer

Great build Lou...anymore video??


Some more parts.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4381/371 ... 5354_z.jpg

more pix here 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=1707197#top


----------



## John P

I'm thinking of wall-mounting it on a space-black plaque. But the only place I can think of I have room for is over the living room pass-thru - but my Great-Great-Grandfather's Civil War musket is already there! Damn first-world problems.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

stargazer said:


> Great build Lou...anymore video??
> 
> 
> Some more parts.
> 
> https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4381/371 ... 5354_z.jpg
> 
> more pix here
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814
> http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=1707197#top



OOOOoooOOoH That's some sexy stuff right there. Definitely worth putting in the next build, for sure!

Here's part 2 of the build and the third and final part will be uploaded this evening


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

and here is the third and final chapter


----------



## electric indigo

stargazer said:


> Great build Lou...anymore video??
> 
> 
> Some more parts.
> 
> https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4381/371 ... 5354_z.jpg
> 
> more pix here
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814
> http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=1707197#top


Amazing! You should go all the way and build a cutaway model.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Lou,

thanks for the videos, and a very special thanks for the window masks!

I guess you got Daves tipp for the build wrong: The locator pins of part 5 (attachment of that part to the sphere) are correct! The holes in part 5 for the pins of part 6 (conical neck part and therefor connection to the spine) are wrong. So the pins of part 6 have to be removed, or new holes drilled into part 5, otherwise the spine would have the wrong orientation.

If you build the spine including the cone you were forced to rotate part 5, but that is not what Dave meant.

This is only an issue with the testshots and will be fixed in the final kit.


----------



## Bubba 123

I wonder, "IF" the stand/display metal rods.. could be replaced by clear acrylic rods (??)

Bubba (The Senile) 123 ;-)


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

Marco Scheloske said:


> Lou,
> 
> thanks for the videos, and a very special thanks for the window masks!
> 
> I guess you got Daves tipp for the build wrong: The locator pins of part 5 (attachment of that part to the sphere) are correct! The holes in part 5 for the pins of part 6 (conical neck part and therefor connection to the spine) are wrong. So the pins of part 6 have to be removed, or new holes drilled into part 5, otherwise the spine would have the wrong orientation.
> 
> If you build the spine including the cone you were forced to rotate part 5, but that is not what Dave meant.
> 
> This is only an issue with the testshots and will be fixed in the final kit.


Marco,
in my #1 test shot, my part 6 had no pins. it was just a flat butt joint onto part #5 I nipped off the pins on the ball parts so I could just line everything up by eye. Don't worry, all is lined up good and proper.


----------



## John P

stargazer said:


> Great build Lou...anymore video??
> 
> 
> Some more parts.
> 
> https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4381/371 ... 5354_z.jpg
> 
> more pix here
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814


:surprise:


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Hm, so they have changed the pins from part 5 to the ball parts, too? Because those are correct at my 2nd generation testshot.


----------



## mach7

mach7 said:


> We will know soon enough.
> 
> I just preordered one from Cult. When it comes I'll post photos of it with my built 1st edition
> Moebius and my un built vintage Aurora kit.


Pardon me quoting myself, but...

The new Moebius Space clipper came yesterday.

I opened it up just now, I'll have photos up later today.

The wing is much thiner than the last release, It might even be thiner than the original 
Aurora kit.

There is no added engraved panel lines. At first look it looks like the engraving is identical
to the previous moebius release. Panel decals are provided as in the previous release.

The wing/fuselage forward join still does not have the clear landing light join that the Aurora 
kit has (Not sure if the filming model has it).

There are no PanAm decals.

My 1st impression is the wing is the only change in the kit.


----------



## Steve H

thanks for keeping us in the loop! Your sacrifice is appreciated 

So they DID change the wing. Sure wish they could have figured out a way to just say that, maybe even make it a selling point. 

This is my shocked face about the lack of Pan Am decals. ^_^


----------



## Steve H

I always wondered, if the 2001 models HAD survived, stored like everything MGM and others used to do, would Anderson have had access to them to use as he saw fit? It's very easy to imagine the moonbus re-purposed, worked over, repainted (and with those Mike Trim chart tape panel lines added!). I'm SURE the Space Station would have been used for some establishing shots. 

I fully understand (and sort of agree. kind of) why Kubrick ordered the destruction, but still. What could have been, right?

OTOH I'd hate to see the 2001 spacesuits in super ratty condition, all cut up and mangled, for some cheap movie.


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> I always wondered, if the 2001 models HAD survived, stored like everything MGM and others used to do, would Anderson have had access to them to use as he saw fit? It's very easy to imagine the moonbus re-purposed, worked over, repainted (and with those Mike Trim chart tape panel lines added!). I'm SURE the Space Station would have been used for some establishing shots.
> 
> I fully understand (and sort of agree. kind of) why Kubrick ordered the destruction, but still. What could have been, right?


Stanley Kubrick supposedly ordering the destruction of the _2001_ miniatures, sets and costumes is one of those enduring myths. For one thing, he didn't have the authority. None of that stuff belonged to Kubrick; it was the property of MGM British Studios.

There are photos of the 15-foot-diameter space station model sitting trashed and abandoned in the middle of a weed-covered field. We do know of at least one filming model, the Aries 1B lunar shuttle, that survives today (see linked article). And one small item from _2001_ did get re-purposed by Gerry Anderson: a Moonbus seat ended up as the Skydiver pilot's chair in the _U.F.O._ series.


----------



## David3

Also the 2001 spacesuit back packs ended up in a few episodes of DrWho and Blakes7


----------



## scotpens

mach7 said:


> The wing is much thinner than the last release, It might even be thinner than the original Aurora kit.
> 
> There is no added engraved panel lines. At first look it looks like the engraving is identical to the previous moebius release. Panel decals are provided as in the previous release.
> 
> The wing/fuselage forward join still does not have the clear landing light join that the Aurora kit has (Not sure if the filming model has it).


The filming model didn't have the landing lights. It has what look like intakes at the wing root leading edges. Frankly, I think putting landing lights there makes more sense.

Good to know they've at least improved the wing.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> Pardon me quoting myself, but...
> 
> The new Moebius Space clipper came yesterday.
> 
> I opened it up just now, I'll have photos up later today.
> 
> The wing is much thiner than the last release, It might even be thiner than the original
> Aurora kit.
> 
> There is no added engraved panel lines. At first look it looks like the engraving is identical
> to the previous moebius release. Panel decals are provided as in the previous release.
> 
> The wing/fuselage forward join still does not have the clear landing light join that the Aurora
> kit has (Not sure if the filming model has it).
> 
> There are no PanAm decals.
> 
> My 1st impression is the wing is the only change in the kit.





I must admit I tried not to get my hopes up when I read that it was a new tool and there had been improvements though couldn't help hoping we'd get more panel lines at least..... but obviously not. 

Obviously the tool makers for Moebius can't do fine panel lines. Sounds like a waste of time to me.


----------



## John P

Good grief, why didn't somebody at Moebius just SAY the wings have been fixed??? We've asked the direct question enough times.


----------



## mach7

Sorry that I don't have any photos up yet. 

I can't find my unbuilt original Aurora kit! Sadly I don't have nice shelving like John P does
and I have kits stashed all over the house.

Steve H, It's no sacrifice at all! Just another kit to build of a subject that I love.

scotpens, Thanks I thought that was the case. Like you I think the lights look good there but reentry would play havoc
with them.

I agree with the sentiment that Moebius could have just said that the wings were fixed months ago, Not sure why they didn't.

As for the engraved panel lines, I like the decals. On a ship this size ANY engraved panel lines will be way out of scale, the decals are a nice compromise too me.


----------



## stargazer

scotpens said:


> The filming model didn't have the landing lights. It has what look like intakes at the wing root leading edges. Frankly, I think putting landing lights there makes more sense.
> Good to know they've at least improved the wing.



They are lights... as can be seen in this studio image
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14588615933_fe31d981f6_k.jpg


----------



## Steve H

stargazer said:


> They are lights... as can be seen in this studio image
> https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14588615933_fe31d981f6_k.jpg


huh! But no aerodynamic clear cover. (which would likely be of quartz or something)

OTOH that's just non-specific enough that could also be vernier thrusters for final docking. On the gripping hand, if that was the intent I'm sure they would have painted some burn marks around them, so, again huh.


----------



## spock62

mach7 said:


> Sorry that I don't have any photos up yet.
> 
> I can't find my unbuilt original Aurora kit! Sadly I don't have nice shelving like John P does
> and I have kits stashed all over the house.
> 
> Steve H, It's no sacrifice at all! Just another kit to build of a subject that I love.
> 
> scotpens, Thanks I thought that was the case. Like you I think the lights look good there but reentry would play havoc
> with them.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment that Moebius could have just said that the wings were fixed months ago, Not sure why they didn't.
> 
> As for the engraved panel lines, I like the decals. On a ship this size ANY engraved panel lines will be way out of scale, the decals are a nice compromise too me.


Can you show photos comparing this kit to the _original_ Moebius release? That's really what the question has been, if the new kit is any better then the old release. Also, regarding the decals, it sounds like they're exactly the same as the original release, which means they're incomplete.


----------



## stargazer

Steve H said:


> huh! But no aerodynamic clear cover. (which would likely be of quartz or something)
> 
> OTOH that's just non-specific enough that could also be vernier thrusters for final docking. On the gripping hand, if that was the intent I'm sure they would have painted some burn marks around them, so, again huh.


 

Well they just did not show that area in the movie, maybe covers were intended but not fitted
here is another view
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4430/37401670652_91387f1009_b.jpg


----------



## Marco Scheloske

spock62 said:


> Also, regarding the decals, it sounds like they're exactly the same as the original release, which means they're incomplete.


Incomplete? Never heard about that. Can you specify in which way incomplete (beside the PanAm sign)?


----------



## spock62

Marco Scheloske said:


> Incomplete? Never heard about that. Can you specify in which way incomplete (beside the PanAm sign)?


Based on available photos of the filming miniature, there are quite a few panels/panel lines missing (on the fuselage).


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> Sorry that I don't have any photos up yet.
> 
> I can't find my unbuilt original Aurora kit! Sadly I don't have nice shelving like John P does
> and I have kits stashed all over the house.
> 
> Steve H, It's no sacrifice at all! Just another kit to build of a subject that I love.
> 
> scotpens, Thanks I thought that was the case. Like you I think the lights look good there but reentry would play havoc
> with them.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment that Moebius could have just said that the wings were fixed months ago, Not sure why they didn't.
> 
> As for the engraved panel lines, I like the decals. On a ship this size ANY engraved panel lines will be way out of scale, the decals are a nice compromise too me.




But engraved panel lines are pretty much always overscale on things like aircraft anyway. It's the effect they give instead of a bland featureless surface. Even the cartoon ship Dragonfly has more panel lines than this. 

I'm looking at my new Airfix Hurricane and the fine panel lines on that would be perfectly acceptable on the Orion.


----------



## SteveR

stargazer said:


> They are lights... as can be seen in this studio image
> https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14588615933_fe31d981f6_k.jpg


----------



## mach7

Ok, here are some quick photos:










On the left is a 60 year old Aurora kit, the center is the new wing box, the right is the last Moebius issue.



















Some details have been changed. Under the nose.










The Engine bulkhead lost it's detail.










And the aircraft right aft window lost its vertical lines, oddly they are still there on the Aircraft left.

And the NACA inlets behind the cockpit are now molded in.


----------



## f1steph

So basically, it's not worth buying it again...... When mine will be in the drydock for an overall, I'll do the mods myself. The wings will be kinda tricky tho...


----------



## mach7

As for being worth buying, Thats up to each of us. 

I have no regrets about buying it. I'll build it, as I have every styrene version of the Orion

The wings look much better, I'm not sure why the other details have changed.

SUNGOD,

It seems we can never get the lines fine enough in science fiction models, just like the Enterprise grid lines!
But oversized panel lines bother me.

I feel the decals are a nice compromise but YMMD.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> But engraved panel lines are pretty much always overscale on things like aircraft anyway. It's the effect they give instead of a bland featureless surface. Even the cartoon ship Dragonfly has more panel lines than this.
> 
> I'm looking at my new Airfix Hurricane and the fine panel lines on that would be perfectly acceptable on the Orion.


It appears that for whatever reason, neither Moebius nor Round 2 can find a way to communicate "really really really fine lines, like all these other kits" to their Chinese turn-key factories. I can't understand it.


----------



## Steve H

scotpens said:


> Stanley Kubrick supposedly ordering the destruction of the _2001_ miniatures, sets and costumes is one of those enduring myths. For one thing, he didn't have the authority. None of that stuff belonged to Kubrick; it was the property of MGM British Studios.
> 
> There are photos of the 15-foot-diameter space station model sitting trashed and abandoned in the middle of a weed-covered field. We do know of at least one filming model, the Aries 1B lunar shuttle, that survives today (see linked article). And one small item from _2001_ did get re-purposed by Gerry Anderson: a Moonbus seat ended up as the Skydiver pilot's chair in the _U.F.O._ series.


Hm. true. But whether he had the authority in a legal sense vs. 'studio does what big powerful director wants' is its own thing, as is evident in the reality- see also Space Station left in field for kids to play on. 

Also, 1969, MGM England was on its last legs (but eventually it came back), trashing stuff was probably easier than logging it, storing it for future use that would never happen.


----------



## scooke123

Have you ever dealt with the Chinese or other Eastern Asian cultures over there? I have and it is very hard to get everything understood properly. A lot lost in translation, different cultures, etc. It is a wonder they get models detailed as close as they do. Don't blame it all on the model companies.


----------



## Steve H

scooke123 said:


> Have you ever dealt with the Chinese or other Eastern Asian cultures over there? I have and it is very hard to get everything understood properly. A lot lost in translation, different cultures, etc. It is a wonder they get models detailed as close as they do. Don't blame it all on the model companies.


I've dealt with the Japanese from time to time and yes, run into odd cultural roadblocks. 

But here's the thing. There really shouldn't be a translation problem if a drawing calls for a line to be a specific width and depth. Obviously the other companies that work with Chinese turn-key factories are able to make things happen, as well as the various 'name brand' Chinese model companies and the Japanese companies that outsource to China. 

Look back at various recent kits (like the 1/350 TOS Enterprise) and see how clear, easy to read drawings get mangled and just plain wrong and need correcting. I do wonder sometimes if the factories make mistakes on purpose to generate extra income after lowballing a bid. I think the core problem comes from not having a trusted person ON SITE who can oversee everything in real time and say "NO NO NO that's wrong!" before it goes to the 'have to cut a whole new tool to fix it' stage.

But who knows. Myself, were I working with a Chinese turn-key factory (and I would do my level best to not have to) I would budget for 'mistakes', pay to have an on-site person and charge back any 'mistake' billed against the original contract. I just would not let them get away with the nonsense. 

But I am a known crazy man.


----------



## scooke123

That's the problem - you can't have a trusted person on-site to oversee things plus there comes a point where the amount of $$$$$$ spent have to come down to a compromise. This isn't armor, automotive or aircraft kits we are talking about - those will generate a lot of sales. This is too small a market to sell to. Plus you are dealing with make-believe subjects anyway. How long was the model even on the screen and not that many detail shots of it from the outside. I look at the model and say yep! That looks like what I saw in 2001 and close enough for me but I don't stress over small inaccurate details anyway. I have more important things to worry about and I figure not may are going to see my finished models and could care less about a few details off. I don't plan on entering any in contests. But that is just me - and I understand other people like everything well detailed down to the smallest bolt. I appreciate and admire such builds and in no way put down anybody's way of enjoyment they get from this hobby. I personaaly would go nuts worrying about small details and would lose the enjoyment I get from this hobby. I do enjoy reading about other's passions about it though. I hope that never ends!
Steve


----------



## spock62

Just a few thoughts:
Glad to see the wings are thin, they look good. Looks like some panel lines have been redone and I think molding the "NACA inlets" into the fuselage is much better than using decals. It looks like the front of the fuselage has been widened too, which looks right based on photos of the original filming miniature (OFM). As for the detail changes on the bottom, based on the few photos of the OFM bottom, the kit still looks off. And there are still missing details and incomplete/poor decals to contend with.

So is the kit "worth" buying? That depends on your point of view, if you want 100% accuracy (no such thing), then no, it isn't worth it. On the other hand, if you happy as long as it "looks the part", then you'll want this kit since the original release looked good built and now, with improved accuracy, this new version it should look even better. But, if you already have the original release, the improvements might not be enough to justify purchasing the new version.

Since this kit is essentially a new tool, I would have liked to see engraved panel lines, instead of decals. For those that say engraved lines in a kit of this size would look out of scale, I think your basing that on how Moebius does their panel lines, which are rather thick and soft. Other companies have no problem doing fine panel lines in small scale models. The problem in not the size of the kit, but rather the Chinese manufacturer that Moebius uses.

Also, saying that since it's a sci-fi kit, you can't expect it to be as accurate as a real life subject (i.e. Spitfire, Sherman tank, etc.), is only partially true. While it is difficult to find good photos of older sci-fi subjects (like the Orion), the info is out there. I have a handful of photos of the OFM, (using Goggle search), and the photos clearly show details that Moebius missed/got wrong on their kit. If I can find it, I'm sure they can too.

Having said all of that, and since I make models for myself and not to win prizes at a show, any kit I make has to satisfy me. My criteria is a) did it go together reasonably well, b) once completed, does it look like the real thing and c) do I feel it was worth my money and time based on the end result. The Orion (original release) is a "YES" in all 3 categories for me, warts and all. In fact, I can say that about every Moebius kit I own, regardless of any inaccuracy issues the kit may have.


----------



## mach7

I agree. The panel lines could be thinner, Like on my Meng F-102 the engraving is very fine indeed, but even those would be 
out of scale on a ship of this size. R2 and Moebius can't or won't get the engraving that fine. 

The bottom line is where else for around $30 are you going to get an injected molded, nice kit of the Orion?


----------



## Richard Baker

I would much prefer panel lines to be engraved over the spotty patches of decals Moebius uses for this kit.

Regarding translations to a foreign manufacturer. When Thomas Sasser was mastering the Diamond Select Enterprise D he ran on eproblem- he could not make them understand that the square lifeboat hatches were identical hardware units. The factory kept changing them- making them different sizes and shapes as if they were racing strobe-stripes. They had never seen anything about the show and considered everything on the hull to be some sort of decoration.

I am on the fence about the newest issue of the Orion. I like the changes Moebius has made although why go through the cost of removing the detail from the engine compartment bulkhead when that part is never seen? I have an unbuilt first Moebius issue of this kit but I am inclined to get this one as well, if not just for thew wing fix.


----------



## scooke123

As far as the panel lines that are missing - it is easy enough to engrave your own lines. There are tools out there to help with straight, curved and odd shaped lines. I guess it depends how much detail you want to add to your particular model.


----------



## Richard Baker

That's my plan- I just hate having to do all that work when they could have been included. The Aurora kit looked pretty good with the lines they had- not to scale of course but it did not detract any for me.


----------



## Steve H

When I was young I built the Aurora 'Orion', a couple of times. I had no idea if it was film accurate or not, it just looked decent to my eyes. 

Now I tremble in concern over every new genre kit, wondering if there will be that one flaw that ruins the look. This is, obviously, an over-reaction. 

I'm still wishy-washy on this specific re-issue. It's neither fish nor fowl. It's not a re-creation of the Aurora kit (which I would love, but a 100% re-creation, as if from original tooling including the goofy atomic engines) nor is it a much more accurate all new tool kit attempting to model the filming miniature. 

LOL! Maybe I'll wait for Bandai to scoop up the license and they produce the ultimate kit (which I KNOW would include Pan-Am decals. They'd pay the fee, not a doubt about it).


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> As for being worth buying, Thats up to each of us.
> 
> I have no regrets about buying it. I'll build it, as I have every styrene version of the Orion
> 
> The wings look much better, I'm not sure why the other details have changed.
> 
> SUNGOD,
> 
> It seems we can never get the lines fine enough in science fiction models, just like the Enterprise grid lines!
> But oversized panel lines bother me.
> 
> I feel the decals are a nice compromise but YMMD.




It's amazing. I've got some limited run aircraft kits too which have fine engraved lines.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> It appears that for whatever reason, neither Moebius nor Round 2 can find a way to communicate "really really really fine lines, like all these other kits" to their Chinese turn-key factories. I can't understand it.




You're not the only one. Maybe some of it's down to cost? The finer the lines the more it costs but I'd rather pay more for something that actually has some detail not just bits of paper.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> That's my plan- I just hate having to do all that work when they could have been included. The Aurora kit looked pretty good with the lines they had- not to scale of course but it did not detract any for me.



Exactly. I've tried engraving lines before and not only was it a pain but I didn't think they looked right. No matter how hard I tried they ended up uneven.

You shouldn't have to do that on a modern kit.


----------



## John P

Si - I've tried engraving lines. I'm _terrible _at it. Guess I'll be drawing them on, but I'm thankful I'll be drawing them on a wing of proper thinness.


----------



## spock62

Engraving lines that are consistent in depth and width is an skill, one which I don't have. Also, regarding the wings, you'd have to make sure the top/bottom panel lines of the one wing matches the other. It can be done, but if your off, it will be noticable. 

Sorry, but there is NO reason that a new tool kit doesn't have engraved panel lines. Every other manufacturer does this with their kits, and some do it extremely well, why can't Moebius?

Again, I'm glad to hear they took the time to make some corrections, but it seems like a waste to not add engraved lines and correct all the errors from the previous release. Seems like a wasted opportunity to me. While the kit is nice, it deserved better, being such an iconic design.


----------



## phrankenstign

Bottom line: Is the new Moebius kit an overall improvement over previous versions?


----------



## mach7

phrankenstign said:


> Bottom line: Is the new Moebius kit an overall improvement over previous versions?



Yes. The wing was fixed. That was the main discrepancy. Moebius chose to go with decals over engraved panel lines on some of the fuselage and most of the wing.

It still does not have any PanAm logos. That is due to the PanAm rights being owned by a train company. I assume Moebius thought it too expensive.

Aftermarket decals can be bought. TSDS has some and I think JT graphics does also.


----------



## John P

Is the kit out now? I'd hate to order one and find it's the fat-wing one.


----------



## mach7

I got mine at Cult, Mega says they have it in stock.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> Yes. The wing was fixed. That was the main discrepancy. Moebius chose to go with decals over engraved panel lines on some of the fuselage and most of the wing.
> 
> It still does not have any PanAm logos. That is due to the PanAm rights being owned by a train company. I assume Moebius thought it too expensive.
> 
> Aftermarket decals can be bought. TSDS has some and I think JT graphics does also.




There were 2 main discrepancies. The wing thickness *and* the lack of physical detail i.e. the panel lines.


----------



## SteveR

I'll buy one, regretting having bought the thick-wing version. 

Oh, well. You take a 2001 model when you get one, I suppose. I have an old Lunar Models pod that's a misshapen blob of resin, but hey! It's 2001!


----------



## phrankenstign

mach7 said:


> Aftermarket decals can be bought. TSDS has some and I think JT graphics does also.



Which are more accurate?


----------



## mach7

SUNGOD said:


> There were 2 main discrepancies. The wing thickness *and* the lack of physical detail i.e. the panel lines.



The wing thickness is a real discrepancy, The lack of physical (surface) detail is addressed with decals. 
You may not like their decision, but the detail is there. For me it is more realistic to use the decals. 
Others disagree.


----------



## mach7

phrankenstign said:


> Which are more accurate?



The aftermarket decals are for the PanAm livery, no extra paneling.


----------



## spock62

mach7 said:


> The wing thickness is a real discrepancy, The lack of physical (surface) detail is addressed with decals.
> You may not like their decision, but the detail is there. For me it is more realistic to use the decals.
> Others disagree.


But, not only are the included decals of poor print quality, they're incomplete. So, only one of the two main discrepancies have been addressed. And the wings still lack navigation lights, so they're still not totally correct.


----------



## Richard Baker

If the paneling decals were wallpapered like the Round2 Trek kits I could deal with it. What we do get is a scattering of panels in patches and a naked hull for the rest of the ship. 
That for me is not only disappointing, it just makes the ship look incomplete.
The only real solution is to research the panel (takes a while but there are some good references out there done by other builders), break out the engraving tools and guides, then spend considerable time engraving the hull.

I wish Moebius used a manufacturing company capable of making ultra fine panel lines and detail such as we see on the current line of Bandai Star Wars kits, but who they chose to produce their kits is up to them (might be to keeping the cost down).

Personally I grow weary of hearing about the enormous trenches of kit panel lines- no kit will be able to replicate an accurate panel line in scale- even the giant 1:350 TOE-E couldn't. While not to scale, panel lines to add significantly to a subject looking like it is an assembled machine instead of a polished sculpture. The original Aurora Orion had panel lines, still large, but it looked fantastic unpainted. Primed and painted, the lines were less obvious but they still made that ship look real.

Oh well, rant over. I am probably going to get the newest release Moebius Orion and rescribe the entire hull and ditch the decals. I still have the original release, I may bash it into the unseen booster and mount it belly-to-belly- the extra wing thickness could actually work well in making the ship look like a heavy booster...


----------



## Steve H

in re. panel lines, I know that realistically, you shouldn't see ANY panel lines, period. Even those finely scribed lines on 1/72 scale aircraft are way, way 'oversized' for reality. It's part of the 'accepted convention' of the hobby, and even our perception, to have them.

And in our specific little world, many of the things we accept in SF vehicles just would not work in real life. Look at that photo of the spaceplane linked a page or two back (#632). Bolts sticking out around the cabin hatch! Various random protruding chunks of material sticking out a good scale half inch or more! (the random plant-on strips of plastic sheet) Panel gaps easily a scale 2 inches wide! How in the name of God can that thing fly and not burn up on re-entry?

But we accept it because it looks like it should work. Realistically that should be as smooth as a baby's bottom with any detailing being just color variations to replicate different materials used-like the way you paint a B-36. Shiny for the aluminum parts, dull for the magnesium. 

Two things I'd love to see regarding the Orion. 1. Somebody put one in a wind tunnel and see what happens, and 2. someone build it like it was real. strip off all the nonsense, all the overwrought planted on stuff and make it a beautiful smooth space dolphin like the design seems to call for.  (I'd give a crack at that but circumstances completely prevent me from even trying, sorry.)


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> in re. panel lines, I know that realistically, you shouldn't see ANY panel lines, period. Even those finely scribed lines on 1/72 scale aircraft are way, way 'oversized' for reality. It's part of the 'accepted convention' of the hobby, and even our perception, to have them.
> 
> And in our specific little world, many of the things we accept in SF vehicles just would not work in real life. Look at that photo of the spaceplane linked a page or two back (#632). Bolts sticking out around the cabin hatch! Various random protruding chunks of material sticking out a good scale half inch or more! (the random plant-on strips of plastic sheet) Panel gaps easily a scale 2 inches wide! How in the name of God can that thing fly and not burn up on re-entry?
> 
> But we accept it because it looks like it should work. Realistically that should be as smooth as a baby's bottom with any detailing being just color variations to replicate different materials used-like the way you paint a B-36. Shiny for the aluminum parts, dull for the magnesium.
> 
> Two things I'd love to see regarding the Orion. 1. Somebody put one in a wind tunnel and see what happens, and 2. someone build it like it was real. strip off all the nonsense, all the overwrought planted on stuff and make it a beautiful smooth space dolphin like the design seems to call for.  (I'd give a crack at that but circumstances completely prevent me from even trying, sorry.)




This is the thing. Look at a P51D for instance. Models of that always have either raised or recessed panel lines but the surface of a Mustang was smooth as it was covered in a paste.

But most people expect panel lines as if they're fine they're much better than a bland surface. Also I remember someone saying before that drilling holes for windows is better than having them moulded on the model as moulded windows are out of scale.

Conveniently forgetting that so are drilled holes. In fact they're probably even more out of scale and less realistic than moulded windows (and messier). Not everything has to or can be in exact scale when it comes to models but it's the effect they give.


----------



## SteveR

Steve H said:


> 2. someone build it like it was real. strip off all the nonsense, all the overwrought planted on stuff and make it a beautiful smooth space dolphin like the design seems to call for.


I've puttied up the Wilco Orion (an Aurora recast, I suppose) and polished it smooth. It's quite nice. No greebly panels. I'm thinking of scribing some extremely thin and light lines.


----------



## electric indigo

I think of model kits as of illustrations of a certain subject, they are an approximation in a specific style. And I don't want an illustration to look like a photography, I want to enjoy the approach, be it watercolor, pencil, or even artistic CGI. Same goes for model kits. They may be over-weathered or, in the case of SF models, physically unrealistic, but these may exactly be the things I like.

This does not mean that ugly panel lines may not ruin the look of a kit...


----------



## Richard Baker

If you look down the side of a 757 airliner you do not see a smooth, featureless hull with windows. This is how we are used to seeing the machines in our world- they are assembled from smaller parts. When we see a smooth object our perception is that it is small, since we are familiar with small objects being made from more complete objects. Large objects are made from many smaller ones, if you want a replica to look like a large object the eye needs something see as smaller sub-units. Panel painting does work in in certain circumstances, but when you see a subject in space with high contrast lighting you do not see subtle variations of hull color, you see textures and panel lines. When I watched 2001 on the big screen in the sixties I did not see panel coloring, I saw white hull with dramatic shadows as it moved across the screen.
When Star Trek The Next Generation wanted a smaller filming miniature of the Enterprise, they chose to increase the surface texture beyond what was established with the relatively smooth original model. While it may not be accurate, it made the ship look much larger with lighting even though it was a much smaller model.


----------



## SteveR

Yep, a visual texture would help enhance the scale effect of the Orion, helping us imagine it larger. But once the panel lines get thick, we lose the effect. So, we have to optimize it, right? Show some panels, but with lines that are so thin, we almost don't see them. I think that very light scribing with grey wash might be the way to go.

Here's a 757.


----------



## Steve H

One of the things I was always impressed by was photos in space of our Space Shuttle. The clarity in vacuum is so shocking! But then you see the slight wrinkles and distortions in the thermal blanket around the upper nose/cockpit area. How can that be safe? Won't that peel off on re-entry?! Yet it worked. 

But the visual texture! OMG the texture you see! almost impossible to duplicate color gradients. The semi-gloss of the tiles. Every single marking crystal clear. 

all of which should be invisible in most any build of the shuttle. 

I recall many aircraft with wrinkly skin. B-36s and B-52s with just humungus wrinkles on their fuselage, almost washerboards! I don't think that's something I'd want to see on a spaceplane.


----------



## spock62

Here's a good review of the Orion comparing the original & reissued versions:


----------



## mach7

So there you go. A good summation of all the changes. 

He missed the Aircraft right, aft window detail is missing. 

He caught many more changes than I did. A nice comparison.

Again, it's up to you if the changes warrant spending $30 on it.


----------



## spock62

mach7 said:


> So there you go. A good summation of all the changes.
> 
> He missed the Aircraft right, aft window detail is missing.
> 
> He caught many more changes than I did. A nice comparison.
> 
> Again, it's up to you if the changes warrant spending $30 on it.


Based on the changes, I think the kit is worth buying. But, that means you'll also have to purchase the Pan Am decals too, and the only places I see that have them (JBot, TSDS), charge around $15+shipping which adds quite a bit to the overall cost of the kit. Not sure why Moebius couldn't/wouldn't include Pan Am decals, but I think not having them will hurt sales of the kit.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Based on the changes, I think the kit is worth buying. But, that means you'll also have to purchase the Pan Am decals too, and the only places I see that have them (JT Graphics, TSDS), charge around $15+shipping which adds quite a bit to the overall cost of the kit. Not sure why Moebius couldn't/wouldn't include Pan Am decals, but I think not having them will hurt sales of the kit.


I dunno, given other decals I've seen, $15 (plus shipping) seems like a really good deal for the one thing that make the kit 'work'. 

As to why Moebius didn't get the rights, who knows. they don't feel it matters to explain these things. I think the general assumption is the current owners of Pan Am and its logos and marks wanted more money than Moebius wanted to pay (which may well have been ANY money was more than Moebius wanted to pay but that's mean of me) or the other possibility, the owner of Pan Am wouldn't license out for ANY amount of money. 

It is a shame. It's about as iconic an image as one can get, that big blue Pan Am globe on the side of the spaceplane. I recall a good amount of time where the alternate name was "the Pan Am shuttle".


----------



## mach7

BTW, I just picked up the new Moonbus release. At 1st glance it looks identical to the last release. Moebius said they made no changes 
So it's really no surprise.

Molded in white.

$39.99 at my LHS. Not a bad deal.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> I dunno, given other decals I've seen, $15 (plus shipping) seems like a really good deal for the one thing that make the kit 'work'.
> 
> As to why Moebius didn't get the rights, who knows. they don't feel it matters to explain these things. I think the general assumption is the current owners of Pan Am and its logos and marks wanted more money than Moebius wanted to pay (which may well have been ANY money was more than Moebius wanted to pay but that's mean of me) or the other possibility, the owner of Pan Am wouldn't license out for ANY amount of money.
> 
> It is a shame. It's about as iconic an image as one can get, that big blue Pan Am globe on the side of the spaceplane. I recall a good amount of time where the alternate name was "the Pan Am shuttle".


The decals I bought for the original release of this kit where from Acreation and cost about $5 including shipping. Acreation is now out of business I believe. Their decal sheet only had Pan Am markings, which is all I needed and why it was so cheap. The other decal sets include options for different logos and I think the TSDS sheet includes a colored paper interior, but since I don't want any of that it would be a waste of $$$ to buy those sheets for me. 

I've got to believe that there's a lot of people out there, modelers who don't go on forums like this and don't know of or buy aftermarket upgrades, that will see this kit and purchase it thinking it will have the Pan Am decals (even though the markings are not shown on the box photos). They'll get the kit home only to find said markings missing. It's just something you expect a modern kit to have, all the markings.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Here's a good review of the Orion comparing the original & reissued versions: https://youtu.be/34ACd4s-ODs





Ahhh!!! When I first saw that picture of the Orion on the video comparison I though maybe some people were joking and Moebius *had* done more panel lines.:frown2:

Anyway I'm not sure which Orion model that is but look how much better it looks with those engraved lines.


----------



## mach7

spock62 said:


> Based on the changes, I think the kit is worth buying. But, that means you'll also have to purchase the Pan Am decals too, and the only places I see that have them (JBot, TSDS), charge around $15+shipping which adds quite a bit to the overall cost of the kit. Not sure why Moebius couldn't/wouldn't include Pan Am decals, but I think not having them will hurt sales of the kit.



Space Clipper decals from JTGraphics

From Cult $3.95 plus shipping.


----------



## spock62

mach7 said:


> Space Clipper decals from JTGraphics
> 
> From Cult $3.95 plus shipping.


I had checked the Cult site earlier and saw this. Not sure if this is a new item or old, but it is listed as out of stock.


----------



## SteveR

mach7 said:


> BTW, I just picked up the new Moonbus release. At 1st glance it looks identical to the last release. Moebius said they made no changes
> So it's really no surprise.


Yeah. I asked Moebius about it and they said that the changes were between the Aurora version and their version. So any information about changes are old news.


----------



## SteveR

What would be a good way to _partly_ fill the panel lines? Brush in some Mr. Surfacer and wipe the excess?


----------



## terryr

Several coats of primer and sand off most of it?


----------



## spock62

SteveR said:


> What would be a good way to _partly_ fill the panel lines? Brush in some Mr. Surfacer and wipe the excess?


One coat should do the trick, since Mr. Surfacer will shrink as it dries, leaving the panel lines still faintly showing. At least that's been my experience.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

SteveR said:


> Yeah. I asked Moebius about it and they said that the changes were between the Aurora version and their version. So any information about changes are old news.


Uhm... but the comparison video linked above shows it differently...


----------



## mach7

I was posting about the new moonbus release. No changes from the previous Moebius moonbus.

The Orion, yes many changes.


----------



## SteveR

mach7 said:


> I was posting about the new moonbus release.


... to which I was replying.


----------



## SteveR

spock62 said:


> One coat should do the trick, since Mr. Surfacer will shrink as it dries, leaving the panel lines still faintly showing. At least that's been my experience.


Thanks.


----------



## CapnTightpants

mach7 said:


> Space Clipper decals from JTGraphics
> 
> From Cult $3.95 plus shipping.


Currently sold out.


----------



## SteveR

CapnTightpants said:


> Currently sold out.


JT Graphics is still in business, but with limited inventory, according to their website. JT-Graphics.com


----------



## mach7

SteveR said:


> ... to which I was replying.


Yup, 

I think Marco was mixing the 2 up. He referenced the video which was about the Orion
when quoting you.

If I'm wrong, Sorry.


----------



## John P

Anybody wanna buy my OLD unbuilt Moebius Orions? :lol:


----------



## ausf

I got the kit last week, just took a closer look at it.

The mods necessary to hit the filming model are minimum in my opinion, far less than most AC modelers do.

I'm going to fill all existing lines, scribe everything new and where it should be, scratch build the nav and landing lights (wing root may need a vacuformed piece), add the proper bolt/rivet detail around the hatch, the other bits and pieces of detail and work on the depth and detail of the windows.

Could also use some strip stock between the leading edge openings and certainly in the engine recesses.

It really isn't too much work to make a decent model. 

And yes I agree, these days with Bandai knocking it out of the park, you would certainly think we'd get a better effort on this, but as it has been pointed out, this ain't Star Wars, it's a 50 year old movie with a tiny customer base. I'm glad it was reissued so I didn't have to drop big coin on an OOP kit.

A $25 model, some .005" Evergreen, a good scribing tool and a bunch of bench time, what could be better than that?


----------



## spock62

ausf said:


> I got the kit last week, just took a closer look at it.
> 
> The mods necessary to hit the filming model are minimum in my opinion, far less than most AC modelers do.
> 
> I'm going to fill all existing lines, scribe everything new and where it should be, scratch build the nav and landing lights (wing root may need a vacuformed piece), add the proper bolt/rivet detail around the hatch, the other bits and pieces of detail and work on the depth and detail of the windows.
> 
> Could also use some strip stock between the leading edge openings and certainly in the engine recesses.
> 
> It really isn't too much work to make a decent model.
> 
> And yes I agree, these days with Bandai knocking it out of the park, you would certainly think we'd get a better effort on this, but as it has been pointed out, this ain't Star Wars, it's a 50 year old movie with a tiny customer base. I'm glad it was reissued so I didn't have to drop big coin on an OOP kit.
> 
> A $25 model, some .005" Evergreen, a good scribing tool and a bunch of bench time, what could be better than that?


True, a modeler could do as you say, but the point is why does he have too? Isn't this a newly tooled kit? Since Moebius had to make all new molds for this release, why not take advantage of this and do the subject justice by making it the most accurate as humanly possible and bumping up the scale to 1/144? Oh, and throw in the Pan Am decals too. Besides, not every modeler has the skills/tools/money/time/desire to do what your suggesting.

Saying it's "a 50 year old movie with a tiny customer base" may be true, but so are many military kits produced today (WWI, WWII happened well over 50 years ago and many of the subjects being produced are not main stream planes/tanks), so that doesn't really pan out. Besides, if subjects from 2001 have such a small customer base, why would Moebius even bother to acquire the license, since they probably wouldn't sell enough kits to make it worth it?

Overall, the kit is good. It looks like the Orion and is better then the original release. But, it still is a kit with a lot of flaws, which in 2017 is just not acceptable. Even Aurora, back in '68, did better in some ways (panel lines, thin wings (no retooling required), Pan Am decals). I would think, given the state of the art of model kit making today and the fact that it is 50 some odd years later, we should have a much better kit of the Orion. I also think modelers should be holding Moebius to a higher standard, rather then giving them a pass.


----------



## ausf

spock62 said:


> True, a modeler could do as you say, but the point is why does he have too? Isn't this a newly tooled kit? Since Moebius had to make all new molds for this release, why not take advantage of this and do the subject justice by making it the most accurate as humanly possible and bumping up the scale to 1/144? Oh, and throw in the Pan Am decals too. Besides, not every modeler has the skills/tools/money/time/desire to do what your suggesting.
> 
> Saying it's "a 50 year old movie with a tiny customer base" may be true, but so are many military kits produced today (WWI, WWII happened well over 50 years ago and many of the subjects being produced are not main stream planes/tanks), so that doesn't really pan out. Besides, if subjects from 2001 have such a small customer base, why would Moebius even bother to acquire the license, since they probably wouldn't sell enough kits to make it worth it?
> 
> Overall, the kit is good. It looks like the Orion and is better then the original release. But, it still is a kit with a lot of flaws, which in 2017 is just not acceptable. Even Aurora, back in '68, did better in some ways (panel lines, thin wings (no retooling required), Pan Am decals). I would think, given the state of the art of model kit making today and the fact that it is 50 some odd years later, we should have a much better kit of the Orion. I also think modelers should be holding Moebius to a higher standard, rather then giving them a pass.


I hear ya, but apparently the license window was narrow and the Discovery was the biggest effort.

In terms of age, yes WWII was older, but the mass appeal for a certain armor or aircraft kit is much larger that the 2001 Orion. It's like a Harry Potter book vs a textbook. The textbook will always be more expensive because theres a select few buying it.

If the Orion was designed by Willy Messerschmidt and flew during WWII, you'd have more kits than you would care to see, with every variant and AM companies tripping over themselves to get you updated resin and PE. Look at the Haunebu. It's out in multiple kits, multiple scales.

As far as PanAm decals, who knows? I bet someone, maybe even Delta, has the rights to that image and Moebius doesn't want to unravel it. Their license might not extend to it because MGM's use might have been limited.

Again, I agree with you, but at the same time it's a business. It's a $25 model that'll probably out OOP in a year, I doubt 
Moebius is too concerned, they get there return on it and move on.


----------



## JeffBond

I think the licensing window was key. Moebius was putting out a new, large and very elaborate model of the Discovery while also getting the Orion and Moonbus out as companion pieces. There was a very tight deadline to do this. I honestly would have preferred a Space Pod kit to any of the reissues but that's just not the way the cards fell. I realize this falls into the "just be happy with what you got" commentary but in this case there was a very real time limit that prevented everyone's (even Moebius') model wishes from coming true.


----------



## mach7

I realize this thread is 47 pages long, but the issue of the PanAm decals has been dealt with at least 3 times in this thread. 

The rights to EVERYTHING Pan Am are owned by a rail company in New Hampshire. They have been making a good living selling the merchandising rights to Pan Am over the past few years. The craze seams to be dying down now.

My guess is the rights to use the logo/name were just too expensive (if available at all), but you would have to ask Moebius. 

Obviously Moebius had a good reason to not include them in the kit. As they are available in the aftermarket or they can 
be made with any printer and a basic graphics program it's not an issue for me. Others obviously feel different.

How much is an old Aurora or Monogram 70's reissue on Ebay? They have the decals and oversized panel lines.


----------



## Zombie_61

JeffBond said:


> I think the licensing window was key...


Not only the licensing window, but the licensor themselves who (as far as I know) have final say through the approval process on the kit that gets produced. Moebius themselves commented on this a few times back when they were still active participants here. For example, they could tell the licensor, "We still need to change this, that, and the other thing...", but if the licensor says, "No, it's good enough as it is," Moebius is stuck producing that kit _and_ taking the blame when we modelers complain about the inaccuracies.


----------



## Phillip1

Lou,

Thanks for sharing your very detailed Moebius Discovery build. I found the videos very entertaining and informative. The masking set you produce will be very useful on this excellent kit and I will certainly have to have one.

Phillip1


----------



## SUNGOD

Phillip1 said:


> Lou,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your very detailed Moebius Discovery build. I found the videos very entertaining and informative. The masking set you produce will be very useful on this excellent kit and I will certainly have to have one.
> 
> Phillip1




I enjoyed watching his videos too. Great build!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

thanks guys. It looks like December, but still in time for Christmas.
now you know what to put on the mantle after you take down the stockings


----------



## SUNGOD

Lou Dalmaso said:


> thanks guys. It looks like December, but still in time for Christmas.
> now you know what to put on the mantle after you take down the stockings




I don't think we'll get it in time for Xmas over here.:frown2:


----------



## electric indigo

Hobbysearch lists it with a December release date. Pics of the box (dummy?) and painted sample over here:

2001: A Space Odyssey Discovery (Plastic model) Images List


----------



## scotpens

Quoting from the box art:


> When a monolithic object of extra-terrestrial origin is discovered in orbit around Jupiter, the manned deep space exploration spacecraft, Discovery X-Ray Delta One, is sent to investigate and collect data related to the mysterious artifact.


That's incorrect. The monolith was discovered buried on the moon. When the lunar night ended and the monolith was exposed to the sun, it emitted a powerful radio beam aimed at Jupiter. We didn't see the Jupiter monolith until the spacecraft actually reached Jupiter. 

I suppose it's too late to make a correction if the boxes have already been printed.


----------



## Zombie_61

scotpens said:


> ...That's incorrect. The monolith was discovered buried on the moon. When the lunar night ended and the monolith was exposed to the sun, it emitted a powerful radio beam aimed at Jupiter. We didn't see the Jupiter monolith until the spacecraft actually reached Jupiter.
> 
> I suppose it's too late to make a correction if the boxes have already been printed.


Yeah, but who wants all of that printed on the box anyway? And how many people are going to buy this kit who haven't seen the movie and don't know the story?


----------



## stargazer

Well the Discovery interior masters are finished...









see all the parts here.












More pix here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814
http://starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=122490&p=1712084#top


----------



## lunadude

stargazer said:


> Well the Discovery interior masters are finished...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see all the parts here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More pix here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 5112842814
> http://starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=122490&p=1712084#top


WONDERFUL! It seems you have the Pods covered too!


----------



## Opus Penguin

stargazer said:


> Well the Discovery interior masters are finished...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see all the parts here.


Any idea on cost yet?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

fan freakin tastic!


----------



## stargazer

Lou Dalmaso said:


> fan freakin tastic!


 

Thanks:grin2: 

There are about 50 parts in this ...(not all 50 shown, as some parts will be multiple eg 3 pods)


The masters are in the post off to Starship Modeler (USA) I just have the decals to do,...and the Instruction sheets.


Don't know the selling price yet, but expect $50+ to be ballpark.


----------



## mach7

stargazer said:


> Thanks:grin2:
> 
> There are about 50 parts in this ...(not all 50 shown, as some parts will be multiple eg 3 pods)
> 
> 
> The masters are in the post off to Starship Modeler (USA) I just have the decals to do,...and the Instruction sheets.
> 
> 
> Don't know the selling price yet, but expect $50+ to be ballpark.


Very nice!

Can I buy directly from you? Cult TV man? Or will it just be sold over at SSM? 

I don't SSM so I hope there will be other options.


----------



## John P

You should definitely do SSM. It's a great place.


----------



## mach7

John P said:


> You should definitely do SSM. It's a great place.



Sorry, I disagree. I left there years ago, I won't go back.

I want the interior, but If it's only sold at SSM I will have to pass.


----------



## stargazer

I did ask John L awhile ago to let other sellers have kits, as the only raisondetre for this kit is to fit it into this discovery


----------



## Phillip1

Fellow Modelers,

Good news (if you didn't know already)! Steve at CultTV confirmed the shipment of 2001 Discovery Kits has shipped from mainland China. He says he expects to be able to start shipping orders next week. He also cautioned that any unexpected/last minute delay would change this schedule.

Thanks

Phillip1


----------



## mach7

Steve sent me a request for payment. They should be shipping by the end of the week.


----------



## CapnTightpants

I don't know where that came from. I know it's in the beginning of 2010, but in 2001, Bowman never said that.


----------



## Richard Baker

He didn't say it on screen that we heard, but he said a lot of stuff we did not hear either. Things like "Mission control, there is a giant box out here singing opera, I am going to climb into a pod and take a closer look "...


----------



## scotpens

CapnTightpants said:


> I don't know where that came from. I know it's in the beginning of 2010, but in 2001, Bowman never said that.


Do you mean the quote "My God, it's full of stars"? It isn't in the movie, but it's in Arthur C. Clarke's novel.


----------



## CapnTightpants

scotpens said:


> Do you mean the quote "My God, it's full of stars"? It isn't in the movie, but it's in Arthur C. Clarke's novel.


I forgot about that. It's been 49 years since I read the novel.


----------



## The_Engineer

I have seen the movie a few times over the years. The last time was about 10 years ago and I was very certain that Bowman said that line at the end of 2001 and for some reason it was cut from the version that I had. There is another scene I know that was cut because I remember seeing it years back but it was not in the DVD that I had. It was the scene when Poole was killed by Hal using the pod's arm to cut his air hose. I remember that the hose being cut scene and I think it was cut out. I'm pretty sure they showed what happened after that when Poole was tumbling about trying to catch the cut hose.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

The_Engineer said:


> I have seen the movie a few times over the years. The last time was about 10 years ago and I was very certain that Bowman said that line at the end of 2001 and for some reason it was cut from the version that I had.


Maybe the famous "Snowspeeder crashing into AT-AT-Cockpit"-effect? I would swear that I saw that scene in the first screening of ESB, as countless other moviegoers, but meanwhile I know it was not. I have no clue WHY I am thinking that this scene was in the movie back in the days...


----------



## scotpens

The_Engineer said:


> I have seen the movie a few times over the years. The last time was about 10 years ago and I was very certain that Bowman said that line at the end of 2001 and for some reason it was cut from the version that I had.


Memory can be a tricky thing. That line was never spoken in the movie. Not ever. Really, no bull. NEVER.


----------



## John P

But it WAS spoken in 2010, the sequel. Maybe that's where the confusion comes from.


----------



## terryr

John P said:


> But it WAS spoken in 2010, the sequel. Maybe that's where the confusion comes from.


2010 - the one with the ugly space suits.


----------



## John P

terryr said:


> 2010 - the one with the ugly space suits.


That's the _un_official subtitle.


----------



## scotpens

The clunky, cluttered look of _2010_'s space hardware worked well enough on its own terms. The problem was that it made the technology look _less_ advanced than the clean, sterile design esthetic of _2001_. And of course the needless Cold-War-heating-up subplot made the movie hopelessly dated just a few years after it was released.


----------



## scooke123

So lets get this thread back on track - anyone have the Discovery coming?


----------



## Capt. Krik

IT' HERE! IT'S HERE! Just open the box. MY GOD! It's full of plastic!

Thank you, Moebius. Thanks also to Steve at CultTVMan for the timely delivery.


----------



## Phillip1

Got my too! I agree that Steve at CultTVMan has provided excellent customer service.

Merry Christmas

Phillip1


----------



## jaws62666

*ditto!*


----------



## John P

Now in stock at the Starship Modeler store too!
https://starshipmodeler.biz/shop/in...very-xd-1-deep-space-research-spacecraft.html


----------



## Opus Penguin

I had to cancel the pre-order because I needed the funds. I sure can't wait to get one soon.


----------



## mach7

Got mine today, and I chose Parcel post.

I opened it up, WOW!, thats a lot of parts!


----------



## mach7

From Shapeways. $15 each, scaled for the new XD-1!

They have the arms molded inside of them.

They look very nice and they will be a nice addition to the kit.


----------



## stargazer

"From Shapeways. $15 each, scaled for the new XD-1" (nice looking pod BTW)


Exactly so, and proves a point. 


The full size pod was 81 inches dia. (2057.4 mm) 

The 'shapeways' Pod is 20 mm dia. So ... 2057 divided by 20 = ~1/102 scale !!


and 1/102 X 110 ( 110 mm is the dia of the mob CM) = 11,220mm or ~37 Ft*


*given that the 'scaled pod' was likely 'eyeballed' for size. (40 ft is quoted in the 2001 novel)




..


----------



## JeffBond

I'm wondering if the shapeways pod would work for the big Timeslip Discovery too...


----------



## mach7

Cult just posted what appears to be a Skyhook models pod for the new Discovery.

https://culttvman.com/main/coming-very-soon-1144-space-pod/


----------



## SteveR

stargazer said:


> Well the Discovery interior masters are finished...


Ian, what are the lighting possibilities for your kit? Thanks ...


----------



## Opus Penguin

mach7 said:


> Cult just posted what appears to be a Skyhook models pod for the new Discovery.
> 
> https://culttvman.com/main/coming-very-soon-1144-space-pod/


I wonder if these are lightable. Picture makes it appear like they are not. Also, how many in the kit? All three?


----------



## Opus Penguin

SteveR said:


> Ian, what are the lighting possibilities for your kit? Thanks ...


Also any idea when it will be availble?


----------



## stargazer

Opus Penguin said:


> Also any idea when it will be availble?


 

Hi..... Well all the master parts are in the USA now with John L... casting soon... 


I have just finished the decal sheet masters, and am currently working on the instruction sheets, which of course can all be sent by e-mail..


Looks like a plethora of POD's, done by different folk... My kit also contains 3 pods...
Pod body's, 'Earmuffs', and arms.


the Earmuffs are separate on mine, so the pod body's can easily be hollowed out for lighting and the space then covered over with the Earmuffs.


As to lighting ... Yes there is plenty of room to run wires etc. I have made the parts with cutting 'lit' panels out in mind, for anyone who wants to... certainly I saw some excellent lighting jobs done on 'my' 1/144 discovery...


pictures of decals (well ...cut out paper photo copies) here at btm. of page.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums/72157685112842814


and here is a lighting job in 'my' discovery done by a guy in Japan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums/72157686152843723



.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Are decals capable of being back lit to make controls glow? This looks really good and I look forward to getting the kit to go with the Discovery.


----------



## cosmonauta

Any idea when Stargazer's Discovery Interiors will be available? I got some years ago the Stargazer's Discovery One and indeed it was very impressive model, very detailed and easy to lit up.


----------



## stargazer

cosmonauta said:


> Any idea when Stargazer's Discovery Interiors will be available?
> 
> 
> I got some years ago the Stargazer's Discovery One and indeed it was very impressive model, very detailed and easy to lit up.






Really good Build....:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## stargazer

Well all the Instruction sheets , Decal sheet, and Box Art are done.









So nothing more I can do on this, tis all done.... bar the waiting


----------



## John P

Just hoping one-zero lets us buy _just _the cockpit. I've got your resin kit for the open-pod config. I'll build the Moebius one closed. If I ever get around to building either one, that is. :lol:


----------



## mach7

I've collected some aftermarket parts for the XD-1.










The pods on the left are the Shapeways 3D printed pods

The center one is the Cult TV resin pod W/PE arms

The one on the right is the Yay pod/engine grills.

The Shapeways pods are much larger than the other 2. All of them have
nice surface detail and a smooth surface.

I also picked up the Paragraifx cockpit PE set and the Lou's paint masks.

The jury is still out on the Paragrafix pod interior. It looks great but I'm not sure how much
it will be visible on the finished kit, or if I even want to open up the pod bay.


----------



## Zombie_61

mach7 said:


> ...The jury is still out on the Paragrafix pod interior. It looks great but I'm not sure how much it will be visible on the finished kit, or if I even want to open up the pod bay.


"Open the pod bay doors, MACH."


----------



## Dr. Brad

Just for the record, I'd really like a cockpit only upgrade. Just so there's something behind those windows...


----------



## stargazer

Ok just for your entertainment...


Inserts in the picture, the pod on the right is true 1/144 scale (as are both of the other two pods in the original picture)


The pod on the left (with arms) is a last minute decision.


I was for a long time going to put my 1/144 scale pod in the kit, but at almost the last moment, decided that I would do a 
'half way' size pod for reasons talked about elsewhere on this thread.


----------



## lunadude

So many different sized Pods. All claiming to be 1:144. Which one is considered the best match for the Moebius kit? (please excuse my confusion)


----------



## stargazer

The real problem is that the Moebius kit is not 1/144 scale.


The best match for the size proportionately (ignoring scale) is the shapeways ones on the left.


Three other pods in the pic. are indeed actually 1/144 scale ( well mine is, but the others against the rule seem to be the same size).... The one with arms (which I don't claim to be 1/144) at 'half way size' addresses the interior scale V exterior scale. e.g. a compromise size.


----------



## mach7

Eyeballing the kit the Shapeways appear to me to be the best size.


----------



## mach7

For comparison:














































As Stargazer posted, The Shapeways one looks the best.


----------



## stargazer

Exactly so Mach7


see previous page (50)


If this Discovery model had been called 1/102 scale (AS IT IS) and said that on the box, I would also have made my pod at the size of the shapeway pod...But it dose not...it has 1/144 on the box !!! so that is the scale I aimed to make the interior at.


----------



## SteveR

So, among currently-available 2001 kits, none are in the same scale?

(... and among OOP resin kits, only the 1/144 Orion and Aries were in the same scale, as were Scott's Discovery 1/12 astronauts and pod?)


----------



## mach7

Nope, however I would love a 3 ship set in 1/144 of the Orion, Aries 1b, and the moonbus.


----------



## SteveR

mach7 said:


> Nope, however I would love a 3 ship set in 1/144 of the Orion, Aries 1b, and the moonbus.


That would be lovely. I'm sorry I missed Stargazer's 1/144 Orion and Aries when they were available. John P did a nice buildup of the cargo Orion, I think.


----------



## John P

2001 Orion II Cargo Shuttle


----------



## Opus Penguin

mach7 said:


> Eyeballing the kit the Shapeways appear to me to be the best size.


I agree with this. I just watched the scene where Dave goes to retrieve Frank's body. The Shapeways one looks to be the correct size for the Moebius kit.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Stargazer, any new word on when your interior kit will be available? Will it be available on CultTVman?


----------



## John P

Opus Penguin said:


> Stargazer, any new word on when your interior kit will be available? Will it be available on CultTVman?


I think it's going to be a Starship Modeler exclusive, since Ian actually send the masters to John at SSM, and he will be doing the casting.


----------



## Opus Penguin

John P said:


> I think it's going to be a Starship Modeler exclusive, since Ian actually send the masters to John at SSM, and he will be doing the casting.


A little disappointing, but ok if I can still get one. Do you have to be a member to buy it at Starship Modeler?


----------



## stargazer

I did ask John to share this one around other sellers...


Have to wait and see if that works out...


Ian


----------



## John P

Opus Penguin said:


> A little disappointing, but ok if I can still get one. Do you have to be a member to buy it at Starship Modeler?


I don't think you need to be a member.
But you should be a member - it's a fun place.


----------



## stargazer

Ok...

Fitted the interior. A friend sent me a Moebius Discovery... 

AND so..... 

Good fit considering I did not have a Moebius CM to work with when I made the Interior. 

See fitted parts here https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer ... 1810160881

Parts in pix are Unpainted, and some small parts such as workbench and features in rear wall, & space suits etc, not fitted...yet

In light of my fitting it into an actual Mob CM, I have sent some extra parts off to to be included.
I figured (having fitted it), that some moebius parts I thought might be altered by the modeller, may be problematic to some, so I have done pre altered 'wind' screen frame, doors and milled bezel already separated, and seeing no detail on the exterior Airlock door I have done one of those too.


----------



## mach7

It fits very well considering you had nothing in hand. 

Very well done.


----------



## Opus Penguin

This is so awesome! So the pod can manually be moved in and out of the pod bay? This would be great if you want to display the interior and with the pod launch, or with all doors closed.


----------



## stargazer

Opus Penguin said:


> This is so awesome! So the pod can manually be moved in and out of the pod bay? This would be great if you want to display the interior and with the pod launch, or with all doors closed.




It will move in and out but you would have to do work, involving drill bits and some grinding with a dremmel, to make it do it. Same as you could light it but you would have to do the work..


----------



## Ducks and Witches

@ stargazer- Wow, amazing!


----------



## Opus Penguin

stargazer said:


> Hi..... Well all the master parts are in the USA now with John L... casting soon...
> 
> 
> I have just finished the decal sheet masters, and am currently working on the instruction sheets, which of course can all be sent by e-mail..
> 
> 
> Looks like a plethora of POD's, done by different folk... My kit also contains 3 pods...
> Pod body's, 'Earmuffs', and arms.
> 
> 
> the Earmuffs are separate on mine, so the pod body's can easily be hollowed out for lighting and the space then covered over with the Earmuffs.
> 
> 
> As to lighting ... Yes there is plenty of room to run wires etc. I have made the parts with cutting 'lit' panels out in mind, for anyone who wants to... certainly I saw some excellent lighting jobs done on 'my' 1/144 discovery...
> 
> 
> pictures of decals (well ...cut out paper photo copies) here at btm. of page.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums/72157685112842814
> 
> 
> and here is a lighting job in 'my' discovery done by a guy in Japan
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/stargazer-models/albums/72157686152843723
> 
> 
> 
> .


Any further new on this release? Been checking Starship Modeler.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Anyone see this on the Moebius Facebook site? Wish I had the room:

1600mm (about 63 inches) 1/96 Discovery kit that will be available towards the end of the year. This is being imported by me personally, so it should be available anywhere you get kits. Moebius will be carrying it of course, and I'm sure you will have no problem with finding. But... as with most large Japanese kits it will be on the pricey side. But form what we've seen well worth it


----------



## cosmonauta

*Any News from Stargazer's release date on Moebius 2001 Discovery Interiors?*

Several months has past since last Stargazer post about the super detailed interiors that will be available for the Moebius 2001 Discovery One. Any news yet about when it will be released? Can't wait to have it!


----------



## JeffBond

That certainly demonstrates that you can't fit the interior sets into the Discovery command sphere...


----------



## John P

Ian (Stargazer) sent the patterns to John Lester at Starship Modeler, and now we're all breathlessly waiting for John to start casting kits.


----------



## stargazer

JeffBond said:


> That certainly demonstrates that you can't fit the interior sets into the Discovery command sphere...


smoke and mirrors....works every time. :grin2:


Ps I am as frustrated as anyone else about the time it has taken to get this kit in store.....:frown2:


----------



## cosmonauta

I read your post (Stargazer) on Starshipmodeler.net Discussion forum in which you said when it will be available. 

Stargaze quote on Sat Jun 02, 2018: "Well John told me weeks ago it would be out about now". That was early June!!!!!

Its been more than a month since that and we are still waiting for this fantastic complementary kit to come out. I got mine last Christmas and since then is sitting in its box waiting for the release of these interiors. However I am sure it will worth the wait!


----------



## Richard Baker

John at SSM has a lot going on, plus a full time job to contend with. I am sure he knows how eagerly people are waiting to but the Discovery interior set. He is not going to delay something like this due to laziness or inattention, odds are it is in the hands of the castors and he is waiting for them to ship to him.


----------



## robn1




----------



## stargazer

Richard Baker said:


> John at SSM has a lot going on, plus a full time job to contend with. I am sure he knows how eagerly people are waiting to but the Discovery interior set. He is not going to delay something like this due to laziness or inattention, odds are it is in the hands of the castors and he is waiting for them to ship to him.


 

I am hoping you are right... I sent a PM to John several days ago mentioning that it has now been over 10 months since I sent the interior masters(end of 2017) (and two years since I sent the Tycho moonbase masters) He read it but has not replied.


----------



## xsavoie

*New product*

What about that big 1/8 scale Space Pod from Moebius coming along. Wow. The same scale astronaut is what most of us are wishing for I'm sure. And finally hope for a 12 inches in diameter Space Station.:grin2:


----------



## f1steph

Well a 1/12 2001 astronaut is available at Shapeways. So I guess a 1/8 will be available in a near future....


----------



## SteveR

f1steph said:


> Well a 1/12 2001 astronaut is available at Shapeways. So I guess a 1/8 will be available in a near future....


Here ya go ... https://www.shapeways.com/product/QWZXZV5AE/2001-astronaut-dave-bowman-1-12?optionId=63763251&li=marketplace


----------



## spock62

Latest info on 2001 EVA Pod kit: https://culttvman.com/main/moebius-update-2001-eva-pod-box-art-and-images/


----------



## Richard Baker

Really looking good!
- just wish it was not so huge...


----------



## spock62

First review I've seen of the kit. IMHO, overall it looks good, but has the usual soft detailing on Moebius kits and has one big flaw, depending on whether or not you want to light the interior. All the buttons on the panels/walls are molded on (the plastic is opaque), which makes it impossible to light. All of those buttons light up, so you have your work cut out if you want them lit. I think that for the price their asking, Moebius should have provided the buttons as separate clear parts.


Here's the link:


----------



## JeffBond

There's a photo etch accessory coming out that will make lighting the kit much easier.


----------



## spock62

JeffBond said:


> There's a photo etch accessory coming out that will make lighting the kit much easier.


You mean this: http://www.paragrafix.biz/product_detail.asp?PPartNum=PGX220

All that does is serve as a light blocker. This will help with the view screens, but it won’t solve the issue that I mentioned, that the buttons are molded onto the opaque plastic panel parts. Unless you cut off the buttons and fashion your own from clear plastic, you can’t light them & have to paint them instead, like the instructions indicate.


----------



## Rainfollower

Cast your own?


----------



## John P

I'd image the white plastic is translucent enough that the buttons will glow, no? Color them with transparent paint.


----------



## spock62

Rainfollower said:


> Cast your own?



For the price and size of the kit, you shouldn't have to cast your own, the kit should have been engineered with clear parts for all of the buttons.




John P said:


> I'd image the white plastic is translucent enough that the buttons will glow, no? Color them with transparent paint.



Per the video, the plastic is gray, not sure if it would look good with the transparent paint.



Moebius must know that a lot of guys would want to lite this kit up. The kit is large and the interior lights up like Tokyo at night (see attached photo). They even provide clear parts for the computer screens to facilitate lighting. Why not the buttons? Lighting just the screens, and nothing else, will look odd to say the least. If they didn't want to go for the cost of making separate clear button parts, why not just mold the panels/walls in clear, so all the modeler would have to do is mask the buttons when painting the panels/walls? Seems they went out of their way to make it harder on modelers to light the kit. I can understand that a small company like Moebius has to make compromises for cost reasons, but this seems to be a poorly thought out cost cutting measure.


----------



## Buc

...says everyone who doesn't actually produce kits themselves.


----------



## StarCruiser

^ Both points are correct. There is a cost (quite a lot, actually) to add yet another sprue, of clear parts. At the same time - a LOT of modelers would have preferred to pay a little more and have the option of lighting up the interior...

Catch 22...


----------



## TAY666

Another point. This is no longer a thing being made by Frank, and Moebius.
Pegasus now owns and runs the company.


----------



## spock62

Buc said:


> ...says everyone who doesn't actually produce kits themselves.



This is a very tired argument which is always used when someone dares to critique a kit. My opinion regarding the buttons doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of producing kits. It's just common sense.




TAY666 said:


> Another point. This is no longer a thing being made by Frank, and Moebius.
> Pegasus now owns and runs the company.


True, but in the end, it doesn't matter who owns the company, what does matter is that the decision to mold the buttons in opaque plastic hinders modelers who wish to light the kit. It's an odd choice, which is probably a cost cutting measure. At $145+ per kit, I would think most modelers would expect the kit to be designed to be fully lit, not partially as it is now.


----------



## Buc

(at $145 per kit, me thinks most modelers ain't buying it)


but... whatever... continue the nit picking... I'm sure Frank dreamed
of producing a kit of a subject matter that he loved as a kid, poured out
sweat and blood financially to make it come true... only to have you come
on, after the fact, and pick at it like a bloody scab.


Hey, I got an idea... why not call Capt Cboard and order one of his!


(again, IMHO of course... I might be wrong)


----------



## JeffBond

There are some great lighting options going up on Monsters in Motion and soon at CulTVMan and it certainly looks like they achieve a solid glow through the kit plastic. I usually paint clear parts white on the inside to diffuse the light anyway and it looks like the kit plastic produces a similar effect.


----------



## spock62

JeffBond said:


> There are some great lighting options going up on Monsters in Motion and soon at CulTVMan and it certainly looks like they achieve a solid glow through the kit plastic. I usually paint clear parts white on the inside to diffuse the light anyway and it looks like the kit plastic produces a similar effect.



This is the lighting kit your referring to: https://www.monstersinmotion.com/ca...ting-detail-kit-for-moebius-model-kit-p-26313


Well, it's humble pie time for Spock62, based on the photos, I was flat out wrong, the interior buttons _can_ be lit to great effect. Didn't realize it would work so well. Looks like Moebius picked the most cost effective way to design the interior for lighting. Lit up, it looks like a dead ringer to the full sized studio prop.


----------



## JeffBond

One of the aftermarket accessories is a bunch of clear panels with holes cut in them to allow the modeler to direct individual LEDs so they point light straight at particular buttons or screens--a terrific and probably essential addition to the lighting and light-blocking kits out there. It's obviously going to cost me more to light the kit than the cost of the kit itself but the results look well worth it to me.


----------



## spock62

Sorry for the double post, Hobby Talk was acting funny on my end.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

spock62 said:


> Sorry for the double post, Hobby Talk was acting funny on my end.


I deleted the 2nd post, let us know if the issue returns. :cheers2:


----------



## spock62

Here's another unboxing video:


----------



## ClubTepes

For those commenting on the 'buttons'.

………...Yup, you are right, for a kit of that scale and cost, you should be able to light up the buttons.

………….For those who comment on the cost of producing a kit, where the buttons are separate clear parts.
You are also right. More cost.

…………..Why they didn't simply shoot those panels in clear rather than opaque plastic, realizing that anyone who is going to purchase this kit is probably old enough and experienced enough to paint and mask?...………. I have no idea.


Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.


----------



## JeffBond

It looks like the included panels transmit (and more importantly, diffuse) light just fine. As I said on another thread, I always paint clear parts white on the inside to spread the light so you don't get hot points and it gives a great, even effect, and it looks like you get the same results putting LEDs right under the kit control panel parts.


----------



## ausf

JeffBond said:


> It looks like the included panels transmit (and more importantly, diffuse) light just fine. As I said on another thread, I always paint clear parts white on the inside to spread the light so you don't get hot points and it gives a great, even effect, and it looks like you get the same results putting LEDs right under the kit control panel parts.


Exactly.

I put a blue 3mm LED behind the panel and it looks screen ready.

I'm not a Moebius apologist, I'm still a bit pissed they wouldn't make good on the missing face (THE FACE) on my sealed, preordered Joker kit. 

But this kit is a home run, it fits together perfectly. Yes it's expensive, but it's huge. And honestly, some LEDs, a few resistors and aluminum tape for light blocking is all you need to make a beauty of a EVA pod. 

At first glance I thought they blew it on the front panel, the main angle photo from the rear looks like it should be flush, but other photos show different.

Honestly, about 20 bucks on LEDs, resistors, wire and some HVAC tape and you're good. Don't even need to use paint on the buttons if you use color LEDs.


----------



## stargazer

cosmonauta said:


> I read your post (Stargazer) on Starshipmodeler.net Discussion forum in which you said when it will be available.
> 
> Stargaze quote on Sat Jun 02, 2018: "Well John told me weeks ago it would be out about now". That was early June!!!!!
> 
> Its been more than a month since that and we are still waiting for this fantastic complementary kit to come out. I got mine last Christmas and since then is sitting in its box waiting for the release of these interiors. However I am sure it will worth the wait!



I don't know if the interior will ever show up.
I am feeling somewhat despondent about this. I sent the masters in enough time to coincide with the release of the moebius kit itself. 

Certainly the boat has long sailed for getting my interior kits sold well, (before anyone else's), as there are now many other interior kits and 3d printed parts that modelers can and have purchased from other makers. I spent months working on the masters, time not well spent (I now think)...lesson learned, I am not ever doing an 'add on kit' again. 


Stargazer


----------



## John P

stargazer said:


> I don't know if the interior will ever show up.
> I am feeling somewhat despondent about this. I sent the masters in enough time to coincide with the release of the moebius kit itself.
> 
> Certainly the boat has long sailed for getting my interior kits sold well, (before anyone else's), as there are now many other interior kits and 3d printed parts that modelers can and have purchased from other makers. I spent months working on the masters, time not well spent (I now think)...lesson learned, I am not ever doing an 'add on kit' again.
> 
> 
> Stargazer



That's kind of a tragedy for the hobby!


----------



## Richard Baker

I am still waiting for another run of the Moonbus Interior kit you made- John said it was in the works but that was months ago and nothing yet either.

It is a shame to spend so much time on the masters and have them gather dust while that window of opportunity closes- I hate it for you


----------



## fluke

I'm wondering if I should order the clear aftermarket cockpit panels or not?

Forgive me if I missed a post or two but has anyone tried back lighting the interior panel decals that come with the kit?..... if so do they look crisp OR is there a visible grain/dot like effect and will the colors look deep enough or will they 'wash out' some? 

With that being said I think using warm white leds will make the colors more true as cool white leds will turn red buttons green and mess with other tones as well.

I'm ordering my kit from Steve Iverson early next week. 

Some might remember the Capt. Cardboard kit that I built ...I wish I still owned it but it has a good home Tokyo....the buyer paid just over 2,000 USD for it.


----------



## JeffBond

The decals work all right for backlighting (the kit decals are excellent BTW). I would recommend getting the translights from Yay Monsters for the bigger screens. I got the Yay Monsters LED support kit and began plugging in pre-wired LEDs for all the control buttons but ultimately there was just too much wiring and the LEDs with built-in resistors just too rigid--there would have been no room for a power supply and I wouldn't have been able to close the earmuffs. So I kept the individual LEDs in for the front controls but the rest will be underlit with LED strips.


----------



## fluke

Thanks Jeff :smile2:

Ordering this Sci-Fi basketball was already a stretch on my fun funds so in addition to the Pod I will be picking up a set of the vinyl covers from Yay Monsters... as I see those as a big advantage over painting and light blocking issues indeed.

I will use warm white 3mm leds and depend on simi clear colored strips to determine the buttons colors. Warm white will not mess with the color tones like changing blue to green etc like cool white leds do and I already have a ton of those leds in my stash. 

Its awesome that there will be so much room for lights and wiring in this thing...but this kit means I will be re thinking my current paint booth size :nerd:

I read somewhere that hobby lobby and other craft shops have actual basketball trophy cases I bet that's the ticket for a good cheaper display case idea :thumbsup:


----------



## fluke

Hobby Lobby only had 10x10x10" :drunk:

BUT! I found one on Amazon at 12x12x12" for $38.00 :grin2:

So this thing is actually a bit larger than a standard Basketball WOW!


----------



## cosmonauta

I feel sorry for you (Stargaze) and all of us that were waiting for such an amazing complement kit for the Moebius Discovery One. The sad thing here is that I have not seen any interior kit as good as the one you made, and we were eager to buy. I have the small Aries IB and the Discovery from Stargaze and they are fantastic garage kits!


----------



## fluke

I just ordered my EVA Pod from Steve at Cult, the transparencies and vinyl mask from Yay Critters.

Also on order: *Clear* not diffused colored 3mm super bright leds its a 1000 pc kit with RED, GREEN, BLUE, WHITE and YELLOW that's 200 of each color on amazon for $13.00 ...I was worried about the quality until I read the reviews from guys like us, model railroad etc. NOT TOO SHABBY AT ALL that's enough leds to last me a lifetime (almost) LOL :wink2:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Anyone know anything about Moebius/Pegasus releasing a 1:1 scale of HAL with electronics? Culttvman has it on preorder, but no price or details. Monsters in Motion has it for sale for $39.99 but I question if that is actually the 1:1 scale one.


----------



## krlee

Opus Penguin said:


> Anyone know anything about Moebius/Pegasus releasing a 1:1 scale of HAL with electronics? Culttvman has it on preorder, but no price or details. Monsters in Motion has it for sale for $39.99 but I question if that is actually the 1:1 scale one.


Here is the info from MiM: Highly detailed styrene model is based on meticulous research
-Precision-tooled styrene with superior fit and crisp accurate detailing
-Completed kit is 13.75” tall
-1/1 scale
-Features LED light-up eye and logo display stand.
It appears to be essentially just a replica of the HAL 9000 interface with a led in the lens to replicate the on screen appearance. 
I can see adding a soundboard and speaker to this with various bits of HAL dialog.


----------



## mach7

Has anyone at wonderfest heard anything?


----------



## Marty Hopkirk

mach7 said:


> Has anyone at wonderfest heard anything?


The clink clink fizz of Alka Seltzer!


----------



## mach7

Marty Hopkirk said:


> The clink clink fizz of Alka Seltzer!


I guess the party was good then....

I pre ordered the HAL 9000 from Cult, I was hoping for a bit more info on it.
I'll know in due time.


----------



## Opus Penguin

The 1:1 HAL from Moebius is now posting prices for pre-order at CultTVMan: https://www.culttvmanshop.com/HAL90...ius-Models--PREORDER-RESERVATION-_p_4785.html


----------



## mach7

Cult just notified me that my HAL 9000 just shipped.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing




----------



## Trek Ace

I picked up my HAL from Monsters in Motion last week. It's great. Even loved the monolith-shaped box.


----------

