# The "2001" Moonbus Thread



## X15-A2

Yesterday I began looking at the geometry of the Moonbus with a eye towards doing some model building plans of it and I wanted to share some initial results and observations with everyone.

Reference Material & the Web

As many of you probably already know, there is precious little information about the either the interior or exterior of the Moonbus. It only appears in a few scenes in the movie and even then from only a few angles, so even screen cap images are of limited use. The rear wall of the main cabin for example is never seen at all. This lack of information means that we are forced to guess about many things, there just is no way to be exact. As a result, each attempt to define the details of this ship will vary with each effort, no one can say that theirs is "the ultimate" (me included). 

I have 8X10 copies of most of the main shots seen in the film and I made frame grabs from the DVD. I even eliminated the actors from the one main shot of the passenger cabin by combining the open areas of different frames as the actors move around (the camera in that scene is locked down). This is about the best one can do for reference material without having the studio blueprints or additional shots of the filming miniatures (there were at least two). This material in hand, I began by trying to establish the outline of the crossection. After studying the available images I decided that the low-angle nose view was my best hope for this because it is close to a true front view, shows the side wall angles and both the left and right outer edges of the side mounted RCS clusters which allowed me to find the center of the ship and thus the line of symmetry. I then used that above mentioned view of the main cabin to create a crossection of the interior. This is a bit trickier because there is a fair amount of spherical distortion from the lens that was used to film that scene. I made a base assumption that the cabin ceiling height is six feet and scaled accordingly. The resulting full scale dimensions were startling close to the logical dimensions that a designer might use so I was sure that I was very close to correct.

Interiors & Exteriors

Movies never design vehicles where the interior fits inside the exterior and 2001 is no exception. When I tried to combine the interior and exterior crossections I discovered several things. No matter how the two sections are scaled to each other, the interior passenger windows do not match the exterior ones (the windows are the obvious point of alignment between the two sections). The exterior windows as shown are about half-again as large as the interior ones and if you look at the shots in the film, you will see that, when viewed from the outside, the windows suddenly lose the interior portion of the framming. Look at the interior shots and the windows are set back, well inside some tunnels which curiously are not seen from the outside. The cabin could be scaled down to allow the space to add the interior tunnels but then the overall ship becomes obviously too large in comparison to the figures inside. Or you simply change the proportions of the main cabin (this is what most of the models so far have done I think) to get the details to fit but then the cabin doesn't look right. For the moment I have dropped the interior tunnels and gone with the larger exterior style windows because I feel that the exterior look is more important than the interior. This also allows me to keep the overall proportions of the passenger cabin the same and it even allows a reasonable ceiling thickness (4 inches).

Exterior Details & the Aurora Kit

I was suprised to read kit reviews on the web which stated that the "USAA" marking which was included as a decal in the Aurora kit never appeared on the movie miniature. This is funny because that marking is clearly visible (OK, partially visible, "AA" can be seen) in my stills. These same reviews also claim that the Aurora kit is too long, additional length having been added behind the cockpit. This too appears to be incorrect. When I compare my independently arrived at side elevation view (I'm getting to how this was done) to the kit photo from the box art, it matches nearly exactly in general heights and lengths for the entire distance of the constant-section portion of the ship. This tells me that the Aurora kit is indeed useful as a guide. Although some details are demonstrably wrong on this old kit, generally it seems to be correct. This also leads me to conclude that Aurora probably did not have blueprints to work from (because some structural details are actually incorrect, more to follow on this) but probably had a more complete photo survey of one of the models than we have ever seen.

End Part 1


----------



## X15-A2

*Part 2*

Structural Details

Something that has been consistently modeled wrong is the exterior rear bulkhead. Several things are obvious when studying the only photo we have of it. First, the upper and two adjoining slopping edges are rounded, not square. This means that symmetrical details seen near the top of the rear bulkhead appear closer to the far edge than the details on the near side do to the near edge because the far edge rolls away from us, thus foreshortening it. Also, the rear bulkhead itself is not flat, it bulges outwards. I haven't quite figured out what shape it really is yet but it obviously bulges because the horizontal lines of the steps in the face which should be parallel, are not. Further, the rear hatch is not centered inside the frame structure. Either it is offset to the port side or the frame also bulges outwards causing the far side of the frame to angle away from us and appear foreshortened too. I'm not sure which yet.

How Long is it?

Photos alone will not answer this question because we have no profile view of the ship and the existing photos have too much perspective distortion to allow for measurements. What to do? I scratched my head over this issue for a while and then I decided to try something that I had done recently to a Star Trek photo. I took my established 2D crossection drawing and brought it into a 3D drawing environment. Next I dropped in the classic side view photo of the ship (the one which shows the starboard side and rear bulkhead) as a backdrop in the environment. Now I took my section view and fiddled with the perspective until it closely matched the visible outline of the rear bulkhead. Once in place, I then checked to see that when it was extruded, it followed the angle and perspective of the main body in the photo. This takes some time to get everything to match up but once done, you can now measure in perspective!! In the software I use (Microstation), as the shape is extruded it automatically echoes the length of the extrusion in a little window and until I click to finalize the extrusion, it can be pulled out or back like a tape measure. Viola! I can now take full scale (based on my estimate of what that scale is) measurements of distances between objects and the rear bulkhead. No matter how far off my estimate of the fullscale size of the ship, these proportions will remain constant at all times. So if I decide it should be longer or shorter, all I need to do is scale accordingly because the proportional relationship of the distances between the various details remains constant. He he!

These are still early days in this project but I was so excited to have found a way to measure the lengths (a vital and heretofore unavailable detail) that I wanted to share my results right away. My measuring technique is obviously rough but when my results were shown to be extremely close to that of the Aurora kit, I knew I was on the right track (and so were they). Our reference material obviously agrees. I now have further ideas about how to measure the aft landing gear and exhaust nozzles in 3D, more to follow...


----------



## X15-A2

BTW, the best source for that side/rear angle photo is the Bizony book about 2001. When scanned and de-screened, that photo is clearer (and better exposed) than my 8x10! You can even see stenciling on the model! Check it out.


----------



## ProfKSergeev

I'm almost shocked to hear that the Aurora kit's dimensions are, in fact, exceedingly close to those of the filming miniature. For years, we have read in various circles that the Aurora kit was dead wrong as to its length and proportions, even from sources such as Captain Cardboard, but your research seems to disprove that. Bravo!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any chance of a link with your 8 x 10's and screen captures, working cross-section, etc?


----------



## Lloyd Collins

Is any info you have from the paperback book of the making of 2001? I know I have the book someplace.


----------



## John P

Don't forget to consult with Capt. Cardboard. Scott was an inch away from making a kit of that thing, I'm sure he has lots of details and drawings.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I will definitely post this material to my web site, including drawings when they are ready. I didn't use "The Making Of" book only because I couldn't lay my hands on it right away (I fear it may be lost in the dreaded depths of the storage unit...). I don't recall there being much in that book about the Moonbus, that I don't already have in other forms anyway.

Here I am working on plans of something that doesn't even appear on my web site... D'oh! Okay, I really do need to get the 2001 stuff up there. Its on my "list of things to do"...


----------



## X15-A2

I would be interested to learn what methods the others who have looked at the Moonbus used to determined its length. Does Captain Cardboard post here?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P will have to confirm it, but this may be the gentleman in question:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/member.php?u=9562

but based on post # 7 here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=88843&highlight=Moonbus

it appears to be him.


----------



## RB

X15-A2, somewhere there's an interview with Andy Yanchus (SP?) about the Aurora 2001 kits. In it he's specifically mentions variations between the wing details on the Space Clipper model and the actual model seen in the film. According to him, the variations exist because Aurora followed the vehicle's blueprints to the letter, while the film's modelmakers didn't! I've often read that effects modellers will depart from blueprints, either on their own or at the behest of a superior, so it does make a certain amount of sense. I've often wondered myself to what degree did Kubrick have say and imput in the limited merchandising done for 2001. The Moonbus has always been such an unusual Aurora item in that it is probably the most involved and complex of the Aurora SF kits. That they were actually planning to include metal rods to keep their Discovery kit's spine straight suggests an unusual degree of dedication to the 2001 kit program on Aurora's part.


----------



## X15-A2

For whatever reason, the Moonbus appears (so far) to be a reasonably accurate representation of the filming model "as built". This makes me think that Aurora worked from photos of the models rather than blueprints. But who knows?

I qualify my statement with "so far" because my own analysis of the design is far from complete and I know full well that things may change as (if) new information comes to light.


----------



## ProfKSergeev

RB said:


> That they were actually planning to include metal rods to keep their Discovery kit's spine straight suggests an unusual degree of dedication to the 2001 kit program on Aurora's part.


So Aurora was planning on tooling a model of the _Discovery_ in addition to the Moonbus and _Orion_? Wow, that would have been something to see. What a shame it never happened.


----------



## X15-A2

Here is a comparison of my preliminary drawing with the Aurora kit. As you can see, it compares very well in lengths and reasonably well in heights. You might be tempted to think that I traced the kit photo but that is not the case (except for the profile of the nose). Fore/aft positioning of the nose is only provisional in this version, it has yet to be better defined. Hopefully this link will work...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Kit_Comparison3.jpg


----------



## X15-A2




----------



## X15-A2

AH HA! I finally figured out how to post these large images! Gosh I are smart! :freak:


----------



## trevanian

I no longer have a copy, but I remember that the Criterion 2001 Laserdisc box had a still section that had a couple high quality images in B&W of the 'bus. Not sure if this is the same as the Bizony or not, but if anybody has that box (I dumped mine in favor of the MGM LD box, which had better contrast even though Kubrick didn't approve it), the image might be of help to you.

I've always loved the moonbus, and it slays me to think that the original model company (master models?) delivered what was basically a brick or butterdish - competently made, but lacking entirely in detail. It could be that some of the discrepancies are due to the detail being added changing the the contour, maybe?

Also, I congratulate you on picking up the interior aspect with respect to the lenses. Kubrick used very wide lenses on all of the interiors, so that really makes figuring these spaces out awfully tough (even for the pros; I think the 2010 messed some stuff up pretty badly, either that or Hyams did a disservice by being his own cinematographer on the sequel.)


----------



## John P

Captain Cardboard
Scott Alexander
Atomic City Models

All the same guy. He's the one who issued the resin 1/144 Aries 1B kit, the 1/12 space pod kit, the 1/12 Dave Bowman, the 11 and 5-foot Discovery models, the 1/35 Discovery antenna model, and is working on a 1/32 Aries and 12" pod. He created the 1/12 MRC Mercury capsule kit, and had plans to do a styrene Moon bus before it aparently fell thru. Though I hear rumors of him doing the bus in resin, I can't seem to find mention of it on his site.

Here's his site:
http://p197.ezboard.com/batomiccity


----------



## Pygar

There's a nice set of drawings on Page 334 of Jack Hagerty and Jon C. Roger's book "Spaceship Handbook". If I had a working scanner I'd scan them for you. Uh, if I had their permission, of course.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I e-mailed you some rare reference pictures and a perspective study I posted about in CultTVman's forum a long while back. I also sent another e-mail of an interior drawing I made showing possible adjustments to match the movie set. I hope you got them. BTW, there is a glimpse of the rear cabin wall showing a vent or something there. I included a DVD capture of it in my first e-mail to you.


----------



## MGagen

All I can say is: Huzzah, huzzah!

I've been collecting material to do just this sort of thing one of these days, but now that you're on the case there's no need. Given your track record with the TOS Shuttlecraft, you'll probably have complete working plans and an operations manual turned out in a matter of weeks!

For the record, I've been convinced for a while now that Aurora had it right when it comes to basic proportions of the exterior. I'm happy to see your confirmation of this.

Look for an email from me with some rare stuff that's come into my possession which will probably lay the scale question to rest. With the tools you have available in Microstation it should be child's play to scale the studio model with it.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

I typically am off-line sat, sun, and mon so am only just now getting back to see everybodys postings. Thanks for all the support, guys. The Moonbus is a subject that a great many modelers seem to be interested in but has been very neglected when it comes to publishing reference material or in the manufacturing of kits. Scott's kit would be a really welcome addition to the model scene, if he can bring it to market.

It is frustrating but I will have to wait until I get home tonight to see the reference material that everyone has sent me. I BIG THANK YOU to all who sent stuff, every little bit helps!!!

Currently my drawing indicates that the Moonbus is exactly 40 feet long. This means that it will be 7 feet long at "GI Joe scale"...


----------



## Richard Compton

I'm glad you're doing this. I'm kind of disappointed the interior/exterior don't match. I know better to expect it, but still. Always thought it'd be a cool subject to build full-scale. Like for an eccentric millionaire or something.


----------



## Steve244

Back in the day of Aurora, I imagined the moonbus to be more of a moon train. The rear bulkhead looked like it was more for coupling to another section than backing up to an airlock.

Speaking of airlock, how did they get in and out? Evacuate the entire interior's air? For such a large vehicle they'd need something to save time/air.

Any thoughts? (yeah yeah it was just a movie, but most of the systems portrayed had a strong foot in reality (see: Aries toilet instructions).


----------



## Ignatz

At 40 feet long, it'll fit in my backyard with wallk-around room! Okay, maybe not. Definitely the interior will be snugger than what we see on screen. Thanks for taking this on! It's about time someone tried to nail this one. Scott Alexander seems to have done much research on the Moonbus. If anyone has most of the answers about it, he would.


----------



## X15-A2

Yeah, first thing I wanted to know was whether or not it would fit in my driveway at full scale. I knew it was pretty small but not small enough, Drat! Been threatening to build something 1-to-1 scale for some time now but the Moonbus is just a little too big.

Good idea about the "train", that thought had never occurred to me but has possibilities. The rear hatch seems to be the only way in or out of the Moonbus. Generally the ships "appear" to be grounded in science but in most cases either cannot work (Aries interior is totally screwed up and too big to boot) or make no sense (Discovery "Pods" being a prime example).

But "that's Hollywood", whatever side of the "pond" you're on. We all love the ships anyway, inspite of their obvious flaws.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Interesting idea about the train door concept. It kind of looks like the door areas between passenger train cars! Maybe it could dock there with the landing base after it lands. The ribbed edging around the door might have such a function but we are pretending it is a real vehicle so it is easy to get carried away with our imaginations! I hope after you get your peliminary study moving you could start a Moonbus section like you did with the Trek Shuttle. Tell us about the reference material everyone (including myself) have been sending you. I would like to contribute more. I've been thinking about the moonbus layout since the 70's so I'll probably send you more drawings based on the Aurora model proportions and see what develops. I can do some computer modeling too besides paper scale drawings. Actually using the Unreal game engine so that you could do a full 3D walkthough. Even though Capt. Cardboard is working on a model (eventually) the last time he showed test shots from the overseas model maker that he sent stuff to it was disappointing to me. It did not look accurate at all but that is not the Capt.'s fault since he didn't actually model it himself. By now I hope improvements have been made.


----------



## scotpens

X15-A2 said:


> Generally the ships "appear" to be grounded in science but in most cases either cannot work (Aries interior is totally screwed up and too big to boot) or make no sense (Discovery "Pods" being a prime example).


Could you be a bit more specific? What is it about the Discovery's EVA pods that doesn't make sense? They always seemed a pretty practical design to me.


----------



## X15-A2

Okay here is my thinking about the Pods. First, what exactly are they needed for? Scientific exploration, NO. Ship repair, NO. Killing astronauts or stranding them outside the ship, BINGO!

Basically they serve no useful purpose, too small for scientific exploration and not needed for ship repair. We saw in the film that the astronauts had MMU style back packs which were shown to be all that was needed to repair/replace hardware on the ship. Anything needing repair of larger size, the Discovery would be incapable of carrying the replacement parts (no room). The entire pod bay and pods could have been dedicated to mission-specific special equipment and even robot probes but "pods with arms" are totally un-necessary, as is actually demonstrated by the characters in the movie.

Thats my thinking about it.


----------



## Carson Dyle

X15-A2 said:


> Generally the ships "appear" to be grounded in science but in most cases ... cannot work...


Phil, have you seen the new Taschen book on Kubrick? No great shots of the moonbus, but quite a few previously unpublished photos of sets, props, models, etc. from "2001".

The book is accompanied by a CD containing a 1966 interview with Kubrick in which he and physicist Jeremy Bernstein discuss (among other things) the differences between designing spacecraft for the big screen vs. the real world.

It's a fascinating conversation; just one component of the most extensive archive of its kind ever created.


----------



## X15-A2

Ah, is that $300-plus book..?

Little pricey for my tastes. Can you detail further what models/props are covered and how extensively? I'm not even sure where to find this book. Unfortunately 2001 is about the only of his films that I would really want stills from. Are they printed large or small in the book? How does the 2001 portion compare to the Bizony book in terms of coverage?

I might go for it if the coverage is sufficient, just need more info or a chance to see the thing in person. I won't just be looking for Moonbus stuff of course, all the ships are of interest.


----------



## MGagen

On the subject of the space pods being useless, I have to disagree. The engine bell on the bottom indicates that they were capable of landing on smaller bodies (like the smaller jovian/saturnian moons). They have just this sort of capability in the novel. Also, with a ship the size of Discovery, they are quite practical for repair missions on the outside of the ship. You wouldn't want to navigate all the way back to the engines with just your suit thruster pack.

That's not to say there aren't problems with many of the designs in the movie. Discovery itself (both book and movie versions) has several problems. The Aries 1B also has the crazy interior arrangement you mentioned. 

As for the moonbus: it's too bad they ripped off the cat tracks. The landing skids make little sense without them; and the whole concept of a crawling vehicle that can use jets to "jump" over obstacles is more in line with the design. A flying transport should look more like the Hopper from Moon Zero Two (IIR that design correctly). And I have to think the reason we saw so little of the MB's back bulkhead is because there is a small double door airlock back there. If not, there should be. Dumping that much air and then repressurizing is almost as wasteful as the 1701 "hangar deck" (which was a misuse of the design, rather than a design flaw IMHO). 

Mark


----------



## aridas sofia

I also interpreted the aft space as airlock and pressure-seal door, but always thought the protrusions on the port and starboard sides were also hatches with airlock space behind. I assumed they were gull-wing doors. I know the interior details as interpreted on various models don't necessarily support this, but is it clear those details were accurately rendered? What does the DVD show about that portion of the cabin?


----------



## jheilman

I've always believed the p/s protrusions to be housings for the rsc thrusters. The vents were weathered to indicate they were indeed thrusters.


----------



## X15-A2

Yes, on the Moonbus they were thrusters. That detail is actually visible if you squint real hard at some of the stills from the movie. The interior has a wall of what look like storage drawers on the port side (more or less duplicated in the Aurora kit) while the other side has a computer screen with console below and what look like a row of vertical locker doors above.

Land a Pod on some moon of Jupiter, small or otherwise? OK, we disagree on this one. There are no landing gear, there is no fuel capacity, no room to store exploration equipment and no living environment for stays beyond a few hours (unless you are going to use; "Sparties, the five-day diaper" (taken from a very old issue of "National Lampoon", the "Negligent Parent" issue)).

Also, I doubt that recess seen on the bottom is an engine (although McCall showed it to be one in his painting, but what does he know..?) because there is no space inside the pod for that engine to occupy. There is also no space for fuel stowage in the pod for an engine that big. There is hardly any stowage space for fuel for the existing RCS quads plus consumable gases for the pilot to breath, much less enough room to keep that big engine in fuel. Also note that the same type of circular depression appears inside above the pilots head which contains lighted instruments. The one on the bottom outside might contain an interface for systems linking it to the mothership when docked, similar to the nose of the "Dove" lifting body seen in "Doppleganger". Besides, if you had a two-man crew with three additional scientists, wouldn't you want a lander with room for two at least? Also, how do you transport all the scientific equipment down to the surface? Or stow the boxes of samples to be returned? Three little useless pods? One would do. But frankly, I don't even see the need for one. A dedicated planetary lander at least the size of the Lunar Module, yes.

Repair what? Is it going to haul large "hull plates" back to be welded in place or maybe pressurized tanks, high pressure fuel line piping or structural braces? Where do they keep those replacements onboard and how many do they take with them? The movie showed a very small spares storage area which was only capable of storing relatively small components, probably mostly electronic in nature. These can easily be carried by an astronaut with his MMU which is exactly what they did in the film. Add a hand rail outside running to different parts of the ships exterior with another rail for a safety line and boom, no pods needed. All the Pod did was provide blinking lights for the astronaut to look at. It wasn't even capable of analyzing the defective part, he had to bring that back inside the ship! Talk about useless. If he couldn't run those simple tests onboard the pod, what good would the pod be on a planetary surface? No, I just don't see what use they would be, as designed. Some other design maybe but not what we saw on screen.

What we saw on screen makes more sense in the kind of enviroment where they are building the big spacestation or even the Discovery itself. Simple transport to and from a work site (in orbit, not down in a gravity well) with the ability to grapple something that needs moving. Like the space equivalent of a "Bobcat" earth mover. Not in an exploration setting, which by its very nature demands a more versatile tool.


----------



## Carson Dyle

X15-A2 said:


> Ah, is that $300-plus book..? Little pricey for my tastes.


New and used from $98.00 on Amazon, and worth every penny to a Kubrick nut like me. 

Having said that, coverage of the ”2001” spacecraft models is fairly limited. What’s great are the big, beautiful, behind-the-scenes shots of the sets, props, and costumes (it's fun to be able to read those tiny lables which decorate the control panels). 

I wasn't suggesting you hawk the farm Phil, but I do think you’d find the book worth the price of a free flip-thru at Barnes & Boble. It really is a pretty impressive volume.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Yes, on the Moonbus they were thrusters. That detail is actually visible if you squint real hard at some of the stills from the movie. The interior has a wall of what look like storage drawers on the port side (more or less duplicated in the Aurora kit) while the other side has a computer screen with console below and what look like a row of vertical locker doors above.


I took a series of DVD screenshots yesterday and you are right about it being storage lockers. On the side with the CRT it does say the word LOCKERS at the top. On the other side it looks like it says "NAVIGATION and SURVEY CHARTS" on the top of the wall. Each drawer there says some name (place/location?) I couldn't read, and the word ZONE beneath.

As the fully suited guy walks towards the back, you can see some spacesuits behind Floyd's seat when you frame by frame and the back wall has a small white vent or panel like the model but it is not round, it is retangular and angled to follow the window wall contour. The other large white vent/panel at the front end next to the storage locker area BTW is on a section that is 1.5 times the length that each of the 5 windowed sections are, according to geometric perspective distance ratio analysis I have done:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_interior_study1.jpg

Perspective Rule - All parallel lines meet up at imaginary vanishing points at infinity distance when viewed in minds eye perspective. This is why a line of equal-distant objects appear increasingly closer together the farther away they are from your viewing point.

Lines 1-4 represent diagonals (actually parallel to each other) through each window (starting at window #2) meeting up at Vanishing Point A. Where they intersect with the lower horizontal window edge (thats goes to Vanishing Point C) is the bottom right corner of the very next window section since they are equal distance apart. Now, line 5 "would be" of next equal distance to the window sections if one were there. The locker room bulkhead designated by the yellow line is farther out! Line 6 would be the next window postion length beyond that. You can see the bulkhead is right in between lines 5 and 6, or 1.5 times the length of a window section. Lines 7-9 are extra diagonals across 2 window postions to help me geometrically determine where the bulkhead lies, using extra imaginary window section lengths as a measuring guide. All lines (except the reference line on the right side of the interior) are in the same flat geometric plane in relation to each other. Vanishing Point C is the horizontal lines horizon point at infinity.


Other Moonbus images:

(Looking aft showing back wall) http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/pdvd_166.jpg

(Zoomed-in back wall detail) http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/dsc00578.jpg


(Pre-Detailed Model) http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/limg0071.jpg

(Another Angle) http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mbrawmodel2.jpg


(Finished Moonbus) [url="http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mbs2_cr.jpg"]http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mbs2_cr.jpg
[/url]

(Ordway in Cockpit, see locker forward bulkhead right up to the seats!) [url="http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb_flight_deck_ordway.jpg"]http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb_flight_deck_ordway.jpg
[/url]


----------



## scotpens

MGagen said:


> As for the moonbus: it's too bad they ripped off the cat tracks. The landing skids make little sense without them; and the whole concept of a crawling vehicle that can use jets to "jump" over obstacles is more in line with the design. A flying transport should look more like the Hopper from Moon Zero Two (IIR that design correctly).


Interestingly, in the instructions for the Aurora kit, the descriptive text says (I'm paraphrasing here): "The craft is also able to propel itself on the ground using a series of non-retractable legs." And, in the assembly drawings, the three landing-gear assemblies are called out as "walkers"! Anyone can see that those boots ain't made for walking. It was my impression at the time that the landing gears were designed to spread the craft's weight over a large surface area so it wouldn't sink into the lunar dust — although that doesn't explain why such a complex design instead of simple, large, round or rectangular footpads. The only real answer is that the complicated landing gear adds visual interest, i.e., it looks kewel!

Also, with the FX technology of 40 years ago, it was much easier to show a vehicle "flying" across the lunar surface at low altitude. (IIRC, all the Moonbus shots in the movie were done using animated cutout still photos, with the live action in the windows being rear-projected.) If they'd tried to do something with wheels or caterpillar treads, it probably would have ended up _ looking_ like the effects in "Moon Zero Two."


----------



## John P

Back to the pods - I always took them to be strictly for ship maintenance. Thos big waldos clearly have more gripping/carrying power than a human in a suit, and the engine has more delta-vee than any MMU for moving large objects. One would also assume more O2 storage than a backpack.

But the biggest question of all about the pod was - how does the pilot sit?
Captain cardboard's kit has no seat, since even he couldn't figure it out. Reportedly, Kier Dulleah just sat on a crate in the full-sized mockup. The pod can't be stood up in, and it's pointless to sit in zero-G. The best guess for a "real world" answer is a small backless stool with a seatbelt.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

While I agree with some of X-15's points about the pod, for repair jobs, if only for the astronauts comfort and safety, I can see the benefits of being in a shirt-sleeve enviroment. Especially on repair jobs substantially longer than the one shown. And while there doesn't seem much room for fuel, as long as you aren't entering and leaving the pod there's plenty of room for an efficent air system.

As for the seats, John, I thought somebody had worked out the pilot was straddling/sitting on the "engine hump".

Keep the moonbus information coming, it's always fascinated me too!


----------



## Richard Compton

I always liked the moonbus scene because the sandwiches made me hungry.


----------



## X15-A2

About the pods, what maintenance job would you need them for? Moving large objects from where to where? What large objects would one be moving?

Long range manned missions into deep space will have to be designed for ultra-high reliability simply because they will be unable (and unwilling) to carry large amounts of spare parts. I say "unwilling" because any spares carried will be seen as dead weight by the designers, which will then be seen as cutting into the useful payload of the overall mission. Further, the Discovery is supposed to be nuclear powered, which means that the engine area would be off limits to human operations. That is the whole reason it is placed so far away from the habitation area. The distance helps to reduce the size of the shielding needed to protect the crew.

Look at it another way, the implication of having not just one but three of those pods onboard is that the Discovery is such an unreliable piece of junk that the crew is expected to spend most of its time chasing down repares onboard. Thats why they need three work pods and and a huge pressurized bay to work in. Yet the movie depicts a ship which is nearly fully automated, giving the crew very little to do.

Steve,

Thanks for the analysis of the Moonbus cabin structure, I had not noticed the difference in the frame spacing. Good call. I haven't really started looking at the interior yet, except to develop a crossection for the purposes of scaling the exterior. I'm still trying to nail down the exterior details.

Anybody here have info about the underside of the Moonbus?

That is interesting about the landing gear too, at this point it would be hard to say just what exactly they had in mind but robo-walking feet would explain the complex arrangement of rams around the pads. Moonbus in "Gerwalk" mode...?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I have DVD screenshots on the underside I can send you when I get home from work, unless you already see that from your DVD. It basically looks like a criss-cross framing structure on the bottom from what I can tell.


----------



## X15-A2

Thanks Steve, I did make frame grabs of those images but am hoping that someone will come up with a photo (non-screen cap) or drawing. There does not appear to be too much going on on the underside but it is hard to be certain with just those few small blurry frames. If you can get a large-size cap of that underside view it might be of help.


----------



## Steve244

X15-A2 said:


> About the pods, what maintenance job would you need them for? Moving large objects from where to where? What large objects would one be moving?


I agree. Maybe one pod to putt around fixing antennas and such, but 3? Great dramatic element though, and the script needed 3 (Hal did a number on the first, the 2nd was jettisoned, the 3rd went through the star-gate).

Maybe 2 pods (redundancy) and some sort of crew exploration vehicle that held more than one person and had landing capability on the moons (I don't think it was certain the signal beamed to the moons of jupiter went to a satellite obelisk and not a moonbased obelisk).

And the hangar didn't make sense, except as a set in a movie... Same deal with the "memory core".



X15-A2 said:


> Long range manned missions into deep space will have to be designed for ultra-high reliability simply because they will be unable (and unwilling) to carry large amounts of spare parts.


Parts manufacture by computer and virgin plastic or other material will provide mechanical parts. Electronic parts will be digital modules that can be programmed for specific functions requiring few different hardware formats.

Stuff breaks.

More.

(Great work on documenting the MB, sorry to veer off topic...)


----------



## heiki

There is a retracted ramp in the back of the Moon-Bus just below the door. It was to extend out after the landing. The gear/pads extend and retract. Some of this can be seen during the landing at Tyco.
The Moon-Bus was originally called the Moon-Walker. There are pictures/drawings of it with the tracks where the landing pads are.

The Aurora blue prints of the model call the kit Moon-Walker.


----------



## X15-A2

heiki,

Can you lay your hands on any of the material you mention in post, like the drawings with the tracks? I'd love to see that stuff!

The idea of an extendable ramp below the hatch is an excellent one! Don't know why I didn't think of it myself while puzzling over just what that do-dad was, specially since I work at Boeing in Long Beach where the 717 is built. It has such a ramp too! Okay, "air stairs" but same purpose. That would also be a logical and visually interesting part to include in any model of the Moonbus. Good call!

The gear on the Moonbus is wildly over-built for Lunar operations, has anybody thought about that? 1/6th Earth gravity would only require one of those feet at each position at most, in my estimation.


----------



## John P

X15-A2 said:


> About the pods, what maintenance job would you need them for? Moving large objects from where to where? What large objects would one be moving?


 We don't know, nobody ever told us. Doesn't mean there isn't a need.

Discovery's capabilities for exploration once in orbit of Jupiter (or Saturn in the book) were never spelled out. The contents of the "fuel pods" on the spine may not have all been fuel.

Two pods with waldoes and rocket engines could certainly deploy large exploration equipment easier and more safely than two guys on space suits.

After all, what does the space shuttle have a giant remote controlled arm for?

Gotta go with the flow here.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Okay here is my thinking about the Pods. First, what exactly are they needed for? Scientific exploration, NO. Ship repair, NO. Killing astronauts or stranding them outside the ship, BINGO!
> 
> Basically they serve no useful purpose, too small for scientific exploration and not needed for ship repair. We saw in the film that the astronauts had MMU style back packs which were shown to be all that was needed to repair/replace hardware on the ship. Anything needing repair of larger size, the Discovery would be incapable of carrying the replacement parts (no room). The entire pod bay and pods could have been dedicated to mission-specific special equipment and even robot probes but "pods with arms" are totally un-necessary, as is actually demonstrated by the characters in the movie.
> 
> Thats my thinking about it.


Did everybody forget about the secret mission that led to Hal's mental breakdown?

It wasn't spelled out in the movie, I don't believe, but in the books it seemed clear that the Discovery was being sent on a double mission. The secret one being to find the black obalisk orbiting Jupiter whose signal was breifly picked up when the moon obalisk was unearthed( I think that overt direct connection was cut from the movie, but it was in the book).

The pods were probably intended to latch onto and bring in, or at least make contact with, the obalisk.

Isn't that attempt where the first movie ends?

(Ironic that the secret orders that Hal had a mental breakdown over hiding from the crew probably were to do exactly what Dave attempted to do after disabling Hal.  All of this reminds me just how much of the book was left out of the movie.)


----------



## Richard Compton

John P said essentially what I was going to mention. The pods can be thought of as autonomous robotic arms like the shuttle and station has. They use them all the time.

And the spine could contain lots of interesting exploratory gear/satellites/probes/etc. that the pods can retrieve, assemble, move around etc.

But of course, they're mainly there for dramatic uses. Having Hal attack them, a way to exit the Discovery without just floating around in spacesuites, etc.

In regards to an airlock on the Moonbus. Is there anyplace that could contain a collapsable airlock? It could be on the exterior even. There's not need for a rigid permanent structure, is there?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

X15-A2 said:


> The gear on the Moonbus is wildly over-built for Lunar operations, has anybody thought about that? 1/6th Earth gravity would only require one of those feet at each position at most, in my estimation.


Don't forget mass and momentum aren't affected by zero gravity, I can see why you might want some sturdy landing gear.


----------



## Steve244

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Did everybody forget about the secret mission that led to Hal's mental breakdown?
> 
> It wasn't spelled out in the movie, I don't believe, but in the books it seemed clear that the Discovery was being sent on a double mission. The secret one being to find the black obalisk orbiting Jupiter whose signal was breifly picked up when the moon obalisk was unearthed( I think that overt direct connection was cut from the movie, but it was in the book).
> 
> The pods were probably intended to latch onto and bring in, or at least make contact with, the obalisk.
> 
> Isn't that attempt where the first movie ends?
> 
> (Ironic that the secret orders that Hal had a mental breakdown over hiding from the crew probably were to do exactly what Dave attempted to do after disabling Hal.  All of this reminds me just how much of the book was left out of the movie.)


The movie was pretty specific on the real mission to the moons of jupiter. After pulling Hal's higher functions' plug a video played (after he sang "Daisy") which spelled out exactly what the mission was. 

Dave Bowman, the remaining astronaut went on to "complete" the mission by investigating the destination of the signal beamed from the moon's obelisk. They didn't know what they'd find.

Kubrick chose not to reveal the plot any quicker than the characters discovered what was going on. And he didn't make the unknown seem mundane by over explaining it, leaving the audience (me anyway) in a sense of wonder if not confusion. After seeing the movie when I was 10, I was enchanted. Read everything I could including "The Sentinal" and "The Lost Worlds of 2001"  which explored alternate storylines considered for the movie.

2001 explored man's relationship with himself as much as with his machines (Hal) and with the unknown. 

_Hint: the first obelisk taught the man-apes use tools (weapons). The scene shift from the dawn of man to 2000 was from the primitive weapon to an orbiting weapon. The last obelisk (hotel room) furthered man's evolution to the next level. They should be teaching 2001 in Kansas._

Here are the "Cliff notes" on Clarke's book  (written after the movie was made). Subsitute Saturn for Jupiter, but it's a pretty good summary of what happened.

Here's a more fun 'splanation of the movie.

If watching the movie left you bored, explore some of the links here and go watch again. Maybe take some recreational drugs first.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

I got this month's _Premiere_ this morning, I was shocked to see _2001_ leading their "most over-rated movies of all time" list.

It's a pretty stupid list, though I agree with some of their choices (_Gone With the Wind, Field of Dreams, An American in Paris_), most of their picks (_American Beauty,A Beautiful Mind, Easy Rider, Chariots of Fire, Chicago, Forrest Gump,Good Will Hunting, Monsters Ball_) are decent flicks imho.

And I have no idea how _Clerks_, _Fantasia_, _Moonstruck_ and _Wizard of Oz _ made the list!


----------



## heiki

X15-A2 said:


> heiki,
> 
> Can you lay your hands on any of the material you mention in post, like the drawings with the tracks? I'd love to see that stuff!


Here's a poor scanned copy of the tracked pods;
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/mbs3_cr.jpg









I am looking through my magazines and a bunch of image copies to find a better copy of this and some of the other concepts of the Moonbus. I have the 11x17 copy of the Aurora Blue prints. If possible, I'll find a way to get a copy to you.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

heiki said:


> I have the 11x17 copy of the Aurora Blue prints. If possible, I'll find a way to get a copy to you.


Can you please send a copy as well to me at [email protected]

I'd like to compare them with scale drawings I made from the Aurora model plus they would be useful since I want to scratch build a new model twice the size of the Aurora model or up to the filming miniature size so it would be easiler to integrate a full interior but accurate to the movie set layout I've been studying the geometric proportions of!

Steve


----------



## ProfKSergeev

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I got this month's _Premiere_ this morning, I was shocked to see _2001_ leading their "most over-rated movies of all time" list.


Well you know what, _Premiere_ can go to hell. 2001: A Space Odyssey has been one of the most influential movies in my life. It's one of the most well-executed films out there and is of profound philosophical importance regarding man, his relationship with the universe, his motivations, _etc_. Just because the folks at _Premiere_ don't "get" it and there aren't any gunfights or love scenes to hold their interest doesn't mean it's "the most over-rated movie of all time." I remember screening the film for a few acquaintances, and all they could was laugh. The way _Also sprach Zarathustra_ is used willy-nilly to advertise any product is really indicative of how the modern world loves to cheapen and poke fun at true greatness.


----------



## X15-A2

Supposedly the Discovery was designed and built before the monolith was found on the moon so the ships features would be intended for Jupiter exploration. Their mission was changed after the hardware was built.

Do we know if that sketch of the Moonbus is actual preproduction art or was it created after the fact to illustrate an earlier idea?

Mass does indeed play a role on the moon but look at the design of the LM landing gear for an idea of what is actually needed. The Moonbus gear looks like it is intended to take a 20G impact by comparison.

I have scanned the instruction sheet for the Aurora Moonbus kit and can post it here if others want to copy it. Is there another Aurora drawing besides that? I was just confused by the use of the term "Aurora blueprint" if not. If there is another Aurora drawing, definitely send it along too because I don't have it. Thanks!


----------



## Steve244

yes please, if only for the nostalgia hit.


----------



## ProfKSergeev

I would also love to see the Aurora instructions. I managed to get a built-up Moonbus on eBay years ago that, of course, did not include box or instructions. Thanks in advance for posting them!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve244 said:


> The movie was pretty specific on the real mission to the moons of jupiter. After pulling Hal's higher functions' plug a video played (after he sang "Daisy") which spelled out exactly what the mission was.
> 
> Dave Bowman, the remaining astronaut went on to "complete" the mission by investigating the destination of the signal beamed from the moon's obelisk. They didn't know what they'd find.
> 
> Kubrick chose not to reveal the plot any quicker than the characters discovered what was going on. And he didn't make the unknown seem mundane by over explaining it, leaving the audience (me anyway) in a sense of wonder if not confusion. After seeing the movie when I was 10, I was enchanted. Read everything I could including "The Sentinal" and "The Lost Worlds of 2001" which explored alternate storylines considered for the movie.
> 
> 2001 explored man's relationship with himself as much as with his machines (Hal) and with the unknown.
> 
> _Hint: the first obelisk taught the man-apes use tools (weapons). The scene shift from the dawn of man to 2000 was from the primitive weapon to an orbiting weapon. The last obelisk (hotel room) furthered man's evolution to the next level. They should be teaching 2001 in Kansas._
> 
> Here are the "Cliff notes" on Clarke's book (written after the movie was made). Subsitute Saturn for Jupiter, but it's a pretty good summary of what happened.
> 
> Here's a more fun 'splanation of the movie.
> 
> If watching the movie left you bored, explore some of the links here and go watch again. Maybe take some recreational drugs first.


 
I wasn't bored with either. Simply stated that I didn't remember how the movie treated the plot vs. the book(s).

My intent was simply to point out that the use of the pods could have been to capture or contact the obalisk.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Supposedly the Discovery was designed and built before the monolith was found on the moon so the ships features would be intended for Jupiter exploration. Their mission was changed after the hardware was built.


Again, I'm kind of foggy on how the movie treated the plotline versus the book(several months ago I read the whole trilogy back to back, the endings of two of the books even contradict one another - muchless trying to keep the plotline of the long-ago seen movie distinguished from the first book.

However, even if the plot feature you mention above is true(I have no doubt it is) that doesn't mean the pods weren't added specifically for the contact-capture mission.

I remember from the third book that the atmosphere of Saturn/Jupiter was so caustic it was very unlikely they were meant for exploring it, perhaps one of the moons though...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

X15-A2 said:


> Mass does indeed play a role on the moon but look at the design of the LM landing gear for an idea of what is actually needed. The Moonbus gear looks like it is intended to take a 20G impact by comparison.


I see your point, but I also think if there was a "real" Moonbus, it would easily weigh 20x what the LM did. And if it was indeed intended to "walk" (or crawl for that matter) you'd need some seriously strong struts in case a tread ever hit something real solid.


----------



## Steve244

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I wasn't bored with either. Simply stated that I didn't remember how the movie treated the plot vs. the book(s).
> 
> My intent was simply to point out that the use of the pods could have been to capture or contact the obalisk.



aaak! didn't mean to imply you were! I got carried away with the references and meant this as a comment to those people left cold by 2001.


----------



## X15-A2

Ask and you shall receive! Here are the links to the 4 pages of kit instructions plus a shot of the decal sheet:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Moonbus_Instructions_01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Moonbus_Instructions_02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Moonbus_Instructions_03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Moonbus_Instructions_04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Moonbus_Decals.jpg

Photobucket automatically resizes these images to fit their file size limitations but I have the high-res images, if anyone really wants them. Enjoy!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I sent you some great MB reference pictures with detail not seen anywhere else that I've collected from others on the Net in my own search for modeling reference shots. The e-mail ended up being 2mb in size so I hope you get it okay. They should help a lot with mapping out Moonbus details. In the large image you can see extra door detail where it looks like a lip surrounds it! In the lighting test shot from the same filming angle (without window action inserted) the light is hitting the model differently which exposed more subtle details. I hope this helps! - Steve M.


----------



## scotpens

ProfKSergeev said:


> The way _Also sprach Zarathustra_ is used willy-nilly to advertise any product is really indicative of how the modern world loves to cheapen and poke fun at true greatness.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily call it "cheapening"; it's just that any image (or quotation, piece of music, whatever) that attains iconic status inevitably becomes a cliché. After all, how many people can hear Rossini's "William Tell Overture" without thinking of The Lone Ranger? Or Sousa's "Liberty Bell March" without thinking of Monty Python? Or Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll" without thinking of Tom Cruise prancing around in his. . . Well, you get the idea.

To get somewhat back on topic, the May 1966 issue of _Esquire_ magazine has a piece on "2001" with some early preproduction art. Not useful to modelers _per se_, but interesting to fans to see how the spaceship concepts evolved. There's also a short companion article on "Fantastic Voyage"!


----------



## X15-A2

Okay, how many of you know where else Moonbus hardware appeared, besides 2001?

Give up?

Gerry Anderson's "UFO" (there may be others too but this is the example I know of). One of the Moonbus seats was used as the pilot seat for the "Diver" portion of the "SkyDiver" sub. Here is a collage of images I captured from the DVDs:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/UFO_Seat_Collage_01B.jpg

The Moonbus pilot sticks were also used in the cockpit of both the "Sky One" and the moon base interceptors.

They even showed Haywood Floyd's "Clavius Base" ID badge as being the ID bagde of a SHADO operative in one episode.

Trivia, but it demonstrates that research for these subjects must extend beyond the scope of the movie of origin alone.


----------



## scotpens

Regarding the UFO SkyDiver interior pic: Love those outfits! Apparently, SkyDiver was manned by gay male models!

And, IIRC, the SHADO Moonbase was staffed entirely by women wearing purple wigs -- obviously for some scientific reason.


----------



## X15-A2

LOL!

Its a very "happy" ship...


----------



## Richard Compton

Were they maybe train or airline seats?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

scotpens said:


> Regarding the UFO SkyDiver interior pic: Love those outfits! Apparently, SkyDiver was manned by gay male models!


Hey, stow that stuff about the sub crew! Obviously those are manly men on a manly submarine, probably headed to manly ports like San Francisco, Key West, and Fire Island.......


----------



## X15-A2

They don't look like airline seats to me (unless they are military air transport seats, which they do look a bit like) but they might be from some other type of transport, an actual bus perhaps?


----------



## jheilman

OK, minor moonbus trivia. Martin Bower designed the rear door on a Space:1999 lunar tank to closely match the moonbus rear door. It was subsequently torn off the tank model and used as an elevator door in the Anderson pilot "The Day After Tomorrow."

So, while not actual moonbus hardware, I think it counts for something.

Phil, don't know if my e-mail was received, but are you interested in an Illustrator file of my moonbus blueprints? They were based primarily on the Aurora kit with some creative interpretation based on screencaps from the film. I had planned to build the ship in 3D, but free time has become so rare these days that it's on permanent hiatus.


----------



## lastguardian

I'd very much like both the hi-res scans of the Aurora Moonbus instruction sheet, X-15, and copies of the blueprints you did, jheilman -- if that's okay. 

Please e-mail me through my web site at www.shanejohnsonbooks.com and I'll reply with an e-mail address you can send them to.

I did a set of Discovery blueprints back in the late 1980s, but never tackled the Moonbus. Very cool design, that.

I know I saw the Moonbus 'sandwich box' in a later production -- it may have been an episode of 'Space:1999.'

Shane Johnson


----------



## John P

Shane, I got these scans of the aurora instructions off the web somewhere a while ago. It's not a perfect scan, but it's big!

http://www.inpayne.com/temp/moonbus_instructions1-1.jpg
http://www.inpayne.com/temp/moonbus_instructions1-2.jpg
http://www.inpayne.com/temp/moonbus_instructions1-3.jpg

Don't remember where I got them. Who'sever they are, thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Who designed the moonbus?

Looks very Gary Anderson-ish/Space 1999-Eagle-ish...

or rather the Eagles look very moonbus-ish..


----------



## enterprise_fan

scotpens said:


> Regarding the UFO SkyDiver interior pic: Love those outfits! Apparently, SkyDiver was manned by gay male models!
> 
> And, IIRC, the SHADO Moonbase was staffed entirely by women wearing purple wigs -- obviously for some scientific reason.



If I'm not mistaken I believe there were some female crew member on SkyDiver with slightly different outfits. The tops weren't see thru for them.


----------



## aridas sofia

I believe *Brian Johnson* designed the moonbus. I know he worked on *2001*, and he designed the *Space 1999* stuff. Particularly his _Eagle_ design shows the strong link with the moonbus.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Another possibility is Frederick Ordway.


----------



## trevanian

Harry Lange designed ALL of the vehicles in 2001, though Tony Masters often created the environments in which they were seen (like the underground lunar chamber.) The moonbus, after being built by Master Models, was HEAVILY detailed by Trumbull, who thought it really needed embellishment.

Johnson worked as a modelmaker and on-set fx guy (he came up with a way to do process screen work on the centrifuge set and devised at least one of the methodologies used for shooting the process shots of the lunar surface that were projected into moonbus windows.) 

Ordway was more of a tech advisor than a film guy, though his notes to Kubrick on the cuts made to the film pre-release seem to reflect a traditional film sensibility.


----------



## aridas sofia

^ So the _Eagle_ was *Johnson* ripping off *Lange*, or to put it nicer, "paying homage" to the moonbus design?


----------



## John P

enterprise_fan said:


> If I'm not mistaken I believe there were some female crew member on SkyDiver with slightly different outfits. The tops weren't see thru for them.


 They had the same mesh uniform tops, but they wore tan undershirts. Dammit. Still, since the undershirts were basically skin color (on the white girls) the effect was quite, eh, titilating.


----------



## trevanian

aridas sofia said:


> ^ So the _Eagle_ was *Johnson* ripping off *Lange*, or to put it nicer, "paying homage" to the moonbus design?


 I've never seen the Eagle as being all that moonbus-like. Given the parameters Johnsons was working with (and I believe that includes some art by 1999's production designer, Keith Somethingorother), the Eagle seems to me to be very much its own thing, with the superstructure on the outside and the whole modular/toy thing. 

All of 2001's stuff looks, to a degree, to be 'packaged.' I think it works wonderfully for 2001 (it is, after all, the movie I've most watched, and definitely in the top 3 for me alltime.) But that packaging is too slick for some, and is why Trumbull did SILENT RUNNING the way he did, to rip the covers off the panels and expose the workings.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

trevanian said:


> But that packaging is too slick for some, and is why Trumbull did SILENT RUNNING the way he did, to rip the covers off the panels and expose the workings.


Trumbull's _Silent Running_ commentary (with Bruce Dern) has some pretty interesting bits about the making of _2001_, like Dalton Trumbo and Kirk Douglas, Trumbull and Kubrick clashed(and never worked or spoke together again) because Trumbull felt Kubrick took credit for his work.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks for the info guys. 

Based just on the tremendous similarities, I knew Anderson was probably involved with 2001, however the cross-polination occured.


----------



## Trek Ace

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Trumbull and Kubrick clashed because Trumbull felt Kubrick took credit for his work.


 Just like nearly every other producer on the face of the earth.


----------



## trevanian

There IS one other Anderson connection. Kubrick arranged to have a lunch with the Andersons, and as the story goes, Gerry let him know up front that he couldn't let Kubrick borrow Meddings and co for 2001. So Kubrick apparently said (being his usual efficient self), no reason to have lunch then, and left. Then he raided Anderson anyway (or at least put the word out), getting Brian Johnson/nee Johncock and others.

Not sure if he was at Anderson or elsewhere when he was recruited, but Roger Dicken, the guy who did the chestburster for ALIEN, worked on 2001 too, though I think all of his stuff went unused. He worked on alien designs, some kind of puppet things, possibly in concert with Kubrick's wife, who also did some alien sculpture stuff. 

Dicken mentions this in a very early issue of STARBURST, and both Ivor Powell (years away from producing ALIEN, then a Kubrick assistant helping out on the fx under Wally Veevers) and Les Novros (who ran Graphic Films, the NY company that was doing early fx tests for Kubrick and TONS of design work, the place that employed Trumbull and Con Pederson before their defections to Kubrick) mentioned Mrs. Kubrick working on the aliens in unpublished transcripts that were not included in the CINEFEX retrospective. 

As for the Trumbull/Kubrick issue ... there were on and off again misunderstandings over the credit issue, but I think the more longstanding one is that Kubrick was annoyed with Trumbull, thinking Trumbull claimed more credit on 2001 than he was entitled to. Some of that is promotion on Trumbull's part, but a lot of it is bad journalism where Trumbull was being overcredited by writers in parts of the article that weren't derived from his own words. If you read the Trumbull stuff in CFQ, it is different in tone than the Trumbull on the SR commentary, and even the stuff Trumbull said just a few years ago (was it in WIRED?) seemed to have a different timbre.

The other part about the reverse with Trumbull and Kubrick is also true, but ... that is a legit complaint better addressed to the academy, since if they had permitted four recipients back then, Kubrick wouldn't have had recourse to take the award himself, and then Trumbull and the other 3 would have their trophies.


----------



## Richard Compton

Sure the puppet/sculpture stuff wasn't early dawn of man stuff?


----------



## trevanian

Richard Compton said:


> Sure the puppet/sculpture stuff wasn't early dawn of man stuff?


That'd be more in keeping with Dickens' background, but no, the STARBURST (I think it is numered in the 20s) specifically mentioned aliens (maybe marionettes?) 

Kubrick seemed to have everybody messing with aliens at one point or another ... later on, when he was more desperate, Trumbull and others started doing optical tricks on suits (you can see some of this in Agel's book), and it was very late in the game (sept 68 I think) when he put Dan Richter (moon-watcher) in a polka dot suit and shot him against a polka dot background, trying for a predator camoflauge effect that was an utter failure. I've never seen Richter's book in finished form, but bought an advanced copy proof off ebay, and while there were no pics, there was some interesting content (there is a hint, either in this book or one of those THE PRISONER making of books, that McGoohan, who was next door, stole a 2001 starfield for inclusion in the alternate unaired version of CHIMES OF BIG BEN.)


----------



## Carson Dyle

trevanian said:


> Les Novros (who ran Graphic Films, the NY company that was doing early fx tests for Kubrick and TONS of design work, the place that employed Trumbull and Con Pederson before their defections to Kubrick) mentioned Mrs. Kubrick working on the aliens in unpublished transcripts that were not included in the CINEFEX retrospective.
> 
> As for the Trumbull/Kubrick issue ... there were on and off again misunderstandings over the credit issue, but I think the more longstanding one is that Kubrick was annoyed with Trumbull, thinking Trumbull claimed more credit on 2001 than he was entitled to.


Les Novros was one of my favorite profs at film school, and I got to know him pretty well. He kept a file cabinet full of "2001"-related materials in his office at home, including several design concepts for the aliens (a number of which resembled "Puck" from "Close Encounters").

According to Les, Kubrick came to the conclusion quite early on that the aliens, as such, would never appear in the film. Even so, he kept certain members of his team working on the alien design to placate Arthur Clarke and the suits at MGM who believed a failure to reveal the aliens would inevitably result in an anticlimax. 

As for the friction between Kubrick and Trumbull, Les believed Trumbull owed his career to Kubrick. Period.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I don't remember the aliens who made the Obalisk ever being described in any of the books, other then that they had evolved past a capability to place their consciousness inside of machines/starships and then past and abandoned even a need for that.

So what aliens could they have been possibly modeling?


----------



## trevanian

Carson Dyle said:


> Les Novros was one of my favorite profs at film school, and I got to know him pretty well. He kept a file cabinet full of "2001"-related materials in his office at home, including several design concepts for the aliens (a number of which resembled "Puck" from "Close Encounters").
> 
> According to Les, Kubrick came to the conclusion quite early on that the aliens, as such, would never appear in the film. Even so, he kept certain members of his team working on the alien design to placate Arthur Clarke and the suits at MGM who believed a failure to reveal the aliens would inevitably result in an anticlimax.


That's really good stuff to know, and more evidence that Cinefex SHOULD have been trying to re-interview these folks (Novros died while they were doing the issue, so there was plenty of time to talk to him again before that time.) That they didn't use ANY of the original interview material with him or Powell, and precious little of the Brian Johnson/Richard Yuricicich/Colin Cantwell/Wally Veevers stuff, is a damned shame.


----------



## trevanian

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I don't remember the aliens who made the Obalisk ever being described in any of the books, other then that they had evolved past a capability to place their consciousness inside of machines/starships and then past and abandoned even a need for that.
> 
> So what aliens could they have been possibly modeling?


The book was always a separate entity from the film, for one. But in early versions of the novel, sections of which are included in THE LOST WORLDS of 2001, there was a major extraterrerstrial CHARACTER, Clindar or something like that.

According to MAKING OF KUBRICK'S 2001, in the captions for the unused images, there were aliens that Bowman would see 'telepathically' -- but I've never seen any substantiation for that notion outside of the test photos themselves. 

The Novros story from the other poster about Kubrick just humoring folks on the alien issue certainly sounds like it could well be true, though Novros had virtually no presence on the production past late 65, so there could have been reversals on the alien presence notion after that, of which he was unaware. It isn't likely Novros was on speaking terms with Pederson and Trumbull after their defections (though in the case of Trumbull, I think he was getting laid off anyway, so it wasn't really a jumping ship thing), so I don't think Novros would have gotten updates from them. 

As for Kubrick's involvement with Richter, it sounds like Kubrick was fascinated by the mime, so he may have invented bits to keep the guy around and employed. That would be in keeping with the Novros version of the aliens, though I suppose we're never going to get definitive answers on this stuff now, unless Kubrick intends to deliver new info via a kind of stargate.


----------



## Carson Dyle

trevanian said:


> It isn't likely Novros was on speaking terms with Pederson and Trumbull after their defections (though in the case of Trumbull, I think he was getting laid off anyway, so it wasn't really a jumping ship thing), so I don't think Novros would have gotten updates from them.


Kubrick and Novros kept in touch over the years (i.e. Kubrick would call or fax Les out of the blue, usually to get his take on some technical issue). It was Kubrick who confided to Novros that he'd never seriously considered showing the aliens in "2001". Even so, the director obviously enjoyed the intellectual and creative challenge of trying to imagine what such highly evolved beings might look like.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Very interesting alien info.
Based on the finished version of the original book though, I'm sure Clarke would have probably objected to them being portrayed on screen. I'm not sure how one would portray a non-corporeal being.

If only Shatner had been able to help Kubrick in bringing to life his vision of such a being, like the magnificent job he did in Star Trek V. :tongue:


----------



## scotpens

trevanian said:


> As for Kubrick's involvement with Richter, it sounds like Kubrick was fascinated by the mime, so he may have invented bits to keep the guy around and employed. That would be in keeping with the Novros version of the aliens, though I suppose we're never going to get definitive answers on this stuff now, unless Kubrick intends to deliver new info via a kind of stargate.


We could always hold a seance and get Shirley MacLaine to channel him. . .


----------



## trevanian

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Very interesting alien info.
> Based on the finished version of the original book though, I'm sure Clarke would have probably objected to them being portrayed on screen. I'm not sure how one would portray a non-corporeal being.
> 
> If only Shatner had been able to help Kubrick in bringing to life his vision of such a being, like the magnificent job he did in Star Trek V. :tongue:


Hey, Shatner had lots of 'help' ... the kind no director (or wannabe director) ever really needs. And those helping hands were both above and below him on the ladder.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm not sure how one would portray a non-corporeal being.


Aw c`mon, "Star Trek" did it every other episode.  

I suspect the (alien visualization) challenge appealed to Kubrick -- a man clearly intent on showing audiences something they'd never seen before.


----------



## DX-SFX

I've just logged on after a long time away and haven't read all the thread. However just in case no one's mentioned it, the Aurora kit appears to be exactly three times the size of the filming model. I came to this conclusion by comparing the Airfix SRN1 detail moulded onto the Aurora kit's feet with the actual Airfix kit part. It's very faithfully reproduced and it seems too much like a coincidence that it's millimetre perfect x3.


----------



## scotpens

*One of us is confused!*



DX-SFX said:


> I've just logged on after a long time away and haven't read all the thread. However just in case no one's mentioned it, the Aurora kit appears to be exactly three times the size of the filming model. I came to this conclusion by comparing the Airfix SRN1 detail moulded onto the Aurora kit's feet with the actual Airfix kit part. It's very faithfully reproduced and it seems too much like a coincidence that it's millimetre perfect x3.


The Aurora Moonbus is about 9-3/4" long. If that's three times the size of the filming model, the filming model must have been only 3-1/4" long! Did you mean the Aurora model is _one-third_ the size of the filming miniature? Also, I'm not familiar with the details of the SRN1 hovercraft or the Airfix model of it. What SRN1 kit part was used on the feet of the Moonbus filming miniature? If you have the kit, could you post a picture of that part?


----------



## Steve244

Carson Dyle said:


> Aw c`mon, "Star Trek" did it every other episode.
> 
> I suspect the (alien visualization) challenge appealed to Kubrick -- a man clearly intent on showing audiences something they'd never seen before.



Who's to say we _didn't_ see aliens in the sequence beyond the stargate?

There was some seriously organic stuff going on that may have been the pod traveling through some viscous continuum, or it could've been Blobman. Personally I think it was part of Bowman's journey, but in an alien world who's to say we'd even recognize an intelligent being? After all, they did turn Bowman into the Starchild after putting him up in a hotel room with funky upside down lighting.

Here's a link to a great page with lots of trivia (a little about the spacecraft). I think it's wikipedia, but this is from Absolute Astronomy.

And yes, Kubrick says we were never shown the aliens.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Does anybody have the ol' thick _Making of 2001 _ paperback? It's been about 3 decades since mine fell apart, but my admittedly fuzzy memory seems to recall a picture in it that was labeled as test footage for an alien that was abandoned, iirc it was made up of triangular shapes in a kind of column.

I loved that book, I can remember trying to photograph some of the space pod pictures with my old Olympus half-frame camera because.....well because I was a total sci-fi and camera geek! I still find myself missing those darkroom fumes occasionally!


----------



## scotpens

I still have a copy of that paperback (remarkably, it's still in pretty good shape). The photo section describes attempts at creating "dimensional and sculptural aliens," including an actor dressed in various costumes and then "squeezed" using an anamorphic lens, and "video feedback" that produced "lifelike pulsating light images." Considering the results, it's just as well we never saw the aliens. Makes them seem all the more mysterious and, well, alien — like the Krel.


----------



## X15-A2

Ed Whitefire kindly loaned me a built up version of the Moonbus kit for study. It had so much dust on it that it was turning my fingers black just handling it, so it got scrubbed with some soap and a tooth brush...

Anyone else here have a Moonbus in the same condition? Other kits?

How do you guys deal with dust on models?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I have a kit that was painted and built by another person from the 70's that I disassembled the best I can. It's not really dusty because I keep it in a shoebox but I plan to re-assemble it with modifications learned from our movie set and model studies. I azm missing the rear so-called "airlock" bulkhead (I can fabricate a new one from sheet plastic) and a couple landing leg pods. I have to scratchbuild the passenger area window frames because they are wrong. The ribs that stick out between each window are the wrong angle if you compare to the movie model exterior photos, plus the kit was designed to have clear plastic flush with the outer body which is also wrong. The movie model had recessed windows all around, including the cockpit windows.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Here's some pictures of a lighted Moonbus I had for quite a few years, the guy I traded for it for said it used to be in a kid's museum for years as part of a "In the Future You'll Live in a Moon City" diorama. It was pretty cool, it had blue lights in the aft Compartment and red in the cockpit,and a full though sparse interior with astronauts. I kept it for a few years and resold it on @bay.

http://amazon.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=tkiy0i1.41hyupa9&x=0&y=-y2jkpo


----------



## scotpens

Steve Mavronis said:


> The ribs that stick out between each window are the wrong angle if you compare to the movie model exterior photos, plus the kit was designed to have clear plastic flush with the outer body which is also wrong. The movie model had recessed windows all around, including the cockpit windows.


I always wondered about the wrap-around, flush-fitting split "windshield" (if that's the right word) on the Aurora model. Why would that be necessary in a vacuum? Problem is, without the glass, the front just doesn't _look_ quite right. With the glass, it looks like a BUS!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yes it is quite evident if you look here:

http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/images/limg0071.jpg

This is the "raw" Moonbus model made by Master Models for 2001. It is before the 2001 effects team added model part details, etc. Look at the windows - they are all recessed! I wish this was a lower contrast image. The bright lighting in the photography washes out any surface detail if there is any at all. But you can tell from the window glare where the glass surfaces actually are. Also of note are the side thruster openings. You can see the internal opening shapes pretty good although I don't think they were painted orange in the movie. They look black or maybe they are weathered to look burned black from the rocket exhaust residue?


----------



## X15-A2

Aerodynamic shapes would not be needed on the moon but double layers of glass would make sense (I believe the space Shuttle has three such layers in its canopy windows).


----------



## DX-SFX

I'll post pictures of the SRN1 part next to the Aurora one for comparison tomorrow.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Aerodynamic shapes would not be needed on the moon but double layers of glass would make sense (I believe the space Shuttle has three such layers in its canopy windows).


The Space Shuttle orbiter does have 3 layers of glass. 2 in each of the crew module windows and 1 in the outer hull window openings. But in the case of the Moonbus, if it were a real ship it might have double panes; although to stick with how the filming miniature looks the window panes are still recessed into the window frame openings and are not conformal with the outer hull perimeter to be aerodymamic like the Aurora kit had portrayed. That is one big area where they got it dead wrong if we are going to be true to the film presentation. One interesting variation with the passenger cabin is the interior window view looking outside vs. the exterior window framing struts on the model. With the interior set the outer window frame separator struts are angled just like the Aurora kits version. But the filming model from the outside has the struts at a reverse angle and doesn't match the set design! I guess you could personally pick and choose either way and in a sense still be right.


----------



## X15-A2

Here is todays progress shot of my experimental "3D photo trace". This is working out surprizingly well. It will not render absolutely perfect results (too many ways for error to creep in) but it will provide data which will be very close to correct I believe.











The image is low-res but you can get the idea about the process works. The line work is in a 3D environment while the photo is simply a backdrop image.


----------



## X15-A2

OK, here is the update image with engines included. Now I really am going home! Really!


----------



## DX-SFX

Here's the photo of the SRN1 kit part with the Aurora item.


----------



## John P

PhilipMarlowe said:



> Here's some pictures of a lighted Moonbus I had for quite a few years, the guy I traded for it for said it used to be in a kid's museum for years as part of a "In the Future You'll Live in a Moon City" diorama. It was pretty cool, it had blue lights in the aft Compartment and red in the cockpit,and a full though sparse interior with astronauts. I kept it for a few years and resold it on @bay.
> 
> http://amazon.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=tkiy0i1.41hyupa9&x=0&y=-y2jkpo


 Phil, that's a Space:1999 Eagle.


----------



## John P

> =X15]Ed Whitefire kindly loaned me a built up version of the Moonbus kit for study. It had so much dust on it that it was turning my fingers black just handling it, so it got scrubbed with some soap and a tooth brush...
> 
> Anyone else here have a Moonbus in the same condition? Other kits?
> 
> How do you guys deal with dust on models?


 Here's my Monsters in Motion moon bus:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/2001moonbus1.html

I deal with dust by .......... _dusting!!!_


----------



## Steven Coffey

John your work is incredible!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

John P said:


> Phil, that's a Space:1999 Eagle.



John, there's 5-6 Moonbus pictures in that folder of 16 pictures! I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the pictures I wanted in the folder.As you can see,it looked pretty impressive lit up, but note the low tech giant "ribbon wire" running out the stern! The picture's aren't too terrific because those were taken with our old first floppy disc-using digital camera. There's a _'Falcon_ & UFO Interceptor in there as well as the Moonbus and Eagle.

Really nice work on your MIM Moonbus!



> How do you guys deal with dust on models?


The little soft brush attachment thingie that came with our dust-buster does a pretty good job.


----------



## lastguardian

X15-A2 said:


> Aerodynamic shapes would not be needed on the moon but double layers of glass would make sense (I believe the space Shuttle has three such layers in its canopy windows).


I didn't think the outer 'windshield' glass of the Aurora kit was ever a part of the filming model. None of the photo evidence I've been able to find shows it.

Shane


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Shane,

I believe you are correct, so far I have found no evidence of the outer glass panels being present in either the nose or the passenger windows. Of course, without the outer glass in the nose, the nose design makes no sense whatsoever but "that's Hollywood".


----------



## X15-A2

DX-SFX,

Thanks so much for posting the picture of the hovercraft kit part, would it be possible for you to take the same shot again and include a scale (ruler or some such) with the parts for measuring? Thanks again.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

We might finially be able to make a studio scale model with this scale comparision! Are there any other kit-bashed parts identified yet?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Of course, without the outer glass in the nose, the nose design makes no sense whatsoever but "that's Hollywood".


I just think they were trying to go for the "bug look" with the wide deep inset cockpit window area!


----------



## lastguardian

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Shane,
> 
> I believe you are correct, so far I have found no evidence of the outer glass panels being present in either the nose or the passenger windows. Of course, without the outer glass in the nose, the nose design makes no sense whatsoever but "that's Hollywood".


Inset windows and anti-glare panels work for me -- after all, the LM had them after a fashion. And a projecting nose such as the Moon Bus had might be needed to house its radar system, since a craft travelling in such a manner (horizontally) would need those arrays up front.

Shane


----------



## Trek Ace

I just think it looks cool.


----------



## DX-SFX

> We might finially be able to make a studio scale model with this scale comparision! Are there any other kit-bashed parts identified yet?


All measurements are taken by calipre. Airfix OO/HO Buffalo Amphibian (front swing down door used, 24.8mm high and 43.1mm wide at it's widest), Airfix OO/HO Refrigerator Van (sides used all along the side of the Moonbus, this is like putting a ruler against the filming model, each piece is exactly 120mm long by 25mm wide not including the slight overhang of the ribs), Airfix HO/OO Prestwin Silo Wagon (tops of the tanks are the circular detail 34mm in diameter). The SRN1 piece is 89.3mm long. The x3 thing might be a red herring. There is some definite fudging of the detail and proportions on the Aurora kit when compared although as a quick experiment, it might be worth putting together a rough outline at x3 the Aurora kit and doing a bit of jiggling. Here are the pics though:


----------



## John P

I left the glass out completely on my MiM model, but my research did prove that there was no wrap-around like the Aurora kit had. It was intended that the "real" bus would have flat plate glass on the inner frame. I believe the studio miniature had no glass at all to prevent glare.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

John P said:


> I believe the studio miniature had no glass at all to prevent glare.


The 2001 crew must have removed the glass then, because the Master Models model pic link I posted earlier shows the glass in the window frames before it was delivered to the 2001 effects team for detailing. You can even see the rounded window corner curvature in the reflection at the cockpit and reflections of the passenger window frame struts too! 

http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/images/limg0071.jpg


----------



## DX-SFX

Since most of the shots showing live action inside was done on an animation table using photos of the Moonbus model, adding the subtle light reflections where the glass would be would be problematic. I doubt if the glass was removed from the model but it would have been optically removed at the compositing stage.


----------



## X15-A2

DX-SFX,

Thanks for the cool photos of the kit parts, those will be very helpful!


----------



## ProfKSergeev

DX-SFX said:


> <snip>There is some definite fudging of the detail and proportions on the Aurora kit when compared although as a quick experiment, it might be worth putting together a rough outline at x3 the Aurora kit and doing a bit of jiggling. Here are the pics though:
> 
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfx_films/parts.jpg


Looks as if a studio-scale reproduction isn't far off, now that DX-SFX has done a lot of the detective work and X-15A2 is working on accurate plans. I've already broken out my sheet styrene and X-Acto, so let's get going!


----------



## DX-SFX

There's also a piece from one of the Atomic Cannon kits. It's not the Renwall/Revell version. Possibly UPC? The other thing is it would make sense to look at the other models of 2001 for clues. For instance the Aries is covered in Revell 1/24th Gemini bits and Airfix 1/72nd B29 Superfortress parts. I've not researched the Moonbus that much yet but it's possible that some of the bits come from the same kits. I also know that a lot of the UPC military kits were favourites of the model makers of the period. They were crisp and well moulded, sort of the Tamiya of their day and Brian Johnson would be familiar with these kits for detailing from his time with Derek Meddings and the Andersons.


----------



## CaptCBoard

I was not aware of this thread until someone sent me a link today. Very interesting discussion. As a lot of you have guessed, I've done a huge amount of research on this and I have to tell you something that most of you don't pay attention to when trying to resolve the question of just how big something is. Simply arriving at a 'size' does nothing if you don't compute that size against a 'scale'. Back when these models were being built, most were assigned a scale since portions of them had to be built as full-size sets. Whether or not the full-sized set actually fits is of no consequence, the scale of the drawings is used as a jumping off point for both or either (model or set). A case in point: The blueprint for the exterior of the Aries is drawn such that the image on paper is 10 inches. There is a note beside the image that says to build the model 3 times the size of the drawing. The drawing is noted to be done at 1/4 inch per foot, so the scale of the filming model is 3/4 inch per foot, or 1/16 scale. If you take the elevation of the passenger compartment and lay it into the model, it fits perfectly, so in this case this set fits exactly as it is supposed to. True the galley won't fit anywhere and these comments are not made to say that it will-- I'm only saying this is an example of an interior that does fit into its 'exterior'.

As for the Moobus, the Aurora kit is way off. If you take the width of the model as a reference point, the length of the model is 3/4 of an inch too long and the height is almost 1/4 of an inch too short. But to simply come right out and say that is rather foolish, so here's the longer version:

As mentioned in one of the earliest posts, the only real way to determine the size and proportion of the model is to find all the detail parts and use them to derive certain properties. I've done that. The result is a model that is 31-32 inches long, 12.5 inches wide and 8 inches tall, excluding the landing gear. The scale of the model is 1/12.

I arrived at the scale very simply. Once the proportions of the model have been worked out, it is a simple matter of changing the size of those proportions (height, width, length as a proportional group; a definition of the shape, not the size) so the detail parts all fit correctly. It is this process that allows you to adjust the proportions so they work more correctly and you have arrived at the final size of the model. Using the door, it is simply a matter of finding an architectural scale that makes the door a believable size. In the case of this model, the door is six inches tall. That would be the absolute minimum height for a door on this vehicle, since you have to exit wearing a helmet. To increase the proportions of the vehicle so the size of the door changes to something more like six and a half inches, the detail parts start to look way off. So, I made the assumption that since we would never see anyone come out of that door, the actual, practical size simply was not a concern, so the model was made at a scale of 1/12-- and the reason I say this is all the other models were made to architectural scales as well. These are scales that someone can measure using an architect's tri-scale (3 sided ruler), which was used while making any of the drawings. One could argue that bumping the scale of the model to 1/11 would make it marginally larger so that people coming out the door would not bump their heads and I have no argument with that as changing the scale doesn't change the proportions. But I have to go with what my own personal and professional experiences have told me and call this as I see it: the model is 1/12 scale. The reason I gave the length as 31-32 inches is either dimension works. As a designer, I would not design something in 'odd' numbers, that's just me-- unless specific criteria of the design defined its dimensions.

The check for all this is to make an assumption along the lines of the guy who started this thread. To test his assertion that the length is 40 feet, we expand the proportions of the model and find that the door would be 7.5 inches tall. (40 is to 32 as what X is to 6, 40/32=1.25, 6*1.25=7.5) If the dimension of 31 inches is used, the door is even larger. Remember, the proportions of the object don't change when changing the size of the object, so this gives you a very large door and a LOT of extra headroom! The only way his dimensions work is if he continues to use the Aurora kit as the correct reference for the proportions of the ship. And, just as I did, when he starts laying out all those details, he'll find the Aurora kit is wrong. Its like saying the Airfix kit of the Orion is correct. We all know how wrong that model is and they based all their measurments on the photos of the model. What no one told them, and a lot of you will be hearing this for the first time here, is all the models were photographed with 'long' lenses, which caused a certain amount of optical compression. Not spherical distortion, that's a different problem. To take a 'correct proportion' wireframe and super it over a photo of a model that was shot using anything but a normal aspect lens, you have to distort the wireframe in the same way to get a proper comparison.

By way of proof of all this, I'll post some photos of my studio scale model here in a day or so. If I can figure out how to do that!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## ProfKSergeev

CaptCBoard said:


> By way of proof of all this, I'll post some photos of my studio scale model here in a day or so. If I can figure out how to do that!
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


I would absolutely love to see those photos. Now that all of this information has come to light and I've some time in between producing master patterns, I'm seriously considering working on a studio scale replica of my own.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

How about pricing/availability, CaptCBoard?

Size of models you'll be selling?


----------



## X15-A2

Well HARRUMPH! I guess ol' CaptCBoard told me, huh?



CaptCBoard said:


> I was not aware of this thread until someone sent me a link today. Very interesting discussion. As a lot of you have guessed, I've done a huge amount of research on this and I have to tell you something that most of you don't pay attention to when trying to resolve the question of just how big something is. Simply arriving at a 'size' does nothing if you don't compute that size against a 'scale'.


The only reason I even looked at the issue of "scale" was to see if the interior set might fit inside the exterior model. As far as drawing plans of the exterior are concerned, the scale is immaterial, only the proportions matter.



CaptCBoard said:


> Back when these models were being built, most were assigned a scale since portions of them had to be built as full-size sets. Whether or not the full-sized set actually fits is of no consequence, the scale of the drawings is used as a jumping off point for both or either (model or set).


Agreed, back in the day, all these vehicles were designed based upon a given scale. Anyone who has ever done any drafting will know that assigning a scale simplifies the process.



CaptCBoard said:


> A case in point: The blueprint for the exterior of the Aries is drawn such that the image on paper is 10 inches. There is a note beside the image that says to build the model 3 times the size of the drawing. The drawing is noted to be done at 1/4 inch per foot, so the scale of the filming model is 3/4 inch per foot, or 1/16 scale. If you take the elevation of the passenger compartment and lay it into the model, it fits perfectly, so in this case this set fits exactly as it is supposed to. True the galley won't fit anywhere and these comments are not made to say that it will-- I'm only saying this is an example of an interior that does fit into its 'exterior'.


A rare example. Unfortunately the rest of the interior not only doesn't fit, it doesn't even make sense, but "that's Hollywood".




CaptCBoard said:


> As for the Moobus, the Aurora kit is way off. If you take the width of the model as a reference point, the length of the model is 3/4 of an inch too long and the height is almost 1/4 of an inch too short. But to simply come right out and say that is rather foolish, so here's the longer version:
> 
> As mentioned in one of the earliest posts, the only real way to determine the size and proportion of the model is to find all the detail parts and use them to derive certain properties. I've done that. The result is a model that is 31-32 inches long, 12.5 inches wide and 8 inches tall, excluding the landing gear. The scale of the model is 1/12.
> 
> I arrived at the scale very simply. Once the proportions of the model have been worked out, it is a simple matter of changing the size of those proportions (height, width, length as a proportional group; a definition of the shape, not the size) so the detail parts all fit correctly. It is this process that allows you to adjust the proportions so they work more correctly and you have arrived at the final size of the model. Using the door, it is simply a matter of finding an architectural scale that makes the door a believable size. In the case of this model, the door is six inches tall. That would be the absolute minimum height for a door on this vehicle, since you have to exit wearing a helmet. To increase the proportions of the vehicle so the size of the door changes to something more like six and a half inches, the detail parts start to look way off. So, I made the assumption that since we would never see anyone come out of that door, the actual, practical size simply was not a concern, so the model was made at a scale of 1/12-- and the reason I say this is all the other models were made to architectural scales as well. These are scales that someone can measure using an architect's tri-scale (3 sided ruler), which was used while making any of the drawings. One could argue that bumping the scale of the model to 1/11 would make it marginally larger so that people coming out the door would not bump their heads and I have no argument with that as changing the scale doesn't change the proportions. But I have to go with what my own personal and professional experiences have told me and call this as I see it: the model is 1/12 scale. The reason I gave the length as 31-32 inches is either dimension works. As a designer, I would not design something in 'odd' numbers, that's just me-- unless specific criteria of the design defined its dimensions.
> 
> The check for all this is to make an assumption along the lines of the guy who started this thread. To test his assertion that the length is 40 feet, we expand the proportions of the model and find that the door would be 7.5 inches tall. (40 is to 32 as what X is to 6, 40/32=1.25, 6*1.25=7.5) If the dimension of 31 inches is used, the door is even larger. Remember, the proportions of the object don't change when changing the size of the object, so this gives you a very large door and a LOT of extra headroom!


OK folks, the hatch on my drawing is 63 inches high, less than six feet. Extra head room? I don't see it.



CaptCBoard said:


> The only way his dimensions work is if he continues to use the Aurora kit as the correct reference for the proportions of the ship.


Scott, here you need to actually read the thread, I am working from the photos of the filming minature, not the Aurora kit. I only compared it with the kit to test the claim by others such as yourself that "it is all wrong". My independently arrived at drawing turned out to match it fairly well. 




CaptCBoard said:


> And, just as I did, when he starts laying out all those details, he'll find the Aurora kit is wrong.


Perhaps so, it is early days yet and I have not begun such a comparison.



CaptCBoard said:


> Its like saying the Airfix kit of the Orion is correct. We all know how wrong that model is and they based all their measurments on the photos of the model. What no one told them, and a lot of you will be hearing this for the first time here, is all the models were photographed with 'long' lenses, which caused a certain amount of optical compression.


This may be true of stills from the film but I'll just bet that Aurora also had pictures taken specifically for their own reference which weren't. I've seen pictures like that but unfortunately do not have copies of them.



CaptCBoard said:


> Not spherical distortion, that's a different problem. To take a 'correct proportion' wireframe and super it over a photo of a model that was shot using anything but a normal aspect lens, you have to distort the wireframe in the same way to get a proper comparison.


Listen Scott, my computer model IS distorted (in perspective, not proportion), that is the only way that it could be made to match the angles in the photo (I thought that I had made that point earlier but perhaps it wasn't clear).



CaptCBoard said:


> By way of proof of all this, I'll post some photos of my studio scale model here in a day or so. If I can figure out how to do that!


I would love to see pictures of your models, as always.


----------



## X15-A2

BTW, accurate kit part proportions will not solve for overall proportions because none of the overall proportions are defined by them. In other words, there is no single kit part that extends the full height from top to bottom or side from front to back or width from side to side. The kit parts will help but they are not definitive. It seems to me that because we only have certain photos of the original, from a very limited number of angles, it would be possible to arrive at many different answers which appear correct. Of course these answers would all be within certain tolerances and possibly quite close to each other in certain dimensions (the distance between the side RCS pod and the rear edge of the side wall is one that can probably be defined quite closely) but others will be subject to a wider margin of error because of the poor quality of the reference material available.

I don't doubt for a moment that Scott has done a lot of research on the Moonbus but my skepticism is arroused when claims of definitive answers are made for something which is only known to us in vague photographs. I don't claim to make definitive drawings of the subjects I present because I am well aware of the many ways that error can creep into them. My goal is to get as close as possible and so far, I am quite pleased with how well the 3D model matches the photos. If a model made from my drawing can be made to match the available photos, by matching the viewing angles in them, then I will be satisfied that I am "close enough".

Scott, if you want to send me a simplified drawing illustrating your proportions for the basic elements such as the basic hull crossection, passenger window placement, RCS pod outline and landing feet section and length (and placement), I would be interested to see if I can match them to the photo in the same way that I have done mine. This might help to show how two different answers can be made to appear to match a photo which would then show that the process is unreliable (which I admit it might be). It would be an interesting test, if you are interested.

Phil Broad


----------



## CaptCBoard

The Moonbus kit will be done in resin and other media. It will be 1/24 scale, or about 15.5 inches long. No price as yet, I'm waiting on the masters to be finished. My guess is we will deliver kits before the end of this year, but I'll be able to nail all that down once the masters are done.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CaptCBoard

Phil-

I hope you know my comments were not designed to say you were taking the wrong approach. If it works, it works. I've just been there and done it so wrong so many times that when I found what worked, I was hoping to save you some of the same trouble I had. Unfortunately, the Moonbus is the most difficult model from the film to extract back into 3 dimensions!

Also, I need to backtrack and say something about the model I have. I did not build this model, though in the context of some things I said it has come off that way. This model was built using information that was gathered by several sources, working independently initially and finally combining the results into one database. I acquired the model in the course of developing the styrene kit, which will probably never see the light of day-- but will emerge in resin.










This is a shot I had on hand, but I'll take some others and post them as time permits. The only thing we didn't get right on this model was the angle of the nose, which needs to flatten out another 2.5 degrees.

As far as using kit parts to establish proportions is concerned, I have to disagree in principle-- and with the statement that there is no single kit part that is large enough to help in establishing the proportions. 

First, having all the kit parts on hand and lining them all up with correct spacings (or as correct as can be determined), definitely helps establish the proportions of the side of the model. In fact, short of having an actual drawing of the real thing, it is these parts that tell you when you've arrived at the 'right' dimensions. As does the part that runs from the back to just before the nose. That is a piece of model railroad fencing. Now, I'll agree that isn't much to go by, but technically it is a detail that is pretty much continuous from the back to the front of the model!

My last comment concerns something I mentioned before, but I didn't cover too well-- sorry. With the exception of the shots of the Moonbus landing at TMA-1, all of the exterior shots of the Moonbus were done on an animation stand using flat photographs. These photos were shot using an 8 X 10 still camera, with long lenses-- or more accurately, lenses of longer than normal focal lengths. 

The reason for this is that Kubrick needed to shoot the miniatures as though they existed in the real 3 dimensional space-- but shoot them as they would have been shot if they were really on the Moon shooting a real Moonbus (or Discovery in flight, or Aries landing, etc.) In other words, he did not want to just get good shots of the models, he was making the distinction between getting a realistic shot and getting a shot that recreated reality. This means the real shots would have been done with lenses that could capture the action as it happened, from specific vantage points. So, many, many photos were taken of the various models, in different lighting configurations and different focal lengths, to impart the proper lighting and optical compression to these still images. 

They then chose the image (or shot new ones) that matched the motion plates that were placed behind the vehicles in the animation stand process. The image of the vehicle had to visually match the lighting and optically compressed nature of the background plate or the shot would not work. In other words, you can't use a photo of a model shot with a 30mm lens in a shot where the background was photographed using a 90mm lens. Kubrick's biggest problem with the Moonbus sequence was that they were creating forced perspective models of the lunar terrain to avoid depth of field concerns. So determining exactly what lens to shoot the models with required a lot of educated guessing and much experimentation. Even the shots with the Moonbus whizzing toward us or away from us were done using flat photo cutouts on the animation stand. I saw a lot of these photos first hand at the opening of the Kubrick Archive Exhibition in Frankfurt in March of 2004-- both those used in the film and others that were rejected. Unfortunately, all the material was under glass in a white room and trying to get a clear photo without any reflections was impossible!

And just to be clear, the Discovery is the only model that was shot using a motion-picture camera exclusively. All the other models were shot using a combination of animation-stand technique and motion-picture camera.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

If you *could* fit *all of the interior sets* inside the bus, how big would it have to be, and how big at 1/24th?

Seems 15.5" is unrealistic. The Galileo Project has pretty much brought down the integrated dimensions of the Trek TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft to about that size, and even the stage interior set had no where near as much interior room as I believe the moonbus was portrayed by it's interior shots.

I could be totally wrong though, it has happened before. 

Plus the moonbus isn't an area of expertise for me.


----------



## mach7

Scott,

Is the perspective off on the photo? It looks to short to me. If you can keep the price under $100 you can put me down for at least 1.

BTW how many of the Merc's have sold? I have my local shop getting another for me.

Mark


----------



## CaptCBoard

Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head-- there is no way of knowing how much of the interior set would actually fit into the MB model without having access to the measurements of the set itself. The other problem is the interior was definitely shot using a combination of wide angle lenses, so just as a long lens compresses things, a wide lens expands the near/far relationship of given points in the shot-- making a long, narrow set look even longer. So, we are left with visually sectioning things up, which can be done very easily in the case of the interior of the Moonbus. There are distinct intervals, the windows and padded ribs, that can be used to generate distances. The only problem is, we have no idea how well the interior set would actually fit as we have no way of knowing if the windows are exactly the same size and spacing as seen on the model. We worked out a version of the interior for the proposed styrene kit, but it was just a 'best guess', and a flawed one at that as I know there was at least one spot that needed to be corrected.

I'm not worried about the accuracy of the interior, though. Its the exterior that defines the vehicle as a model and whatever fits inside will look good enough through the windows! My personal view on the interior vs exterior debate of any FX model is that the exterior counts first, since that is what the FX model is portraying. If that model had a practical interior, then I'd pay attention to it, otherwise the goal is to create what fits best and call it quits.

The question of how big the kit should be is not even a question-- it is based on the size and scale of the studio model. At 31 inches and 1/12 scale, which is the length and scale of the model in the photo, 15.5 inches is exactly half that size, scaling out to be 1/24.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CaptCBoard

Mark-

Its the angle of the nose that throws this model off. It needs to be flattened out by 2.5 degrees, which will make the nose stick out just a tad more.

The Mercury kit is not selling as hoped, though over time it will probably do okay. I will be doing the Gemini, but in resin. I think my styrene days are over!

Scott


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

You just couldn't be happy with the money you already got from me for the 2001 pod and Mercury, could ya Scott?

What's that puppy going to cost? It looks great to me!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> Its the angle of the nose that throws this model off. It needs to be flattened out by 2.5 degrees, which will make the nose stick out just a tad more.


Scott,

I must say bravo on the new look of your model re-creation! Compared with the early first unfinished prototype model photos (which I hated maybe because it was based off the Aurora(?) and didn't match the movie model detailing very much at all) you showed a long while back on your site, this version looks very accurate as far as details, etc. This new version looks a bit squat at first glance, but I guess we have to get used to the shortness/longness thing because the lenses used in the movie have a certain FOV (Field of View) angle that can really distort things. It is like taking an image and viewing it in a mirror. In the minds eye sometimes things look different than you expect because everyone's brain will "model" it to look a certain way and in 3D based on how it was filmed in the movie, which could be different from reality. This is because the camera lenses used to not match with the human eyes natural FOV and that causes an optical illusion of sorts.

I know this from my experience modeling a real envrionment from blueprints for a re-creation for the FPS (First Person Shooter) computer game Unreal Tournament, using it's 3D game level editor UnrealEd. See the Multimedia gallery here http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/ to compare photos/blueprints to the 3D modeled version I made. The default FOV in the game is 90 degrees for the first person play. But in reality that makes things look more wide angle, and things like walls not that far away in the background look very distant like a car's side mirrors! When you change the FOV to 70 degrees or less the depth looks close to what you see on regular lens photos of the real place, but it is unplayable in the game because it makes you feel like you have tunnel vision and you are tripping over things as if you are walking around while looking through a telescope!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

CaptCBoard said:


> Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head-- there is no way of knowing how much of the interior set would actually fit into the MB model without having access to the measurements of the set itself. The other problem is the interior was definitely shot using a combination of wide angle lenses, so just as a long lens compresses things, a wide lens expands the near/far relationship of given points in the shot-- making a long, narrow set look even longer. So, we are left with visually sectioning things up, which can be done very easily in the case of the interior of the Moonbus. There are distinct intervals, the windows and padded ribs, that can be used to generate distances. The only problem is, we have no idea how well the interior set would actually fit as we have no way of knowing if the windows are exactly the same size and spacing as seen on the model. We worked out a version of the interior for the proposed styrene kit, but it was just a 'best guess', and a flawed one at that as I know there was at least one spot that needed to be corrected.
> 
> I'm not worried about the accuracy of the interior, though. Its the exterior that defines the vehicle as a model and whatever fits inside will look good enough through the windows! My personal view on the interior vs exterior debate of any FX model is that the exterior counts first, since that is what the FX model is portraying. If that model had a practical interior, then I'd pay attention to it, otherwise the goal is to create what fits best and call it quits.
> 
> The question of how big the kit should be is not even a question-- it is based on the size and scale of the studio model. At 31 inches and 1/12 scale, which is the length and scale of the model in the photo, 15.5 inches is exactly half that size, scaling out to be 1/24.
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


Actually that would be 1/2 scale. 

_(Did I mention I was talking about the scale of your half-size production model? Nope. But by just saying 1/24 scale earlier the same could be said of the earlier quote)._ 

See the danger of talking about scales in reference to a scale miniature? 

Above when you wrote:



CaptCBoard said:


> The Moonbus kit will be done in resin and other media. It will be 1/24 scale, or about 15.5 inches long. No price as yet, I'm waiting on the masters to be finished. My guess is we will deliver kits before the end of this year, but I'll be able to nail all that down once the masters are done.
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


I had no idea, as there was no notation to the effect, that you really meant 1/24th scale to the model and not just plain 'ole 1/24th scale(Which would make the moonbus 31 feet long.) You just slipped and forgot to insert the phrase "to the filming miniature." Without saying that you really are saying here



CaptCBoard said:


> The Moonbus kit will be done in resin and other media. It will be 1/24 scale, or about 15.5 inches long. No price as yet, I'm waiting on the masters to be finished. My guess is we will deliver kits before the end of this year, but I'll be able to nail all that down once the masters are done.
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


that the ship is 31 feet long and this is a 15.5" 1/24th scale model.

Scaling to a model gets MONDO confusing. For instance, you could be talking about your 31.5 inch model of the model - in which case this 15.5" model would be a 1/2 scale.

Getting an integrated ship(I'm not suggesting you have to include a workable interior, just that it would be a neat idea to be able to blueprint it in so you know it fits) seems tremendously important to me for that very reason - if you can get a workable "real world" size you could then say "this is a 1/24th scale model." 

Rather then have to qualify it by continuously inserting " it's a 24th scale version of the filming model - not a true 1/24th scale ship" just to keep it correct and clear.

When someone says something is 1/24th scale, they are saying it's 1/24th the size of the real thing, unless something is directly stated otherwise.

That's not a mortal sin or anything, but without making a proper notation in the statement that it's 1/24th of the size of the model, not a "real world" moonbus more then a few people are going to take your statement for face value and believe, as you stated, that you are literally talking about a 1/24th scale miniature of a 31 foot long bus.

Are there no internal blueprints/ways of figuring out the interior even roughly? 

Then you could say something to the effect "this 15.5" miniature is approximately a 1/32nd scale size, or 1/28th," etc. etc. yada, yada, yada...

I don't mean to beat this to death, just trying to figure out a way so that it's clear what real scale/size you are talking about.


----------



## CaptCBoard

(sorry for the confusion, but just skip this post. I decided the ramblings here were better served in a new post, just below. Thanks!)


----------



## CaptCBoard

My apologies to the board, but I do have to beat this, maybe not to death, but just bruise it up a little bit... We skip a lot of stuff to get to:



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Rather then have to qualify it by continuously inserting " it's a 24th scale version of the filming model - not a true 1/24th scale ship" just to keep it correct and clear.
> 
> When someone says something is 1/24th scale, they are saying it's 1/24th the size of the real thing, unless something is directly stated otherwise.


Go back and read the rest of this if you want to, but the quoted passage, above, is a good summary of what this post was about. To which I have this to reply:

Scaling to a model does get MONDO confusing, but I'm not the one that's confused! I never said anything about making "a 24th scale version of a filming model". I said I was making a 1/24 scale model of the Moonbus, which (to use your wording) would make it a "true 1/24 scale ship". As for the rest of the quote, that is entirely correct, and is exactly what I and other kit manufacturers do-- we make scale models.

And just to be perfectly clear, a '1/24 scale model of the filming miniature of the Moonbus' would be a model that is one-twenty-fourth the size of the filming minature. So, if I was doing that, then my kit would make a model exactly 1.29 inches long and I sure wouldn't make much money selling those! Though it is a thought! 

Keychains... hmmmm...

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## DX-SFX

I agree. The exterior comes first. Although Kubrick was known as being a stickler for detail, most sets are still built to look like they fit rather than being inch perfect. For that reason the exterior of the model determines the actual size of the vehicle. The Eagle Transporter models are refered to as 1/24th or 1/48th when they're not referred to by their length.

BTW Scott, was the fencing Kibri or Faller?


----------



## CaptCBoard

DX-SFX said:


> BTW Scott, was the fencing Kibri or Faller?


I hate to say this, but at the time I became privy to the information garnered by others, I agreed to not divulge anything I didn't come up with on my own. However, I can say this. One of those is right!

I should say I still don't know what some of the parts are from. The funny thing is, I just learned what one of them was from this thread-- the Buffalo part!

Also, I should say that my plan is to offer a studio scale builder's kit for the Moonbus. That would be a set of drawings and a set of all the detail castings. Much easier than producing the entire model as a studio scale kit and cheaper for the builder. The overall shape isn't hard to whack out and the instructions will cover all the hard parts such that building it from scratch and adding the details would be pretty much problem free. Almost like what the RC guys get in an airplane box!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Richard Compton

Scott, after you put out the planned 1/24 scale model. Would you consider a sort of minimalist kit for a studio scale model? What I'm thinking is that you let the modeller create the basic hull shapes, and you provide resin detail bits, like casts of all the kit parts and engine nozzels, etc. Of course, it would come with full schematics to make the ship. It seems to me that it would be easier to produce and cost less than the complete 1/24 scale kit would.


----------



## Richard Compton

Holy Moses! I swear I posted my request and then reloaded the page to find Scott suggesting the exact same thing! Weird.


----------



## DX-SFX

> I hate to say this, but at the time I became privy to the information garnered by others, I agreed to not divulge anything I didn't come up with on my own. However, I can say this. One of those is right!


Gotcha.  



> I should say I still don't know what some of the parts are from. The funny thing is, I just learned what one of them was from this thread-- the Buffalo part!


(Jaw hits ground in gentle teasing way)  

I reckon one Buffalo door is worth a fence or two don't you. Fair trade is no thingummy. Perhaps we should compare notes? The crossover between Anderson stuff and 2001 never fails to surprise me. Scott, if you want to send pics of things you're still not sure about, I can give them my best shot. No promises but I've got Airfix's entire range in the loft and a lot of other "interesting" kits.


----------



## John P

Well, Scott, I'm saddened that your styrene days are over, 'cause it sure looked promising for a while there. And I had a nothion of getting a bunch of "inexpensive" plastic moon bus kits and making a train.

Nevertheless, how much for the resin moon bus and where do I send the money?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> Also, I should say that my plan is to offer a studio scale builder's kit for the Moonbus. That would be a set of drawings and a set of all the detail castings. Much easier than producing the entire model as a studio scale kit and cheaper for the builder. The overall shape isn't hard to whack out and the instructions will cover all the hard parts such that building it from scratch and adding the details would be pretty much problem free.


Will that include the nose area because it has lots of curvature to model from scratch!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Scott,

Thanks for clarifying your post and thanks for the info. I see how the kit parts can be used to determine most of the length (at least the lengths of the flat sidewalls) but how did you determine the heights? Or widths for that matter? Not to mention the underside details?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

CaptCBoard said:


> My apologies to the board, but I do have to beat this, maybe not to death, but just bruise it up a little bit... We skip a lot of stuff to get to:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the rest of this if you want to, but the quoted passage, above, is a good summary of what this post was about. To which I have this to reply:
> 
> Scaling to a model does get MONDO confusing, but I'm not the one that's confused! I never said anything about making "a 24th scale version of a filming model". I said I was making a 1/24 scale model of the Moonbus, which (to use your wording) would make it a "true 1/24 scale ship". As for the rest of the quote, that is entirely correct, and is exactly what I and other kit manufacturers do-- we make scale models.
> 
> And just to be perfectly clear, a '1/24 scale model of the filming miniature of the Moonbus' would be a model that is one-twenty-fourth the size of the filming minature. So, if I was doing that, then my kit would make a model exactly 1.29 inches long and I sure wouldn't make much money selling those! Though it is a thought!
> 
> Keychains... hmmmm...
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]




If so then I am in error.

So then you are saying that the "real-world" moonbus is supposed to be 31 feet long?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

No, he is saying the filming model was 31 inches long at 1/24th scale. So a real life full scale moonbus would be 31 inches times 24 which would be 744 inches or 62 feet. (note - my mistake ... should be 31 feet based on the 1/12th scale Moonbus used in 2001.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> No, he is saying the filming model was 31 inches long at 1/24th scale. So a real life full scale moonbus would be 31 inches times 24 which would be 744 inches or 62 feet.


I'm not so sure he meant that. I'm sure Scott will probably stop by and explain sooner or later.


----------



## Trek Ace

15.5" at 1/24th scale.

31" at 1/12th scale.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Trek Ace said:


> 15.5" at 1/24th scale.
> 
> 31" at 1/12th scale.


And 62 feet at 1/1 scale! (note - my mistake ... should be 31 feet based on the 1/12th scale Moonbus used in 2001.)


----------



## Ignatz

Now was that so hard?


----------



## scotpens

He's saying the filming miniature was 31 inches long in _one-twelfth scale_. So a "real-life" Moonbus would be *31 feet* long! As my ninth-grade science teacher used to say, "a half-witted ********* baboon could figure it out!"

Fitting the interior is another matter altogether. The interior of the Aurora model (which I believe is supposed to be roughly 1/55 scale) would never fit into a 31-foot exterior. At that scale, the Aurora MB measures almost 45 feet in hypothetical "real life!" Granted, the Aurora interior seems a bit roomy with lots of wasted space.

BTW, no offense to baboons was intended.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

scotpens said:


> He's saying the filming miniature was 31 inches long in _one-twelfth scale_. So a "real-life" Moonbus would be *31 feet* long!


Oh my bad! I heard so many scales that I got myself confused. You are right.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Real world Moonbus: at least 31 feet long, though at this point it appears my model needs to have the front end modified to make it match the front end of the model in the film. This means the front end will get a bit longer, making the overall length of the 'real world' Moonbus longer than 31 feet, but right now I don't know exactly what the final dimension will be.

Once I have made the corrections and incorporated them into my new 1:24 scale kit, that kit should be the definitive version of the Moonbus, reflecting all the information I have. 

At the same time, I will also modify the existing 1:12 scale model so that its dimensions are brought into line with the new information. Once I am satisfied that the proportions of the model are correct, I will then use that to generate a kit from which builders can produce a 1:12 scale model of their own. 

That kit will contain castings of all the detail parts, including the landing gear and exhaust nozzles. It will also contain full plans and instructions on how to build the model and what materials to use. It might even contain a vacuformed nose section, but I can not say at this point. 

No price has been set for either the 1:24 scale model kit or for the kit of 1:12 scale detail parts and assembly guide.

I hope this will finally resolve any questions, but if further explaination of anything is needed, please email me and I'll do my best to provide the answers.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If so then I am in error.
> 
> So then you are saying that the "real-world" moonbus is supposed to be 31 feet long?





Steve Mavronis said:


> No, he is saying the filming model was 31 inches long at 1/24th scale. So a real life full scale moonbus would be 31 inches times 24 which would be 744 inches or 62 feet. (note - my mistake ... should be 31 feet based on the 1/12th scale Moonbus used in 2001.)





scotpens said:


> He's saying the filming miniature was 31 inches long in _one-twelfth scale_. So a "real-life" Moonbus would be *31 feet* long! As my ninth-grade science teacher used to say, "a half-witted ********* baboon could figure it out!"
> 
> Fitting the interior is another matter altogether. The interior of the Aurora model (which I believe is supposed to be roughly 1/55 scale) would never fit into a 31-foot exterior. At that scale, the Aurora MB measures almost 45 feet in hypothetical "real life!" Granted, the Aurora interior seems a bit roomy with lots of wasted space.
> 
> BTW, no offense to baboons was intended.





Steve Mavronis said:


> And 62 feet at 1/1 scale! (note - my mistake ... should be 31 feet based on the 1/12th scale Moonbus used in 2001.)


Good to know I'm in good company. :tongue:

This is again why I like "real world" scales.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

CaptCBoard said:


> Real world Moonbus: at least 31 feet long, though at this point it appears my model needs to have the front end modified to make it match the front end of the model in the film. This means the front end will get a bit longer, making the overall length of the 'real world' Moonbus longer than 31 feet, but right now I don't know exactly what the final dimension will be.
> 
> Once I have made the corrections and incorporated them into my new 1:24 scale kit, that kit should be the definitive version of the Moonbus, reflecting all the information I have.
> 
> At the same time, I will also modify the existing 1:12 scale model so that its dimensions are brought into line with the new information. Once I am satisfied that the proportions of the model are correct, I will then use that to generate a kit from which builders can produce a 1:12 scale model of their own.
> 
> That kit will contain castings of all the detail parts, including the landing gear and exhaust nozzles. It will also contain full plans and instructions on how to build the model and what materials to use. It might even contain a vacuformed nose section, but I can not say at this point.
> 
> No price has been set for either the 1:24 scale model kit or for the kit of 1:12 scale detail parts and assembly guide.
> 
> I hope this will finally resolve any questions, but if further explaination of anything is needed, please email me and I'll do my best to provide the answers.
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


Thanks CaptainCBoard.

What confused me was your earlier statement that you couldn't specify the real world length to your satisfaction, then the very precise measurements and unqualified statement that it was a 1/24th scale model. The former seemed to exclude the later.

I had assumed you must have been basing it on the movie model in order to suddenly come up with a statement about the scale.

Sorry, my denseness.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

P.S. Are there any semi-reliable blueprints of the interiors?


----------



## CaptCBoard

Chuck-

It doesn't matter what the real world dimensions of a given subject are when designating a scale that a model will be made in-- unless you discover that the model would be exceptionally large as a result. Since I knew the approximate size of the Moonbus in real feet, I am comfortable in saying I'll make a 1:24 scale kit of it. At this point it really doesn't matter if it is supposed to be 31 feet long or 60 feet long, it just means that the size of the model will change accordingly. Right now I believe the 'real' Moonbus to be around 33 feet long, but I won't be able to tell until I make a scale model of it, to assure the proportions look correct. If the proportions look right, then I'm done. If not, I have to go back and fix whatever is wrong. Here are a couple of photos to show what I mean:


















These photos are identical, with the exception that I changed the proportions of the nose in Photoshop, to approximate how the model should be changed to be closer to the filming model. I believe this to be very close, but I don't know what the new dimensions will be as I have no way of deriving a working scale off this kind of photo.

I stuck my 1:12 scale astronaut figure in for reference. He stands 6.25 inches to the top of the helmet. Viewing the model with this kind of reference adds the 'real world' reference needed to verify that even at 31 feet long, the Moonbus is a rather large vehicle!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## MGagen

First, Polar Lights: "NO 1:350 TOS ENTERPRISE"

Then, Capt. Cardboard: "NO STYRENE MOONBUS"

What's next? Is someone going to tell me that there'll be NO SOCIAL SECURITY BY THE TIME I RETIRE???

Mark "The Seriously Bummed" :freak:


----------



## CaptCBoard

Mark-

Think of it this way:

No styrene Moonbus in 1:32 scale, but there will be a resin Moonbus in 1:24 scale.

Does that help?

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## ThomasModels

What scale is that gray/red bar graphic behind the nose?


----------



## John P

You mean the one that says "NO SCALE?" 

Scott - I know you've discussed the Monster in Motion moon bus before, but anything that happened "before" usually slips my mind. They say 1/32 scale, and the damn thing is something like 16" long! I take it you've found otherwise?


----------



## CaptCBoard

The MiM Moonbus kit is the Aurora kit made to a different size. They were going to call the line "Aurora on Steroids", doing a lot of Aurora kits at a larger size. They just made the Aurora kit bigger, they didn't change anything about the proportions. The reason they call it 1:32 scale is that is the size of the figures. If the model was a true representation, they'd have fixed the proportion problems, like I'm doing, which would then make it a more 'scale' model. At 1:32 the model should be more like 13 inches long.

Thomas- the pattern I made was only to separate the nose from the background as they were very close in tone and I added the lines to allow someone to easily see the difference between the two versions. I put "NO SCALE" at the top and bottom of it and stated in the text that I had no way of deriving what the new dimensions might be. These two photos are only examples of how the proportions of the nose should be changed so the final result, in the bottom photo, is then closer to what it should be than it is now-- which is definitely not correct.
Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> I stuck my 1:12 scale astronaut figure in for reference. He stands 6.25 inches to the top of the helmet. Viewing the model with this kind of reference adds the 'real world' reference needed to verify that even at 31 feet long, the Moonbus is a rather large vehicle!


I'd have to see the figure next to the rear door for better sizing but he looks a little overscale compared to the Moonbus behind him. How does the 1/12th figure compare with the rear door height not including the door frame around it? I remember you saying the rear door in this model is 6" high and yet the figure is a larger 6.25" high? I know the interior may not scale with the exterior as far as the set goes - maybe or maybe not, but that figure would almost have to croutch or duck his head if it were to move around inside. He seems to measure larger than the height between the top of the landing leg where the floor would be and the roof of the Moonbus on the outside but maybe that is just parallax distrortion in that photo. Not meaning to be critical (we are all perfectionists in our own way) but they just look awkward together as if the Moonbus should be a little bit larger in real life?


----------



## Ignatz

I bet he has to duck his head when going through the rear door!


----------



## CaptCBoard

The figure is too large? It represents a six-foot guy wearing a spacesuit, with the top of the helmet measuring out at six feet and three inches. 

You are assuming that the design of this craft facilitates a door that grown men can walk through, standing upright and wearing spacesuits. Just what part of what you see on film gives you the impression they have that much room? Did you notice that there is barely enough room for 2 guys in seats and one guy between them? How about that the standing guy almost has to duck to keep from hitting his head against the padded ribs. 

Its the use of a wide angle lens that makes this interior seem much larger than it really was. Count the number of paces the standing guy takes to go from the forward bulkhead (where he picks up their lunch) to where Floyd is sitting. Its five paces. Notice how narrow the deck is. This thing is cramped to the MAX. So, we have to accept that the door is not exactly of ideal proportions, but that people can still get through it without killing themselves.

The actual doorway can be 6 feet or shorter. The floor of the interior could be lower than the threshold, much like the doors in sea-going ships, and ingress or egress would entail stepping over this threshold and possibly having to stoop over a bit to do so. Now, don't go saying 'they wouldn't design it like that...' Things that don't make sense to some make a lot of sense to others-- others that are much closer to the decision making process. For instance: Given the way the guys have to climb in and out of the Pods, my suggestion of using a door that is a tad small to walk upright through, in a spacesuit no less, does not seem out of line with what is established in other scenes in the film. 

Many, many vehicles that do not have to accomodate a paying public are designed such that getting into and out of them is difficult-- or impossible without assistance. Yes, having to step over a threshold and possibly having to stoop over while doing so may seem hazardous in the lunar environment; but then again, our strong earth muscles are not having to cope with our earthly weight and the footing in such a situation might be more secure than you'd think. And, anyone on the Moon in this situation has undergone a lot of training; so again, what may be seen as a design flaw by some earth-bound modelers may be seen by those in that scenario as being perfectly acceptable.

Since we never see the use of this door in the film, what may or may not be the reality of the situation can not be determined-- we don't even know how the door operates and we certainly have never seen it from the inside. And we don't have a single reference for scale anywhere, so all of this is nothing but subjective. But, the great thing about all this is, I have to create an interior that makes sense for the kit. So, if it turns out something needs to be made larger or smaller, that'll happen and we'll all be closer to having the best representation of the Moonbus. What I won't do is change the proportions, unless those changes don't effect the overall look. We don't have great references to work with, so in the end what turns out to be 'my ideal version' of the Moonbus may not be someone else's ideal version. Then again, I had to do the same thing with the Discovery and no one's complaining about that!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

At 1/12 scale 1"=1 foot. You have a 6 foot door but the figure is 6'3" tall. I think the proportions of the Moonbus is fine. Maybe it is the figure that is too tall? They just look out of proportion relative to each other. But then again we've never seen a person next to the Moonbus before! In the film the suited guy walks toward the back does duck though, so maybe it's alright afterall. One measurement you can use is that a seated (no helmet) guy's top of his head is about at the top of a window edge in that shot. Take that seated height of a man and add the step down to the floor (maybe 8-12") and you have the floor distance to the window top if you see what I mean. Then you add the addition distance to the ceiling for a total interior height. I measured myself sitting down (I'm 5'8" standing) and my seated height is 4'4". Add the step down and the height to the inner window top edge is between 5' and 5'4". Maybe the total interior height is at least 6' tor 6'6" on up to the ceiling which also fits room in for the door!


----------



## lastguardian

I really think the Aurora kit is getting short shrift in this thread. From the photos I've looked at, it seems very close in proportion and pretty well done. It compares very favorably with the yet-to-be-detailed filming miniature, and most 'discrepancies' can be accounted for by the lenses used to shoot the effects models. 

If the MIM kit is basically a larger version of the Aurora model, then its proportions can also be used to show a good level of accuracy in the Aurora original.

The scale of the craft _must_ be determined by accommodating its interior (as Aurora apparently did), since the exterior is 'flexible' with few keys to scale -- a rear hatch (its _only_ hatch) some four and a half feet high (as it would scale by the reckoning of some) is going to be virtually impassable for anyone in a spacesuit, and I don't see anyone going in and out on hands and knees as Neil and Buzz had to do at Tranquillity. The movie shows _full standing headroom_ inside, though the actor slumps a bit, moves slowly and grips the overheads in order to help convey a sense of 1/6 g. 

The cockpit is also a good bit deeper than some seem to think, but is foreshortened a bit on-screen due to lens flattening. In the scene where the suited astronaut turns from looking out the forward viewport and proceeds down the aisle, there appears to be a good four or five feet between the backs of the pilot's seats and the cockpit bulkhead with the accordion door.

I've done a lot of research into the hardware of 2001. I studied Discovery at a microscopic level when I did my blueprint set of that ship, and became pretty familiar with the way Kubrick's interior sets in the film related to the exteriors presented by the filming models, the way his choice of lenses distorted the appearance of his hardware, and the way he had his actors move _within_ that hardware in order to create the illusion of lower (or no) gravity. 

The Captain Cardboard build-up we've seen in this thread suffers when compared with stills and freeze frames. It's a cool model and well built, but not quite right. The nose is too angular (there should be a flowing curve carrying downward from the lower third of the viewport divider frame), too blunt (there should be more distance between the centerline of the side thruster quads and the bow), and it simply cannot scale the way the posted photo of the build-up with a 1/6 scale figure would indicate.

Shane


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Hey, he built a Moonbus!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Ignatz said:


> I bet he has to duck his head when going through the rear door!


Didn't we have this no-duck while viewed from the interior view, duck when viewed from the exterior discussion about a year ago???

Oh wait, I think that was some other shuttling-like transport vehicle...


----------



## jheilman

I want an accurate moonbus, but beyond that...I want A moonbus. I had one about 33 years ago and I want another. Styrene kit was preferred, but resin will do. Accuracy is certainly important to me, but it seems that true accuracy may be a matter of opinion here. Yes?

Bring it on Cap. I could not afford the MiM kit. What about pricing on yours?


----------



## Richard Compton

My family had a van, and I'm 6'5" and a big guy...that side door I was in and out of a thousand times was like a gauntlet, what with the front seat backrest and all. I did some wierd move and could get through, but still. And that was a commercial passenger vehicle made in the thousands. Ducking your head a little on the relatively few occasions you pass through the hatch of a moonbus, doesn't seem that big a stretch for me.


----------



## X15-A2

Todays progress photos. 2D traces of the "kit parts" have been added and are looking good. Margin of disagreement between the photo and the 3D model is well within acceptable (to me) limits for error.










Here is how my model compares with the Aurora kit so far. The kit appears to be nicely accurate for such an old one. Too bad they were unable to do more of the ships.










One thing I agree with CaptCBoard on is that the Aurora kit roof was too low.

Phil Broad


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> My family had a van, and I'm 6'5" and a big guy...that side door I was in and out of a thousand times was like a gauntlet, what with the front seat backrest and all. I did some wierd move and could get through, but still. And that was a commercial passenger vehicle made in the thousands. Ducking your head a little on the relatively few occasions you pass through the hatch of a moonbus, doesn't seem that big a stretch for me.


I think that is an understatement of the size differential.
Look at the thrusters on the side of the moonbus.

Based on the interior scenes inside the moonbus it's obvious that the floor is wider then 3 feet. Reason that's important is that the floor must extend out over the thrusters to even begin to have an interior wider then about three feet or so. If the door on the back of CaptCBoard's model is anywhere near the same proportional size as the Aurora one, I'm not even 100% sure the guy could get through the door sideways without removing the panel on the front of his spacesuit. If so it's definitely a tight fit.

Look at the distance between the bottom of the exterior bulkhead and the top of the moonbus. Even if the hull were just a few of inches thick, the guy would not just need to duck to get inside the door, everybody would have to either be almost completely doubled over or walk around on their knees to fit.

This takes nothing away from the exterior's beauty. I think this is a gorgeous model.

I'm just anxious to see some even VERY rough blueprints of a workable interior and the resultant real-world scale. 

Although CaptCBoard and maybe a few others are not very interested in that right now, let's not forget this is a thread that is about Phil's blueprinting of the moonbus. The beauty, accuracy and scale of Scott's model is a fascinating aside and is incredibly interesting.

But I believe Phil has intended to blueprint it as accurately as he can, inside and out and probably wants to end up with integrated blueprints, based on what he's said so far. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong and I've misunderstood or mis-stated the intentions of your thread, Phil(X-15A2).


----------



## GLU Sniffah

Whenever I look at an image of a moonbus...I experience a single...large...radio emission...aimed at Jupiter.

In my head, of course. And it hurts.


----------



## X15-A2

This shot is for you Chuck. It shows the crossection of the cabin and outer hull as I've created them (so far). The cabin roof is 6' 6" high while the hatch (the inner hexagon line) is 63 inches high. The hatch is 9 inches short of 6 feet which means the passengers would have to stoop going through but not so much as to make it impractical. I know that you like to see these kinds of relationships so I thought I'd show you what I have so far (always subject to change, of course).


----------



## Steve Mavronis

lastguardian said:


> In the scene where the suited astronaut turns from looking out the forward viewport and proceeds down the aisle, there appears to be a good four or five feet between the backs of the pilot's seat and the cockpit bulkhead with the accordion door attached.


I think you are wrong here, in DVD screenshots I have from the movie as well as the famous publicity shot of Frederick Ordway setting in the cockpit set shows the accordian door right behind the pilot seat around a foot away. I think you are mistaking this for the second bulkhead that begins the passenger compartment. That one is several feet away from the pilot seats.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Kewl Phil!!!!

I got knocked offline a few minutes ago and wanted to also thank you for the previous screengrabs, especially the side orthographic!

If you have time to do some labeling, please let me know which is the cabin floor in the above rear orthographic and the other lines(even though some are obvious).

I had basically estimated the distance from the floor of the cabin (which I guessed to have been about at the point where you had the double red lines just above the blue rectangles on the exterior side orthographic) to the top of the cabin to be about 6 feet, very roughly based on the three-quarter perspective screengrab you did that had a well-light interior with occupants.

Based on those measurements, my rough sizing of the moonbus' length is currently:

571.06278026905829596412556053818 inches.

or about 

47 feet and 7.06278026905829596412556053818" 

that would make a 16" MIM model about a 1/35.69th scale model,

or CaptainCBoard's 15.5" version a 1/36.842th scale "real world" model.

As a draftsman you know this off the top of your head Phil, is there a relatively common scale between 32nd scale and 48th scale?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any screengrabs of the galley/cockpit available?


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> I think you are wrong here, in DVD screenshots I have from the movie as well as the famous publicity shot of Frederick Ordway setting in the cockpit set shows the accordian door right behind the pilot seat around a foot away. I think you are mistaking this for the second bulkhead that begins the passenger compartment. That one is several feet away from the pilot seats.


Could be, but I still don't think so. There is a red splash of light on the side wall, where there should be shadow if it's the second bulkhead and not the first. There is also a side monitor with the code VEH on-screen -- isn't this inside the cockpit? What I _can't_ clearly tell (because the astronaut's body is in the way) is whether, for this shot and for whatever reason, there is _only one_ bulkhead, as if the area normally between the bulkheads (and between the RCS cluster pods) has been omitted.

I've seen the Ordway photo, and I'm not convinced what we see there are the bulkheads. I get the impression the cockpit is sitting separate from the remainder of the set, as if moved so a particular shot could be acheived. We do see the astronaut in the movie leaning his arm on the back of the seat, which would seem an awkward pose were there a bulkhead right there. 

I always wondered why the thing was designed without an airlock. Do they just figure on never having to disembark apart from a landing pad (and supposedly a pressurized boarding tunnel)?

Shane


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I'm sure the walls were movable to get the various camera angles necessary.
Maybe they simply couldn't fit the camera in the right positon without moving the wall?


----------



## lastguardian

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm sure the walls were movable to get the various camera angles necessary.
> Maybe they simply couldn't fit the camera in the right positon without moving the wall?


Who knows. I'm sure you're right, that the moon bus walls were wild and could be moved in segments at the director's discretion. Even so, it sure feels tight in there. 

Shane


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

lastguardian said:


> Who knows. I'm sure you're right, that the moon bus walls were wild and could be moved in segments at the director's discretion. Even so, it sure feels tight in there.
> 
> Shane


Speaking of wild walls...

Check out this very well ventilated shuttlecraft Decker used in TOS Trek episode "The Doomsday Machine."

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Doomsday_Machine_299.jpg


----------



## Steve Mavronis

lastguardian said:


> There is also a side monitor with the code VEH on-screen -- isn't this inside the cockpit? What I _can't_ clearly tell (because the astronaut's body is in the way) is whether, for this shot and for whatever reason, there is _only one_ bulkhead


You see the forward bulkhead and rear bulkhead of the locker area near the start of the interior sequence as the camera tracks backwards and the first astronaut grabs a sandwich container (near cargo in the forward passenger area) to bring back to Floyd.

The VEH screen is inside the 2 bulkheads making up the starboard locker and port side survey charts area. This section is right behind the pilot seats. See that the astronauts right shoulder is leaning against the cockpit bulkhead with his hand resting on the back on the pilot seat. Also you see the forward bulkhead edge with it's curtain door edge within elbow reach of the seats in the Ordway cockpit photo:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb_flight_deck_ordway.jpg

Also the forward passenger area segment (where the white wall panels are) is a section that is proportionally 1.5 times longer than each of the 5 equally spaced windowed segment. I proved this using perspective geometry lines in an earlier post. This result can't be affected by what lenses where used since it measured proportional ratios to compare known relative lengths to get the previously unknown length ratio for the longer front white panel section.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Here are a couple of photos to ponder:









This photo clearly shows the way the deck is very narrow, with raised stowage areas to either side. The reason the deck is lower than the stowage areas is it passes between the landing gear. If it weren't for this, no one would be able to stand upright with a spacesuit and helmet on. The real debate is exactly how much headroom there was. Judging by the one man walking back and forth, we can see his head does just barely clear the bottom of the padded ribs, so they are probably set at 6 feet, possibly 2 or 3 inches higher.








I grabbed a bunch of frames and through the use of Photoshop I was able to remove the guy who serves the lunch and almost all of Ralph. The red areas denote where the background could not be restored, but this gives a clear view of the left stowage area and its riser (from the deck).

I'm going to hazard a guess that the stripes on the deck are two inches wide. That makes the deck 18, possibly 20 inches wide and 10 to 12 inches from the deck to the stowage area. The reason I think the deck is that narrow is the container the lunch is carried in. Early in this sequence, when the guy first grabs it, it seems to be as wide as the deck, possibly a bit smaller. My guess is the container is 16 inches wide, judging by the size of the sandwiches, which pretty much cinches the deck as being no more than 18 inches wide. It is definitely not 3 feet wide, as someone else postulated.

As for the length of the deck, as I stated before the guy takes 5 paces to reach Floyd. Floyd is sitting at the 4th window from the front and the guy stops right before Floyd, not beside him. There is also a vent the same size as the windows that he passes. Using the windows and the vent as evenly spaced units, his 5 paces cover 4 units. Two windows remain (the one Floyd is sitting at and the one behind him), making for a total of 6 units of length for the deck, to the end of the last window. This breaks down to 1.25 paces per unit, or 7.5 paces to get from the front of the cabin to just beyond the rear window. Even allowing for a wide pace of 30 inches (back of heel to tip of opposite toe) this comes out to 18.75 feet. My guess is his paces were not as long as 30 inches, but we really can't tell.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> There is also a vent the same size as the windows that he passes. Using the windows and the vent as evenly spaced units, his 5 paces cover 4 units.


But the vent is not the same size as the window sections. It is 1.5 times longer. See my earlier posts about this. In your picture just by eyeing it up, each section (in shrinking 3D perspective view) should appear shorter spacing and get shorter as they go more distant, but the vented area goes a longer distance than it should if it were the same length as the window spacing.

See this from page #3 (other related screenshots there too):
http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_interior_study1.jpg

To get the idea, take the Aurora model as a general guide (or your model) and just slide up the whole locker section forward almost to behind the pilot seats and the vent section will be almost around 1.5 times the window spacing. This is just to illustrate the relative positioning of the interior sections. I do not know how long each section actually is size-wise, but I know how they relate proportionally to each other. I did my earlier geometric perspective study to prove the relative length as a ratio of the window spacings.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I'd have to agree that the roof appears to be about 6 ft to 6ft 3 inches from the center interior deck.

Also, it appears that the distance from the top of the windows to the top of the roof seems to be exactly or very near 1 window vertical height.

If we could figure out the number of windows it would take to stretch from interior ceiling to the same level as the center deckfloor and allowed for the angling of the outer walls, then divided six feet by that number of windows we could get a nearly exact real-world vertical window height.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If we could figure out the number of windows it would take to stretch for interior ceiling to the same level as the center deckfloor and allowed for the angling of the outer walls and divided six feet by that number of windows we could get a nearly exact real-world vertical window height.


You can do that by tracing a good cross section and measuring. The view looking rearward would be best since the cross section would be in a flat geometric plane perpendicular to your line of sight, you would get an accurate reading of the proportions. Use this shot. You could use the framing near Floyd's knee and the raised floor line would be near his toes:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/pdvd_166.jpg


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> Here are a couple of photos to ponder:


Good analysis, Scott. And thanks for the photowork! 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> But the vent is not the same size as the window sections. It is 1.5 times longer.


I'd say you're absolutely right. Thanks for the perspective analysis. 

Seems clear that the inner pair of bulkhead arches don't in any way line up with the RCS pods on the outside. The aftmost arch would have to fall at a point well forward of the pod centerline -- which doesn't change the earlier assertion in the thread that the outer proportions of the Aurora kit are pretty darn close.  

And given an approximate 6' - 6' 3'' ceiling height inside the thing, I don't see a problem with the aft hatch assembly being almost as tall.

Shane


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> You see the forward bulkhead and rear bulkhead of the locker area near the start of the interior sequence as the camera tracks backwards and the first astronaut grabs a sandwich container (near cargo in the forward passenger area) to bring back to Floyd.


Yes, it certainly is visible there. No question. But whether it also is present in the later shot is another matter. It may well have suited Kubrick for the later scene not to have dealt with a second bulkhead in his tracking shot -- clearly, in order to accommodate the cameraman and his equipment, at least a part of the portside set has been removed at that point.



> See that the astronauts right shoulder is leaning against the cockpit bulkhead with his hand resting on the back on the pilot seat.


I wish I _could_ see that. All I see is his hand and his backpack -- the bulkhead, if there, simply isn't visible anywhere in the shot as far as I can tell. I find no evidence that he's leaning on anything.

If someone can do a screencap and tweak up the brightness or otherwise reveal the bulkhead, I'd be most appreciative. 

Shane


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> This shot is for you Chuck. It shows the crossection of the cabin and outer hull as I've created them (so far). The cabin roof is 6' 6" high while the hatch (the inner hexagon line) is 63 inches high. The hatch is 9 inches short of 6 feet which means the passengers would have to stoop going through but not so much as to make it impractical. I know that you like to see these kinds of relationships so I thought I'd show you what I have so far (always subject to change, of course).


After having done a cross-section of CaptCBoard's interior shot, I've come to the conclusion that the interior cabin is right at 6'6". For a moment I had thought it slightly lower until I realised that the reason I thought that was an optical illusion of the perspective of the shot.

Need some sleep, but tommorrow I'll try to insert the cross-section.

Could you perhaps do a combo orthographic with the above diagram in scale with and directly alongside you sideview orthographic overlay drawing?

There is a good chance I could then use my interior cross-section to get some more definite/accurate exterior dimensions.


----------



## Richard Compton

I've got video of a deleted scene where the astronauts get out their tape measures and measure everything, just for the heck of it. It took place right after the monolith they dug up sang all weird to them...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

P.S. Great screencap Steve! 

Wish I had seen it earlier, but luckily CaptCBoard's pic worked okay. 

Thanks though, it's still a beautiful shot that shows a ton of structural detail, especially the arches. That will undoubtedly end up becoming very handy.


----------



## DX-SFX

I think we're forgetting that some of those live action plates were fudged when added to the exteriors of the ships. They were purely composed to look right even if technically they weren't. For instance that well known side shot of the Moonbus with people moving inside, if you look at the interior set bulkhead/ribs, they don't line up with the windows of the model towards camera. The people inside give an "impression" of how big the Moonbus is but in that single shot, the interior is reduced in size more than it should be i.e. the bulkhead/ribs are too close together. That may partly be why Scott's astronaut figure feels too big even though it probably isn't. The visual conflicts comes from the difference between the calculated actual size of the sets versus the mind's eye perception of the Moonbus on screen because of lens perspective and artistic compositing.


----------



## woof359

*protecting his design*

is it true after the movie Kubrick destroyed every single set and prop to keep it form being used in cheep movies after 2001 was finished? not a single prop survived?


----------



## John P

woof359 said:


> is it true after the movie Kubrick destroyed every single set and prop to keep it form being used in cheep movies after 2001 was finished? not a single prop survived?


 That's the story! Sad, ain't it?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

lastguardian said:


> All I see is his hand and his backpack -- the bulkhead, if there, simply isn't visible anywhere in the shot as far as I can tell. I find no evidence that he's leaning on anything. If someone can do a screencap and tweak up the brightness or otherwise reveal the bulkhead, I'd be most appreciative.


I'll try to edit the exposure of that shot but the lip of the bulkhead right there is pretty thin (a few inches) next to the angled wall and then there is the black sliding curtain door or whatever you call it (the same that you see in the Ordway publcity shot and his fingers are over the edge of it). You can see a slight red light casting against that bulkhead lip a bit. I'll try to tweek it up and post a link to enhanced image(s). Either way, the astronaut has his hand on the seat and the rest of his body is inside the locker area so the forward bulkhead is in between his shoulder and his forearm when he is leaning over towards the pilots. I took a bunch of screeshots so I can step through the interior sequences to show all the angles and details possible. Also, where you saw VEH it says NAV too, the display changed at least 3 times to different images - VEH/NAV/and some kind of chart or small writings. I have another screenshot where you can see the computer display between his legs and proves it is located inside the locker area bewteen the 2 bulkheads. Also each of the right-side angled wall sections (3?) with the display says LOCKER (with small writings underneath) at the top and the wall, and on the other side says either "NAVIGATION and SURVEY CHARTS" or "NAVIGATION and UTILITY CHARTS".


----------



## Steve Mavronis

woof359 said:


> is it true after the movie Kubrick destroyed every single set and prop to keep it form being used in cheep movies after 2001 was finished? not a single prop survived?


Look here to see what ended up with the Space Station 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/html/spacestation.html


----------



## X15-A2

That's a little myth building on the studio's part about Kubrick "ordering everything destroyed". He didn't and it wasn't. This is evident from how much material survived and is floating around today.


----------



## woof359

*where was that?*

i have seen this picture be4, a land fill some where in the UK?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> That's a little myth building on the studio's part about Kubrick "ordering everything destroyed". He didn't and it wasn't. This is evident from how much material survived and is floating around today.


Pray someone saved the Moonbus! What a jewel that would have been.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> I've got video of a deleted scene where the astronauts get out their tape measures and measure everything, just for the heck of it. It took place right after the monolith they dug up sang all weird to them...


That video and stills from it would be golden. What and where are they measuring?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

DX-SFX said:


> I think we're forgetting that some of those live action plates were fudged when added to the exteriors of the ships. They were purely composed to look right even if technically they weren't. For instance that well known side shot of the Moonbus with people moving inside, if you look at the interior set bulkhead/ribs, they don't line up with the windows of the model towards camera. The people inside give an "impression" of how big the Moonbus is but in that single shot, the interior is reduced in size more than it should be i.e. the bulkhead/ribs are too close together. That may partly be why Scott's astronaut figure feels too big even though it probably isn't. The visual conflicts comes from the difference between the calculated actual size of the sets versus the mind's eye perception of the Moonbus on screen because of lens perspective and artistic compositing.


The best thing to do is to try and recreate the interior from the interior shots. Then see how it all fits together.
I don't plan, and I don't think Phil does either, on relying on any one shot. Like I said, my first guess of the moonbus length was a rough estimate that will almost certainly change.

But since this is a fun exercise for me I thought I might as well call it and put that 47' 7.06" estimate out there. If for no other reason then to later see how close I came.


----------



## scotpens

Richard Compton said:


> I've got video of a deleted scene where the astronauts get out their tape measures and measure everything, just for the heck of it. It took place right after the monolith they dug up sang all weird to them...


Is that where everything gets really screwed up because it turns out all the astronauts are actually midgets?


Chuck_P.R. said:


> That video and stills from it would be golden. What and where are they measuring?


They're measuring each other's private parts. Uh, you do get that it's a _joke_, right?


X15-A2 said:


> That's a little myth building on the studio's part about Kubrick "ordering everything destroyed". He didn't and it wasn't. This is evident from how much material survived and is floating around today.


That's interesting. I've heard that factoid for years and always assumed it was true. It certainly seems plausible that Kubrick wouldn't have wanted stuff from "2001" to be recycled in cheap movies and TV productions for the next twenty years (can anyone say "Forbidden Planet"?) But if the story's bogus, does anyone know exactly what material survives, and where it is now?


----------



## CaptCBoard

I asked Kubrick's daughter about this at the Frankfurt exhibition-- most of the story is true. All the sets and most of the props were destroyed, as well as the large Discovery model, right after the film was finished. They were burned in a remote section of the studio. Burning sets after they were used was common practice back then, but Kubrick wanted to make sure nothing showed up in other films. What was not burned at that time were the items that he kept and are now on display in Berlin (actually that exhibition closed in July and will reopen in Australia in January). Part of what he kept was stored at the studio and was going to be donated to a university (the name of which I can't recall), but legal problems popped up and the transfer was delayed for several years. When MGM decided to sell the studio, Kubrick was told his stuff would have to go into private storage that he'd have to pay for. He no longer cared what happened to the models, so he took possession of some crates, to add the contents to his archive, and had the rest sent to the landfill. 

Certain items did survive, though; outside of the things Kubrick kept for himself. Those were sent to the US for advertising purposes and also for some additional shots that were done at MGM in Culver City. One of those shots was the 'poster shot'. This is the brief scene of the lunar astronauts with some scientific gear on the edge of an overlook and the Aries descending in the background. That is how the 3 spacesuits survived. Something that is interesting to note about all the spacesuits is only 6 were made, as seen in the TMA-1 scene. 4 of the silver suits were painted after the TMA-1 stuff was shot, becoming the suits for all the Discovery scenes. The helmets were modified slightly and the instrument panel on the arms was added. Later, the red and yellow suits were painted back to silver and used in the poster shot-- you can see one of the guys has an arm panel. I should mention here that at least one of the suits was repainted several times as it now shows red, yellow and silver paint. This is probably the suit used by the stuntman doing the wire work, both during the EVA sequences and Bowman's rescue of Poole.

The only reason there are photos of the remains of the Space Station is the truck carrying that arrived too late and the dump was closed. Instead of returning the next day, the driver pitched his load in a vacant lot outside the dump.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I have some great reference pictures for you guys! Most of these are provided by fellow Moonbus enthusiast Philster who granted me permission to post these on his behalf:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mblargo3best.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/bus_best_detail_clips.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb600.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb_still.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_alt_view.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/bus_stripped_side_view.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_corrected.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/new_bus_rear_14.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/new_bus_rear_15.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/e8_1.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_2drawing.gif

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mb_joystick.jpg

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/moonbus_plans2a.gif

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/lrg_115.jpg

Notes - 

1. The images named mb_joystick.jpg, moonbus_plans2a.gif, lrg_115.jpg come from the website The 2001 Collectibiles Exhibit at http://www.2001exhibit.org

2. The rest except moonbus_2drawing.gif (unknown old web source) were provided by Philster.

3. The image e8_1.jpg according to Philster, "I also think I know what's been added under the door. Parts for the horizontal feature may come from a model of the Honest John rocket launcher. Some folks see this feature as some sort of pull-out ramp. The curved sections of the model seem to be the ones used in the movie model".

4. The image mb_still.jpg observation by Philster, "Notice the detail on the Moonbus nose. I see scribed circles" and with image new_bus_rear_15.jpg "I've attached a lousy frame grab to show you that movie model's bottom side was well captured by Aurora."

Thanks Philster for helping me out with these great reference pictures!


----------



## ThomasModels

I would suspect that the small Aurora company had access or was given access to studio or contractor drawings, photos and specs to the miniature which have yet to surface. Details such as the underside configuration of the Aurora kit may be more correct than expected.


----------



## woof359

*how hard is it to get a foot in the door?*

So, thomas, when you contacted Paramont for the refit info, how hard was it to get them even intrested in taking the time to contribute to the PL Refit project?


----------



## X15-A2

Steve,

Thanks so much for posting all that great reference info about the Moonbus! And thanks to Philster too!


----------



## scotpens

In the joystick photo, is that a motorcycle or bicycle handbrake lever I see? Or is the whole thing actually a motorcycle handgrip?

I can see it now:
"American International Pictures presents. . .A Roger Corman production. . ._Hell's Angels on the Moon!_"


----------



## X15-A2

Thats the stick out of a british fighter, I believe from a Hawker Hunter. The lever is for brakes while taxing, I think. I will be getting a positive ID on that stick later on when I get in touch with an expert in England that I know. The lever was a common feature of the UK sticks in the 50's & 60's.


----------



## scotpens

X15-A2 said:


> Thats the stick out of a british fighter, I believe from a Hawker Hunter. The lever is for brakes while taxing, I think. . .


I realized on second thought that the stick does look more like it's from some type of aircraft.

BTW, an aircraft rolling slowly on the ground is _taxiing_ or, as it's sometimes spelled, _taxying_ — although being a fighter pilot is certainly a _taxing_ job!


----------



## DX-SFX

The guy who supplied most of the ex-Ministry Of Defence stuff is a friend of mine called Mike Shaw. He had, until very recently, quite a few of those joysticks but sadly there are none left. Mike started his career on The Guns Of Navarone and only recently retired last year. He's sold off most of his remaining stock of bits and bobs and other 2001 collectors have cleaned him out of anything noteworthy. The unit that Bowman presses to activate the explosive bolts of the one man space pod is actually a fitting from an ejector seat where you clip on the oxygen hose and consists of three spring load spherical valves. Again Mike had loads now sadly all gone. Basically he used to break and salvage aircraft.


----------



## GLU Sniffah

Very sad, indeed. Poor HAL. At least there are surviving bits of him in private collections.


----------



## scotpens

Great illustration — who did it? Are prints of it available?


----------



## GLU Sniffah

^ I'll try to find you the link to the original website I saved it from. Dunno if prints are available or not.


----------



## Pygar

Chuck, there is indeed a common modeling scale between 1/32 and 1/48. The British "O" Gauge is 7 mm./foot, usually called "1/43". HO is Half O or 3.5 mm./foot. The only other common modeling scale in there is 1/35, beloved of military modellers.

American O is 1/48.


----------



## GLU Sniffah

Scotpens: This is the site I originally found it on...but couldn't find it this time around...but at least you can check it out yourself. Still lots of nice 2001 info, art and articles to read:

http://www.2001exhibit.org/2001_page2.html


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Pygar said:


> Chuck, there is indeed a common modeling scale between 1/32 and 1/48. The British "O" Gauge is 7 mm./foot, usually called "1/43". HO is Half O or 3.5 mm./foot. The only other common modeling scale in there is 1/35, beloved of military modellers.
> 
> American O is 1/48.


Kewl! Thanks!

I had found this old list graciously done by Trek Ace and had forgotten to post it for everyone's edification.

So 1/35th does seem to be popular among military enthusiasts.
Anybody know why that scale in particular???

Here is the list done by Trek Ace. Thanks again to you and Pygar both! 


Scales from 1:1 to 1/96th? 

Why not. Got nothing else better to do.

1:1 scale = Full Size
1/2 scale: 6"=1'
1/3 scale: 4"=1'
1/4 scale: 3"=1'
1/6 scale: 2"=1'
1/8 scale: 1-1/2"=1'
1/12 scale: 1"=1' (also known as "dollhouse scale")
1/16 scale: 3/4"=1'
1/18 scale: 2/3"=1' (popular diecast and military toy scale)
1/24 scale: 1/2"=1' (popular model car scale)
1/25 scale: 0.48"=1' [approximately 31/64"=1'] (another popular model car scale)
1/28 scale: 7/16"=1' [stated-approximately] (many balsa aircraft models in this scale)
1/32 scale: 3/8"=1'
1/35 scale: 0.343"=1' [just slightly over 1/3"=1'] (most popular military scale)
1/48 scale: 1/4"=1' (most popular model aircraft scale)
1/64 scale: 3/16"=1'
1/72 scale: 1/6"=1'
1/87 scale: 0.138"=1' [approximately 9/64"=1'] (HO scale)
1/96 scale: 1/8"=1'


----------



## scotpens

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So 1/35th does seem to be popular among military enthusiasts.
> Anybody know why that scale in particular???


Probably for the same reason 1/25 and 1/24 are the most popular scales for model cars — they allow for a good amount of easily seen detail, the cost is reasonable, and they don't take up yards of shelf space in your bedroom (or den, basement, whatever).


Pygar said:


> Chuck, there is indeed a common modeling scale between 1/32 and 1/48. The British "O" Gauge is 7 mm./foot, usually called "1/43". HO is Half O or 3.5 mm./foot. The only other common modeling scale in there is 1/35, beloved of military modellers. American O is 1/48.


Leave it to the British to mix up metric with imperial measurements! I thought they only did that on Star Trek!
It's also relevant to mention that in 1/25 scale, 1 millimeter is very close to one inch on the prototype (actually 1" = 25.4mm). This standard is frequently used by car modelers.


----------



## Richard Compton

I almost hesitate to ask....but did Kubrick destroy the actors after filming? "I'm sorry, but I can't have you appearing in any cheesy movies in the future...." BANG!


----------



## John P

scotpens said:


> I realized on second thought that the stick does look more like it's from some type of aircraft.


 I think the _trigger _is probably not a typical motorcycle feature .


----------



## trevanian

John P said:


> I think the _trigger _is probably not a typical motorcycle feature .


It is probably from Fiona Volpe's rocket-firing motorcycle in THUNDERBALL. 

We know how Kubrick loved to scavenge his props from other people's movies (insert emoticon for sarcasm here.)


----------



## trevanian

scotpens said:


> Great illustration — who did it? Are prints of it available?


It is probably a background for the next version of PHANTOM MENACE. In the release print, you see a space pod, but in the superduper/evenworse addition, you'll see Stanley Kubrick's face matted over Watto, with this ohso appropriate bg.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

O.Topic...

I just realized, the 11 foot filming miniature of the TOS Enterprise is about 1/8x.

Not that that is news, but it hadn't occurred to me that there was an "official" scale close to that. Any chance the TOS E was intended to be a 1/87th HO scale?


----------



## CaptCBoard

No, their intention was to make the big model 4 times the size of the small one they already had.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## GLU Sniffah

Richard Compton said:


> I almost hesitate to ask....but did Kubrick destroy the actors after filming? "I'm sorry, but I can't have you appearing in any cheesy movies in the future...." BANG!


 They stored Keir Dullea in a crate until 2010.


----------



## trevanian

^If they had, maybe we'd have missed out on THE STARLOST.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just did a rough study to determine approximately the fractional proportions down the side of the Moonbus. This may help the development of Moonbus blueprints we are discussing. Please reference the screen capture below to understand the following description:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/snag-002.jpg

I used the Master Models (pre-detailed) picture of the Moonbus for this anaylsis. From left to right I've marked off divisions labeled as fractions for proportional spacing, where the back of the Moonbus is 0 and the cockpit window edge is 1. You can see the passenger window's rear edge is at 1/16th the length to the beginning of the cockpit window. The passenger window ends almost just before the 11/32nd mark. You can also see approximately where the RCS thruster pod is proportionally to the rest. I may sub-divide this image further to determine the exacts positions as a fraction of the whole distance from the 0 line to the 1 line. If I can determine the front of the nose (that is past the 1 mark) I can re-divide up the entire length of the Moonbus so we can be fairly confident of the proportions and location of structures along the side.

In case you are wondering how I determine were each division line goes: I mark off a rectangle and project up the point of convergence or vanishing point. (This is just like how road edges converge to a point at the horizon called a vanishing point as it gets farther away in the distance. Of course we know road edges are parallel but thats perspective for you.) Then I take the rectangle and draw diagonals to get it's center point. Next I draw a line from our upper imaginary horizon point down through the rectangle center this dividing it exactly in half. I simply repeat this process creating fractions we can measure to determine blueprint proportions! This is probably the same concept for the computer program X15-A2 here is using to mark off objects in a 3D perspective image to create a valid 2D view with the distortion removed.


----------



## DX-SFX

For what it's worth, I know most of Master/Space Models output of this type at this time was all done using imperial measurements. I know it sounds obvious....


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> The reason I think it might be an error is that your line that runs down the sloping sides at the front edge of the rear windows isn't parallel with that edge and I think it should be.


Yes, there is room for error. This is only an estimate and so there is always a margin for error. I also know that there is a slight curvature right up near the cockpit window edge. I'll try again with other photos if I can see a better vertical line to use as a angle reference. However I'm curious to see if the Aurora model (it doesn't curve near the cockpit edge) follows this fractional location breakdown in my image study of the real model. I wish there was a higher resolution picture of it to use. I do have another raw model image that is more of a side-on view, except it appears to be a magazine scan and a page crease is near the rear of the bus so that messes that up!


----------



## DX-SFX

Sorry Steve, I misread your drawing slightly and while I was editing my post, you were composing your reply to my previous comments, hence my post changed. Actually my comment about the screen edge still stands but your lines weren't quite as divergent as I first mistakenly assumed. Just ignore me.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Don't worry DX-SFX. I saw your post changed after I replied. My method isn't an exact science yet. The geometric principles in themselves are sound, but there is human error in getting a line angle exactly on a line in a picture. It is a bit of interpretation and guesstament. Plus it is best to have more than 2 reference lines to find the exact vanishing point were they all must intersect. But in this case the two end lines went way way off in the distance so if the intersection point is off a little it wouldn't throw off the result as much because the angle difference is slight.


----------



## X15-A2

My method isn't science either but so far it it is not only getting me into the ballpark, I'm on the in field. These are todays updates, the nose section wire frame trace and rendered. I realise that the outboard lower cockpit window sill has an incorrect divit in it but what I'm really after are the outlines of the edges of the windows. Refinements will come when the drafting phase begins (this sucker is tough to model in 3D around the nose!).


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I read in one of your first posts you use Microstation. What I'm wondering is after you trace the Moonbus image in perspective, can your software take that info and rotate it around into a 2D plan image?


----------



## GLU Sniffah

trevanian said:


> ^If they had, maybe we'd have missed out on THE STARLOST.


 I DID miss out on The Starlost. Maybe Peter Hyams' crew crafted a photo-interpreted replica, just as they did HAL and all the sets!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Steve,

Yes, Microstation is a full function CAD software, typically used for architectual design. I don't actually plan to model the entire Moonbus, it was necessary on the nose because of the complex shapes. This is new territory for me, doing a "3D photo trace" so I'm having to make up the process as I go along but so far the results seem pretty exciting. However this process would not be good for all subjects, only those which are very planar or geometrically simple should work well.


----------



## jheilman

Progress looks great. You do work fast. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> My method isn't science either but so far it it is not only getting me into the ballpark, I'm on the in field. These are todays updates, the nose section wire frame trace and rendered. I realise that the outboard lower cockpit window sill has an incorrect divit in it but what I'm really after are the outlines of the edges of the windows. Refinements will come when the drafting phase begins (this sucker is tough to model in 3D around the nose!).


So this is a picture of the actual filming miniature, not a replica?


----------



## DX-SFX

Yes. It was built by Master Models (who later became Space Models). The photo is from their archive. It was supplied as a basic shell and detailed at the studio.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So this is a picture of the actual filming miniature, not a replica?


Yes but note that the bottom gray version is X15-A2's computer render overlayed on top the actual movie moonbus model picture that his wireframe is over in the top picture. Here is a "clean" picture of the pre-detailed Moonbus used in the film:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/limg0071.jpg


----------



## X15-A2

Call out the Clavius Base Fire Brigade! Their new engine has arrived...










My progress so far. The front corners of the Moonbus here are a little whacky but that will be cleaned up in the drafting phase. Kinda striking in red, huh?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

X15-A2 said:


> Call out the Clavius Base Fire Brigade! Their new engine has arrived...
> My progress so far. The front corners of the Moonbus here are a little whacky but that will be cleaned up in the drafting phase. Kinda striking in red, huh?



The insurance premiums on the Red Moonbus are almost double the standard Clavius White


----------



## Prowler901

That's just plain AWESOME!

I hope I'll be able to afford one


----------



## X15-A2

PhilipMarlowe said:


> The insurance premiums on the Red Moonbus are almost double the standard Clavius White


LOL!!!! I hadn't thought of that before I signed the papers, Damn!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Please don't paint it like the Partridge Family bus, LOL.


----------



## X15-A2

Here is the other pose, just for fun.


----------



## X15-A2

Here is the rear view with lighting similar to the original still from the movie. This shows some of the details on the rear bulkhead.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

That's really looking cool, I'm in awe of you computer modeling guys, I've tried a few stabs at it and it's beyond me.

On a really good day I can _just_ make a music CD!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> Please don't paint it like the Partridge Family bus, LOL.


That's freaking ingenious!!!!
I would have never thought of that!

Anybody got any Patridge Family Bus Textures they have lying around?


----------



## DX-SFX

Being serious for a second, the red overlays do sort of suggest that the sloping faces of the original are a fraction shallower than 45 degrees making the overall width a tad more. I don't know if that's down to the model making on the film model or an optical effect that I've not worked out yet. I assume it's not because the rear face deviates from the vertical slightly.


----------



## CaptCBoard

You have to take into account the model is optically compressed because of the lens. I was talking with someone about this and he said all the still shots used (and this shot is one of them) were done using an 8X10 camera and the compression they were going for was created by manipulating the lens-board. Whether this was done using a long lens or by tilting the lens-board of the camera to create the compression, it would effect how the angles play out using photogrammetry, which is essentially what Phil is doing here. Don't get me wrong, I think the way he's matched this all up is great, especially if the same file looks correct when rotated back to normal side, top and end views-- I'm just saying that the angles may actually be 45 degrees, but have been squashed in the process of compressing the photo and now appear to be something else.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## scotpens

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That's freaking ingenious!!!!
> I would have never thought of that!
> Anybody got any Patridge Family Bus Textures they have lying around?


Don't know about that, but check out this link:
www.starshipmodeler.org/contest9/dio_04.cfm


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Does anyone have a clearer version of this Moonbus picture? This one looks like it was photographed off a TV set and looks distorted:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/mbs2_cr.jpg

I have this and another version that seems to be from a magazine scan but the image is too small to take usefull measurements:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/bus02.gif

Maybe someone has a larger resolution scan of the above magazine image?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Scott,

All the still shots may have been taken with an 8x10 camera but the builders shots were not. However compressed the given image may be, the model can only be longer than what we see in the photos rather than shorter. The beauty shot I started with, the one showing the side and rear, has the model turned nearly 45 degrees away from the camera so it is foreshortened (considerably). So far, my model tests successfully against both sets of photos.

In my case, I did not set a given angle to the sides but rather went by what was in the photos (the sidewall angles and widths were determined by the low angle beauty shot of the nose which shows these angles very nearly true). I haven't measured those angles yet but it is my practice to draw final plans to realistic angles and dimensions, so that will be sorted out in the drafting phase. This computer model is just for getting in the ballpark and being sure that all the sources agree.


----------



## DX-SFX

I've done a little research on some of Space Models other products and sometimes the angles can be very slightly off. I've found "idealizing" them can lead to subtle changes to the look. Symmetry has sometimes been a problem and although I don't object to this being corrected, Phil, please, please, please don't change anything outside the symmetry issue. How difficult would it be to save a copy of what you've already done and make it a little wider just to double check?

I don't think there are any 10" by 8" cameras that are made which aren't the bellows type. Tilting and shifting the lens board can alter the zone of focus and the apparent vanishing points but only in one direction at a time. It doesn't alter the overall perspective. It just distorts the image to give the illusion. The only way to truly alter the perspective is to move the taking position. Again I don't doubt that some of the movie images might have been tweaked this way but as Phil mentioned, the raw model shots before delivery wouldn't have been. It must be worth exploring? Sometimes, a little nudging of the lines makes everything else all fall into place.

For example, if we assume the heights and width of roof are all correct, flattening the angle of sides even one degree would make the overall width significantly wider. I think this is quite possible because I know that a lot of Space Model's master patterns were hand made in wood. They were cut on a table saw (and we know how inaccurate the angles of cut on those can be) in Jelutong and frequently smaller angles were made by offering them up to a bench sander (again, a tool not noted for it's precision).


----------



## heiki

Did anybody contact Space models Inc. and ask them for a copy of the plans that they followed when they made the MoonBus?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

heiki said:


> Did anybody contact Space models Inc. and ask them for a copy of the plans that they followed when they made the MoonBus?


I wrote the webmaster of their Master Models site a year or so ago when I first found that great raw Moonbus photo by accident doing a search. He said that was a long time ago (the 60's) and they have no more info. But that could have just been him. Please try yourself; maybe you can get a different person or contact to ask that is more interested! Note - I also just e-mailed Space Models at [email protected] their website is http://www.spacemodels.co.uk so i hope they are the same people as Master Models or at least have archival refernce material on the Moonbus. I'll pass on their reply if I get one.


----------



## DX-SFX

They are one and the same and I asked the same question of them many years ago. Neither was I the first to ask them. I fear the plans are genuinely long gone.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Check out this image link at http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/pdvd_169intsection.jpg where I mapped out in perspective a cross-section profile of the interior. The shape is a bit different than X15-A2's cross-section of the interior but I think this is more accurate. The narrow floor's depth is based on another shot where I duplicated the rectangular floor cutout proportions here. The rulers are just arbitrary and not meant to declare the scale but based on a 6 foot ceiling height here. You could re-scale it for 6.5' instead or anything you like as long as the proportions stay the same! The very narrow floor has to be in between 1.5' to 2' wide max to fit a 6' to 6.5' ceiling. It's probably closer to 18-21 inches wide in my estimation. Also you should realize the raised cargo areas are not vertically flush with the passenger area floor at the forward end, and they appear to be angled like a V as they and the floor connect with the bulkhead. If you look at the 1st interior scene, as the camera pans back watch the guys foot. It shows partially behind the angled cutout on the passeger area floor which is a step higher than the locker bay and cockpit floor so don't mistake it for that. 



X15-A2 said:


> This shot is for you Chuck. It shows the crossection of the cabin and outer hull as I've created them (so far). The cabin roof is 6' 6" high while the hatch (the inner hexagon line) is 63 inches high. The hatch is 9 inches short of 6 feet which means the passengers would have to stoop going through but not so much as to make it impractical. I know that you like to see these kinds of relationships so I thought I'd show you what I have so far (always subject to change, of course).


----------



## lastguardian

Does anyone have any idea as to the actual on-set color of the padded surfaces inside the Moon Bus?

Is it possible to adjust the hue of one of the blue-lit stills from the movie in order to ascertain the true colors of everything?

Shane


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I hope someone answers your question that was "in the know". This is my guess: I think the walls were probably light gray, the padded areas probably tan, the floor was probably light gray too but with aluminum or sheet metal strips over them. I am wondering too what color filter you could apply to the blue tinted images of the Moonbus passenger interior to filter out the blue and reveal the natural colors. Anyone have any ideas how to do this?


----------



## ProfKSergeev

I am wondering how that blue effect was achieved in the first place. I can think of a few ways one could do it, namely shooting with tungsten-balanced stock outdoors (or under HMI's) without colour correction, timing in more blue at the lab, or just using blue lights. When trying to remove the blue from the Moonbus interior shots, one would do well to keep the above options and others in mind, as each has its own peculiarities.


----------



## DX-SFX

Given the red nature of the cockpit, I would imagine it was done with coloured gels over the lighting rather than filters on the lens.


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> This is my guess: I think the walls were probably light gray, the padded areas probably tan, the floor was probably light gray too but with aluminum or sheet metal strips over them.


I think the floor was metal finished, with light tan or gray velcro strips running its length. This would make sense -- there was velcro on the floor of the Orion's passenger cabin, Discovery's pod bay and in the area behind her cockpit, and such a system was also used in the Apollo lunar module.

The moon does provide 1/6 g, but the additional velcro traction would be a logical addition.

Shane


----------



## lastguardian

I've heard a few mentions of the interior of the Aries not fitting inside its exterior. Is there really a problem there? 

The only obvious discrepancy I noticed in the film is that the stewardess goes into the wrong door when delivering refreshments to the cockpit -- instead of turning completely upside down and going into a side door off of the roundabout, she should have walked up and through the door on top.

Shane


----------



## scotpens

lastguardian said:


> I've heard a few mentions of the interior of the Aries not fitting inside its exterior. Is there really a problem there?
> The only obvious discrepancy I noticed in the film is that the stewardess goes into the wrong door when delivering refreshments to the cockpit — instead of turning completely upside down and going into a side door off of the roundabout, she should have walked up and through the door on top.
> Shane


I understand that the circular passenger cabin set actually does fit into the putative exterior dimensions of the Aries. But you're right, there's no logical reason for the stewardess — excuse me, flight attendant — to do that ridiculous 180-degree head-over-heels move. In weightlessness, "up" and "down" are whatever you want them to be. She could simply get what she needed from the galley and carefully "float" into the cockpit. It's a completely gratuitous gimmick shot using the old rotating-set trick, which wasn't exactly new when it was used to make Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding."

Love those Zero Gravity Toilet instructions, though!


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, it's an old trick, but Kubrick used them all masterfully. Especially the centrifuge set for Discovery!

I watch 2001 at least once a year and still marvel at it. The mundane and the extraordinary side by side.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I got this info from the Underview site about Simon Atkinson who's done drawings and paintings of the 2001 ships: "A very useful contact was Laurie Barr of the London firm of Mastermodels. Laurie had built, or supervised the building of, several items for the film and had his own list of contacts who we pursued. Laurie Barr's shots of the basic moonbus were very exciting." Whoa - I wonder if she is still around or could be contacted for her photographs of the "raw" moonbus? I just found an e-mail address for who I think may be her and sent an inquiry. One e-mail address bounced back as a mailbox full error, but I found a second address to try too. I hope this one is her in case she can provide any reference help. **** Note - Please don't bug her with e-mail. I've already gotten a response and waiting on further info. If everyone else swamps her with requests, we may end up with nothing! ****


----------



## scotpens

*'Round and 'round she goes. . .*



jheilman said:


> Yeah, it's an old trick, but Kubrick used them all masterfully. Especially the centrifuge set for Discovery!


This is a bit OT, but since you mentioned the centrifuge, I've often wondered if it could actually work. That is, would a wheel of that diameter, rotating at the speed shown in the film, create enough centrifugal force to simulate at least a perceptible fraction of Earth gravity? Jerome Agel's _The Making of Kubrick's 2001_ says that the centrifuge set was 38 feet in diameter. According to some "2001" blueprints drawn by one J. Miller (anybody know this guy?) and published in 1984, the centrifuge is about 42' 6" across. Close enough. The rotation speed can be deduced from the shots of the astronauts entering the supposedly stationary hub. Unfortunately I don't have the movie on VHS or DVD, and wouldn't have a clue what formula to use anyway. Has anybody done the math, just for the hell of it?


----------



## Pygar

No, but you may be able to get better results by measuring time on the jogging scene... note when he passes the same thing twice or some such.


----------



## scotpens

Pygar said:


> No, but you may be able to get better results by measuring time on the jogging scene... note when he passes the same thing twice or some such.


That might be useful in figuring the rotation speed of the centrifuge SET, in which a moving actor was actually walking (or jogging) in place at the bottom, like a hamster on a wheel. I was referring to the hypothetical RPM of the "real" centrifuge, if the _Discovery_ had actually existed. Besides, I have no idea what mathematical formula one uses to calculate centrifugal force.

Can somebody help me here, so we can get back to the Moonbus?


----------



## lastguardian

scotpens said:


> I was referring to the hypothetical RPM of the "real" centrifuge, if the _Discovery_ had actually existed. Besides, I have no idea what mathematical formula one uses to calculate centrifugal force.
> 
> Can somebody help me here, so we can get back to the Moonbus?


http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/inhabiting_artificial_gravity.shtml

Shane


----------



## scotpens

It's a bit more info than I bargained for, not having a degree in mathematics or engineering — but thanks for the link. . . I think!


----------



## GLU Sniffah

scotpens said:


> This is a bit OT, but since you mentioned the centrifuge, I've often wondered if it could actually work. That is, would a wheel of that diameter, rotating at the speed shown in the film, create enough centrifugal force to simulate at least a perceptible fraction of Earth gravity? Jerome Agel's _The Making of Kubrick's 2001_ says that the centrifuge set was 38 feet in diameter. According to some "2001" blueprints drawn by one J. Miller (anybody know this guy?) and published in 1984, the centrifuge is about 42' 6" across. Close enough. The rotation speed can be deduced from the shots of the astronauts entering the supposedly stationary hub. Unfortunately I don't have the movie on VHS or DVD, and wouldn't have a clue what formula to use anyway. Has anybody done the math, just for the hell of it?


 If I had to guess, about 3 RPM...enough to simulate lunar gravity at least. I think I remember reading that in 'The Making of 2001', but don't take it as gospel!


----------



## Richard Compton

It's a little known fact, but some parts of 2001, like the Aries/Pan Am stuff was directed by Benny Hill as a favor to Kubrick. I bet you didn't know that.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Steve Mavronis said:


> Whoa - I wonder if she is still around or could be contacted for her photographs of the "raw" moonbus?QUOTE]
> 
> I got a reply! There may be help on the way. hang on for hopefully positive news in a week.... Please nobody else bug her until this happens!


----------



## rebmv

X15-A2 said:


> Supposedly the Discovery was designed and built before the monolith was found on the moon so the ships features would be intended for Jupiter exploration. Their mission was changed after the hardware was built.
> 
> Do we know if that sketch of the Moonbus is actual preproduction art or was it created after the fact to illustrate an earlier idea?
> 
> Mass does indeed play a role on the moon but look at the design of the LM landing gear for an idea of what is actually needed. The Moonbus gear looks like it is intended to take a 20G impact by comparison.
> 
> I have scanned the instruction sheet for the Aurora Moonbus kit and can post it here if others want to copy it. Is there another Aurora drawing besides that? I was just confused by the use of the term "Aurora blueprint" if not. If there is another Aurora drawing, definitely send it along too because I don't have it. Thanks!


 Hi. I'm new to the HobbyTalk site; so please bear with me.

2001 has been my favorite movie of all time since I was age 8 (and that was in 1968, when the movie was released), and it shows no signs of being replaced in my film preferences anytime soon.

Re. the necessity of the pods, this being "only a movie," all speculation is of course just for fun. I vaguely recall a "timeline" on a 2001 collectibles exhibit site (which was created for a museum exhibit, in California I believe, in 2001) which speculates that the Discovery was initially intended for the first manned mission to Mars. If that was a Phobos/Deimos rendezvous mission, and not a Mars surface landing (which would be a practical precursor to a Mars surface landing mission), and if the "gubment" thought it essential to divert Discovery to Jupiter ASAP, before a substantial Jovian moon manned lander could be developed (remember it took 7 + years to develop the LM from the time Grumman was given the contract), the inclusion of the pods might make more sense.

The idea that some of the "fuel modules" attached to Discovery's spine might contain "more than fuel," suggested in an earlier post, also intrigued me. Perhaps unmanned landers may have been carried in some of them, as with the Leonov in the 2010 movie. Perhaps a manned lander could even have been assembled in Jovian orbit by the pods, from components carried in such modules (assuming my Lunar Models Discovery model is 1/144 scale, as suggested by Starship Modeler), those modules would be easily large enough to house crew).

Again, this is all for fun; so please excuse the major diversion from topic!


----------



## rebmv

GLU Sniffah said:


> If I had to guess, about 3 RPM...enough to simulate lunar gravity at least. I think I remember reading that in 'The Making of 2001', but don't take it as gospel!


 I just love (so far) chatting about OT 2001 stuff!

One scientific flaw of which I have read re. the centrifuge...the Coriolis force would tend to push a climbing astronaut off the ladder (which runs from the outer rim of the centrifuge, along its "back wall," to the hub) in a sideways direction. If the ladder was rotated 90 degrees, in such a way that the Coriolis force would actually help push an astronaut against the ladder (depending on the direction in which the centrifuge spun, clockwise or counter-clockwise), it would be a lot less unnerving to climb.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> It's a little known fact, but some parts of 2001, like the Aries/Pan Am stuff was directed by Benny Hill as a favor to Kubrick. I bet you didn't know that.


Benny Hill?

Funny, I don't remember any guys in gorilla suits chaising Pan Am stewardesses through the ships...


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Steve Mavronis said:


> I also just e-mailed Space Models at [email protected] their website is http://www.spacemodels.co.uk so i hope they are the same people as Master Models or at least have archival refernce material on the Moonbus. I'll pass on their reply if I get one.


The reply I got from Space Models Ltd: 

"Thanks for your mail, ref ' Master Models '. However, they were
never part of Space Models Ltd., they were a completely separate company.
Therefore, I am sorry, but I cannot help you with the information you
require."


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> It's a little known fact, but some parts of 2001, like the Aries/Pan Am stuff was directed by Benny Hill as a favor to Kubrick. I bet you didn't know that.


Yeah, I really liked his take on Bowman's attempted rescue of Poole, too. You know, the frenetic, sped-up Pod chase scored to Yakkity Sax. :tongue:


----------



## X15-A2

Re: fitting the Aries interior inside the exterior.

If you draw a circle with the passenger cabin as its diameter (it doesn't matter if you use the distance from the inside wall or from a point outside the windows, which would logically represent the outer hull line) then place the passenger cabin in it at the equator, you will find that there is neither enough room for engines and fuel below or galley and cockpit above. If the cockpit were placed as it is indicated by the exterior miniature (90 degrees to the passenger cabin) then the cockpit rear hatch would be about at the line of the passenger cabin roof (actually, I think it invades the passenger cabin space some distance when you force it inside the circular outer line). I've already done this, just to see how it would fit. It doesn't. Sigh.


----------



## DX-SFX

....which would indicate that it's not a good idea to put too much emphasis on the interior of the Moonbus as a guide to the exterior. A lot of this stuff was fudged as it often is. It merely has to look like it fits.


----------



## edwhitefire

So if it doesn't look like it fits, then take a sledge hammer and POUND that puppy into the aloted space so people think it fits!!!


----------



## DX-SFX

BTW I suspect the tear drop shaped parts either side of the Airfix Buffalo doors are the bombs halves from the Airfix B29 Superfortress. Other parts from this kit turn up on the Aries.

Oh, and there's an Airfix Tirpitz/Bismarck gun turret stuck on the upper sloping sides behind the cockpit.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> ....which would indicate that it's not a good idea to put too much emphasis on the interior of the Moonbus as a guide to the exterior. A lot of this stuff was fudged as it often is. It merely has to look like it fits.


I agree 100%, so when we figure out the true dimensions of the studio model's outside we should fit or scale the interior so that it is based on the actual set as close as possible looks-wise. I mean the windowed section spacing is fixed according to the exterior window frames as log as the relative interior proportions are preserved - like with the forward "vented" section that is 1.5 times longer than a windowed section, and then the locker section more forward and so on. Remember the Aurora interior is wrong where the locker area lines up with the pods. Of course it actually doesn't and is really located more forward almost (maybe a foot or less) butting up against the cockpit seats.

In the case of an Aries model, we might as well ignore the galley because we will never see it from the windows looking in. We can just concern ourselves with the cockpit and passenger areas inside the Aries.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> BTW I suspect the tear drop shaped parts either side of the Airfix Buffalo doors are the bombs halves from the Airfix B29 Superfortress. Other parts from this kit turn up on the Aries. Oh, and there's an Airfix Tirpitz/Bismarck gun turret stuck on the upper sloping sides behind the cockpit.


We need to maintain an up-to-date kit parts list for the Moonbus as these items are revealed during these discussions so no reference info is lost. Like some in here, I plan on making my own studio scale Moonbus and using casts or whatever of the actual kit parts will keep it authentic. This is much like the groups that make their own studio scale Battlestar Galactica (TOS) models and they keep a list of their kit parts to use.

Hopefully Phil (X15-A2) will add a Moonbus section to his model reference website and all this data can end up in one spot to share to all.


----------



## SHADO

Martin Bower devoted an article to kit-part spotting, based on his and Keith Scaife's research, in Sci-Fi and Fantasy Models no.3 in 1994. It was mostly about the models of UFO and Space:1999, but one paragraph covered the Moonbus, and he cites nine donor kits:
UPC/Lifelike Honest John and Long Tom,
UPC Atomic Cannon,
Faller Fencing,
Airfix SRN1, Buffalo Tank, Refrigerator Van, Grain Carrying Truck, and Bismarck.
The 'Grain Carrying Truck' is the 'Prestwin Wagon' already cited in this thread.
On the Moonbus v. Eagle design discussion from a few pages back, this is a link to a very interesting Q&A Brian Johnson did a while ago:
http://www.space1999.org/features/ask_brianjohnson/2001-10a.html
He touches on the genesis of the Eagle, back in 1965!


----------



## X15-A2

Today I think I figured out what the little flange details are around the edges of the rear hatch. I don't know exactly what kit they come from but, if you ask me, they look like the outer edge "tongues" from the individual track plates of a German tank. Probably Tiger or Panther. Not sure what scale it would need to be for this model but probably one of the largest scale kits available at that time.

OK armour guys, what do you think?


----------



## scotpens

Steve Mavronis said:


> In the case of an Aries model, we might as well ignore the galley because we will never see it from the windows looking in. We can just concern ourselves with the cockpit and passenger areas inside the Aries.


But PLEASE, there's got to be a way to squeeze in the Zero Gravity Toilet!


----------



## X15-A2

OK, here are some "eye level" views of the study model so far. This is based on my preliminary scale for this ship, which is based on cabin height. "Eye level" of course is my own. In the rear view you can see how my version of the "German tank track" parts look around the hatch.


----------



## X15-A2

BTW, I will devote a section of my web site to the Moonbus and make available the drawings and other info resulting from this project.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, I will devote a section of my web site to the Moonbus and make available the drawings and other info resulting from this project.


Great! BTW, these latest Moonbus renderings are simply fantastic!!! I would love to see them in regular colors as in the film. 

I've been working on drawing out the interior but based on the Aurora external dimensions. But it doesn't matter becasue everything can be scaled to fit your version too, keeping the cross-section the same and section lengths proportional to the full size set relative to the window segments. It fits really well maintaining accuracy to the film. Interestingly, the window bottom is the same but the height is 1/16th lower than the Aurora, which is fine because the external window gap goes up too high on the Aurora. I'll try to scan examples of what I mean from my pencil drawings. I'm trying to learn Adobe Illustrator to do it there but I'm faster the old fasion way so far!


----------



## CaptCBoard

I have the actual blueprints for both the exterior of the Aries and the interior. I rescaled the interior set drawing so it was in scale with Simon Atkinson's very nice Aries exterior illustration and got the following result:










This will look a tad wonky because the set drawing was sectioned through the window and the Atkinson drawing was sectioned through the 'block' between the windows. The problem with this set is the amount of space used to inset the windows. Its much deeper than it appears because the 'sill' extends past the 'blocks', to the edge of the sphere. And there is more than enough room for the Zero-G Toilets!

There is plenty of room under the passenger compartment, but definitely no room above, for the galley or the entire flightdeck.

Someone also mentioned the lighting in the Moonbus. It looks more like a color temperature gag than using gels. There is one point where Kubrick pulls off a completely invisible lighting gag, though-- in the interior of the Pods. If you take careful notice, the interior seems to be lit from two red lights on either side of the pilot. But, there is no red light on the actor's face. In the same shot, you can see red lighting on the walls, but none on the actor. To save the time it would take to flag and balance this kind of lighting for every shot, Kubrick had the interior of the Pod painted with a red glaze. The practicals had very low wattage bulbs in them, so they'd glow red, but the set and actor were lit using white light!

Sorry for the non-Moonbus info here, but I'm not entirely out of line, right?

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## DX-SFX

Any and everything 2001 is OK by me.


----------



## John P

DAMN, I wish I could afford the money and space for that 15" Aries!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> I have the actual blueprints for both the exterior of the Aries and the interior... I rescaled the interior set drawing so it was in scale with Simon Atkinson's very nice Aries exterior illustration and got the following result. There is plenty of room under the passenger compartment, but definitely no room above, for the galley or the entire flightdeck.


Great cutaway illustration Scott! How do you plan to manage the fit of both the cockpit and passenger area in your new model? Are you going to "force perspective" the cockpit to allow it to fit above? Also, the door scales are off between inside and outside. The elevator door inside is around 33% higher than the outside door height. I know it's not your fault, just a set design vs. model design conflict here. The interior set is a beauty, so I know you can't mess too much with the scale or else the outer windows won't fit the interior's. Anyway, that is a cool looking drawing. There should be a book like the Star Wars series showing the 2001/2010 vehicles with cutaway interiors like this!


----------



## X15-A2

I agree, all 2001 ship related discussion is welcome here. Thanks for posting the the cutaway Scott, it is an interesting study. BTW, on the exterior drawings of the Aries do they indicate what the full scale dimensions would be or was that information ignored by the draftsmen?


----------



## CaptCBoard

I wouldn't say it was ignored, its all there. It just isn't noted directly-- I mean someone had to decide how big the thing was before they could draw it!

Because I worked in the movie business as long as I did, certain things became second nature-- like cross-referencing blueprints whenever possible, to avoid conflicts. The Aries is a good example of cross-checking, though no conflicts (that mattered to the film) were found. 

The image on the paper is 10 inches in diameter and there is a note saying the drawing is 1/3 scale to the model. Using an architect's tri-scale, it is easy to find the scale of the ship as drawn: 1/4 inch per foot, which indicates the Aries would be 40 feet in diameter if it was to be built full size. So, from this drawing, not only do we know how big the Aries was supposed to be, we also know how large the model was: 30 inches in diameter and the scale was 1:16. How do we know this if no dimensions or scale are actually written on the sheet? Well, we have to assume two things:

First, in order to have made the drawing, someone had to have said how big the Aries was supposed to be in real life. We know this because Kubrick was into being as accurate as possible and the passenger cabin set was built full size. They also knew they'd be filming projection plates to put into the cabin windows and the set had to be a close match for that to work. In other words, it was easier for them to make the interior and the exterior to the same theoretical dimensions than to risk having two completely random designs work in the situation they knew was coming up.

Second, having decided on the size of the ship, a scale drawing had to be made to work out all of the relationships between the passenger cabin and the model. If you take an architect's tri-scale and measure the drawing of the exterior, the only scale that makes sense is 1/4 inch to the foot, even though it is not noted as such. By way of proof, using the next closest scales, the ship would measure out at 26.5 feet or 53 feet in diameter. The set does not jive with either of those, but it fits very nicely at 40 feet.

Yes, all of this is extrapolation, but like I said-- I've had to do this a lot over the years and it works every time.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## woof359

*props no more*

its both sad and great that the props were destryoyed i wood hate to see them end up like the B9 from LIS in Mystrey Island, or in rich collector homes never to be seen again, tho sad the public well never see then any way. Who was the art director that came up with the designs?


----------



## CaptCBoard

I can't remember if anyone addressed this shot specifically--










What is interesting here is how much the actor is leaning to the side, keeping his head down, but his fingertips are just touching the bottom of the padded rib. I am 69 inches tall and I struck this pose and made a mark on a doorframe. My mark was at 71 inches. Assuming the actor is the average for a male, 70 inches, the bottom of the rib is probably exactly 72 inches from the floor.

Another thing I've come to realize is the headroom in the set was much different that what you can squeeze into the model. Look at the space from the top of the windows to the ceiling. It is much deeper than the available space as viewed from the outside, so in this respect the MB interior will not fit into the MB model. From the top of the window down, everything works, but from the top of the window up, no-- but its not off by much!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> Another thing I've come to realize is the headroom in the set was much different that what you can squeeze into the model. Look at the space from the top of the windows to the ceiling. It is much deeper than the available space as viewed from the outside, so in this respect the MB interior will not fit into the MB model. From the top of the window down, everything works, but from the top of the window up, no-- but its not off by much!


Don't forget on the outide of the window around it there is a sill or window frame lip that would take it up higher before you hit the black recessed area. I made a cross-section drawing today (based on my disassembled Aurora kit because thats all I've got for now) and the interior shape (cross-section at a frame point) proportions from almost that same shot (that I lifted from my perspective study) seem to fit okay. My scanner is on the fritz again so I can't post it yet. I almost forgot about the window frame edging which would give you a higher edge on the outside until you just made me remember it was there. I'll add that to my drawing. The inside window view would hide that in this shot.


----------



## trevanian

Steve Mavronis said:


> There should be a book like the Star Wars series showing the 2001/2010 vehicles with cutaway interiors like this!


I wish! I think those folks got into financial trouble (it may even have been discussed here), or at least took a bath on the SW books. 

A guy in the UK who owed me a huge favor (cuz he inadvertantly got me fired by blabbing confidential info on the net) connected me up with them when they were going to need text for a book on the vehicles in the ALIEN series. Then all of a sudden, poof, they weren't doing that. Bummer, but it doesn't bode well for 2001, cuz with ALIEN, you at least have a tie-in film every several years to make it seem marketable, whereas with 2001, you just have diehard devotees (who ain't enuf to make it worthwhile to them.) Would probably have to be a labor of love self-publish thing, assuming Warner (I'm pretty sure they own the MGM library now) didn't sue it into oblivion.


----------



## John P

DK's a pretty huge publisher, though, ain't they? They can handle a little mediocre sales on an item and not declare bakruptcy.

Well, *I* bought all their Star Wars books, anyway.


----------



## CaptCBoard

I know the model of the MB shows exterior frames for each window, but have a look at this:










There are two possible planes for the windows, as noted by the blue-shaded areas marked A and B. If the glass is in position A, the exterior framing does not match the model. If the glass is in position B, there can't be any exterior frame due to the position of the 'sill' as seen in A and the other windows. This would be an interesting item for Phil to figure out using his 3D model.

The reason this is important is, as noted in the post above, it is the exterior framing that would add to the apparent ceiling height on the interior. I think the difference between having the set match the model is a few inches, but all those inches would be above the top of the window. It is, in essence, the gap between the bottom of the padded rib, where it meets the wall, and the top of the window-- 4 to 6 inches.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I've wondered too about possible alternate window pane postitions as you've illustrated above. It is funny though that position A is exactly what the Aurora MB (incorrectly) depicts with the outer window glass postition flush with the hull! The set definitely doesn't match the filming model with those outer window divider angles sloping the wrong way. So it depends on if you want to be true to the set or true to the studio model which does have exterior window frames and differently angled dividers. I prefer to stay true to the studio model exterior and have the glass in position B, and you also have to reverse the angle of the outer window dividers so that it is wider at the top then the bottom. So either way a bit of minor fudging may be necessary with the interior window openings to match up with the outside of the Moonbus.


----------



## lastguardian

Could be glass in _both_ positions. Double-paning would seem likely on such a craft.

Shane


----------



## CaptCBoard

Since I can't agree with that, I'm forced to disagree (?)

Double panes would make some sense, but not in this vehicle-- or at least in the way illustrated. I would make the point that having the windows set into their own pockets would be safer, given that the interior is cramped and that someone could bash a window with something if the glass was in position B. Of course, today we'd use Lexan or some other polycarbonate and it would be almost unbreakable, but back then-- who knows. On the other hand, if the glass was in position A, the sill would not be able to collect debris, should any be kicked up. If the windows were double-glazed, I would pick A and have both panes at the same angle. I also think if both positions A and B were used as the double-pane scenario, there would be reflection problems, but that's just a guess.

I'm sticking with the exterior as presented in the film and ignoring the headroom problem, which is minor. The next time I see Fred Ordway, I'm going to give him heck...

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CaptCBoard

I just realized something-- and I think this is something someone else pointed out but I didn't catch on...

Position A is impossible. If you look at the exterior, only the fore and aft ends of the sill area have the cross-section that is shown at each of the windows of the interior set! The glass can only be at position B if matching the exterior!

Scott


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> Since I can't agree with that, I'm forced to disagree (?)
> 
> Double panes would make some sense, but not in this vehicle


I just don't see the sense in that assertion. The Apollo command module's windows were double-paned. The lunar module's windows were double-paned. Even the windows in airliners are double-paned. Double panes of thermal glass or polycarbonate or whatever are pretty much a given in spacecraft, and in _any_ vehicle that must endure the extremes of temperature found at high altitudes or in space.

Reflections wouldn't be a problem, no more than would exist with a single pane. The interior obviously is dimly lit, with harsh unfiltered sunlight outside. And during flight in darkness, the internal lights could be cut altogether (with the exception of small emergency lights, perhaps) -- not that there'd be anything to see outside, anyway. 

Having the panes separated by a distance (as with the A and B positions in the photo) would provide improved thermal protection from radiated heat -- perhaps one pane would even be polarized, as we saw with Bowman's helmet visor. And just from a design standpoint, I _like_ the geometry two such panes would create, trapezoidal in section.

The photo does seem to indicate pane seals in both those positions. Having one pane and an open sill -- whether that sill was inside A or outside B -- would make little structural sense, and would go against NASA (and Pan Am) precedent.

Shane


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> Position A is impossible. If you look at the exterior, only the fore and aft ends of the sill area have the cross-section that is shown at each of the windows of the interior set! The glass can only be at position B if matching the exterior!


So, once again we much choose whether to give precedence to the interior set or the exterior model. That doesn't make windows at both A and B impossible (clearly both _can_ be there on the interior set), it just forces us to choose. Set or model?

So what else is new, with 2001. 

Shane


----------



## CaptCBoard

Shane-

"Could be glass in both positions. Double-paning would seem likely on such a craft."

My disagreement is based on your suggestion of using two panes separated by a number of inches and set at different angles to each other, the "Could be glass in both positions" part of your post. You then followed it with the statement "Double-paning would seem likely on such a craft", which is correct, and a common practice in spacecraft since man started blasting them off the ball in 1961. But since all the windows blasted into space have between 1/4 and 1/2 of an inch between the panes of glass (Lexan), the first part of your statement is what I had to disagree with-- but only because they'd be set at different angles, which might cause reflection problems. 

Yes, there are solutions to such problems, I was just pointing out it was something someone would have to consider in the design phase and would decide the question based on the criteria at hand. Have you ever tried to look inside one of the space capsules at the Smithsonian? It is almost impossible due to the reflections in the outer plexi covering and the plexi covering the hatch-- two layers of plexi set at different angles, several inches apart.

If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I agreed double pane would be the way to go-- if this were a real vehicle. My caveats were: 
1) this vehicle was designed to only have one plane (as in 'surface') of glass, at either position A or B; and 
2) if it were double paned, making a choice between A and B, it should be at position A (for reasons given). Then, 
3) comes the question of using both A and B, but there could be reflection problems due to the space between them and the different angles. The context of this point was more in the form of supposition, not fact. Finally, 
4) position A can't be used if the model is taken to be the correct design.

I never said double-paned glass wasn't a good idea. My comments were in the context of this vehicle and WHERE the glass is supposed to be. Giving me a lecture on spacecraft window design is pretty out of line as I wasn't talking about real spacecraft-- we are talking about a MOONBUS here, right? And because you DID, I have to say I know plenty about spacecraft window design-- real spacecraft windows! And hatches and pressure vessels and phenolic impregnated aluminum honeycomb hull structures and beryllium plating and Rene 41 shingles and Titanium heatshields... I even know what the little plastic dealy is on the end of shoestrings!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I agreed double pane would be the way to go-- if this were a real vehicle.


You said, "Double panes would make _some_ sense," as if it were an iffy proposition. "...but not in this vehicle..." Why not? Why shouldn't a spacecraft in a film that prided itself on scientific accuracy have such windows? "...or at least in the way illustrated." Again, why not?

The severe lighting outside the windows would _easily_ overcome any reflections of the interior on the inside of the glass, reflections created by dim blue light. And any 'conflict' reflections created by the opposing angles of the two panes would be on the _outside_ of the inner pane, where they couldn't be seen from the inside. Perhaps you had trouble seeing into the spacecraft at the Smithsonian, but were they _brilliantly lit from the inside_, with the hall in which you were standing nearly dark? The _direction_ from which the light is coming makes all the difference, no? And having the outer pane angled downward as it would be in the A/B/trapezoidal configuration would reduce or eliminate any reflection of the inner pane against the inside of the outer one -- a problem that (if it existed at all) would be made _worse_ were the two panes parallel.

I'm not questioning your technical acumen. Nice that you know about hardware the way you do -- I'm sure we're all very impressed. But you sure questioned _mine_, and _twice_, and I believe unjustly. Believe it or not, I happen to know a little something about spacecraft, too. 

And my post wasn't a _lecture_, any more than is anything you've ever posted here -- it was an explanation of my thinking. Sorry it (apparently) offended you.

Shane


----------



## Richard Compton

Window fight!

What if it was just one big thick window pane? Then it could make pretty rainbows all over the cabin?

Was there even any glass on the set? Surely it must have reflected in one of the shots allowing you to see where they placed it.

Also, speaking of windows, what's the deal with the space station windows? I've always looked at them as kind of hard to figure out too.


----------



## lastguardian

Richard Compton said:


> What if it was just one big thick window pane? Then it could make pretty rainbows all over the cabin?


Oooooh . . . sun catchers! 

Shane


----------



## woof359

*what material*

maybe there using some sort or magnetic field in place of glass/plastic.I wodner why theres no pull down shade. I see and hatch but no air lock.gotta throw in the vid check it out again.


----------



## trevanian

Richard Compton said:


> Window fight!


I think the lack of reflections in the various backprojected windows is one of the only notable failings in the fx dept for this marvelous film. The one that always stands out to me is the space station hub. You've got a bit of lens flare as the shot begins pulling back to reveal the interior as the clipper approaches, so it just seemed wrong that all of these little window scenes showed no sign of reflections. Ditto for the moonbase, though in that instance the surroundings weren't too bright, so I'd've settled for a bit of red hue on the little window scenes. 

Damn, I gotta see a 70mm print in the theater again ... when 2001 played in 35mm up here a few years back, the color saturation was just unbelievably good, but I NEED to see it in all its glory once more, and until we have a 4- to 6-K TV, there isn't going to be a way to capture the full dynamic range and every nerny little detail.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

For purposes here we don't need to care whether the windows are single pane, double pane, or triple pane. Heck lets just have magnetic bottle windows and then we don't need any glass! What I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter where the glass is on the set. ---> It only matters where it is on the model and that is well established looking at the reflections on the raw model photos that it "should" be at position B on the set. I don't think the set had "any" real glass at all. <--- To the set designers in all the 2001 sets the window frame dressings where just that - dressed up to look cool and futuristic. The curved frames you see placed on the sides of the Aries, Space Station, and Discovery window opening sides are just a set design motif or something. I don't think there are meant to make you think there is actually curved glass in the tracks of those curves? We just need to step back and and figure out how to resolve the design on the moonbus model blueprints with a "set-based interior" that fits the outside of the model, and not the other way around. As far as I'm concerned, anything past position B is out the window. It's about time we stop making a glass out of ourselves  - Sorry, I could't resist.


----------



## scotpens

Steve Mavronis said:


> Heck lets just have magnetic bottle windows and then we don't need any glass!. . . To the set designers in all the 2001 sets the window frame dressings where just that - dressed up to look cool and futuristic. The curved frames you see placed on the sides of the Aries, Space Station, and Discovery window opening sides are just a set design motif or something. I don't think there are meant to make you think there is actually curved glass in the tracks of those curves?. . . As far as I'm concerned, anything past position B is out the window. It's about time we stop making a glass out of ourselves  - Sorry, I could't resist.


For gas-containing force-field technology, I think we'll have to wait until the 24th century. As for those curved window frames, I agree that they're probably there just for looks (though they could be meant to represent some sort of structural bracing). Frankly, all this bickering over a relatively minor detail is getting to be a pane in the glass!

BTW, do you use a Mac-based system or. . . Never mind.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just took a new series of higer resolution screenshots on the Moonbus sequences. I'm redoing my photogrammetry of the interior to make sure it is more accurate, this time comparing forward view vs. rear view of the frame cross-sections to see how much they vary because the forward view is from a low viewing angle and the rear view is more centered or eye level. Maybe dead center is the average of the two views and more angle distortion free? Also I'm curious if it is possible to fit in the window sill as a position A glass plane as discussed before and include it as part of the interior after all. It would be cool to do that in a model if it can fit or even with monor fudging? Either way the set shows an incorrect outer divider frame or an inner window sill. If my ****ing scanner to only work when I need it, I could show you as a "proportionally scale" drawing both variants. I need to find the angle the outer window in the set has to see if it would jive with the model or not. Also, I drew in the outline of the rear door and it has to be 5 feet tall or less, unless the floor is positioned a lot higher than the door bottom; since we've always assumed it to be in line with the bottom of the door. Maybe the floor ramps or steps down at the back behind Floyd's seat after you step into the last row of seats? This would have major implications on the actual scale of the model (and astronaut figures) depending on if the door opening is actualy 6 feet high or 5 feet or less like it has to be on the set if the floor is level with the rear door!


----------



## CaptCBoard

(CLICK-- followed by the sound of a tuner scratching through the ether to find--)

"And there you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. The two contestants have battled it out, thrashing their wits to bits, making point and counter point and each creating doubt the other's technical accumen, intended or not. It was a fair fight, either contestant typing away as fast as possible, trying to best his opponent in both creative and truely inspirational ways. Neither man managed to paint the dog blue, however, and the remaining number of mumblies left in their corresponding racks will be counted against them. So, now it goes to the judges, who as far as I can see are clearly stunned over the fast and furious pace set in this competition. Frankly, in the experience of this moderator, I've never seen such fine twittery before and I do not envy the job ahead for the judges. Now, we are only left to wait-- NO, the judges have come to a unanimous decision, and almost immediately-- this is unheard of! Here it comes, the tension is almost as ridiculous as the contestants... OH MY! This is completely unexpected and for those of you at home listening to the program over the radio I'll have to tell you the score is ZERO! Neither man won, both have lost and will be sent down. WAIT-- there appears to be a scuffle... sorry, its just some fans in the stands, obviously upset about the outcome... the police have moved in... and that brings us to the close of another installment of "What the HECK was THAT?" We now return you to our regular program of recorded music."


----------



## Steve Mavronis

LOL - this whole conversation just took a dump in the Zero Gravity Toilet.


----------



## edwhitefire

Interestingly, I was just looking at the pic that CaptC had posted and noticed that what you are seeing between A and B is not glass in two different positions (outside vs. inside framing), but rather is either a double exposure of the picture OR a reflection off of a piece of glass covering the original picture. Since the posted pic is clearly a multiple generation removed from the original, something has obviously occured in the interim to pollute the actual visual, and, unfortunately, you are misreading what is there.
The only real difference between A and B is the lighting in the particular window block. There is no real indication as to whether there is any glass in the set at all! Based on this I think you can bend this argument in either direction, unless of course someone can come up with an actual first generation picture of said interior space (a highly unlikely proposition...?).

d_illustrator


----------



## DX-SFX

So much effort on a relatively unimportant detail with so many kit parts still to find.

Doesn't matter which window position you choose. Neither of them match the model. It's just personal preference.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure about the tank track shoes edging the rear door. I can see the similarity but I suspect they're something else. Not having an alternative suggestion (at this point) does make that sound a bit downbeat though. Apologies. Still checking kits.

Anyone know what that doodah is on the sloping sides behind the rearmost window?


----------



## CaptCBoard

Edwhitefire-

This is actually a frame from the DVD. I added the translucent blue panels to the photo to indicate the two positions the glass could be in, using Photoshop. I debated making them red, but used blue since the scene is mostly blue. I also tweaked the exposure to bring out detail in the sill areas, which makes the overall picture brighter. I should have made note of that in my post-- Sorry for the confusion.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## scotpens

CaptCBoard said:


> . . . Neither man managed to paint the dog blue, however, and the remaining number of mumblies left in their corresponding racks will be counted against them. . .


Cute. But (once again, excuse my ignorance) what in blazes is "painting the dog blue"? And what are "mumblies"? I can't even find either of them on Google.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Painting the dog blue and using all your mumblies are both goals in competitive Twittery. The rules are quite specific. However, should either the dog not be painted blue or the mumblies not be completely used up, it is sign the competitors were too pre-occupied with being twits to achieve their final goals.

Scott


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> OH MY! This is completely unexpected and for those of you at home listening to the program over the radio I'll have to tell you the score is ZERO! Neither man won, both have lost and will be sent down.


Hey, we all make mistakes, and I certainly make more than my share. But instead of conceding I _may_ have made a valid point, you flippantly declare us _both_ wrong (whatever that means), which is insulting. 

Yes, the 'window' issue at hand is trivial. I tossed out a simple suggestion, and was shot down for it. _Twice._ 

My apologies to the group, but I felt the above needed to be said.

Shane


----------



## scotpens

*I get it, I get it. . .*



CaptCBoard said:


> Painting the dog blue and using all your mumblies are both goals in competitive Twittery. The rules are quite specific. However, should either the dog not be painted blue or the mumblies not be completely used up, it is a sign the competitors were too pre-occupied with being twits to achieve their final goals.
> Scott


So it's just mock sports jargon, otherwise known as balderdash, baloney, bilge, blarney, blather, bull, B.S., bunk, claptrap, codswallop, crap, drivel, garbage, hogwash, hokum, hooey, malarkey, nonsense, poppycock, rubbish, tommyrot, trash and twaddle.

Now we can get back to the important stuff.


----------



## DX-SFX

So, does anyone know what that doodah is on the sloping sides (exterior) behind the rearmost window?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

You moonbus guys are always fighting, why can't you just get along like us guys in the political movie threads?


----------



## X15-A2

My opinion (so far) is that, if we incorporate the very deep window sill of the interior set (with glass at the outer edge) into the scale plans, this will force the interior to be scaled down so much as to make the exterior correspondingly far to large to look accurate.

My feeling is that the interior "deep sills" represent the exterior ones, if they used the end profile of the overall window slot as the framming design between each individual window (more or less what Scott said). We can't keep the exterior design true AND incorporate the deep sills on the interior as well so I vote that we place the glass at the inner wall position and dump the deep sills between windows. Exterior takes precedence over interior. This will give us a cabin that is nearly true in crossection to the set, while maintaining the "apparent scale" of the exterior (30-40 feet in length).

There is no airlocke in the Moonbus because they pump as much of the ambient interior atmosphere into tanks as they can, then dump the remaining pressure overboard before opening the rear hatch (we saw that the astronauts had to don their suits just before exiting).

I too would like the identity of the nerny behind the window slot. Also, nobody had any suggestions about source of the flange details around the rear hatch?


----------



## DX-SFX

> My opinion (so far) is that, if we incorporate the very deep window sill of the interior set (with glass at the outer edge) into the scale plans, this will force the interior to be scaled down so much as to make the exterior correspondingly far to large to look accurate.
> 
> My feeling is that the interior "deep sills" represent the exterior ones, if they used the end profile of the overall window slot as the framming design between each individual window (more or less what Scott said). We can't keep the exterior design true AND incorporate the deep sills on the interior as well so I vote that we place the glass at the inner wall position and dump the deep sills between windows. Exterior takes precedence over interior. This will give us a cabin that is nearly true in crossection to the set, while maintaining the "apparent scale" of the exterior (30-40 feet in length).


I agree.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> My opinion (so far) is that, if we incorporate the very deep window sill of the interior set (with glass at the outer edge) into the scale plans, this will force the interior to be scaled down so much as to make the exterior correspondingly far to large to look accurate. My feeling is that the interior "deep sills" represent the exterior ones


Exactly right. I vote with you on this. It is the most logical choice. I was considering if the sills could be incorporated but when I looked at the screenshots on the model looking in that can't be because you'd have to see the inner sill area and it's simply not there! There is only 1 thin window frame separating the outside from the inside on the model. So like you've just said, the set "sills" simply represent the outer window sill, even though the outer window divider shape is the wrong angle. So lets get on with this being fact and figure out more detail parts used on the model. BTW X15-A2, what angle have you come up with for the sloping sides? I think on the Aurora model it is something like 50 degrees measured from the centerline. 40 degrees (40+50=90) measured from the other way.


----------



## DX-SFX

I've a feeling the large dished parts below and to the rear of the cabin might be from the AMT Man in space (1/200th scale) set. I'm looking at the kit now. Could one of you guys email me a simple line drawing of the side profile you've come up with so far or put a link up where I can grab one? It would make it much easier to check the size of these parts by having something drawn to actual scale. I can cross reference and confirm the dimensions of the drawings against the kit parts at the same time.


----------



## lastguardian

X15-A2 said:


> There is no airlock in the Moonbus because they pump as much of the ambient interior atmosphere into tanks as they can, then dump the remaining pressure overboard before opening the rear hatch (we saw that the astronauts had to don their suits just before exiting).


I don't recall -- were the pilots also in suits and helmets in that last cabin scene?

Do you think the implication was that a boarding tunnel was used to disembark (leading into the landing facility interior), or did they just get out on the pad and walk over to TMA-1?

Shane


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Shane,

The TMA-1 outpost seemed to be pretty primative by comparison to Clavius, my opinion is that they walked. They don't show the Moonbus lined up with any part of the outpost structure which might contain such a docking adapter so I'm guessing that there wasn't one.

Yes, the pilots had their suits on too. Not everyone had their helmets on at that point but it could be read as being the point where the pilots were donning theirs while the standing fellow turns away, he then going back to wake the others (Floyd appears to be asleep) and get them ready too. That's my take on it.


----------



## CaptCBoard

This is the cross-section I came up with, that my kit is based on.









And here I've done a split between Phil's and mine:









The scale for this comparison is such that the cabin floor is 18 inches wide. Phil's cross-section allows only for 5'4" of headroom, as defined by the green lines, as opposed to 6'3" on the left side. I made these match at 1/2 inch to the foot, which gives the outside dimension of 8 feet high and a width of about 12'6" on my side and 13'0" on Phil's (ignoring the RCS pods). The difference is due to different angles of the upper hull. To increase the size of Phil's version such that his interior height is 6'3", it must be increased by 17 percent (64 inches times 1.17 equals 74.88 inches, just shy of 6'3"), as seen here:










The point where these two differ is in where the door opens, or 'how big is the opening?'. In this last drawing, I've increased the size of Phil's drawing so the interior height is the same, making his MB larger overall. The inner red line indicates his guys would have to duck under a header that is 10 inches wide.

I was left with a choice-- to ignore the door problem and proceed or to find a compromise. It wasn't until I made this comparison that I realized how much of a compromise I was facing. Due to the progress made already, I'm stuck with what I have or modifying the door such that it looks the same when closed, but opens at a point different from what Phil has shown by his inner red line. I have to really mull this over.

Compounding the whole problem is the model I have at 1:12 scale and the way all the model parts fit perfectly. There is a conflict between those proportions and Phil's side of the third drawing. The left side is proportionally correct, meaning if I was to enlarge the scale from 1/2 inch per foot to 1 inch per foot (the size of the studio model), the exterior details would fit correctly. The right side of the drawing could be built to the same proportions, so the exterior details would fit, but the scale would have to be adjusted. If I have my math correct, the scale would be 1:14 (If I don't, I hope someone will correct me!) If I am correct with regard to the new scale, the ceiling height on Phil's model would then scale out to 87.75 inches (7' 3 3/4"), which is way higher than it appears in the film. The real bugaboo to this whole thing is trying to get the dratted door to work!

I should mention here that I didn't start with Phil's drawing, I've been working on this for quite a while. We approach the problem using two different techniques and I was curious to see how similar they turned out to be. I put this up here only because there is a compromise that has to be made to get a good representation of the interior to fit into as good a representation of the MB as possible. Phil's process definitely generates the most accurate representation of the exterior and I wish I had the powers and abilities to go that route!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## trekkist

I've just finished this thread (not in one sitting -- I started last night) and boy, I thought the Galileo reconstruction thread was fascinating...but this one exceeds it.

Several points come to mind. I'll begin with that perhaps most applicable to moonbus work...but perhaps a bit more philosophical than analytical. It occurs to me that reconstructions which take into account the distorting effects of various lens lengths used to photograph the models overlooks what seems to me a self-evident point: however the models (or in the case of the moonbus, still photos on light-tables) were photographed, the on-screen result was intended to depict what a human eye would actually see were it (not the camera) the "viewer." The classic case-in-point is the long shot of the Discovery itself, which I've read cannot be considered an accurate direct-on side view due to lens enlongation of the ship's apparent length (I've also heard that Cinerama -- as opposed to contemporary "wide screen" or even 70 mm) imposes its own horizontal distortion. HOWEVER: it's my impression/recollection that the Discovery "command pod" appears absolutely spherical in said side view. 

All of which is meant to say: should a reconstruction invoke/do away with all effects of lens distortion -- resulting in what the model(s) really looked like, proportionally -- or is it more proper to conclude that what we "see" (i.e., the filmed image) is "right," however unlike the model it might be? Or do the mechanics of perspective or whatnot make my point as meaningless as trying to discuss higher physics without knowledge of math? 

As to the Aries' interior not allowing (sub-passenger cabin) room for fuel...have any of this board's celestial mechanics-savvy posters worked out the minimum fuel requirements of an Aries-sized vehicle traveling from Space Station V to the lunar surface (at which point it could be refueled, even as it could on returning to Earth orbit)? Clarke's novel's quotation of the travel time (I think he gave one) and/or assumption of a minimum-fuel trajectory (an Apollonian Holhmann, I'd think) would give the time parameter, and assumption of different engine types (high-energy chemical, fission, or fusion -- close examination of the Aries' cockpit readouts and/or controls might pin this down) the propellent volumes required. 

Lastly, as to Discovery's carriage of 3 pods, and their supposed non-utility. First, the number 3 represents minimal logical redundancy: a backup for the first, and a backup for the backup (I seem to recall NASA parlance as calling for triple redundancy of essential systems as minimal). 
Second, the pods' being piloted by one doesn't mean their being limited to carrying one (viz. the pod bay's "overheard" confab between Poole and Bowman); were a landing called for, it might be that 2 per pod would be the norm. 
Third, down/up landings by the pods on the Jovian (or Saturnian, in Clarke's novel) seem to me not beyond the bounds of reason, given use of aerobraking to decelerate to suborbital velocity (a technique not calling for an aeroshell, or full streamlining; IIRC, the utterly non-streamlined Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar spacecraft used aerobraking at one point). I can imagine a pod's transit of the extreme upper atmosphere of, say, Iapatus (viz. Clarke) "hatch-first" (putting the pilot in the ideal "eyeballs-in" condition, as in all pre-shuttle spacecraft -- and not requiring an acceleration couch due to the low gee loads involved). 
Fourth, as to the "guys in suits could do the[exterior repair] jobs as well, and the pod can't even diagnose the AE-35 in situ, so what good is it?" issue, bear in mind that 2001's falling a mere 32 years from the first Apollo landing implies 1)VAST spending on space technology/occupation, and on an international level to boot and 2)comparatively little time to develop low-maintainence, self-maintaining autonamous systems. HAL notwithstanding, for all we know, Discovery and its ilk used machinery little more advanced than that of contemporary real-world U.S. military systems (a field on which far more R&D has been spent than space. Moreover, Discovery's construction may well have been a rush job (after all, it wasn't even a round-trip ship; according to the novel, on completion its mission, the as-yet-unbuilt Discovery II was to come to deliver the first ship's crew from hibernation). Close examination and analysis of what information the various ship's screens display might offer some clues as the hypothetical level of 2001's imaginary technological milleau.

If this latter theory is correct, the analogy that comes to mind is that of Eisenhower's deciding to fund von Braun's "Collier's plan" of moon/Mars exploration, which latter involved (in its initial form) 10 ships, 50 crew, and in-flight changeout of (among other things) vaccuum tubes.

Bear in mind that to date, this real year of 2005, Soviet/Russian and American space stations have needed one crewman devoted full-time to maintainence and upkeep. I imagine 2001's space station's to have a significant repair staff on hand, and HAL's "running" of Discovery serving to support, not supplant, the actual "hands-on" repairs of Poole and Bowman.

HAL's own possession of "hands"...and for that matter, full autonomy...proves once and for all why it's worth paying the cost (in $, size, or delta vee) to have humans onboard.

Trekkist


----------



## trekkist

Scott,

Since you cited "rocket scientist" expertise, I've 2 queries to put to you (the second of which you might prefer to email me directly in answering...via this board's IM system, or inviting me to email you directly). 

First, as to Discovery's infamous lack of heat radiators: given the ship's (secret from the waking crew) mission of investigating the reception point of TMA-1's "fire alarm," might the builders not have built her as a "stealth" ship? In pursuit of which goal, waste heat would be diverted to onboard generation of electricity, stored in turn in batteries (the ship's fusion reactor in fact shut down save during periods of thrust). Or is this an absolutely whacko idea, which fails to account for the sheer magnitude of wasted heat generated over the course of the mission?

Second...well, suffice to say I've a few technical questions about the Dyna-Soar, which no source to date (including the recent book) have answered to my satisfaction). 

Trekkist


----------



## DX-SFX

Personally, I think the question of the rear door size and the floor to ceiling measurement is being over analysed or at least having too much emphasis placed on it in respect of the model exterior. The notion of establishing the model dimensions by making them fit the set is an insoluble one. I'm not saying it's not worth trying to make things fit but the fact is we KNOW the interior sets don't fit any of the ships exactly. In addition, all the live action inserts were sized to look correct rather making finite measurement. For instance, the shot of Discovery's command sphere with the pod outside (Cinefex cover) has the interior shifted from where it should be so that the astronauts heads are in view in the windows so the audience can actually see them. As has been noted, Kubrick used all sorts of optical tricks to get the shots that looked good and he didn't seem wedded to insisting inch perfect match up providing the image on screen looked convincing. He obviously succeeded by the fact we're here today trying our hardest to prove that the interiors fit because, let's face it, we want them too. I can't help feeling though, to acknowledge another excellent film, that we're trying to make a square atmosphere scrubber fit a round hole.


----------



## Steve244

trekkist said:


> Scott,
> 
> Since you cited "rocket scientist" expertise, I've 2 queries to put to you (the second of which you might prefer to email me directly in answering...via this board's IM system, or inviting me to email you directly).
> 
> First, as to Discovery's infamous lack of heat radiators: given the ship's (secret from the waking crew) mission of investigating the reception point of TMA-1's "fire alarm," might the builders not have built her as a "stealth" ship? In pursuit of which goal, waste heat would be diverted to onboard generation of electricity, stored in turn in batteries (the ship's fusion reactor in fact shut down save during periods of thrust). Or is this an absolutely whacko idea, which fails to account for the sheer magnitude of wasted heat generated over the course of the mission?
> 
> Second...well, suffice to say I've a few technical questions about the Dyna-Soar, which no source to date (including the recent book) have answered to my satisfaction).
> 
> Trekkist


I read somewhere Discovery had radiators but Kubrick didn't like the look so they left them off.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Steve244 said:


> I read somewhere Discovery had radiators but Kubrick didn't like the look so they left them off.


On the _Stanley Kubrick:A Life in Pictures_ there's a shot of Kubrick with an early _Discovery_ model that had two big panels attached aft that look like either solar panels or radiators of some kind.


----------



## heiki

CaptCBoard said:


> .........and Titanium heatshields... I even know what the little plastic dealy is on the end of shoestrings!
> 
> Scott
> [email protected]


So what are the little plastic dealys called and their function?


----------



## heiki

PhilipMarlowe said:


> On the _Stanley Kubrick:A Life in Pictures_ there's a shot of Kubrick with an early _Discovery_ model that had two big panels attached aft that look like either solar panels or radiators of some kind.


Can you scan in all the 2001 photos within this book? I have not found it yet and would like to see what you are talking about.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

heiki said:


> Can you scan in all the 2001 photos within this book? I have not found it yet and would like to see what you are talking about.


Actually, I meant the DVD, but I'll check the book.

Ok, I checked, the picture isn't in the book, but is clearly visible on the documentary DVD. It plays on HBO and other movie channels fairly regularly, and I think on PBS. There's not much to interest modelers in the 2001 section of the book, a few shots of Kubrick on the centrifuge set and pod bay set.

And I don't have a scanner(or DVD recorder) or I'd be glad to.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Trekkist-

I'm not one of those who wants to make fictional designs work, so I stick to what's on screen. But, since I also make model kits of 2001 subjects, I have to go beyond what is on screen a bit to make the interiors work as realistically as possible, so my clients can have as good a modeling experience as possible. Aside from, that-- I don't need the science, whether its double paned windows, available fuel storage for the Aries or how to get rid of excess heat, if it didn't matter to the film, it doesn't matter to my kits. But, one thing I will say beyond that is what is said in the book and what appears on film can get you really screwed up. Clarke wrote the book after he and Kubrick did the script and he made changes. A perfect example is he quotes the length of the Discovery at 700 feet, if I recall correctly. But, if you scale the models used in the film, it is only 355 feet long. So, the two worlds only meet at times.

Heiki- They're called aglets and they just allow you to put the end of the string through holes easier!

Steve244- Kubrick had the solar panels removed due to a discussion where someone pointed out the audience might think they were wings. This is mentioned in print somewhere, though I can't remember where, but I confirmed it with Kubrick's daughter Christine and his wife at the exhibition in Frankfurt last year. Very cool people!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

This isn't very good because it's a picture of my TV screen, but you can still see the panels.









It's a still picture shown during the documentary. Obviously it's early in the _Discovery_ construction.


----------



## scotpens

CaptCBoard said:


> Heiki- They're called aglets and they just allow you to put the end of the string through holes easier!


I thought aglets were baby aggles.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Scott,

I was quite gratified to see that our independently arrived at crossection drawings agreed so closely. This indicates that we are WELL within any reasonable margin of error, I think. Our cabin crossections only disagree because you are working with a fixed overall length for the Moonbus while I am not. In my drawing the cabin roof is 6.5 feet above the center deck, I haven't looked yet to see how big that makes the overall craft.

Since I might well be a future customer of your large Moonbus kit, I feel that I must bring something to your attention. You know full well that the fans will pick any product such as this to death anyway, so I wanted to be sure that you had considered the following before proceeding with production. I believe that while the lengths of your model are generally correct (the kit parts fit nicely), the heights may be a small percentage too high. I've prepared a graphic to help explain what I mean which I will post below.










I was wrong early on when I said that the proportions of the model were not defined by the kit parts because here is one example where they are. The boxcar sidewall panel used as a detail in this area just ahead of the RCS pod does indeed run the entire height of the lower sidewall recessed section. 

I believe that if you take the kit parts as a "constant" then use them as empirical measuring units within stills of the original model, you will find that each vertical unit (landing foot sidewall, lower side wall and upper sidewall) containing such a kit part is slightly higher on your version than on the original. Not a lot, just slighlty. But taken together it adds up to an visible difference in overall height. However I believe that the passenger window slot on your model is correct for the given length. This is just my opinion based on what I have seen so far.

I just wanted you to consider this possiblity before making a commitment to production. What do you think about it?

Phil


----------



## DX-SFX

I tend to agree. It's very close but a little too high in my opinion. I also think the relationship between the following two corners is not quite right. Again, just in my opinion, I think the angle should be nearer the blue line in this pic when looking at the film model. An adjustment in the relative heights would probably give the same effect.










When compared to this...










I know the sides are sloping but both points are more or less in the same vertical plane.

BTW, just noticed something else. Shouldn't the fold line in this pic (see below) be as per the red line rather than the blue. If it's as per the blue, the section will be trapezoidal on the undersurface, narrower nearer the body and wider further away. That doesn't seem right. If the fold is as per the red, it will be a perfect rectangle on the lower surface.










Sorry, just noticed something else on the pic above. The upper frame strip of the sidecar kit piece appears to be on there but the piece is cut quite short at the bottom.


----------



## X15-A2

OK, Microstation tells me that the height difference between the views I posted equal a 0.9189 reduction to match the original model. When applied as a y-axis reduction (x=100) in Photoshop, the following image is the result.










When the two views are then overlaid, this is the result:










Not an exact match but it shows how close the two models would then be. Extremely close, in my opinion. Interesting.


----------



## trevanian

I think the story about the radiator fins being mistaken for wings dates back to the Clarke book LOST WORLDS OF 2001, though it might also be mentioned in Bizony's book as well. Bizony's (at least the first version, the only one I ever bought) had some pics of a foam Discovery model with radiator fins, but it didn't have the look of the posted pic from the doc, which I gotta admit looks pretty interesting.

The Discovery length info mentioned in the thread is interesting, because while Clarke envisioned Big D as 400 feet in length, the stuff I read indicated that the on-screen ship was what registered as 700, which is the reverse of what you guys came up with. Of course, if Discovery really IS only 355 ft long, then LEONOV must be staffed with dwarves, cuz it must be REALLY short.


----------



## CaptCBoard

You guys used the wrong photo-- that photo has the incorrect nose, as I mentioned in the post you grabbed it from. Here is a shot with a nose more like what will be in the kit. Use it to see how far off we are. It makes the model a tad longer and I'll bet we are just about identical at that point.










Scott
[email protected]


----------



## DX-SFX

Hi Scott,

I know I used the wrong pic but the stretch you previously referred to was forward of that area to increase the rake of the nose. I conceed it might make a small difference but stretching the overall nose will start changing the other proportions. However the Airfix Refrigerator Wagon kit part does suggest a little too much height on the lower half though. The pics of the studio model seem to bear that aspect out. Phil's going to start sending me some drawings and I'm going to lay the kit parts in place so we can get some solid measurements. To be honest that red overlay over your model is a little misleading. If that same wagon part was put on the red version as shown, it would need too much cutting off. The perspectives look too different to tell at this stage.

Chris


----------



## CaptCBoard

Chris-

You're going to have to run that by me again... I modified the nose without changing the proportions of anything else, but only so the angle of the nose was more in line with what it should be and to make the length more correct. 

I'm aware of other problems, but since Phil's overlay was indicating a difference in overall height, due to the short nature of the nose in that photo, if the same overlay was made using this corrected version, the overall proportions will come closer to matching.

If you are talking about the comparison in the post using the side detail, the difference between the two is .217". (I measured the part, where it should have been cut off) At 1:12 scale, that is about 3 scale inches. I'd also like to point out that there is a possibility that the comparison being made is invalid because it compares two different sides of the model. It is possible the part was trimmed differently on the side of the filming model that would be identical to the side in my photo. But if the parts on my model were trimmed to be exact matches to those on the filming model, that would be a coincidence of monumental proportions! 

In the movie model world, much larger inconsistencies are created without any thought about it being a problem, because the camera will never be able to see both sides at the same time. Being that accurate just doesn't matter. This is where accurate, scale modeling butts into the real world of movie models with unfortunate results-- for the scale guys. The expression often used when trying to decide exactly what is and what is not acceptable is "It'll never be seen on speeding celuloid!" Another often used remark is "If they notice that, they're not watching the film and we've failed miserably as film makers".

The details on the model I have are not truely, exactly as they appear in the film, but the difference is extremely minor-- and something I plan on fixing, where I can, for my kit. The corrected nose in the photo is much closer to how my kit will appear than the one used in the red overlay, I just wanted to be sure the correct comparison was made.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## DX-SFX

It's OK Scott. We're cool. My first pic using the nose of your model showed the apparent difference in angle of an imaginary line drawn from the corner of the window cut out to the corner of the lower recessed area indicated by the red line. Looking at photos of the studio model, it appears or gives the impression that it should be more like the blue line. Had I used your photo of the longer nosed version that you stretched in Photoshop, it wouldn't have made much difference to the angles depicted because the stretching happened in front of the points in question. I also accept that it was a quick and dirty demonstration to illustrate a scaling problem and not intended as a definitive redrawing of the front end. It's a minor thing I grant you but looking at different finite points and their relationship to other finite points can help tie down the proportion of things. That's the artist in me roughing out the sketch of something. If you're addressing this in your production version or you don't see it as a big enough issue then that's cool too.

The nice thing with these computer programs is that you can knead and pull the shape very easily so some fine tweaking is an easy proposition. I think most people know of your interest and reputation when it comes to all things 2001 but I hope, as you admitted has already happened here, that we can contribute additional information that might fill in some of the gaps in even your extensive data base. There are a lot of things I could ask you but I appreciate that there's no reason you have to answer any of them and I prefer not to put you in the awkward position of having to explain that stance. Afterall, why should you share years of research just because someone asks for it? I have that same dilemna in some of the fields I usually work in so I understand that position. I find your contributions helpful, inciteful and always welcome but rather than depend on or feed off all your efforts, I'm personally happy to repeat some of the work you've already done. Hopefully the feedback and cross referencing can be mutually beneficial so please don't take offence if you think any of this is criticism. It is, essentially, the same as comparing notes. You just started before we did.



Must say though that I'm not sure that there would be almost a quarter of an inch difference from side to side on such a relatively small model though. Stuff sculpted in clay like the Seaview I can understand but the Moonbus? Anyway, surely the side to camera, the apparent right hand side IS the right hand side so shouldn't the right side of your model reflect that? We can only assume the real Moonbus is supposed to be symmetrical so both sides should reflect the one side we see in the movie.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Regarding Scott's and Phil's cabin fit to door rear view I'm assuming you guys are watching out for the rear wall zig-zag cut-outs so they don't overlap the cabin floor areas inside? At some point the floor levels have to extend to meet the door on the inside and I don't think the bulkhead would be super thick to avoid it. Sounds convoluted but what I'm saying is the cabin cross-section should fit inside the rear outside wall zig-zags sticking out on the lower half of the rear surrounding the door. I bring this up because Phil has the floor at the door opening bottom (which fits better IMHO) and Scott seems to use the lower edge of the outer door frame which causes the scale to be that much larger.


----------



## DX-SFX

It does look that way but the laws of geometry say that the bottom surface wouldn't be a rectangle. The only way for that to happen is if the lower sides below the lines are twisted. CAD fiends should be able to verify this? It could be a model making fudge.

OK, Just sketched it out. Technically it's impossible without the sides being twisted. We know the upper sides are parallel. For the very bottom edges which are on a horizontal plane to be a rectangle i.e. with parallel ends, the fold line would have to be horizontal across the ship too.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> It does look that way but the laws of geometry say that the bottom surface wouldn't be a rectangle. The only way for that to happen is if the lower sides below the lines are twisted. CAD fiends should be able to verify this? It could be a model making fudge. OK, Just sketched it out. Technically it's impossible without the sides being twisted. We know the upper sides are parallel. For the very bottom edges which are on a horizontal plane to be a rectangle i.e. with a parallel ends, the fold line would have to be horizontal across the ship too.


Note - I removed the part my other post about the angle shadows because I think that was a false shadow overlap messing with me. I just looked at the Aurora part and it actually angles in the opposite direction so I have to rethink this. Your image has the angles drawn wrong (like in Scott's cabin example) and tricked me a bit. A horizontal fold makes the most sense or it could still be a opposite downward angled fold just like with the Aurora kit and you can still have planar sides. We need an origamy expert! LOL, I keep re-editing this post because my eyes need some photogammetry therapy at this point!


----------



## CaptCBoard

DX-SFX said:


> There are a lot of things I could ask you but I appreciate that there's no reason you have to answer any of them and I prefer not to put you in the awkward position of having to explain that stance. Afterall, why should you share years of research just because someone asks for it? I have that same dilemna in some of the fields I usually work in so I understand that position. I find your contributions helpful, inciteful and always welcome but rather than depend on or feed off all your efforts, I'm personally happy to repeat some of the work you've already done.


The exact opposite is true. I freely share infomation that I own or have developed on my own. That is actually part of the function of my website, though that tends to be more toward sharing how I do things as opposed to information about the 2001 subjects. 

Occasionally, as in the case of the detail parts used on the Moonbus, I am given information and asked not to share it. So too, I have been sent photographs that have not been published and asked not to share them-- though there have been a couple of exceptions that I was able to post. I have found that sharing information brings information, as was the case when I was developing the Mercury capsule kit. In the case of 2001, I have been sent much more information than I could have found otherwise, because those who sent it to me knew I'd do the right thing with it. So, I pass it along, either in the form of actual written material or in the form of a model kit that is as accurate as the information I had on hand at the time.

But the main reason I pass along what I know is I had an extremely difficult time in the beginning, going through much trial and error to arrive at some final version of something-- and the processes I used to get it finally right have made development since much easier. The perfect example to this is the way a lot of people only use photographs to derive the information they are looking for. In the case of an object like the Aries or the Moonbus, the lens distortions don't amount to much to worry about, if you know how to compensate. But, in the case of the Discovery, it causes a huge problem.

Discovery has a number of problems you have to consider if you are only going to use photos to derive the information to build it. First, there were two models and we only saw the smaller one from a distance. The problem with that is it just doesn't match the larger model closely enough to be considered an accurate, but smaller, duplicate, which is evidenced by the difference in the connectors between module groups in the spine. But, this is the shot people use to establish the proportions of the model. One way is to use the command module as a uniform 'unit' of measure, counting how many 'balls' it takes to equal the length of the ship and that gives them a ratio of CM to Ship Length. So they then pick a size they want to work with and figure out the final size of the ship from that. This is how the guys that did 2010 got into trouble. What no one considered is that from that distant shot of the side of the small Discovery model, there is a huge amount of parallax. It isn't evident because of the linear nature of the ship, but here is what has to be considered: The center of the ship is much closer to the center of the lens than the ends of the ship. In other words, the center of the ship is at the base of a triangle, with the lens at the apex and each end of the ship is at the far end of the hypotenuse angle. The center is closer to the lens than the ends are and depending on the angle of the lens, the ends would diminish somewhat-- the CM is smaller at the end than it would be if it were in the middle, so it is too small to be used as a unit of measure in the center. The only way to get proper proportions from the Discovery using this technique would be if the model had been curved along a radius, measured from from the center of the camera lens, or to leave it the way it was, but back WAY, WAY off and shoot it with a very long lens.

Now, that is a very wordy and complicated example of one of the things no one thinks about, but are content to call their information accurate. Frankly, if they're happy with the result, I don't care. But there are those out there that, if they heard about this, they'd slap their foreheads with some kind of realization and move forward to discover something they didn't know before. And if they share what they found out, then it was worth sharing what I know. In the end, we all benefit and all the information we are all working to find becomes more accurate.

But, in all this there will be this inescapable fact: these are movie models and they were not built with this kind of scrutiny in mind. There will be problems with symmetry, details that don't match from one side to the other and other mysteries that make us wonder "why isn't this thing turning out right?" When I was working in the industry, there were those of us to whom a lot of this mattered. But, ultimately, I have to say we did things that just didn't matter on film, but would drive a scale modeler nuts if he was trying to duplicate our work. I have a feeling that back when the models for 2001 were being done, the attitude was the same or worse.



DX-SFX said:


> Must say though that I'm not sure that there would be almost a quarter of an inch difference from side to side on such a relatively small model though.


Actually, there can be that much error in film models, and more. But, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Its not off by that much in the sense that one side is shorter than the other. The piece could be the same length on both sides, but if the part is cut to fit, each may be cut at a different point such that the pieces used on each side are the same length, but the details on each, like those ribs, may not be in the same position from side to side.



DX-SFX said:


> Anyway, surely the side to camera, the apparent right hand side IS the right hand side so shouldn't the right side of your model reflect that? We can only assume the real Moonbus is supposed to be symmetrical so both sides should reflect the one side we see in the movie.


It comes down to the level of scrutiny one wants to meet. I would consider .217 inches an acceptable deviation from the source, but I would also correct it once I found out about it, if possible. If I was trying to create a 'forgery', pass my MB model off as the actual filming model, then it would matter. But remember, no matter how accurate one starts out to be, there will always be something that gets screwed up. It almost never turns out to be perfect, like this imperfection you've pointed out. It is slight, but it is there. And there are others, but (except for the angle of the nose) it does actually look like the Moonbus, right down to the last detail part. Let me put it another way-- if this was used to duplicate shots from the film, you would not notice the difference, even with the bad front end!

As for symmetry, its a wonderful thing and only scale builders will spend the time to achieve it. My point was that on movie models you will discover things that are not symmetrical because the camera won't see it. If it is important enough-- yes, its there. It can boil down to how critical an eye the art director has, or how much he recognizes won't be important for the shot. Remember, the Nautilus in Disney's 20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea had only one side, the other side was open. But, modelers aren't going to build that, they will build what was supposed to be on film. So, it is possible that details on one side of the MB could be off by as much as .217 inches at the point you referenced. Do I know that to be true? Not at all, just possible. And for the kit I am developing, that error becomes .106 inches. In the context of observable deviation, nothing to worry about, but certainly something to be made as accurate as possible since the information is at hand.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CaptCBoard

Phil-

Sorry, I meant to respond to your post (#363) but got sidetracked...

I'm not sure you understood what I was asserting in the post where I increased the image of your cross-section so the ceiling height matched mine. You say you've allowed for the interior height to be 6.5 feet even though the proportion of the interior space devoted to the interior is smaller than that in my cross-section. This means if we were to both build models to the same scale, I using my cross-section and you using yours, our models would be much different in size. You assert this is due to my using a fixed length, but I'm not even considering the length of the MB at this point-- in fact the length will be determined by other factors.

Here's the problem. Each cross-section is different with regard to the space that represents where the floor is and where the ceiling is. With yours at 6.5 feet and mine at 6.25 feet, we don't differ much in how much headroom there is-- only 3 inches. But if you compare the actual proportion of the interior space used to represent the floor-to-ceiling height, our two 'interiors' differ quite a bit. In reality, this difference comes from exactly where you want to put the floor as where the ceiling goes is pretty much set! I chose to put the floor at the very bottom of the space represented by the 'door thing' on the exterior of the model, which is represented by the outer red line on your cross-section. You've established your floor to be at the level of the inner red line, where it is likely the bottom of the door opening would be judging by the features of the 'door thing'. Here's where things get sticky...

I've shown the difference between the two models in the bottom example of my post comparing the cross-sections. I lined up your ceiling height with mine, meaning if we were to build the two models with almost identical ceiling heights, your model would be larger than mine even though they are the same scale. The scale of the drawing I used could be anything as we are really dealing with proportions in this case. But here's the rub. If you assign 1:12 scale to the drawing, the kit parts used on the outside of the model will not fit properly on yours. Whether the ceiling height is called out as 6.5 or 6.25 feet doesn't matter, the model your cross-section produces will be 17% too big. Conversely, if you proportion your cross-section so that the detail parts do fit to the exterior, you have to change the scale as it is defined by the assertion that the space you've indicated is 6.5 feet-- changing the exterior to get the parts to fit also changes the interior, making it smaller, and you wind up with something at about 1:14 scale. 

Sorry for this long reply. What it all boils down to is where you choose to put the floor. The difference between yours and mine is how we each decide the 'door thing' is supposed to work. But, since we know the filming model was 1:12 scale, I have to go with how the interior works in my cross-section. At 1:12 scale, I have an interior of 6.25 feet (I could even set it at 6.5 feet) and the detail parts fit the exterior. Now, my solution to how the door works may not be something you'd agree with, though it does work within the realm of possibility, but to go the route you embrace would mean having to change the scale of the model.

I'll post my solution to the door problem later-- after I make sure it'll work!

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> Here's the problem. Each cross-section is different with regard to the space that represents where the floor is and where the ceiling is. With yours at 6.5 feet and mine at 6.25 feet, we don't differ much in how much headroom there is-- only 3 inches. But if you compare the actual proportion of the interior space used to represent the floor-to-ceiling height, our two 'interiors' differ quite a bit. In reality, this difference comes from exactly where you want to put the floor as where the ceiling goes is pretty much set! I chose to put the floor at the very bottom of the space represented by the 'door thing' on the exterior of the model, which is represented by the outer red line on your cross-section. You've established your floor to be at the level of the inner red line, where it is likely the bottom of the door opening would be judging by the features of the 'door thing'.


I know you insist the Moonbus model was likely designed and built at 1:12 scale, which is fine for the original model that didn't contain an interior set layout. The kit detail parts work at 1:12 scale and all that is great. That doesn't necessarily mean the full size set was designed to match the model's designer's scale. For all we know 1:12 was simply a nice scale to draw the Moonbus to make a decent sized filming model to show off enough detail, etc. So what I'm trying badly to say is as far as the model goes just forget the set for a moment. We are trying to reverse engineer and trying to make the set fit as if were a real vehicle and as if the set was truely to scale with the model blueprints. 

All we need to do is scale the model to fit the parts so it is nearly as possible the correct physical size used in the film. Use 1:12 here if you like. But you must treat the set as a separate scale issue altogether because the actual model had no interior set. They knew they would be inserting live action from the actors on the set later in production, they probably didn't even know the set would have a low ceiling. I don't know if the model was built before or after the set was built so it is like apples and oranges. So I think you should use your 1:12 scale for the model, or call it 1:1 as studio scale and at that point I would agree with Phil and fit the interior floor line to line up with the open door line; and shelve the scale you think the real thing would be for now because it really doesn't affect making a studio scale model replica. You/we are actually making/blueprinting a 1:1 scale model of a filming miniature! The scale you keep refering to actually only matters if you want to make a full size working Moonbus and take a trip to TMA-1 from Clavius base.

I would like to do that too, but we are trying to blueprint a studio scale model after all. In the end you can say the model was 1:12 scale, but afterwards once you add an interior scale set to it, the model by default becomes "re-scaled" for real life at a different scale based in the interior ceiling height to determine what a real Moonbus vehicle would be sized at. At that point the original 1:12 scale served it's purpose for simply building a model; and then when you insert a differently scaled model of the interior set inside, it ends up resetting the overall scale accordingly (I'm fine with that) in order for one to imagine how big a real Moonbus would be to a person as if you were inside the set!


----------



## DX-SFX

I agree. Square peg, round hole. Let's establish the exterior dimensions of the movie model and then make the interior fit (or not).


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Scott,

I get where you're comming from. Its just that when you say that the model was "1/12th scale" (or whatever scale) then by definition you are assigning it a fixed length constraint based upon a given "known" length for the filming miniature, that was what I meant by "fixed length". In my case I don't care how long it turns out to be full scale, a model could be built to fit the kit parts but the apparent "scale" of that model would be determined by its interior, thus it may turn out to be some weird fractional scale no one has ever heard of. The up-shot is that, if one wanted to build a model based on my plans at an "established" scale, they will be forced to make the "kit" parts from scratch accordingly. So I can build an interior into it that accomodates the original set as best it can with absolutely no worries in the process about the "scale". That will be determined at the end. I wasn't worried about how big the actual filming model was or what scale the studio assigned to it. This is a case of two different approaches to the same problem, you are assigning a given length based upon a known dimension and trying to make it work while I am letting the size be deteremined by the interior (fall where it may). I will however keep the "proportions" of the exterior as true as I can make them, but the final "full scale" size will be dictated by the interior. I'm not sure if this explains it adequately, let me know if I've mucked up the explaination.

Your point about the Discovery profile is well taken however there is an easy test for the amount of perspective distortion at either end. The units making up the spine are essentially "constants", check the relative heights (or lengths) of the units at the ends to the ones in the middle. If there is a great deal of difference then the camera POV was close and the distortion is great, if not then the camera POV was far away and the distortion is slight (I haven't checked it myself so I have no opinion about the amount of distortion). Another quick empirical test that I use is to check how much the surfaces parallel to the line of site "turn away" from the camera. If a great deal of the "end surfaces" (those 90 degrees to the fore/aft centerline of the ship) are visible at each end of the model, then the camera POV was close and distortion is great, if little of these surfaces is seen then the camera POV was far away and distortion is minimized (although still present).

I will state once again (and Scott has pointed this out too) that no matter how hard one trys, there will always be errors when working from photos, especially when there are so few. This process is as much "art" as "science" and I certainly never made the claim that my drawings would be perfect or "definitive". They will however be "close", which is all anyone can reasonably ask.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Phil- I'm just curious-- What do you figure the space from window post to window post to be, in real world dimensions.

Scott


----------



## X15-A2

Scott,

Currently the centerline distances between the passenger window frames is 44.317 inches. The entire window slot is 221.584 inches long and the overall length of the ship, minus the rear hatch assembly, is 488.303 inches. These are subject to change and will undoubtedly be adjusted when I get to the drafting phase to reflect more rational "real world" dimensions. Right now they represent the results of what is no more than a 3D "sketch" which will be tightened up later.

Phil


----------



## DG27

Hello,
This is my first post so I hope I don’t mess this up. My apologies if I do.

I have read the recent discussions regarding the differences between the 2 leading dimensional models of the Moonbus, and I must say my head hurts. (Mostly from laughing at the jousting). Many good points on both sides. I was thinking it may help to apply some real world data from the Moonbus interior set to adjust the dimensional models. The central walkway through the rear (passenger and cargo part) of the bus is 20 inches wide. This is based on the evenly spaced strips of 2 inch white Velcro on the gray floor. The raised sections of the floor, where the seats are located (and there are only 2 rows of seats in the rear of the bus, unlike the Aurora model) also have the alternating strips of painted surface and Velcro. I’ve counted 11 alternating strips across the raised floor yielding platforms 22 inches wide on each side of the central walkway. This gives an inside width dimension of 64 inches for the lower part of the Moonbus interior set. 

Dennis


----------



## X15-A2

OK, here is a white Moonbus with kit parts rendered to show that they will fit.

Click for large image.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> The central walkway through the rear (passenger and cargo part) of the bus is 20 inches wide. This is based on the evenly spaced strips of 2 inch white Velcro on the gray floor. The raised sections of the floor, where the seats are located (and there are only 2 rows of seats in the rear of the bus, unlike the Aurora model) also have the alternating strips of painted surface and Velcro. I’ve counted 11 alternating strips across the raised floor yielding platforms 22 inches wide on each side of the central walkway. This gives an inside width dimension of 64 inches for the lower part of the Moonbus interior set.


I just popped in my DVD and counted too and confirm your measurements above if each alternating strip is 2" wide. If the 2" assumption is right, the bottom of the cabin should be 64" or 5.33 feet wide. It was hard to see the seating platform all at once but you appear to be correct as I look frame by frame. If there is any error at the most it would add 4" to each platform. At the wall there is a metalic strip and the seat legs both rest on one too with 2 in between the legs, and the edge next to the walkway has the metalic strip trim. If the seats are centered on the platform you are indeed right. 

BTW, I personally don't think the silver metalic strips or the grey in between are velcro. They wouldn't be needed because the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth and that should be enough to walk okay without velcro to keep traction or hold you down. Plus the astronaut boots wouldn't have velcro felt or barbs on the bottom. Imagine all the dirt they would catch walking on the Moon surface clogging them up. Also, little kids 1/6 your weight don't need velcro to walk on Earth and they can get around better than us adults!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> OK, here is a white Moonbus with kit parts rendered to show that they will fit. Click for large image.


This render is excellent! Missing the top RCS opening though and the engine bell handles aren't oriented vertical like that...  Just joking, I know you are illustrating the parts fit. Great job! Do you have any matching plan views ready for public viewing?


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> I personally don't think the silver metalic strips or the grey in between are velcro. They wouldn't be needed because the Moon has 1/3 the gravity of Earth and that should be enough to walk okay without velcro to keep traction or hold you down.


Certainly possible. You may be right. (The moon's gravity is 1/6g though, not 1/3).

Even if the Moonbus has no suborbital capability of any sort (for longer transits of the surface), it might still need such Velcro strips, however. If there are pressurized terminals on the moon for its use (which may even be the rule, not the exception), not every trip likely would involve the passengers/crew traveling spacesuited -- and 2001 does establish the Velcro precedent in the Orion, the Aries and the Discovery. 

Shane


----------



## Steve Mavronis

lastguardian said:


> Certainly possible. You may be right. (The moon's gravity is 1/6g though, not 1/3).


Opps, I had Mars on my mind! I'll correct that. The velcro floors are a solid color (no stripes) on those orbital capable zero-G craft, not that it makes any difference to the Moonbus. The MB floor looks reflective like metal to me thats all.


----------



## DG27

Yes, I agree the basic floor of the Moonbus is metal (or some hard surface material), and appears to be painted light to medium gray, or possibly some light metallic color. The lighter stripes appeared to be velcro since they look fuzzy. Since the Moonbus is operating in only 1/6g, it may be able to get into a free fall condition, but then that would be an exciting ride. I suspose the lighter strips could be anti-skid material, but then I would expect the entire floor should be covered. In any case the strips make a convienent ruler. Regarding the width of the strips, I have scaled the width of the strips against the size of the lunar boots in photos and used a pair of surviving boots to come up with the 2 inches. It matches, so I have confidence in the 2 inch width.
Dennis


----------



## jheilman

DG27 said:


> Regarding the width of the strips, I have scaled the width of the strips against the size of the lunar boots in photos and used a pair of surviving boots to come up with the 2 inches.
> Dennis


Excuse me? 

You have a pair of boots from a 2001 spacesuit? 

COOL! 

Any pics?


----------



## DX-SFX

Phil, excellent work on the 3D version. Could I pass the comment that, assuming you've rendered the kit parts accurately, the railcar side that's glued on vertically on the lower sloping face just behind the cockpit, looks like it's cut too short when compared with my previous pic.










If we use the ribbing on the kit piece as a ruler, the lower corner edge of the Moonbus is roughly where the next rib should be if it hadn't been cut off. Actually it looks just short of that but not by very much. Could it be that the floor needs dropping just a tad or the upper return needs to be a tad higher? I'm also increasingly convinced that the dished domes in the same area come from the AMT Man In Space kit. Shape and size seems to match exactly.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> In any case the strips make a convienent ruler. Regarding the width of the strips, I have scaled the width of the strips against the size of the lunar boots in photos and used a pair of surviving boots to come up with the 2 inches. It matches, so I have confidence in the 2 inch width.
> Dennis


Anyone know the height of the actor who brings the sandwich box from the front of the cabin? When he gets the box and takes his first step, he is standing straight up on his rear most leg. His head looks like it is almost to the roof or a few inches from it. Also another "ruler" could be the round blue emblem on the box on the opposite raised platform. You could take the height of that and turn it sideways across the strip next to it for a measurement check. It might be the same size as the emblem on the astronaut backpacks. 

Also, next to him you can see the end of the walkway. You can bearly see it on the left side but it doesn't go straight across. It goes something like this: \__/ ...the platform ends follow this angle a foot or so (20 inches maybe?) away from it. If you look at the scene with the overhead front view of the Moonbus coming towards you, it can be seen through the cockpit windows but from the opposite viewing angle of course.

Other tidbits: In the locker section, on the left wall at the top it says NAVIGATION and SURVEY CHARTS. Below that each the "drawers" on the top half of the slanted wall are labeled some name with the word ZONE below it. The lower half of the wall have drawers that are labeled some name with the word SURVEY below it. Now on the other side there are two sections on the top half that are both labeled LOCKER at the top. The left locker is not as wide as the other one and it's lower wall section has the CRT display mounted on it. On the wider right most locker side below the word LOCKER it has the names of some scientific instruments. The other side probably does too. I can make out the words X-RAY SPECTROMETER in the middle line of 3 lines. The other 2 lines also say something with METER as the last part of the words.


----------



## X15-A2

DX-SFX,

The railcar siding behind the cockpit on the original model is 5 full segments (including door section) and one at the bottom that is only slightly greater than one half of a segment. Use a pair of dividers on it and you'll see what I mean. It falls just short of the bottom edge of the sidewall it is attached to as well, leaving a little step. This is the way it works out on my model too so I'm happy with that.

Even in the picture you've posted above, the two domes look to me like basic hemispheres, cut short of their respective equators. So I'm not really sure why they wouldn't just be Plastruct parts or domes from some other source. Are you seeing a shape different from a hemisphere, like the oblong dome tops used further back on the side of the Moonbus?

I've doctored up your shot to show what I mean, see if you agree or not:


----------



## DX-SFX

Here's the evidence for and against an EMA piece.

Firstly, in order to have the correct curvature, the part would have to be cut from a 2" diameter dome. There are two reasons against this. Firstly, it's bloomin' hard to cut these things and the second is the moulding stub in the middle which would also need removing. In my opinion, with both those problems combined, that's too much work when the alternative is just a stick on piece.










It's true it could be an EMA/Plastruct vessel head which is a similar shape (the dishes they do are too shallow) but there is either that big mould stub in the middle again or a small hole indicating the centre on the smaller ones which would need filling.

Here's the other pic with a comparison of the kit part:










Looking at the photo's carefully of the Moonbus there are a number of observations to reconcile. It "appears" that the two circular parts are slightly different in size. Arguably this could be evidence of a cut down dome but there is also evidence that these aren't parts of a perfect sphere. It's difficult to get a good feel for the shape because the shadows are misleading but there's a distinct feel of the parts being slightly conical. The sideviews give a stronger impression of this. The AMT kit part is very slightly conical. The decider is probably the size. The AMT part is exactly 1 1/4" diameter. Note though that there are two parts in the kit and they are subtly different in shape. Again it's hard to be exact but the parts on the Moonbus look subtly different to each other too. My money is still on a kit part even if it's not the AMT kit parts.

BTW, I'm going to a Space 1999 convention this Sunday. If Brian Johnson is there, I'll discuss it with him. I'm of the opinion that he painted and weathered it. The evidence for this is that the MB is apparently glossy but the darker panels are matt. It's identical in style to the job he did on the Eagle's originally with panel lines drawn in with a ballpoint pen and a black wash airbrushed on to accentuate panels and generally grubby things up with small squirts/dribbles here and there. Since it appears he detailed and "finished" the Moonbus, this could well be the case. If he didn't then he may well have been influenced by whoever painted the Moonbus.












You're right about the bottom edge. My apologies. I was misreading the photo. Put it down to the late hour (well that's my excuse).


----------



## John P

Don'tcha love publicity photos of people pretending to work on a finished model while wearing nice clothes and staring at the camera? WTF is Johnson doing with that screwdriver? :lol:


----------



## DX-SFX

D'oh! Suddenly remembered some more candidates for those dished pieces and this time from kits I know were used. Vollmer did a series of refinery tower kits. They're clearly the source of some of the heavily riveted cylindrical engine detail under the Aries and again often used in all the Anderson series (more crossover). They come in different types and size but the dished tops look to be the right shape and size. I don't have any of the kits to check against but I'll be hitting eBay shortly. To be honest, I'd consider these more likely candidates than the AMT kit.


----------



## [email protected]

I've read where Doug Trumbull said he added ping-pong balls to the Moonbus as part of its detailing. I think those spherical bulges are most likely them.

Oh, and Brian Johnson posed for a similar picture next to the big Nostromo with an airbrush in his hand. As if he's painting in sportcoat and turtleneck.

Tom


----------



## SHADO

EMA/Plastruct is out, anyway. It didn't come on the market until 1969, well after the film was in production.


----------



## DG27

jheilman said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> You have a pair of boots from a 2001 spacesuit?
> 
> COOL!
> 
> Any pics?



Yes,
go to www.2001spacesuit.com/Artifacts.html

They are from Poole's yellow suit.
Dennis


----------



## DG27

Steve Mavronis said:


> I was considering if the sills could be incorporated but when I looked at the screenshots on the model looking in that can't be because you'd have to see the inner sill area and it's simply not there! There is only 1 thin window frame separating the outside from the inside on the model. So like you've just said, the set "sills" simply represent the outer window sill, even though the outer window divider shape is the wrong angle.


Steve,
At the risk of starting “Round 2” regarding the apparent mismatch of the outside of the Moonbus window area with the inside of the window area, and where the window is located, I have taken a look at this. Here is what I came up with. 

As noted previously the outside vertical post between the windows, as viewed from the exterior of the moonbus, is wider at the top than at the bottom when seen as a cross section. In contrast to this, as CaptCBoard pointed out, the area between the window locations (referenced as A and B in his photo) is a different shape, namely wider at the bottom than the top, ans as you pointed out much wider overall. However, notice that the only thing in common (in shape and angle) between the outside view of the window area and the interior view of the window area is the frame around what was labeled as Window location A. Based on this I have made some simple line drawings which are located at www.2001spacesuit.com/Notes.html (I posted them on my site since I haven’t figured how to post images here). Please refer to these drawings for the following discussion. Keep in mind they are only concept sketches and are not accurate with respect to exact angles, etc.

My point is that the outer post between the windows, as seen in the exterior view of the Moonbus cannot be seen from the inside of the moonbus. The reason for this is that the Moonbus interior set did not have an external finished surface. Only the inside window area up to window location A was finished off. Conversely, the Moonbus model did not have an interior built into it. So the exterior area around the window on the model was only finshed off up to Location A also. Since moving any further inward past Location A, becomes the “inside” of the model. When the Moonbus interior set was filmed, it was done with the entire side of the set removed so the camera was not filming through any window framing. I can only think this was done to make it easier to match up the interior film with the model for the scenes where we seen into the inside of the moonbus through the side windows. The window framing of the model was used (indirectly) as a mask for the window scenes. This resulted in the window framing structure to the inside of window location A, to be missing from the exterior scenes in the film since it was not built into the model and the interior set’s wall was removed for filming. 

So, I believe the “actual” moonbus wall structure is simply a combination of what is seen from the outside and what is seen from the inside. These two views, when merged together at window location A, form the intended wall cross section. Note this is independent of where the actual glass would have been located. In reality, I don’t think they used glass windows in either the model or the sets to avoid unwanted reflections, as it doesn’t show up in any production photos. Personally, I believe the design was intended to have an outer window at Location A and an inner window at Location B for all the obvious reasons. But the main point of this exercise is to show the cross section of the moonbus wall hoping it will help resolve the scaling differences discussed previously. I don’t know if this makes things better or worse for your project.

Hope this helps.
Dennis


----------



## DX-SFX

DG27, your note about the Tycho picture is in error I think. According to 2010 (film), the monolith is discovered on the Moon in 1999. This would make sense. It's the Jupiter/Discovery mission and Bowman's transformation that occur in 2001. Those numbers are a red herring I believe.

It was an article in Cinefex where Trumbull mentions the ping pong balls. By coincidence, I have a packet sitting here in front of me. It is possible and I'm going to have a go at cutting one down to see what it looks like.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> I believe the “actual” moonbus wall structure is simply a combination of what is seen from the outside and what is seen from the inside. These two views, when merged together at window location A, form the intended wall cross section. Note this is independent of where the actual glass would have been located. In reality, I don’t think they used glass windows in either the model or the sets to avoid unwanted reflections, as it doesn’t show up in any production photos. Personally, I believe the design was intended to have an outer window at Location A and an inner window at Location B for all the obvious reasons. But the main point of this exercise is to show the cross section of the moonbus wall hoping it will help resolve the scaling differences discussed previously. I don’t know if this makes things better or worse for your project.


I'm replacing my broken all-in-one printer/scanner tonight so hopefully I can scan some similar drawings I've made along the same lines showing 2 ways to do it like you've illustrated schematic-wise. I think it is possible for a modeler to make there own variants on the Moonbus window sill issue, base on accurate exterior blueprints that are developed out of this group discussion. It would then be up to the personal taste of each of us to include or not include the set's interior sill.


----------



## stargazer

*Size*

Hi guys Great thread you have here... hope you dont mind if I go off topic slightly but there are several folk who mention the of the length of Discovery and maybe I can throw some 'new' light on the matter ... Also Scott says...

"One way is to use the command module as a uniform 'unit' of measure, counting how many 'balls' it takes to equal the length of the ship and that gives them a ratio of CM to Ship Length. So they then pick a size they want to work with and figure out the final size of the ship from that."


As the preponent of this techhique I have to say that there is more to it than this Please have a read of this (from my web page) 

I have done a lot of research in light of new information and detail that has recently come my way. Past readers of this page will I hope, be pleased to know that the dimensions given here on this page (for several years now) were not far off from the mark....However due to the 'new info.' all the previous sizes are now revised... and more accurate than ever.....​ 
It turns out that the length of the Discovery is nine (9) times the diameter of the pressure sphere, and the Pressure sphere is 6 times the Dia. of the Pod... Several models were used in 2001, (at different scales)​ 
The 15 ft model​ 
I have a B&W studio photograph of the 15 ft model.. The picture is of the opposite side of the model to that seen in the movie... The model is mounted on a 'multiple rod support stand ' (to prevent bending of the long thin model )... and there is no sign of any distortion by the camera lens to the model, or to the stand, and even the planking on the studio floor is not 'bent' in any-way due to any discernable 'camera effects ' (but has only the normal 'vanishing point effect' that you would expect). Interestingly this picture proves that there is NO camera distortion to this same model as it is seen in the movie (other than a slight vanishing point effect mentioned which can be allowed for.)​ 
The point is that by dividing the Sphere diameter the into the length, you get a ratio of 9.....this can be accurately done by measuring pixels of the picture on the computer screen..... BUT​ 
_you don't actually need to measure any pictures at all to do this..._ Just divide the sphere diameter into the length if you have the size of both ..which for the 15 ft model is a 20 inch sphere, (for which I do have separate proof ) 9 X 20 inches is 15 feet.... and the same will be true for the 'Big' model (see below)​ 
The Pods​ 
The pods were built Full size (1/1 scale)... after careful measurements and other things, I have the Pods at ~ 80 inches diameter. The pods (along with the ' 9' ratio mentioned above) are the 'drivers' for all the other ratios. By careful measurement I have the pod to CM ratio as 1/6th the diameter of the CM (pressure-sphere) ....so if real, the Discovery CM (command module) would be 6 X 80 inches = 40 ft. diameter.​ 
The Command Module​ 
The CM becomes 40 ft dia. The 'driver' for this being the ratio of 6 X the diameter of the Pods (80 inches). But is this true?.......(Well the 2001 book' says 40 ft)​ 
If so the 15 ft Discovery model mentioned above would _have to be_ 1/24th scale .... eg. 24 X 20" dia.CM = 40 ft. Dia. and 24 X 15ft = 360 ft long (full size if real...... )​ 
The Pod Deck​ 
The Pod deck was built full size...Up until now I have taken what I believe to be the correct diameter for the CM (40ft)...and 'made' the interior to fit into it as well as I could.... However...... for the first time thanks to the prompting of a fellow 2001 fan Adam Johnson (USA), I have drawn what is probably the most accurate floor plan of the pod room yet drawn ... drawing what I saw, with no view to 'make it anything' other than what I observed and what it was.​ 
It has taken dozens of drawings to get it right... but Everything on it works ...lines of sight along edges falling on reference points.. everything....and the pods at 80 inches dia. fit into it ....more importantly the Pod door aperture sizes have become apparent... they are 11ft 6 inches diameter. _But there is a snag... a surprise to me _!!!! _and maybe others (or not)_ .....(More on this lower down see ' Pod deck surprise ' below.).​ 
The 'big' studio model​ 
Ok... Everything I have done on this page in the past has been to accommodate the statements below which appear 'constantly' in 2001 fandom... that...​ 
"The large model is 54 ft long and has a sphere 6 ft diameter (and is 1/6th scale and has a pod ~13.4 inches diameter"​ 
I have bent the scales and ratios of all the stuff I have done in the past, in order to accommodate these sizes I that I took for 'canon' for the large model ... but have had a Eureka moment and decided that its this very information that's wrong (and what to do about it) ....here's why..... 6 ft divided by 54 ft is indeed a ratio of 9 ............you can 'feed in' any numbers you like into this formula to get a Discovery proportionally right of any size you want. *But at 1/6th Scale* The CM at 6 ft Dia. will give a Sphere of *Only 36 ft dia*. (and 36ft X the 9 ratio is 324 ft long) The diameter for the CM is clearly wrong......._way too small._​ 
The 'Fix'........​ 
Everything... and I mean everything... works if the Big Discovery model were 60 ft long... and not 54 ft... The scale's become consistent...the ratios of length to CM diameter work (see below), the Pods are to scale etc. The model would become at 1/6th scale (If real) 360 ft long and have a sphere 40 ft dia. and for the first time becomes consistent with the dimensions of the 'small ' 15ft model.... (The exterior pod doors for both models also scale to the full size of 11ft 6" as described above)​ 
Wow factor....​ 
*But how about this as a whammy of a consequence, that 'feels' sooooo right.*.....the Sphere becomes 80 inches in diameter ........which is the same diameter as the full size Pods !!! _Handy for making four glass-fibre spheres... 3 pods and 1 CM) from the same mould_... I have pictures of the CM clearly being made separately from the main 'body' of the Discovery..... and the length of the body of the Discovery _without the D shaped CM attached _is...............54 ft long !!!!​ 
and the 80 inch diameter sphere measured from the 'front' to the Flat of the Back of the D shape Is near 6 ft!!! ......54ft + 6ft = 60 ft...............Coincidence???​ 
Also there is... (as I only just found out) That there are precedents for the large Discovery being quoted as 60 ft longl...... Two from separate articles, sent to me by fellow 2001 fan Eliot R Brown (USA) ...​ 
The Pod deck Surprise.​ 
The Big surprise is this.... Having drawn the Pod deck I can say for absolutely sure that the Full size deck will only fit into a sphere that is 60 ft in diameter. (The actual floor of the pod deck having a radius of 26 feet up to the Bay doors)......the Pod bay doors are positioned on 1/10 th's of a circle.... and are 11ft 6inches diameter.​ 
The Pod diameters... and the Pod bay door apertures are the only things on a consistent scale with the exterior models of the Discovery. The Pod deck will in no way fit into the Interior of the Discovery at the 'correct ' external (40 ft) size .. No wonder I have had to 'cheat' in the past to get the interior to fit.​ 
So it seems to me you can have two separate but correct models.... one for the outside which is what I think most modelers would want, and 'fudge' the interior to fit...​ 
Or.... have a model of the Pressure sphere interior on its own, that will contain an accurate scale model of the Pod Deck, and Pods, and Doors as seen from the inside... (but NOT the outside) ...And I have to say...all the rest of the CM interior too... Centrifuge etc.​ 
However the Discovery exterior cannot be scaled up to accommodate a 60 ft Dia.CM .....the Pods and the Bay doors would be proportionally too small... making the main Dish antenna... and the rest of Discovery exterior look way too big...​ 
stargazer​


----------



## trevanian

DX-SFX said:


> DG27, your note about the Tycho picture is in error I think. According to 2010 (film), the monolith is discovered on the Moon in 1999. This would make sense. It's the Jupiter/Discovery mission and Bowman's transformation that occur in 2001. Those numbers are a red herring I believe.


Well, it is Hyams' idea that the monolith unearthing (unlunaing?) took place in 1999. In the book of Clarke/Hyams correspondence, which I think is called THE 2010 FILE or THE ODYSSEY FILE, Clarke mentions that he always thought the monolith incident happened in 2001, with the mission following later. I'm also pretty sure that the LP info and other promo stuff described Floyd's mission to the moon (as in 'YOU are travelling to the moon') as happening in 2001.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

stargazer said:


> I have a B&W studio photograph of the 15 ft model.. The picture is of the opposite side of the model to that seen in the movie... The model is mounted on a 'multiple rod support stand ' (to prevent bending of the long thin model )... and there is no sign of any distortion by the camera lens to the model, or to the stand, and even the planking on the studio floor is not 'bent' in any-way due to any discernable 'camera effects ' (but has only the normal 'vanishing point effect' that you would expect). Interestingly this picture proves that there is NO camera distortion to this same model as it is seen in the movie (other than a slight vanishing point effect mentioned which can be allowed for.


Is your photo larger or better quality that what is available on the Web? I've seen that photo too but if your's is better please post a scan of it!

Also, Scott is right to point out (especially on large models like the Discovery) that there is distortion such that the ends "curve away" from the middle. It is a simple fact of geometry. From a single viewpoint (the camera lens) the 2 ends are physically farther away from the lens focal point than the middle of the object.

\|/

So for sure all you can say is the model is "at least" that long. In fact it will be slightly longer than you think.


----------



## stargazer

""Also, Scott is right to point out (especially on large models like the Discovery) that there is distortion such that the ends "curve away" from the middle. It is a simple fact of geometry. ""

Ahh.. yep already agreed to that (perspective)....and go on to say that anyway ..._you don't actually need to measure any pictures at all to do this..._ Just divide the sphere diameter into the length if you have the size of both ..which for the 15 ft model is a 20 inch sphere, (for which I do have separate proof ) 9 X 20 inches is 15 feet.... and the same will be true for the 'Big' model (see below)
​what is the link to the picture you mention I'll let you know if it is...​Stargazer​​​​


----------



## X15-A2

The distortion factor changes with the distance of the camera POV to the subject, the farther away, the less the distortion. There are ways to evaluate the amount of distortion which are fairly simple. Beyond a certain point the distortion is negligible. Depends on the give photo.


----------



## MGagen

I haven't piped up yet about the lens distortion thing, but one point we need to keep in mind:

Yes, the ends of Discovery would be farther away from the camera lens and should appear smaller when the side view picture was taken, *but* most camera lenses (except for fish eyes) compensate for this effect by enlarging the image progressively as you move off axis toward the edges. This is why when you photograph the front of a building the sidewalk and the upper rows of windows are straight lines. Without this correction built into the lens, the windows would get progressively smaller at the ends making the sidewalk an upturned arc and the upper windows a down turned one. Without this flat field correction, only straight lines that run directly through the center of the image would be depicted as straight, every other straight line would be depicted as a curve, just as in a fish eye image.

Every lens has a focal point where the light entering intersects before spreading back out again upside down within the camera. As a result, a similar effect to the "ends of the subject are further away" issue takes place inside the camera when the image is projected onto a flat film plane. The focal point is closer to the center of the film than the edges. If the lens weren't constructed to counteract this problem, the only way to reproduce what the camera saw with no distortion would be to project it onto film shaped as a section of a sphere with the center point aligned with the focal point. This bowl of film can then be developed and would look perfectly undistorted when viewed with one eye placed exactly where the focal point was. Not very practical is it?

Since we are stuck with flat film and want in the end to have a flat picture to look at, we structure the optics of lenses to straighten out the lines. As a result, unless Kubrick, used a fish eye lens to shoot the model, most, if not all, of the distortion Captain Cardboard expects to see in the distant side view of Discovery has already been factored out by the lens. What remains is the perspective effect of the vantage point: seeing the front of the engine pod; seeing a horizon of the command sphere, not the actual front edge. This is simple geometry and can be compensated for with a little effort.

Mark


----------



## CaptCBoard

Now, there's a coincidence--

Mark just beat me to it. I was talking with a photographer who uses an 8X10 camera yesterday and mentioned the perspective/parallax thing and he told me the same thing-- so I was definitely off-base with that assumption. But, he did confirm part of my assumption, that in a photo like that you can't accurately find the centerline, which will effect how the length is perceived. The problem is especially hard on a ball shape located to one side of the photo, as opposed to the center. In that case, you can see the back of the center, but not the front. While you can see the complete ball, that image is not in alignment with the centerline. Depending on the distance from the camera, this may or may not be significant.

As to Stargazer's data, he makes a lot of interesting points, but only if the small model fits the following criteria:

1. That the small model was actually 15 feet long. Con Pederson says 11 feet.
2. That the model builders were dead-accurate in building the large model to the proportions of the small model, which was built first. And which Con Pederson says was built at 5X, making it 55 feet long.
3. That it actually made a difference to Kubrick that the full-size interior be 'scale' to the model.

Now, the blueprints indicate two things: The Pods were 78 inches in diameter, so a height of 80 inches is possible. The head end of the Discovery is specified at 6 feet in diameter. If someone wants to posit that the model was built using the same mold as the Pod, I'm not going to put up an argument. Neither of us knows for sure, but it only matters if one is trying to fit the interior into the model accurately-- which was not even a consideration during filming. Which, in a direct way, brings us back to:

The Moonbus:








Ignore the line at the top of the windows, it was supposed to be taken out. The backpacks are dead-accurate and correctly proportioned to this scale interior. I can't draw the human form to save my life, so I'm going to have to find another way to portray a sitting figure at some point. But my ceiling height is 6'6" so when Phil and I tangle we are at least using this common measurement! I should also say this drawing isn't done yet, I still need to put in the flightdeck and the compartment we don't see much of but know its there. I can tell from this that I'll probably need to add a bit of length, but I won't know how much until I do the flightdeck.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Good insights and info there. Nice illustration too but.... I think 6.5 feet is a tad high for the cabin height. That is just my opinion so I can't fault anyone else's. It looks to me the cabin is more like 6 foot max. When Dr. Michaels gets the sandwich box and is standing up at one point the top of his head is at least the same level as the padded ceiling arches at the center. A normal man's height is around 5'8" so I think a 6 foot ceiling is more likely. If it were 6.5 feet instead, there would be no need to duck down between the arches with and without a space helmet on.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Steve-

I agree with you on that, 6.5 feet is probably too tall. My feeling is the bottom of the padded rib is at 5'10" to 6' and the ceiling is no taller than 6'3". In my elevation, I'm going to set the final height by just moving the ceiling line downward, thus creating space for lights between the ceiling and outer hull. But, we are talking about only a few inches, no more than 3. The average height for a modern male is 5'10" (some statics put it at a half inch lower), so if you adjust your estimates based on 5'8", you'll see we agree.

The real trick is to find out how tall the actor was, and quit guessing!

Question for Dennis Gilliam: Do you know what type of seats were used on the MB? (I've been calling and calling, but something tells me you're out of town!)

Scott
CaptCBoard


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> The real trick is to find out how tall the actor was, and quit guessing!


I hear ya! I was searching the web all last evening and all I found out was he died in 1985. I couldn't find any record of his height so I could use him as a ruler!


----------



## stargazer

I can help with some of these

# 1 even if the length of the small model were unknown, the sphere diameter is ...its 20 inches... and from the pictures which are now Officially declared not fatally distorted







the ratio of 9 can be fed in which confirms the given length of 15 ft.


# 2 real question is could it be 60 ft long ....










# 3 Ahh.... I Cant make the Interior fit It wont.... its too big I take pains in my post to say so..........but its fun trying.









stargazer


----------



## DG27

CaptCBoard said:


> Question for Dennis Gilliam: Do you know what type of seats were used on the MB? (I've been calling and calling, but something tells me you're out of town!)
> 
> Scott
> CaptCBoard


Scott,
Yes, I was out of town, but I'm back. I have been trying to determine what the seats were and to acquire some. It would be good to take some measurements off of them. I think they are either early airliner seats or military transport aircraft seats. I do know the spacing between the seats is the same as the side panel length on the side of the seat. Since the seats are lined up with the windows at some point, knowing the seat spacing would give the window spacing. By the way, the 2 rows of the seats were one window to the front of what you have in your drawing. So you can slide the inside furnishings forward to leave ethe rear window empty.
I'll give you a call.
Dennis


----------



## DX-SFX

Doug T is noted as saying the Moonbus was a model about two feet long. Not the most accurate description so it's conceivable that the other measurements are generalisations. The Eagles are always quoted as 44" but they're not. They're 43 1/4".


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> By the way, the 2 rows of the seats were one window to the front of what you have in your drawing. So you can slide the inside furnishings forward to leave ethe rear window empty.


Scott's drawing has the seats next to the correct windows. Floyd and Halverson were sitting in the forward row of seats at the next to last window in the Moonbus. There is only 1 window position behind Floyd's seat. There are only 5 windows on each side. Floyd is sitting right next to the 4th window from the front. You may be counting the "longer" white vented section as a window by mistake forward of the 1st window.


----------



## trevanian

MGagen said:


> I haven't piped up yet about the lens distortion thing, but one point we need to keep in mind:
> 
> Yes, the ends of Discovery would be farther away from the camera lens and should appear smaller when the side view picture was taken, *but* most camera lenses (except for fish eyes) compensate for this effect by enlarging the image progressively as you move off axis toward the edges. This is why when you photograph the front of a building the sidewalk and the upper rows of windows are straight lines. Without this correction built into the lens, the windows would get progressively smaller at the ends making the sidewalk an upturned arc and the upper windows a down turned one. Without this flat field correction, only straight lines that run directly through the center of the image would be depicted as straight, every other straight line would be depicted as a curve, just as in a fish eye image.
> 
> Every lens has a focal point where the light entering intersects before spreading back out again upside down within the camera. As a result, a similar effect to the "ends of the subject are further away" issue takes place inside the camera when the image is projected onto a flat film plane. The focal point is closer to the center of the film than the edges. If the lens weren't constructed to counteract this problem, the only way to reproduce what the camera saw with no distortion would be to project it onto film shaped as a section of a sphere with the center point aligned with the focal point. This bowl of film can then be developed and would look perfectly undistorted when viewed with one eye placed exactly where the focal point was. Not very practical is it?
> 
> Since we are stuck with flat film and want in the end to have a flat picture to look at, we structure the optics of lenses to straighten out the lines. As a result, unless Kubrick, used a fish eye lens to shoot the model, most, if not all, of the distortion Captain Cardboard expects to see in the distant side view of Discovery has already been factored out by the lens. What remains is the perspective effect of the vantage point: seeing the front of the engine pod; seeing a horizon of the command sphere, not the actual front edge. This is simple geometry and can be compensated for with a little effort.
> 
> Mark


Jon Alcott, the film's replacement DP for Unsworth, shot a huge amount of the miniature work as well as Dawn of Man and the white room. Counter to the norm, the model shooting was done using longer lenses, not wider ones, so if anything the film views of DISCOVERY would have foreshortening. They were using Nikkor or Nikon still camera lenses with a custom mount to fit the 65mm cameras, and I'm guessing, but I think they were using a 75mm focal length lens (not sure if that is with a 2x extender or not.)


----------



## DG27

Steve Mavronis said:


> Scott's drawing has the seats next to the correct windows. Floyd and Halverson were sitting in the forward row of seats at the next to last window in the Moonbus. There is only 1 window position behind Floyd's seat. There are only 5 windows on each side. Floyd is sitting right next to the 4th window from the front. You may be counting the "longer" white vented section as a window by mistake forward of the 1st window.


Yes, I realized I was wrong after I sent that. My neurons were taking a break. Ignore that part.
Thanks,
Dennis


----------



## CaptCBoard

Ian-

From your post: "Just divide the sphere diameter into the length if you have the size of both ..which for the 15 ft model is a 20 inch sphere, (for which I do have separate proof )"

If you have something that shows the sphere is clearly 20 inches in diameter, something that holds up to a high degree of scrutiny, I'll concede this point and say Con Pederson doesn't remember things right. My purpose is not to be right, but to have the correct information!

But, I have to point out that given what happens during a build, things change that can't be accounted for in any other way. If what Con told me is true, along with what was published in an interview with him in 1999, the small model is 11 feet long, which by your method of proportioning makes the sphere mathematically 14.6 inches, but realistically anything between 14 to 16 inches, depending on what the model builders could find to do the job. If you take the blueprint at its word, that the sphere for the large model is 72 inches, the one for the 11-footer becomes mathematically 14.2 inches, less than a quarter inch difference between your power of 9 proportion over an 11 foot model. If there was a change and they used one of the Pod spheres for the large Discovery model, 78 inches, the small sphere would mathematically be 15.6 inches, but the model itself would still be 11 feet as they would only have adjusted the dimensions for the two spheres, not adjusted the entire model-- it would have been way too much work and very unnecessary for the look of the film. And, I should also point out that if someone says a particular, hard dimension, it may not be dead accurate. Con may have said "it was 11 feet long", but it could actually have been several inches under or over that.

The reason I have to believe this is due to one point Con said. He said the big model was built to be 5 times the size of the small model, which was built first. Proportions like that are much easier to recall than actual dimensions, but his assertion was the small one was 11 feet and the large one was 55 feet. However, that being said--

I can also see how that could have been the plan when they started out, because they were making the mockups (like the one with the wings) at a certain size. They could have made the large model 5 times the _*planned*_ size of the smaller one, but then changed their mind to make it at 15 feet. Things like that happened to me all the time!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I took the liberty of using Phil's cross-section and overlayed a scaled up pencil drawing I made of the interior cross-section to fit over his. BTW, Phil - do you have another cross-section showing your window slot position? I originally drew it inside the Aurora model cross-section so I cut it out and I scaled it up proportionally to fit his floorline and ceiling. It might be interesting to try it in Scott's version too. Zooming the pencil drawing made it look sloppy compared to computer lines, but I wanted you to see how it would fit in a more accurate movie Moonbus hull like Phil's:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/cabin_crossection.jpg

My cabin proportions shown here are based on measurements I made from screen captures of the set interior looking rearward. The floor and raised platform spacing is based on new measurements of the stripe's spacing covering them until they hit the side walls. Assuming they are spaced 2" apart, the center floor is 20" wide (10 offset stripes) and the platforms are 26" wide each (13 stripes) for a total bottom width of 72" or 6 feet. That also makes the cabin height 6 feet as well according to the cabin contour dimensions lifted from a movie screen capture. I also calculated the angle of the slanted window walls to most likely be 60 degrees. The lower slanted ledges are angled 90 degrees relative to them, or 30 degrees from the horizontal.


----------



## stargazer

Scott
I have a picture of the CM seen front on, resting in a wooden cradle or mount which has foam tacked to the curve to protect the sphere... 

you most likley know of this picture... as it has appeared in lots of places. That mount is made from a building material called Blockboard. 

This was very very widley used here in the UK during the 1960's ,70's and even into the early 80's

I have in the past personaly worked with this material for 20 years... and I have cut up literaly hundreds of sheets of the stuff......... The end 'grain' can clearly be seen on the left of the picture.

Blockboard is made up of 3 layers... an outer skin on both sides, and a core of short strips of wood or' Blocks' all glued together and pressed between the skins.

This material only came in 3 thicknesses... the end cross section of the cores being different . The blockboard that the above mentioned mount is made from is 3/4 inch blockboard..

The mount is positioned on the north/south longditude of the sphere ......so the end grain section is set back at the same distance plane as the max diameter of the sphere (so making this possible).

On 'my' picture the sphere is 3400 pixels diameter and the end grain width is 129 pixels (= to 3/4 inch).......I obviously took these measurments first... and so had no idea (except a hope) as to what I would get upon doing the math.....

So here it is... 3400 divided by 129 is 26.35 ........So given that 129 is the same unit measurment as 3/4 inch .

Times 26.35 by 3/4 inch ... the answer is 20 inches (well as near as don't matter 19.76)..

stargazer


----------



## ProfKSergeev

trevanian said:


> Jon Alcott, the film's replacement DP for Unsworth, shot a huge amount of the miniature work as well as Dawn of Man and the white room. Counter to the norm, the model shooting was done using longer lenses, not wider ones, so if anything the film views of DISCOVERY would have foreshortening. They were using Nikkor or Nikon still camera lenses with a custom mount to fit the 65mm cameras, and I'm guessing, but I think they were using a 75mm focal length lens (not sure if that is with a 2x extender or not.)


Wait a second, though: wouldn't a 75mm lens on a 65mm camera essentially be "normal," in that it creates a perspective similar to that which the human eye sees, and not long? I'm not sure, because I've never worked with 65 or 70mm cameras, but on 16mm cameras normal focal length is 25, and on 35mm cameras it's 50. So if 75mm is, in fact, normal, then wouldn't there be less distortion of any kind (e.g., foreshortening, "fisheye" effect, etc.)?


----------



## CaptCBoard

Ian-

Very interesting-- we used the same photo and came up with two different results. Here's what I did:










This will look a tad odd as I created a transparent gray overlay the same size as the sphere, to kill the shadows. I took the edge of the wood to be 1/2" and came up with exactly 14 inches. Since this was within half an inch of what it should be proportionally, I took it to be correct. I can't dispute your analysis of the wood being 3/4" thick and the ball turns out to be the size you have quoted. You could be right and I'm almost convinced. But, since we have both used the same reference to come to our two conclusions, I still have to go with Con Pederson. It really doesn't matter, in the end. Proportionally, the ship is the same-- at 11 feet or 15 feet --its still the same.

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Great detail on the window shape. It appears not to follow a circular path, that is it sticks out more at the front then at the ends. The front window rests about at the edge of lower ribbed sill. But the side windows seem to deviate and taper inward, looking at that shot. You can see the upper shadow suggesting these angle changes across the top of the window surfaces and the side most windows at the 2 ends don't seem to connect to the hull out at the edge of the ribbed sill like the front ones... I could be wrong though - This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error!


----------



## portland182

DX-SFX said:


> DG27, your note about the Tycho picture is in error I think. According to 2010 (film), the monolith is discovered on the Moon in 1999. This would make sense. It's the Jupiter/Discovery mission and Bowman's transformation that occur in 2001. Those numbers are a red herring I believe.


Can you realy use information made up by Hyams and Clarke years later for another project as 'proof' about Kubrick's film?  

The Tycho pictures are dated the way they are dated and that's that.

(or is it?)

Jim


----------



## stargazer

They did not make 1/2 inch blockboard... 3/4 inch was the thinest they did

1 inch and 1 1/2 are the only other sizes I ever saw in the 20 years I mentioned...heck I could even send you a piece of the stuff........

there was a 1/2 inch board.. but the filling wood was thin strips... not blocks

Really... I saw enough of the stuff to ID the end grain as 3/4....

Then there is the main dish in the side view it scales to 12 ft in pixels...

what was the dia. of the full size prop. ???

Stargazer


----------



## lastguardian

DX-SFX said:


> DG27, your note about the Tycho picture is in error I think. According to 2010 (film), the monolith is discovered on the Moon in 1999. This would make sense. It's the Jupiter/Discovery mission and Bowman's transformation that occur in 2001. Those numbers are a red herring I believe.


2010's intro also states that TMA-1 was in the Sea of Tranquillity, not Tycho. 

Shane


----------



## DX-SFX

> Can you realy use information made up by Hyams and Clarke years later for another project as 'proof' about Kubrick's film?


No, I don't think you can but arguably, since the number is merely a six figure number that is NOT presented in the more usual xx/xx/01 form (there are no backslashes), we can't consider it proof either. On balance, it probably is intended to be a date but 2010 challeges that assumption. It depends whether you include the dates set in 2010 as official lore or not. Had there been backslashes included then I think you could definitely say that 2010 was in error. Now you mention it, I remember the thing about the Sea Of Tranquility. That kind of kills any credibility that the info offered in 2010 had.


----------



## lastguardian

DG27 said:


> So, I believe the “actual” moonbus wall structure is simply a combination of what is seen from the outside and what is seen from the inside. These two views, when merged together at window location A, form the intended wall cross section. Note this is independent of where the actual glass would have been located. In reality, I don’t think they used glass windows in either the model or the sets to avoid unwanted reflections, as it doesn’t show up in any production photos. Personally, I believe the design was intended to have an outer window at Location A and an inner window at Location B for all the obvious reasons.


I am in complete agreement. The double-pane structure makes the most sense, follows established aerospace design protocol and just plain looks cool. 

Shane


----------



## CaptCBoard

lastguardian said:


> I am in complete agreement. The double-pane structure makes the most sense, follows established aerospace design protocol and just plain looks cool.
> 
> Shane


(and just to mess with you...) So you then think the Aurora kit got things right by having the front with big compound-curved glass panels. I mean, talk about something that looks cool!

Scott (who can be a real stinker...)


----------



## lastguardian

CaptCBoard said:


> (and just to mess with you...) So you then think the Aurora kit got things right by having the front being big panels of curved glass. Doesn't that look just as cool?
> 
> Scott (who can be a real stinker...)


LOL

No, that doesn't look cool. Now, if they'd added some windshield wipers . . . 

Shane


----------



## CaptCBoard

lastguardian said:


> LOL
> 
> No, that doesn't look cool. Now, if they'd added some windshield wipers . . .
> 
> Shane


Hey, no fair-- now you're just being silly!

Scott


----------



## heiki

Ok,

I found my scan of the Aurora bluprint...
Anybody know how and where I can up load the complete 7.7meg file?

I can cut up or compress it. Did not want the resolution to suffer.

Anote, Aurora/HMS Assoc in Willow Grove PA had further photos of the actual Moonbus/walker.
I know that Dean Milano had access to some of the photos/prints and another former Monogram employee, Jeff Wargo, living some where in the Chicago area has the most photos and some blueprints. Anybody care to track them down and request this info from them? Jeff was one who may be willing to sell what he's got.

The Aurora prints do not call out the windows that later appeared on the model.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

heiki said:


> I found my scan of the Aurora bluprint...
> Anybody know how and where I can up load the complete 7.7meg file?


I can host it in my broadband webspace for all to get via a weblink. It can hold 25mb. If you like you can e-mail me at [email protected] or [email protected]

I have Yahoo, MSN, and AIM messengers too if you want to transfer it that way. The e-mails may be able to accept large files. Comcast file attachments can be 10mb. I think Yahoo's is large too.


----------



## heiki

Steve Mavronis said:


> I can host it in my broadband webspace for all to get via a weblink. It can hold 25mb. If you like you can e-mail me at [email protected] or [email protected]
> 
> I have Yahoo, MSN, and AIM messengers too if you want to transfer it that way. The e-mails may be able to accept large files. Comcast file attachments can be 10mb. I think Yahoo's is large too.


Thanks Steve,

I have sent it to both of your email accounts. The image is a TIFF. Huge and solid. No compression. 600 by 600 DPI. This is one of the smaller images. Got 78 other aurora blueprints if somebody would like to host them. Total of the file sizes is around 720 megs.


----------



## X15-A2

Where was that shot of the Discovery CM published?

Steve, I like your crossection work, keep it up.

heiki, can you email me a copy of the Aurora drawing as well? ([email protected]) Thanks!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Steve, I like your crossection work, keep it up. heiki, can you email me a copy of the Aurora drawing as well?


http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moon1.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moon1.tif

Here is the image heiki sent. The original tif is 7.8mb but I also saved it as a jpg which is 1.9mb. Take your pick!

Phil, could you e-mail me any 2d plans you have so far from your Microstation analysis that I could use to map the set interior drawing into? I think that will be better than using my Aurora model as a definitive guide. I'll send you scans of the results but you can always have control as to what appears in your final blueprints. I just want to help by contributing my take on certain details, etc. to add on to what you already know from researching the Moonbus too.

Heiki's plans may give us some insight especially if they show any details that didn't make it into the final kit BUT was on the real movie Moonbus! I see the RCS pods in his scans do show such detail on the top and front! The rear has a different contour more like the movie and the cockpit window area is interesting.


----------



## X15-A2

Thanks Steve! Very cool.


----------



## X15-A2

For lack of any better information, I will use the Aurora drawing as a guide for the bottom details. The dome on the underside centerline, between the two middle engines, is most likely another "Prestwin tank car dome". Does anyone here want to speculate about what the other kit parts on the bottom are? All help is welcome here.

Also, are there any guesses here about the row of detail parts (all the same) across the top of the RCS pod where it meets the main body sidewall? They look sorta like the torsion bar arms which support the lower boggies on tanks, usually found molded onto the lower tank body sidewall in a lot of kits. Are there likely source kits where such torsion bars have been molded as separate pieces?

Phil


----------



## Steve Mavronis

heiki said:


> Thanks Steve, I have sent it to both of your email accounts. The image is a TIFF. Huge and solid. No compression. 600 by 600 DPI. This is one of the smaller images. Got 78 other aurora blueprints if somebody would like to host them. Total of the file sizes is around 720 megs.


Thanks, these other plans - can you tell us of anything unusual in them that tell of details more of the movie version than with how the final Aurora kit ended up? I noticed the drawing you sent said for development purposes only. I wonder if in the beginning if they got actual movie plans to work with and some of that could be on your 78 sheets? Plus the drawing referenced photos too. I hope these 2 people with the (movie model?) photos you mentioned can be contacted to potentially provide a goldmine of info! I can host some more, as space permits. I can still create a couple more 25mb webspaces that comcast gives each account. Send some more at your lesure over several days or weeks to me or others here who can share them too. I'd like to see what is in them.


----------



## CaptCBoard

X15-A2 said:


> Also, are there any guesses here about the row of detail parts (all the same) across the top of the RCS pod where it meets the main body sidewall?


They are the bombs from an Airfix B-29 kit, just each half laid flat with the fins pointing outward.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## heiki

Steve Mavronis said:


> Thanks, these other plans - can you tell us of anything unusual in them that tell of details more of the movie version than with how the final Aurora kit ended up? I noticed the drawing you sent said for development purposes only. I wonder if in the beginning if they got actual movie plans to work with and some of that could be on your 78 sheets? Plus the drawing referenced photos too. I hope these 2 people with the (movie model?) photos you mentioned can be contacted to potentially provide a goldmine of info! I can host some more, as space permits. I can still create a couple more 25mb webspaces that comcast gives each account. Send some more at your lesure over several days or weeks to me or others here who can share them too. I'd like to see what is in them.


Sorry, I have 78 different Aurora BluePrints. The Voyager, Seaview, Hanging Man, etc. and some never produced kits. I'll still send them all up to you if you wish as long as you allow other people to access them.

Jeff had the blueprints for the interior and some of the photos of the actual MoonBus as taken by the model kit builders. Jeff Wargo is the same guy who designed some of the kits that Mike Evans of Lunar Models sold. I lost track of him in the late 90's and have been trying to locate him to get copies.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Seaview would be cool.


----------



## ProfKSergeev

heiki said:


> Sorry, I have 78 different Aurora BluePrints. The Voyager, Seaview, Hanging Man, etc. and some never produced kits. I'll still send them all up to you if you wish as long as you allow other people to access them.
> 
> Jeff had the blueprints for the interior and some of the photos of the actual MoonBus as taken by the model kit builders. Jeff Wargo is the same guy who designed some of the kits that Mike Evans of Lunar Models sold. I lost track of him in the late 90's and have been trying to locate him to get copies.


I'd be very interested to see some of the plans for the unproduced Aurora kits. Someone mentioned earlier that the company intended to produce a model of the _Discovery_ from 2001. I suppose you wouldn't happen to have any plans for that?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Oh I forgot... The orion space clipper would be neat to see


----------



## Richard Compton

Thanks for the plans. Can anyone see if they match the model they ultimately released?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Richard Compton said:


> Thanks for the plans. Can anyone see if they match the model they ultimately released?


I see some minor differences on the RCS pods, the Moonbus back end, "walkers", and window trim areas. Also, I just discovered that the stated dimensions on the blueprint make for a slightly larger model than was ultimately produced! I measured up actual Aurora model parts to the drawings and the model kit is a little bit smaller!

I just split up heiki's Aurora Moonbus blueprint into 5 pages (8.5"x11") you can print out. The file sizes range from 300kb to 400kb each. For the half centerline views I copied and flipped the missing halves and added them in. I also pasted in item callouts so they are not off the page. When you print these out you may get some clipping at the very border edge, which only affects some dimensional numbers that you can fill in by hand later. I printed mine from photoshop and they mesure exactly to a ruler; so whatever you use make sure it is not doing page scaling or it will shrink to fit the paper and it will end up being less than full size. Also pay attention to whether the image is portrait or landscape orientation when you print. Here are the image links:

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_moonbus_top.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_moonbus_side.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_moonbus_bottom.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_moonbus_front.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_moonbus_back.jpg

Enjoy... the original full blueprint links (jpg and tif) I posted yesterday are still there too.


----------



## DX-SFX

Interesting to note that it may yet prove to be exactly one third the size of the filming model, at least by the drawing.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> Interesting to note that it may yet prove to be exactly one third the size of the filming model, at least by the drawing.


That would mean 10 1/8th" x 3 = 30 3/8th" long filming model? I wish there were some way to contact the 2 Aurora people heiki mentioned. They may have more Moonbus reference material that is vitally important like photographs taken (mentioned on the blueprint) and other drawings made during the kit development. Heck, they could have measured and drawn up exact scale blueprints of the movie model before making the scaled down Aurora kit drawing which would have less detail being 2/3rd smaller.

Look at the RCS pod tops in the Aurora blueprint, which I now believe is an early drawing that had characteristics more closer to the movie Moonbus. That extra bit of detail on top of the pods, what is it? I just looked at screen captures from the film of the front overhead view again. I think I see those detail part bits there! I'm not talking about the row of parts next to the body. I'm talking about the small detail part bits (at the outboard rear) of the pods recessed area. This is something new (that the Aurora 2-9-68 plans reveal) that is actually on the film model! Look here:

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/pdvd_190.jpg

Also, if you noticed, the raw Master Models version doesn't have the recessed pod area - only the RCS openings are there. I think the 2001 crew added an outside lip (and the detail parts) around the pods to create a recessed look.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Eagle-eye Steve-- I think he's the first to notice that bit of detail. I know I missed it!

Scott


----------



## X15-A2

Steve Mavronis said:


> Look at the RCS pod tops in the Aurora blueprint, which I now believe is an early drawing that had characteristics more closer to the movie Moonbus. That extra bit of detail on top of the pods, what is it? I just looked at screen captures from the film of the front overhead view again. I think I see those detail part bits there! I'm not talking about the row of parts next to the body. I'm talking about the small detail part bits (at the outboard rear) of the pods recessed area. This is something new (that the Aurora 2-9-68 plans reveal) that is actually on the film model!.


I was glad to see an interpretation of those RCS pod top details by Aurora on their drawing. That little extra bit is just visible in the frame grabs but no where near clear enough to figure out what it should look like. Thank you Aurora!



Steve Mavronis said:


> Also, if you noticed, the raw Master Models version doesn't have the recessed pod area - only the RCS openings are there. I think the 2001 crew added an outside lip (and the detail parts) around the pods to create a recessed look.


This is the same conclusion that I had arrived at. Not only did they build it up with an extra layer (of plastic sheet?) to create the recess, they also made the top surface of the RCS slope downwards as it goes outward from the centerline. Not by much but just a little. This is visible if you study the low-angle beauty shot of the nose which was posted here as a large scanned image. In that shot you can just see the tops of both units and when you hold a straight edge up to them, you see that the top is not truly horizontal.

I doubt that Aurora had the studio plans, judging by their own preliminary drawing. It looks to me like they just asked someone in England to send them an assortment of photos, including the plan views (top, side, rear, front, bottom, etc.). Their drawing is curious in several ways. It gets some things right, like the detail on top of the RCS, which was ommitted from the final kit while getting other things wrong, like ommitting the S-curve shape of upper edge of the front engine cutout, which was then rendered correctly in the final kit. Not sure what to make of that but there it is, for all to see.


----------



## John P

re: windshield wipers - ya know, considering how much regolith this puppy would actually kick up with its vertical thrusters, and how much moon dust clings to everything, it would make some sense to have a way to remove it from the pilots' viewports. An actual wiper would probably only grind it into the glass and scratch it to hell though. Compressed air jets blowing on the outside of the glass, maybe?


----------



## stargazer

on the drawing... the front view has diagonal lines drawn across the 'window' area. This looks like glass is implied was this because the guys at aurora were told that glass 'should' be there...why do it otherwise ?

stargazer


----------



## Richard Compton

John P, yes, maybe.


----------



## DX-SFX

I'd have thought wiper brushes rather than blades. Unless it's extremely high velocity, a gas stream almost immediately balloons out in a vacuum.


----------



## lastguardian

DX-SFX said:


> I'd have thought wiper brushes rather than blades. Unless it's extremely high velocity, a gas stream almost immediately balloons out in a vacuum.


A static repeller of some type might be better. Moon dust, largely being glass, is abrasive. 

Shane


----------



## heiki

CaptCBoard said:


> Eagle-eye Steve-- I think he's the first to notice that bit of detail. I know I missed it!
> 
> Scott


Does this mean you will be updating your MoonBus?


----------



## Astrocat

Hello, I thought it was about time I posted something... (I'm fairly new to all this, so please excuse any cock-ups with the post)

Attatched are a few more kit parts, hopefully I haven't duplicated ones that have already been posted. Most of them were mentioned in the 'Kit Spotting' article in Sci-Fi And Fantasy Models magazine (which I supplied photos and info for, back in the mid 90's) but there are a couple of more recent discoveries as well.

I've put two of the Prestwin caps in there, because they were used right way round on the Refrigerated van doors, but upside down set into the railings, so the photo shows both sides. The Tiger tank wheel is used along the nose under the windows. The bomb halfs are from the Airfix Corsair (not the B29, which is too small - I've put a B29 bomb, in the red box, for comparison) Also in the red box is my take on what's on top of the RCS 'shoulders' in a row - this particular bit is from the Prestwin, although all the Airfix rail waggons have them. Interestingly, I've always thought the small bit inset into the top of the 'shoulders' was another Prestwin cap, but the Aurora drawings show it square... I'm going to have to re-think that!

The bits from the Honest John are, as Philster pointed out earlier, in the recess below the rear door. The part on the right hand side of the photo is trimmed off where I've indicated, and glued to the underside of the bit on the left.

I've also included the Airfix B29 undercarriage used for the antenna support.

BTW - Scott - when I was helping Jeff with the kit parts for the model you have, I mistakenly thought it was the Prestwin domb used underneath, I now believe it was the B29 bulkhead instead (pictured).

Another bit used on the underside is the Atomic Cannon part, in the top right of the photo. It's interesting how Aurora got the basic shape, but misinterpreted the 'ins and outs' of it - which indicates to me that they were working from photos, not the actual miniature. 
The grille from the Cannon cab is, I think, used above the cockpit windows (suitably trimmed).

The other two Cannon bits are fairly obvious, as are the Turntable parts.

Most of these kits are still available. The old Airfix Railway stuff is now produced by Dapol, here in the UK, it's only the Adams kits (also released by UPC and Lifelike) that are difficult to find.

Hope this helps a bit!

Keith.


----------



## stargazer

I have a couple of pictures here that may help this project


http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/bus/


stargazer


----------



## DX-SFX

Thanks for that Keith. You post as many of those threads as you like and ignore any cock ups. :thumbsup: 

I'm really surprised by the Corsair bomb halves. They obviously had loads of B29 kits and there are loads of bombs in each kit so it's curious why they used the Corsair versions which are almost exactly the same apart from size. It's puzzling. Do you have any opinion what those domed parts are either side of the nose? I'm looking at kits at this moment and the suggestion they could be cut down ping pong balls (suggested by a comment from Doug Trumbull) is being explored.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Keith,

Welcome to the board and thanks for a great first post! You have expanded the limits of our knowledge about the kit parts used, which is a very welcome addition to our respective projects. If you have the time, would you email me a higher resolution image of those kit parts? (You can reach me at [email protected]) Thanks and welcome aboard.

Stargazer,

Is there a way to get a larger version of that exterior view of the Moonbus? If not, it is a great photo anyway and thanks for posting it.

Phil


----------



## stargazer

Hi phil thats the raw picture......

stargazer


----------



## ProfKSergeev

Quick couple of questions:

1. How rare (or not) are most of the kits involved in replicating a studio scale Moonbus?
2. Depending on the availability of the kits in question, how much should one expect to shell out to assemble the necessary parts?

My thanks to those with the eagle eyes and encyclopaedic knowledge of Sixties Era kits that have identified the greeblies used on the Moonbus.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

ProfKSergeev said:


> Quick couple of questions: 1. How rare (or not) are most of the kits involved in replicating a studio scale Moonbus? 2. Depending on the availability of the kits in question, how much should one expect to shell out to assemble the necessary parts? My thanks to those with the eagle eyes and encyclopaedic knowledge of Sixties Era kits that have identified the greeblies used on the Moonbus.


After all the parts are identified would it be possible to produce a detail parts kit of casts from just these parts only? I think Scott mentioned his Moonbus would be a build yourself project done in a similar way, if not the same thing.


----------



## DX-SFX

The Atomic Cannon is the one which will hurt the most. It's rare and collectible.


----------



## X15-A2

The Adams/UPC/Lifelike "Atomic Cannon" is not the same kit re-issued by Revell in their History Makers series? Just wanted to be sure.


----------



## DX-SFX

I believe the Revell one is a reissue of the old Renwall kit and it's definitely not the right one.


----------



## Astrocat

X15-A2 said:


> The Adams/UPC/Lifelike "Atomic Cannon" is not the same kit re-issued by Revell in their History Makers series? Just wanted to be sure.


The Adams kit is 1:40 scale, but the Renwal/Revell version is 1:32. The parts are slightly different shapes - as well as being too big - particularly the bit used on the side of the Moonbus.

Keith


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Thanks for that Keith. You post as many of those threads as you like and ignore any cock ups. :thumbsup:
> 
> I'm really surprised by the Corsair bomb halves. They obviously had loads of B29 kits and there are loads of bombs in each kit so it's curious why they used the Corsair versions which are almost exactly the same apart from size. It's puzzling. Do you have any opinion what those domed parts are either side of the nose? I'm looking at kits at this moment and the suggestion they could be cut down ping pong balls (suggested by a comment from Doug Trumbull) is being explored.


No idea why they didn't use the B29 bombs - it would seem more logical to me as well, but the Corsair is the only kit I've found (so far...) that has bomb halfs the right size.
I'm sure the dombs either side of the nose ARE ping pong balls - all the other dombs are accounted for with kits, and Doug Trumbull definately said he used ping pong balls on the Moonbus (the first miniature to be detailed up). To me they're the sort of quirky thing that would stick in the momory much better, after all these years, than kits. 
Add to that they're the right size, are easy to cut, and surprisingly strong when glued down.

Keith


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> Great detail on the window shape. It appears not to follow a circular path, that is it sticks out more at the front then at the ends. The front window rests about at the edge of lower ribbed sill. But the side windows seem to deviate and taper inward, looking at that shot. You can see the upper shadow suggesting these angle changes across the top of the window surfaces and the side most windows at the 2 ends don't seem to connect to the hull out at the edge of the ribbed sill like the front ones... I could be wrong though - This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error!


Steve,

Bit late on this one.

Is this sort of how you picture the windows? - if so, I think you're right. That's how I've always interpreted them as well.
(The drawing is only a rough guide, to show the concept, so measurements will be all over the place!)

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> Steve, Is this sort of how you picture the windows? - if so, I think you're right. That's how I've always interpreted them as well. (The drawing is only a rough guide, to show the concept, so measurements will be all over the place!)


You have it exactly as I have assumed they should look. Good job. I remember debating this with Scott on his site but he settled for the look of the 2010 version of the Discovery in that area.


----------



## Richard Compton

Wow, I've never seen that before. Are there other photos that show this better? It looks like there's a frame running around the windows that sort of tricks the eye into thinking the windows just run right across.


----------



## lastguardian

Steve Mavronis said:


> You have it exactly as I have assumed they should look. Good job. I remember debating this with Scott on his site but he settled for the look of the 2010 version of the Discovery in that area.


If I remember right, I think that's the way I did them in my Discovery blueprint set.

Shane


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Richard Compton said:


> Wow, I've never seen that before. Are there other photos that show this better? It looks like there's a frame running around the windows that sort of tricks the eye into thinking the windows just run right across.


I don't know the source of Scott's large photo that totally gives it away. The one in the Bosney book isn't that clear but you still get a sense of that. Later today maybe I can post a hi-rez DVD shot of when the pod launches to remove the AE-35 unit and rotates to shine it's lights right on the command module ball window gap. It's is deceaving there though because I think the insert live set action overlaps slightly and cuts into the top of the side 2 window frame openings, right at the small "side" window and the hull gap face. There is also a shadow cast from a nearby window frame that "at first" looks like the bulkhead window frame but it moves as the pod lights swing around so it is not. Also there is a curious dark edge on the wall where the outer top curve meets it. It could have made some people think that is where the window goes to, following the circular trim. I'm wondering if that is a shadow or an artifact of the live action matte job? But you can see the separation between the inside set and model window gap, where the pilot chair goes past the lip of the wall is where the window should be at. That is where the the side window should connect. Also inside the bridge set the window angles are "implied" by looking at the top edge of the window frames which don't follow the outer circle trim.

I never liked how in 2010 they botched the Discovery design with the wrap around window look. Also the bent inward window profile fits the interior set window shape. I think the front and side windows may be around 90 degrees or so to each other and the windows in between may be at 45 degrees or somewhere in between.


----------



## DG27

stargazer said:


> They did not make 1/2 inch blockboard... 3/4 inch was the thinest they did
> Stargazer


Ian,
Do you happen to recall the dimensions of a 1 x 4 board as used in the mid 1960s? I might be able to do some scaling of one of the sets if I know the exact dimensions. I have an idea, but woulld like confirmation.
Thanks,
Dennis


----------



## stargazer

Hi Dennis can you give me a bit more info....do you mean 1X4 inches ...feet

thickness.....

a 'standard' 'board' was 8ftX4ft 


Ps.Interestingly you mention 2 inch velcro strips in the moonbus.


Ooops Edit ...I screwed up on what I said below I remembered wrong...There are 11 lighter stripes on the carpet but 12 darker 2" velcro strips, making the carpet 24" wide.


Well I had already noted that in the Discovey CM the dark 'carpet' is actualy made of 11 strips of velcro ...and I had the size as 2 inches per strip as well. (also based on boot.) making the carpets 22 inches wide. All the carpets in the CM are 11 strips wide.

stargazer


----------



## heiki

X15-A2 said:


> Where was that shot of the Discovery CM published?
> 
> Steve, I like your crossection work, keep it up.
> 
> heiki, can you email me a copy of the Aurora drawing as well? ([email protected]) Thanks!


Phil,
Could you go ahead and post this Aurora blueprint on your site? Would you also be able to host the rest of the images this came from?

Additionally, does anybody know how to submit this image to the StarShip modeler site for their 2001 pages?

Steve, I will start to send you the other Aurora Blueprint images that are under 10 meg in size. Seems that is the limit for my email account.


----------



## stargazer

use the feedback on the btm. of this page or PM John ( One Zero) and just ask....


http://www.starshipmodeler.net



stargazer


----------



## X15-A2

heiki,

Yes, I can post the drawings on my web site. Can you send them to me via snail-mail on a CD? If so, send me an email and I'll send you my address ([email protected]). Thanks for sharing them with us.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

heiki said:


> Steve, I will start to send you the other Aurora Blueprint images that are under 10 meg in size. Seems that is the limit for my email account.


Thank you... My comcast account accepts 10mb per attachment and my total mailbox size is 250mb. The Yahoo account accepts 10mb (total up to 3 attachments) per e-mail and the total mailbox size can hold up to 1gb.


----------



## DG27

stargazer said:


> Hi Dennis can you give me a bit more info....do you mean 1X4 inches
> 
> stargazer


Yes, I meant "inches" for the crossection dimensions of the wood. Its for the board lumber used for reinforcing of the walls of the sets. I think they used 1x4, 1x3 and possibly 1x2s. Here the nominal dimension of a 1 x 4 board is 3/4 inch x 3 and 1/2 inches.

Also, good observations on the velcro carpet.

Thanks,
Dennis


----------



## DX-SFX

Was this the Discovery window photo you guys were looking for?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfx_films/diswindow.jpg


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> Was this the Discovery window photo you guys were looking for? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfx_films/diswindow.jpg


Yes, I have one here that is lit a little better (yours has better resolution) because the pod rotated around further and illuminated the window gap rear wall more.

http://snmavronis.home.comcast.net/discovery_windows.jpg

I added an poorly edited version of the same shot at the bottom to illustrate something what it should look like. You can see there the model back wall detail goes right to the edge were the interior action is inset. I think they cheated somewhat and clipped the left most 2 window frames a bit at the top with the inset live action to make it look level, hiding the true window pane angles that should bow inward more to connect up to where the the gray wall's top corner meets the ceiling cutout cast in black shadow. Bear in mind that light gray line across the inner gap wall real close to the interior is not a window frame. It is a shadow from another window frame cast on the wall which moves across the surface as the pod light angle changes. Also, here is another case like the Moonbus (your photo is a bit better for this) where the set window frame sill doesn't match the exterior 100%. The set features black window frames with inner white frame struts, separated by a (window line?) curve design in between. The interior black and white set frames are both missing in the exterior view, showing only the model's window frame struts. This is due to their apparent method of removing the filming side of the set to record live action to be later inserted on the model shots.

Because of this, to get back on topic, it may be acceptable if one wants as an option to include the Moonbus set window sill detail in new blueprints or scratchbuilt model. Actually, from inside the Moonbus set looking out the window you may not actually see the external window struts (on the model) since they are indented a bit from the window frame edges! Here is an example cross-section of this option that might work, except the outside window angle is off a little but might be adjustable since I didn't do the sill area to scale in this view:

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/cabin_crossection_sill.jpg

Of course we want to preserve the actual model as shown in the film, and it doesn't have to be done this way at all. But there is a little artistic license available if one desires to represent any interior details that are on the "other side" of the model's external window plane, including a window sill. The design of the filming model is not changed in this way at all since it never actually included an interior.


----------



## stargazer

DG27 said:


> Yes, I meant "inches" for the crossection dimensions of the wood. Its for the board lumber used for reinforcing of the walls of the sets. I think they used 1x4, 1x3 and possibly 1x2s. Here the nominal dimension of a 1 x 4 board is 3/4 inch x 3 and 1/2 inches.
> 
> Also, good observations on the velcro carpet.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dennis


 
Ok we have 'sawn' sizes that are exact.......and as you say nominal (plained)
sizes. But 'sawn' is the size used in construction, and is most likely the stuff you see. so a 4X2 really is 4x2..

Ooops...I screwed up on the carpet remembered wrong... there are 11 light lines that I counted, but there are 12 darker strips of velcro so that would make the 'carpets 24 wide..

stargazer


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Did anyone else notice on the Aurora blueprint, the Moonbus front "walker" has a different design for the center support than the other two? Aurora's final kit was missing this feature, and had all three the same as the rear ones! I wonder if there is a strong possibility the filming model had this same design difference just like the blueprint shows.

Also, take a look at a composite image I composed in Photoshop using the Aurora blueprint:

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moonbus_rear_cross.jpg

I layered in my scaled interior with Phil's computer cross-section. It is interesting how close the hull shapes are between Phil's and Aurora's. Almost the same width and height and the door floor line is the same too! Around the outer hull window openings there is a difference in the measurements as taken from the side vs. the top blueprint drawings. I marked the hull intersection from the top view since that also lowers the window gap as seen from the side view a bit more like on the filming model. This will also fit more closely with the set interior, although the inner windows would have to be raised a bit as well. There would also be room to include recessed interior window sills if one wanted to after drawing in the outer window framing on the Aurora version.

Note - this illustration is intended for comparision purposes only and not meant to suggest definitive Moonbus dimensions.


----------



## ukwookie

Um... where did everybody go?

I've been following this thread with interest and I've learned a lot! There still seems to be quite a few detail parts to identify and some of them don't seem to have cropped up in the thread yet. So... any thoughts on the ribbed details that appear below the Refrigerator Wagon sides, and the 'indicator light' details on either side at the front? The latter look a bit like window frames from Airfix trackside buildings but I don't know if the size would be correct.

Tony M


----------



## X15-A2

We've gotten busy at work so I haven't been able to work on my drawings. I am however buying the kit parts as they become available. :wave:


----------



## ProfKSergeev

I've been keeping my eye open for kit parts, too. Fortunately, a lot of the kits used are still commercially available. Some of the rarer kits, such as the Atomic Cannon and SR-N1 will be difficult to snag, so perhaps someone that already has said kits might see fit to casting and selling resin copies of the parts in question.

By the way, about the "Faller fencing" that Brian Johnston mentioned in the interview: would that be HO or N scale? And has anyone spotted the fencing on the studio model? Also, what are some good sources for the Airfix (now Dapol, I believe) railcars, such as the Prestwin wagon and refrigerator van? My thanks in advance!


----------



## DX-SFX

Do a Google search on Dapol and in addition to Dapol's website coming up, there are many model railway outlets who can supply them.

The Faller fencing is HO and runs all along the side of the Moonbus. Not sure if it was ever available separately but it's certainly one part of their old high rise kit no.B905. The window frames from this kit are also on the rear of the full size space helmets.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

ukwookie said:


> There still seems to be quite a few detail parts to identify and some of them don't seem to have cropped up in the thread yet.


Has anyone else been keeping a list of all the parts mentioned in this thread? I've been maintaining a Word document and been pasting in all the parts info I can find here, along with any images of parts posted. I'm hoping I'm not missing anything. We should compare. Somewhere as a group we should be keeping an online list and making sure it is up to date. Any suggestions on the best way to do this and keep all the info public shared? 

(I hope we never get to the point where anything becomes secretive like with some of the measurements and drawings made directly from the TOS Enterprise model from Star Trek.)


----------



## Richard Compton

Someone could start a wiki?


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Do a Google search on Dapol and in addition to Dapol's website coming up, there are many model railway outlets who can supply them.
> 
> The Faller fencing is HO and runs all along the side of the Moonbus. Not sure if it was ever available separately but it's certainly one part of their old high rise kit no.B905. The window frames from this kit are also on the rear of the full size space helmets.


The Railings are still available in packs of 10 - catalogue No. 180527 (and have been since at least the early '60s, although the Cat. No. was 527 back then). They're also used in cut-down lengths on lots of other Faller kits (like the B-905 you mentioned).

Keith


----------



## ukwookie

DX-SFX said:


> The Faller fencing is HO and runs all along the side of the Moonbus. Not sure if it was ever available separately but it's certainly one part of their old high rise kit no.B905. The window frames from this kit are also on the rear of the full size space helmets.


Is that the high rise kit with the current number180527? 

Also one kit that hasn't been mentioned yet (unless I missed it lol) is the Airfix Bismark. According to the Martin Bower article of a few years back, the blocky detail on the upper hull sided forward of the RCS pods are the turrets from this kit.

Tony M


----------



## ukwookie

ukwookie said:


> Is that the high rise kit with the current number180527?


OK so I'm stupid... the catalog number I meant was 130932!

Tony M


----------



## DX-SFX

Thanks for the clarification Keith.

I mentioned the Airfix 1/600th Bismarck/Tirpitz (essentially the same kit) earlier. Get a Tirpitz if you can. The moulding is slightly sharper for some reason.


----------



## X15-A2

I have been compiling a graphic chart containing the images and descriptions of the various kit pieces with leadlines running to their locations on a photo of the Moonbus. It has gotten a bit "busy" now because their are so many parts which have been identified... (well done everyone!)

I am also keeping a Word file of the kit part sources as provided by the various members here and I suggest that anyone interested in this subject do the same. Just read back through the thread and copy/paste the pertinent parts into Word or some other text software.


----------



## X15-A2

Ask and you shall receive;

*List of Known Kits Used to Detail the 2001 Moonbus*​
*UPC/Lifelike:*

*Honest John * (Detail under Moonbus rear hatch)

*Adams/UPC/Lifelike:*

*Atomic Cannon * (Three-bar detail on lower sidewall, just behind RCS pod and four grill panels above cockpit windows. Also one detail on underside)

*Faller:*

*Model RR Fencing catalog #180527 * (Moonbus upper sidewall trim)

*Airfix:*

*1/72 SR-N1 Hovercraft * (Outer duct top surfaces used on sides of landing feet)
*1/72 Scale Buffalo Amphibious Tank * (Drop down front ramp used on lower aft sidewalls)
*HO/OO Interfrigo Refrigerator RR Boxcar * (Car side, end walls and doors used on lower sidewalls and aft bulkhead)
*HO/OO Grain Carrying Truck * (Prestwin RR car)(dome top used on aft lower sidewall)
*1/600th Tirpitz/Bismarck Battleship * (Turret used on upper sidewall, forward of the RCS pod)
*1/72 B-29 Superfortress * (pressure bulkhead dome used on Moonbus bottom, landing gear struts used for upper centerline antenna mast)
*1/72 Corsair * (bomb halves used on lower sidewalls)
*1/72 Tiger Tank * (bogie wheels mounted along front rim, under cockpit windows)
*HO/OO Scale Any RR Car * (silver "hook" details (door latches?) used 8-in-a-row along top of RCS pod, where the pod meets the fuselage side wall)


----------



## Astrocat

ukwookie said:


> OK so I'm stupid... the catalog number I meant was 130932!
> 
> Tony M


I've just had a look throgh the Faller listings - no, that's not the one. As far as I know, this kit hasn't be re-released since the early '70s (and the later releases had a different top than the earlier ones).
If you search on eBay they come up every so often (usualy built) but you'll be looking at quite a high price to get one.

Keith


----------



## ukwookie

Thanks for that Keith - just saved me £79! Do you have a pic of the correct kit so I know what to look for? (it's the spacesuit helmet connection that's got me interested)...

Tony


----------



## DX-SFX

This is the one I believe.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Faller-H0-B-905-Hochhaus-mit-Mercedesstern-TOP-in-OVP_W0QQitemZ7346478720QQcategoryZ99869QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Steve Mavronis said:


> Also, take a look at a composite image I composed in Photoshop using the Aurora blueprint:
> http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moonbus_rear_cross.jpg
> I layered in my scaled interior with Phil's computer cross-section. It is interesting how close the hull shapes are between Phil's and Aurora's. Almost the same width and height and the door floor line is the same too!


Phil, did you notice this? Your hull line shows very faint in this picture but you see it is not too far off the Aurora development (pre-model) "blueprint" proportions. What do you think? Also, any comments about the front/rear walkers being different?

Steve

Also, thanks for the parts list too!


----------



## X15-A2

Steve,

It looks to me like the only difference between the walkers is that the front one doesn't have the segmented cover plates at the sides/top. It would be impossible to tell if the original was like that or not because the top area is totally hidden inside the recess. We could defer to Aurora and say that they are correct, for lack of any other evidence.

Yes, I saw the comparison. The crossection would be the easiest thing for Aurora to get right because a simple rear view photo would show it clearly. There are things wrong on the Aurora drawing but that is probably not one of them. I may go with their version in the end.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

BTW, does anyone here know if those pictures of the pre-detailed master model are of the large Moonbus or the small one?


----------



## CaptCBoard

There was only one MB model made for the film.

Scott


----------



## stargazer

Some interesting stuff here.......


http://www.2001spacesuit.com/Notes.html

stargazer


----------



## X15-A2

Scott,

Check "The Making of 2001", there is a photo there showing two Moonbus models, one large, one small. That is why I was asking which one we were looking at. I would post it here but I don't have a copy of the photo with me, tomorrow if I can remember to bring it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Is it the photo with Kubrick eyeing an Discovery antenna model? I remember this image showing part of the moonbus model on the floor behind him:

http://pages.prodigy.net/rique/bts-2001-10.jpg


----------



## X15-A2

Thats the one. There is also a Moonbus on the table above it but its easier to see in a larger scan of the image.


----------



## DG27

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, does anyone here know if those pictures of the pre-detailed master model are of the large Moonbus or the small one?


That is the large one. I visited Master Models in March of this year doing some research. They still have the steel surface plate that the model was photographed on. Judging by the size of the surface plate, that photograph of the model is the large one. 
Dennis


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Thats the one. There is also a Moonbus on the table above it but its easier to see in a larger scan of the image.


Someone please post a large scan of this... I never noticed that before. 

Oh, and DG27 - did they have any reference photos or anything else there at Master Models when you visited?


----------



## trevanian

Can't see the need for the smaller one, unless it was a study model or if there is a very tiny one already down at TMA-1 during their approach. I seem to remember seeing a couple of tiny ARIES down there, but not a moonbus. Since the model was mostly used for large format still photos, you'd need something decent sized, and in the shots where there IS perspective change, they are usually close enough that they'd again need a larger miniature.


----------



## X15-A2

We can't see the need for two models because all we can see is the finished film. There was a lot of footage shot for 2001 which was discarded. I will post the larger image tomorrow if no one else does it first.


----------



## stargazer

Here's the picture.

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Kubrick%20dish.jpg

the caption says 'Kubrick eyes a antenna scaled to the 15 ft discovery.....

while Pederson holds a small scale antenna as he works on a early discovery mock up.........'


Why would pederson still be working on an 'early' discovery...(the spine rings can be seen) when the '15 ft' model exits at this time according to the caption.

stargazer


----------



## CaptCBoard

There is a lot of misinformation in books like this, especially one written at the time this one was. What the caption says doesn't make sense, given the facts we 'know'. But, clearly, Pederson is holding a much smaller antenna array, that he and Kubrick must be discussing something pertaining to the array.

As for the object in the photo that seems like a smaller Moonbus model, who knows. It could be a study model. We know different front ends are shown in sketches, this could be a model used to figure out which way to go in that respect. Then again, the photo is really too corrupted by the screen to even tell if it is a MB model. When I first looked at it, I thought it was some sort of box a kit could have come in. But, as has been pointed out before, there really isn't a need for a smaller model. The storyboards for the complete MB segment were on display in Frankfurt last year and there was nothing in the sequence that would have needed a different model. I have a way to get a definitive answer to this question, though, which I will put into motion tomorrow and I'll post the 'who' and 'what he said' when I have the info.

Scott


----------



## trevanian

X15-A2 said:


> We can't see the need for two models because all we can see is the finished film. There was a lot of footage shot for 2001 which was discarded. I will post the larger image tomorrow if no one else does it first.


I waded through more than half a million transcript words on 2001's fx and never saw any mention of that smaller model, plus I've never read anything or talked to anyone about how a smaller model might be used in 2001, so NO, we DO see and know more about the film than is in the final cut. 

That's what makes this of interest, because the smaller model does seem unnecessary. If they were going to try to do somethine like the FORBIDDEN PLANET opening where you dissolve from a larger model to a smaller one to make the flyby last longer, then the smaller model would probably have been MUCH smaller, and again, somebody would have talked about it.


----------



## Trek Ace

The smaller one may have been a study, or "proof of concept" model. Not necessarily meant for screen use.

_*Edit: I posted this before noticing CC's prior post stating the same thing. He already said it.*_


----------



## X15-A2

OK, here it is for the skeptics:










There is a Moonbus on the floor and one on the table, directly above it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

A little off topic but can someone tell me what is the aspect ratio used in the widescreen letterbox version of the 2001: a space odyssey (Stanley kubrick Collection digitally restored and remastered) DVD? I set my PC resolution at 1280x1024 to take some cool screenshots from the movie (ships, interiors, etc.) using PowerDVD and for some reason I'll get captures at 1280x704 and others save at 1280x720. Which is the correct aspect ratio so I'm not analyzing a distorted image? Now on all of them there is a small black bar at the top and bottom that is not part of the film as far as I know, so please take that into account. I have a few shots to post for you but I want it to be the right aspect ratio before I do.


----------



## DX-SFX

Here's a treated version in Photoshop. If it is a smaller Moonbus, it doesn't match the larger one very well.










BTW that box with "AI" on it is probably from AIrfix.


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Here's a treated version in Photoshop. If it is a smaller Moonbus, it doesn't match the larger one very well.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW that box with "AI" on it is probably from AIrfix.


Just to add my two cents, I don't think it's a Moonbus either, or if it is, then it's a study model that looks quite different, as has been mentioned....
I've re-scaled the small 'thing' to match the Moonbus on the floor, and flipped it horizontally to compare them better. Notice the foot recess size.
It could of course just be a random placing of several items, that contrive to look like a model.

One thing that does interest me though is the missing engine bell on the Moonbus miniature. I'm assuming this photo was taken during it's 'refit'.

Keith


----------



## Richard Compton

Is Kubrick's fly open?


----------



## X15-A2

As far as how well the two models seen here match details, reference CaptCBoard' comments about how the various scale model don't match each other very well. The photo is too blurry to make any definitive comments about what we are seeing but it looks to me like the only real difference between the two is that the small one appears to be missing part of the side wall around the point where the rear walker is attached. Or that area has been painted black.


----------



## Astrocat

stargazer said:


> Here's the picture.
> 
> http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Kubrick%20dish.jpg
> 
> the caption says 'Kubrick eyes a antenna scaled to the 15 ft discovery.....
> 
> while Pederson holds a small scale antenna as he works on a early discovery mock up.........'
> 
> 
> Why would pederson still be working on an 'early' discovery...(the spine rings can be seen) when the '15 ft' model exits at this time according to the caption.
> 
> stargazer


One of the things with publicity stills, is they're usualy staged to some degree. The stills photographer would have been following Kubrick around a tour of the modelshop, where he's picked up the antenna model to look at - one that Con Pederson was probably working on just a couple of minutes earlier - and the photographer wants to take a shot, but Con Pederson is now standing with nothing to do... so he's asked to pick something up to look as if he's busy - the early mock up model, used as a guide to the finished antenna, is as handy as anything. 
(At least, that's how I read the picture).

But to get back to the 'small Moonbus', it may well be one of those early study models (it's difficult to tell) but as far as the finished miniatures are concerned, Master Models only made one Moonbus model, and only one model has been talked about as far as detailing-up for filming. All the shots of finished models for the film are of the same one. So I think as far as research is concerned it's safe to assume there is only one source to follow.

Keith


----------



## scotpens

Richard Compton said:


> Is Kubrick's fly open?


It's from his never-produced sequel to "Eyes Wide Shut" -- "Your Fly's Wide Open"!


----------



## stargazer

X15-A2 said:


> to be missing part of the side wall around the point where the rear walker is attached. Or that area has been painted black.


I am convinced by the thumbnail comparison that it is indeed a moon bus.....but my impression of the 'black' area is of something on the bench in front of the model

stargazer


----------



## Steve Mavronis

It could be a cardboard or styrofoam concept model. Remember, they had ones like that for the early Discovery concept.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Okay, here is another moonbus cross-section I drew up. It is based on the Aurora Moonbus but I drew it 2 times normal size of the model to help work out the interior in more detail. I drew the exterior window gap the best I can estimate since I don't have any solid measurements width-wise except for the vertical proportions from stills.

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/aurora_mb_section.jpg

I have a problem maybe someone can help me out with. I have too much window space betwen the interior and exterior. Well, either I can stretch the interior sideways to fit, or have a fudged window sill gap to approximate the set window sill design. Another option is to see it placed inside Phil's 3D model profile which is probably more accurate than the Aurora kit. Or the floor could be lowered to be below the door level which would scale up the interior. But that may cause problems with the lower locker/cockpit floors. The later has to leave room for the forward landing gear well. What do you think should happen?


----------



## DG27

Steve Mavronis said:


> I have a problem maybe someone can help me out with. I have too much window space betwen the interior and exterior. Well, either I can stretch the interior sideways to fit, or have a fudged window sill gap to approximate the set window sill design. Another option is to see it placed inside Phil's 3D model profile which is probably more accurate than the Aurora kit. Or the floor could be lowered to be below the door level which would scale up the interior. But that may cause problems with the lower locker/cockpit floors. The later has to leave room for the forward landing gear well. What do you think should happen?


Steve,
This looks good. I don’t think of having a sill gap as being “fudged” as it is part of the interior set. I believe they developed a Moonbus design, which was used to build a full size interior set and scaled to build the moonbus exterior model. The gap is part of the design, although it only appears in the interior images as discussed previously. They would not have built two different designs, as that is a waist of time. It looks as though the sill gap on your drawing has parallel sides as opposed to a trapezoidal shape. What did you use to determine the angle of the gap’s interior side and exterior side? 
Dennis


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> It looks as though the sill gap on your drawing has parallel sides as opposed to a trapezoidal shape. What did you use to determine the angle of the gap’s interior side and exterior side?


I measured the interior upper wall angles from multiple screen captures with a protractor and it averages to be set most likely at 60 degrees. The exterior hull angle is up to debate since the filming model no longer exists, but on the Aurora model it is set at 40 degrees. So there is a 20 degree angle of separation between them on my drawing. The interior set as depicted on my drawing is based on proportional measurements from screenshots I made from the DVD. I'm not quite sure how deep in the hull window gap goes. At the angle the Moonbus side is shown I measured the top goes inward about 1/2 distance proportional to the height. I think I'm close on my drawing. It depends on the thickness and position of the window struts too, which I arbitrarily set (to be in between the 2 angles mentioned above) to a 75 degree angle to look right. I'm curious to see Phil's computer rendering of this area which should almost be dead on since he traced over the filming model photos from multiple angles to zero it in with his software.

For comparision, here is Phil's cross-section with my new interior drawing scaled to fit. The window sill fits almost perfect here depth-wise:

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/cabin_crossection_inside.jpg


----------



## CaptCBoard

The question of a smaller Moonbus model can now be resolved. I have been in contact with David Larsen, who is currently working on a very extensive book on the FX of 2001. He has collected a vast number of unpublished photos from the production, from people who were there, including Douglas Trumbull, Con Pedersen, Fred Ordway and many others.

He says two very interesting things. First, he has a photo of a woman sitting at a desk, presumably the production office, and there is a model of the MB about 12 inches long on the desk beside her. It has a different front end, so this is probably the model seen in the photo behind Kubrick.

Secondly, he has an inventory of the models made at the end of production because all the models were supposed to go to a museum in either Washington D.C. or New York. It lists only one MB model, but it lists 2 models of the EVA Pod! The second Pod is in scale with the small Discovery model!

He also has a photo of the Discovery mockup that Con Pedersen was working on that is small enough to match the antenna array seen in the photo with Kubrick looking at the larger one.

This book David is working on is quite extensive. Starting about 5 years ago, he has interviewed literally everyone who worked on the film that was still around (and some have since departed...). He was even invited to the Kubrick estate and interviewed Kubrick's wife and Jan Harlan. I have seen quite a few of the photos he has and I have to say he has stuff that will knock your socks off, when the book is published. He has allowed me to put a few on my site over the past few years (like the color shot of the Pod interior that verifys the walls were painted with a red tint), but there will be some in the book that will make it worth whatever the price is!

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## stargazer

"but it lists 2 models of the EVA Pod! The second Pod is in scale with the small Discovery model!"

does he give a size for this pod??

stargazer


----------



## Trek Ace

That is excellent news, Scott!

Any timeline as to when the book is slated to be published?


----------



## Richard Compton

Sounds like it will be a great book. You wouldn't know what he might do with his source material (notes, interviews, photos), would you? They should go to an archive somewhere if possible.


----------



## heiki

CaptCBoard said:


> .......
> 
> Secondly, he has an inventory of the models made at the end of production because all the models were supposed to go to a museum in either Washington D.C. or New York......
> Scott
> [email protected]


By any chance, did anything go to this museum and what is the name of it? Have we a contact there?


----------



## DG27

heiki said:


> By any chance, did anything go to this museum and what is the name of it? Have we a contact there?


The Museum never got past the planning stage and the models were never actually sent. Which is unfortunate.
Dennis


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I'm working on a scale interior set drawing showing the forward cabin bulkhead and aft view cabin cross-section. This should be as close as you can get so far to actual set plans, unless someone is hiding them from us. I made measurements partly from a screen grab where Dr. Michaels is getting coffee at the front bulkhead. Based on a 20" wide center walkway (which measures 9" deep) the floor to ceiling height appears to be 6' so I'm assuming that for proportional scaling. 

See later post below for the scanned image link.


----------



## Philster

Steve Mavronis said:


> I'm working on a scale interior set drawing showing the forward cabin bulkhead and aft view cabin cross-section. This should be as close as you can get so far to actual set plans, unless someone is hiding them from us.
> 
> 
> Steve, don't forget an often missed interior feature: The forward ends of both (Port / Starboard) cargo risers are angled or sloped ~30 or 40 degrees. This can be seen on the DVD ... watch the astronut's feet when he goes forward to snag the lunch bucket. Both Aurora and MIM missed this.
> 
> Feature is Also visable when the camera looks down through the front windows of the Moonbus.. Just behind the pilots.
> Philster


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Philster said:


> Steve, don't forget an often missed interior feature: The forward ends of both (Port / Starboard) cargo risers are angled or sloped ~30 or 40 degrees.


Yes, I took that into account when measuring for the cabin height. I followed the riser angle to where it should meet the bulkhead. I haven't drawn a top view or side view yet because the side section lengths are not known as far as I know. I know the proportions relative to each other, just not the actual side-view lengths.


----------



## DG27

Steve Mavronis said:


> Based on a 20" wide center walkway (which measures 9" deep) the floor to ceiling height appears to be 6' so I'm assuming that for proportional scaling.
> QUOTE]
> 
> The spacesuit boots measure 11 inches from sole to the top of the leg ring, so I don't know if that helps in refining the depth of the walkway.
> 
> I have a complete 35mm anamorphic film of 2001 which I occasionally cut frames from for scanning. I am planning to post some of the moonbus scenes if I can accurately determine the expansion ratio for the squeezed anamorphic images. (Anyone got any ideas at the ratio?) They should be cleared than DVD images. These might help in determining some of the details of the moonbus. Unfortunately I don't have a good selection of 65mm frames of the moonbus which are much clearer.
> Dennis


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> The spacesuit boots measure 11 inches from sole to the top of the leg ring, so I don't know if that helps in refining the depth of the walkway.


Thanks Dennis. The depth of my walkway is set at 9" for the moment. I'll check it against the boot height. I wanted to refine this drawing more and add labeling of the dimensions but it is late and I'm tired. I'll have to refine and add on to it as I learn more details. 

The 2 cabin reconstructions represented here are based on a 6' ceiling height. In my drawing that is from the faint floor level pencil line to the faint ceiling level pencil line, not including the indented ribbed floor strips or the ceiling light recessed panels. Those thicknesses are exagerated a bit just to illustrate where I think they are placed.

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moonbus_cabin_set.jpg

The top of the window frame has a weird offset angle to it. It is hard to show it clearly it at the size I drew. I'll have to add zoomed in detail boxes for those tiny tidbits like that. I didn't draw the outer window sill yet at this time. It would be nice to get scale dimensions for those seats too. I'm also trying to figure out the rear wall which have small white vents on them but the view is obstructed.

Sorry the 2 cross-sections are spaced far apart but when I started at first I was planning to add the Moonbus outer hull around them.


----------



## MGagen

DG27 said:


> I have a complete 35mm anamorphic film of 2001 which I occasionally cut frames from for scanning. I am planning to post some of the moonbus scenes if I can accurately determine the expansion ratio for the squeezed anamorphic images. (Anyone got any ideas at the ratio?)


Perhaps I can help you out if you post some large scans of frames featuring closeups of the whole Discovery command module and other spherical subjects. It should be fairly easy to work out the ratio to restore them to round. Don't include Jupiter, however, as it is actually an oblate spheroid. Knowing Kubrick's attention to detail, they probably depicted it accurately.

Mark


----------



## BEBruns

DG27 said:


> I have a complete 35mm anamorphic film of 2001 which I occasionally cut frames from for scanning. I am planning to post some of the moonbus scenes if I can accurately determine the expansion ratio for the squeezed anamorphic images. (Anyone got any ideas at the ratio?)


Just double the width of the image. All the standard anamorphic 35mm processes used a 2:1 squeeze.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Dennis-

Do a screen capture from the DVD. Pick a frame similar to one you are clipping from the print. 

Scan the film frame at a very high (2400) resolution and open both the frame and screen capture in Photoshop. Convert the screen capture to the same resolution as the clip (both size and resolution). Copy the clip and paste it over the screen capture. What you now have is two nearly identical frames that should be the same height, but different widths. Change the horizontal scale of the clip until it matches the length of the screen capture and nudge the height to match if necessary. If you choose a scene where the camera never moves, like some of the scenes in the Pod bay, you can change the transparency of the clip and tweak it until everything lines up. Once you have done this, create a box in an independent layer that is the outline of the 'adjusted' clip. Use that box for all subsequent resizings.

The aspect ratio of the DVD is 2.20:1. I think the film was done at 2.35:1 and masked to 2.20. This is why it is better to align the clip to an existing, stretched frame than to rely on doing it mathematically.

Scott


----------



## BEBruns

CaptCBoard said:


> The aspect ratio of the DVD is 2.20:1. I think the film was done at 2.35:1 and masked to 2.20. This is why it is better to align the clip to an existing, stretched frame than to rely on doing it mathematically.


Actually, the image on the original film negative (65mm) is 2.20:1. When 70mm prints are made, the magnetic soundtracks mask it down to 2.05:1. When 35mm prints are made the full negative width is used and the top and bottom are cropped to make it 2.35:1. Now the question is, was the DVD mastered from a 70mm or 35mm print. If it's 35mm, then the image is cropped on all four sides. 

Trust me, just double the width of the image. I'll bet it will match the DVD image.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I had posted a question a page or two back no one answered as to why when I make a DVD screen capture sometimes does them at two different sizes: 1280x704 or 1280x720. Which is correct?


----------



## BEBruns

Steve Mavronis said:


> I had posted a question a page or two back no one answered as to why when I make a DVD screen capture sometimes does them at two different sizes: 1280x704 or 1280x720. Which is correct?


1280 X 720 is correct for an anamorphic image. The DVD image is actually 480 X 720 (1.5:1). For anamorphic transfers, this is stretched out to 1.78:1. For non-anamorphic transfers, it reduces the width to 1.33:1. Assuming that your program is using 1280 as a standard width, the other size should be 1280 x 960. Are you cropping the picture to get rid of the black bars?


----------



## DG27

Steve Mavronis said:


> The depth of my walkway is set at 9" for the moment. I'll check it against the boot height. I wanted to refine this drawing more and add labeling of the dimensions but it is late and I'm tired. I'll have to refine and add on to it as I learn more details.
> 
> The 2 cabin reconstructions represented here are based on a 6' ceiling height. In my drawing that is from the faint floor level pencil line to the faint ceiling level pencil line, not including the indented ribbed floor strips or the ceiling light recessed panels. Those thicknesses are exagerated a bit just to illustrate where I think they are placed.


Steve, 
Looks good. I have been working a similar excersize. Although I still have not determined, with confidence, the number of stripes on the raised floor sections. My first count was 11, now I have it at 12, but I think you used 13. Were you actually able to count 13 stripes in an image? 
Dennis


----------



## Steve Mavronis

BEBruns said:


> 1280 X 720 is correct for an anamorphic image. The DVD image is actually 480 X 720 (1.5:1). For anamorphic transfers, this is stretched out to 1.78:1. For non-anamorphic transfers, it reduces the width to 1.33:1. Assuming that your program is using 1280 as a standard width, the other size should be 1280 x 960. Are you cropping the picture to get rid of the black bars?


No the black bars at the top and bottom are still there. What I do is set my PC screen resolution to 1280x1024 and play the DVD full screen in the PowerDVD player. Then I take screen captures of what I want. So you are saying 1280x720 is correct or not with the black bars? I don't want to take measurements from an image if it is distorted vertically.


----------



## DG27

BEBruns said:


> Actually, the image on the original film negative (65mm) is 2.20:1. When 70mm prints are made, the magnetic soundtracks mask it down to 2.05:1. When 35mm prints are made the full negative width is used and the top and bottom are cropped to make it 2.35:1. Now the question is, was the DVD mastered from a 70mm or 35mm print. If it's 35mm, then the image is cropped on all four sides.
> 
> Trust me, just double the width of the image. I'll bet it will match the DVD image.


I had already done some at double width and they looked fine, although I had no reference to actually measure them. I thought there was probably a standard ratio for the theater projector optics. Scott and I talked about his method, the only problem is I need to find the exact image in 35 and 65 formats, and really haven't had the time yet. Out of curosity I will try both methods and compare.
Thanks for the help.
Dennis


----------



## BEBruns

Steve Mavronis said:


> No the black bars at the top and bottom are still there. What I do is set my PC screen resolution to 1280x1024 and play the DVD full screen in the PowerDVD player. Then I take screen captures of what I want. So you are saying 1280x720 is correct or not with the black bars? I don't want to take measurements from an image if it is distorted vertically.


This gets a little complicated. 1280X720 is a ratio of 1.7777777... or 16:9 which is standard for widescreen television. Most movies are actually wider, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 are the most common. So when you are playing a movie, there are actually two sets of black bars. The bars created from fitting a 1.78 image into your screen's 1.33 ratio and the black bars that are part of the image, caused by imposing a 1.85 or 2.35 image onto the 1.78 image. If you are capturing a full, widescreen image being displayed at full screen, it should be 720 X 1280. 

Something that may complicate that is the fact that 1280x1024 is actually a ratio of 1.25:1. This could be distorting the image. 

Maybe you should try capturing the images at non-fullscreen display and see what figures you get there.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DG27 said:


> Were you actually able to count 13 stripes in an image?


I drew perspective lines over an image and determined where the side walls might touch the risers. Then I spaced out the floor stripes based on a few next to the center walkway and came up with 13 going across to the walls. This could be a tricky one. Hopefully when I projected the vertical wall lines down to the floor they don't bow inward too much due to any lens distortion. If there are really 13 on the risers then the lower side walls are 72" or 6 feet apart. I also went frame by frame as the helmeted astronaut walks to the back and looked at where the seat legs touch the riser floor. One leg rests on the 2nd dark stripe. I can't really tell cause its blurry there but the chair legs seem to have either 2 or 3 dark stripes in between. But I can't see where the leg rests closest to the wall. At first I thought it would be on another dark stripe but may or may not. If we can find out the leg spacing on the real chair that may be of help.

Also, this is where my screen capture size ratio question comes into play. I will need to re-evaluate my proportion measurements (in the vertical direction) if I was going off of a distorted screen capture! 

*BEBruns* - Can you tell me the ratio for the 2001 DVD without black bars at all? With them gone if the image is 1280 wide what is the true film/DVD frame height? Then I can take the image into Photoshop, crop out the black bars, and resize it to the correct proportion (2.2 or 2.35 wide by 1 high ratio?) by knowing that info right? I'm confused about the 65mm vs. 70mm vs magnetic track changing the actual viewable image ratio. Are you saying depending on the source media the viewable image ratio changes as if it were cropped losing part of the original raw image? 

*Compare these two DVD image captures of the Discovery cockpit dashboard; pdvd_278 at 1280x704 and pdvd_279 at 1280x720. Which one shows the correct proportions:*

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/pdvd_278.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/pdvd_279.jpg


----------



## Richard Compton

By eye, 279 looks better.

By the way, since you posted those pictures, I hope no one minds my OT question. I know those screens are rear projected with 16mm projectors, but how many might be used in this shot here? 2? Also, is there anything to gleam from the uneven light falloff on the readouts? What's causing that?


----------



## stargazer

Find a close up of Hal 's 'eye' lens in the movie and get it perfectly circular by counting pixels

then you will be set up. 

stargazer

Ah...... just spotted Mark said the same thing on previous page.......


----------



## BEBruns

Steve Mavronis said:


> *BEBruns* - Can you tell me the ratio for the 2001 DVD without black bars at all? With them gone if the image is 1280 wide what is the true film/DVD frame height? Then I can take the image into Photoshop, crop out the black bars, and resize it to the correct proportion (2.2 or 2.35 wide by 1 high ratio?) by knowing that info right? I'm confused about the 65mm vs. 70mm vs magnetic track changing the actual viewable image ratio. Are you saying depending on the source media the viewable image ratio changes as if it were cropped losing part of the original raw image?


Yes, in theatrical presentations, you never get the full recorded image. 70mm negative is actually 65mm wide. The full image recorded is 2.20:1. When prints are made (at least this is how it was done in the '60s), it is printed on 70mm stock. The extra 5mm are outside the sprocket holes and are used for the magnetic soundtrack. Additional magnetic material is applied inside the sprocket holes which masks the sides of the picture. When 35mm prints are made, the original 2.20 image is cropped at the top and bottom to make it 2.35 and it is squeezed to the smaller stock's narrower image. 

As for the DVD transfer, there are just too many variables to give an accurate answer. If the image is 2.20, they may have taken it directly from the 70mm or they may have used a 35mm print or negative and cropped the edges to make it match the 70mm proportions. Plus, there is usually some slight cropping all around in video transfers (as there would be in a theatrical presentation). 

If you are doing a full screen (black bars included) frame grab, the proportions should be 720 x 1280. I think what may be happening is that since neither the DVD image or your computer screen are using "square" pixels, the program is doing the best it can to make it fit. Try setting your screen at 960 x 1280 and see if you get the same sort of inconsistencies. Remember, the differnce between 720 and 704 is less than 1%.

EDIT: OK. It's too early my brain isn't fully functional. The difference between 720 and 704 is actually 2.22222..% Still small enough to be an artifact of your program trying to fit slightly rectangular pixels into other slightly rectangular pixels.


----------



## MGagen

stargazer said:


> Find a close up of Hal 's 'eye' lens in the movie and get it perfectly circular by counting pixels
> 
> then you will be set up.
> 
> stargazer
> 
> Ah...... just spotted Mark said the same thing on previous page.......


Actually, I advocated using a _spherical_ object, like the Discovery Command Module. A sphere would present a circular profile from any angle viewed. HAL's eye, being a disk, would be eliptical from any but a perfectly straight on vantage point.

Mark


----------



## BEBruns

This site whould help explain the different aspect ratios and the problems with using the DVD transfer as a guide. The site as a whole will tell you more than you'd ever want to know about various widescreen processes, color, and sound.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

The 2001 DVD that I have says its a widescreen version presented in a letterbox widescreen format preserving the "scope" aspect ratio on it's original theatrical exhibition. Also, this is not the original DVD release that people complained of image quality issues. Mine says it features the new 2000 digital master from restored elements, and is digitally restored and remastered. It also has a widescreen aspect ration of 2.20:1 according to this DVD review page of it: http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=460

Edit: I'm taking more fullscreen grabs and all are 1280x720. Maybe I was having a 1280x704 problem before because I was doing some zoom changes in between so maybe it was affecting some captures to be wrong sized, who knows!


----------



## BEBruns

I don't think there is a definitive answer. Make sure the screen grab is 720 x 1280 and crop it to remove the black bars. The image ratio should be around 2.20:1. The exact pixel count for the height for that ratio and based on the 1280 width would be 581.818181.... So allowing for the margin of error in the video transfer, in the expansion to full screen, etc, I'd say anything in 580 area is correct.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks. I'll stick with 1280x720 and not worry about the black bars since the filmed image is the correct aspect ratio based on our conversations. Now I'm off to re-calculate my measurements of the Moonbus set once again to get a more correct proportional sizing of it as I re-draw it again. I'm also studying the outer window frame & sill structure too. Hopefully I can diagram it properly this time around 

Edit - Good news is that my original proportion/measurement study was using captures done at 960x540 which is the same ratio as 1280x720, whew! BTW, has anyone identified the seats used in the moonbus? Where did they come from - make and year? BTW it appears each leg rests on a dark floor stripe, with 2 dark stripes in between the legs and is offset closer to the center walkway and positioned about 4" from the side wall.

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moonbus_cabin_set.jpg

I re-uploaded my interior set drawing above. I added the window sill as depicted in the movie. I know it doesn't fit the model hull contour but I included it for what it is worth. I think the set designers were simulating a window at the outer position between the 3 grooves. In the scene with Dr. Floyd talking there seems to be window glare or something in the upper part of his window (on my DVD) at that position and background stars do pass through it as if it is translucent. Special effects trick or glass?

I need to redo this drawing larger to show details clearer. It is drawn at a scale where 0.4583" = 1' (don't ask LOL) or double the size to fit the Aurora model. That would make the Aurora Moonbus around 42.9' long. I need to redo the interior set drawing to more like 1" = 1' on paper to get little details exactly right!


----------



## DX-SFX

Have we got the exterior established so we can make this interior fit?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> Have we got the exterior established so we can make this interior fit?


It will fit after adjusting the set's version of the window sill outer angle and opening size to match the filming model window exterior design. I think the set's 45 degree outer window edge will have to be adjusted to be parallel with the inner window opening though, which is at a 60 degree angle. On the Aurora Moonbus at least, the outer hull angle is set at 40 degrees so that (only 5 degree separation) is not enough to match the movie model window slot cross-section angle. A 60 degree inner to 40 degree outer angle of separation looks about right there. I wanted to examine Phil's (X15-A2) computer rendered angles on this but he hasn't replied to my e-mail request at this time. 

As far as length-wise, I need to know the window separation spacing of the filming model, but for now I can draw a side view based on the Aurora version to fit that because that is all I have to go on dimension-wise. For the real thing all that has to be done is stretch it to fit the window spacing when that is established.

Also, I now believe the window glass on the set was intended to be at the 45 degree outer window frame. The evidence for this are the obvious window grooves at the 45 degree angle and if you notice at the side view shot of Dr. Floyd showing behind his chair; you can see the wall padding wraps above and over the lower window sill and goes in at least and/or past the inner window frame opening before the ribbed window sill deck starts as seen from other viewing angles. The padding is in the way for glass to be there.

FYI - In the official movie script the Moonbus is actualled called the "Moon Rocket Bus" which is what we should probably be calling it on blueprints when they finally get done by Phil. On the Space Station, the female Russian scientist mentions to Dr. Floyd, "one of our rocket bus's was denied an emergency landing."


----------



## DX-SFX

Steve Mavronis said:


> In the official movie script the Moonbus is actualled called the "Moon Rocket Bus" which is what we should probably be calling it on blueprints when they finally get done by Phil. On the Space Station, the female Russian scientist mentions to Dr. Floyd, "one of our rocket bus's was denied an emergency landing."


I'm glad I'm not the only one who clocked that. In the film, they never use the name "Moonbus" at all, only a "rocket bus" as you mentioned.


----------



## Samos 3

Too bad thats the correct name. Rocket Bus sounds stupid.


----------



## trevanian

Like 'bullet train?'


----------



## Steve Mavronis

It's called "Moon Rocket Bus" as labeled on the actual instrument panel blueprint. There is a photo taken of it on the 2001 Exhibit site from one of the events held.


----------



## DX-SFX

If it's refered to as Moon Rocket Bus in the script, it seems logical that the art department drawings would reflect this. To be fair, in the novel it's only refered to as the bus and it drives to the site of the monolith. Presumably "rocket" was added to the name when the decision to make it fly happened.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Found something new relating to the 2001 movie production while doing Google searches on the people listed in the movie credits. Check out The Roy Carnon site at http://www.roycarnon.com/ he did various concept paintings for the movie that I've never seen before. Nice Space Station concepts!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I have a question about unidentified parts to help get back on topic. I want to know if anyone has figured out what the black parts (not the lower grills) on the back of the MB at the outside corners where the railing fenders are? I believe they represent some sort of maneuvering thrusters. You can see exhaust residue around them. It would be nice if someone could guess what model kit part was used to figure out what shape it is.


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> I have a question about unidentified parts to help get back on topic. I want to know if anyone has figured out what the black parts (not the lower grills) on the back of the MB at the outside corners where the railing fenders are? I believe they represent some sort of maneuvering thrusters. You can see exhaust residue around them. It would be nice if someone could guess what model kit part was used to figure out what shape it is.


I have always assumed that they ARE just what they seem to be - manouvering thrusters, just like the ones on the RCS pods, and would have been fabricated by Master Models when they built the basic Bus shell. I don't think they're kit parts. Shape wise, they seem to be the same as the top/side thruster openings.

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> I have always assumed that they ARE just what they seem to be - manouvering thrusters, just like the ones on the RCS pods, and would have been fabricated by Master Models when they built the basic Bus shell. I don't think they're kit parts. Shape wise, they seem to be the same as the top/side thruster openings.


Very interesting. Maybe I'm overthinking the shape. It could be what you propose. The inner side shape has a funny bump or blob that made me imagine a 3D shape. But it could be a trick of the mind like when looking at shadows or clouds where you imagine more than is actually there!

On the other end of the Moonbus I was drawing the outer cockpit shape last night. The Aurora kit has the bottom black window cutout represented as a flat surface all the way across. But the bottom window frame and instrument panel curve out and down towards the nose making the windows taller at the front than at the sides. Do you think the movie Moonbus is like that too, or are the cockpit window top and bottom edges parallel to each other with the bottom black window deck not flat and curving around the outer corners for the geometry to work?


----------



## Martin Dressler

Steve Mavronis said:


> Found something new relating to the 2001 movie production while doing Google searches on the people listed in the movie credits. Check out The Roy Carnon site at http://www.roycarnon.com/ he did various concept paintings for the movie that I've never seen before. Nice Space Station concepts!


Wow.

Thanx for posting.

If prank or forgery, shame on you; if not, Bravo & well done. 

Extraordinary.


----------



## stargazer

Martin Dressler said:


> Wow.
> 
> Thanx for posting.
> 
> If prank or forgery, shame on you; if not, Bravo & well done.
> 
> Extraordinary.


It is real.......... I have some renditions by the same artist showing different views to those here. I'll see if I can dig them out.........

stargazer


----------



## Steve Mavronis

> It is real.......... I have some renditions by the same artist showing different views to those here. I'll see if I can dig them out.


The artist also created a cool Moonbus puzzle! I'll see if I can't post an image of it later today.. For now check out more of Roy Carnon's 2001 artwork done for the film displayed here: http://www.2001exhibit.org/arts/roy.html


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> Very interesting. Maybe I'm overthinking the shape. It could be what you propose. The inner side shape has a funny bump or blob that made me imagine a 3D shape. But it could be a trick of the mind like when looking at shadows or clouds where you imagine more than is actually there!
> 
> On the other end of the Moonbus I was drawing the outer cockpit shape last night. The Aurora kit has the bottom black window cutout represented as a flat surface all the way across. But the bottom window frame and instrument panel curve out and down towards the nose making the windows taller at the front than at the sides. Do you think the movie Moonbus is like that too, or are the cockpit window top and bottom edges parallel to each other with the bottom black window deck not flat and curving around the outer corners for the geometry to work?


Yes, I can see the blob you mentioned, but I take that as overspill of the black paint. The grill part below (still not sure what it's from..) looks equaly distorted on it's lower half because of the paint, even though the bit has straight edges.

The cocpit windows are parallel top and bottom, with the 'anti-glare' section curved around the sides - another bit where Aurora got the shape wrong!

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> Yes, I can see the blob you mentioned, but I take that as overspill of the black paint. The grill part below (still not sure what it's from..) looks equaly distorted on it's lower half because of the paint, even though the bit has straight edges. The cockpit windows are parallel top and bottom, with the 'anti-glare' section curved around the sides - another bit where Aurora got the shape wrong!


Yeah, the funny thing about Aurora is that on their model kit development drawings (posted earlier) they had the windows parallel just like you say, but on their finished model they made the anti-glare area flat instead of curved!

That and other details makes me think that their development drawings were more accurate to the 2001 film model than their final kit. I wish we could get our hands on the "reference photos" the Aurora drawing calls out. We can't tell "yet" if their drawing was based off of actual measurements taken or just an interpretation of the photos they used. They are out there somewhere. We just have to beg and pray the person(s) who have them make them public for us to reference as well! 

Also, the dimensions labeled on the drawing are a bit bigger than the final kit is. Could the dimensions on the drawing possibly be scaled 1/3 the size of the 2001 film model?

Another thing about the Aurora kit I've discovered is that the slope of the nose is at the same 40 degree angle as the sloping sides. I checked the Aurora development drawing and the sloping sides there do not "wrap around" the front at the same angle. The nose looks less stubby there than on their final kit. Maybe they "dumbed it down" slightly to make the Aurora kit easier to manufacture?


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> Yeah, the funny thing about Aurora is that on their model kit development drawings (posted earlier) they had the windows parallel just like you say, but on their finished model they made the anti-glare area flat instead of curved!
> 
> That and other details makes me think that their development drawings were more accurate to the 2001 film model than their final kit. I wish we could get our hands on the "reference photos" the Aurora drawing calls out. We can't tell "yet" if their drawing was based off of actual measurements taken or just an interpretation of the photos they used. They are out there somewhere. We just have to beg and pray the person(s) who have them make them public for us to reference as well!
> 
> Also, the dimensions labeled on the drawing are a bit bigger than the final kit is. Could the dimensions on the drawing possibly be scaled 1/3 the size of the 2001 film model?
> 
> Another thing about the Aurora kit I've discovered is that the slope of the nose is at the same 40 degree angle as the sloping sides. I checked the Aurora development drawing and the sloping sides there do not "wrap around" the front at the same angle. The nose looks less stubby there than on their final kit. Maybe they "dumbed it down" slightly to make the Aurora kit easier to manufacture?


 The Aurora drawings do seem closer to the filming miniature than the finished kit, but they're still not right.... I don't think there was any deliberate effort to dumb down - the kit as it was produced would be no easier to make than an accurate one - I just think that the pattern maker (and indeed the company) wasn't all that concerned with getting it spot on! It's the same with most of Aurora's kits, they are 'representations' rather than SCALE models (even their 'real hardware' kits were off...) 
For an accurate shape, I'd go with Phil's CG model - it looks pretty good to me.

If only we could get hold of all the reference photos, as you say. I assume that Aurora were supplied with a set of the stills Brian Johnson took, for the animation cut-outs, just lots of different angles and lighting variations. I doubt they had measurements, or indeed profile shots, so they would be doing much the same as we're doing here, trying to work out the shape (only under a deadline..).
Some of the photos from the Aurora archive are already 'out there' of course - the so called 'alternate lighting' shots of the side and front (much the same views as appear in the film) but there are more we haven't seen. As far as I can gather, Monogram aquired the old Aurora photo archive, which I think was then merged with or taken over by Revell, but who has the photos now I don't know....

....Can but dream...

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> If only we could get hold of all the reference photos, as you say. I assume that Aurora were supplied with a set of the stills Brian Johnson took, for the animation cut-outs, just lots of different angles and lighting variations. I doubt they had measurements, or indeed profile shots, so they would be doing much the same as we're doing here, trying to work out the shape (only under a deadline..).
> Some of the photos from the Aurora archive are already 'out there' of course - the so called 'alternate lighting' shots of the side and front (much the same views as appear in the film) but there are more we haven't seen.


I have one alternate lighting photo. Do you have any others or do you know how many different such shots are "out there"?


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> I have one alternate lighting photo. Do you have any others or do you know how many different such shots are "out there"?


Which one have you got Steve? - I've got both the side 3/4 and front 3/4. I can send you the one you've not got. As for the others, I don't know just how many there are, but I've been told "there are more" by someone who has seen them (and who gave me these two shots). He sais there's a nice shot of the underside, that I'm REALLY keen to get hold of! 
I know from another source that there's an almost dead-on rear shot that exists in a private collection, although I don't know if this is one of the lighting shots or a 'workshop bench' photo.

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> Which one have you got Steve? - I've got both the side 3/4 and front 3/4. I can send you the one you've not got. As for the others, I don't know just how many there are, but I've been told "there are more" by someone who has seen them (and who gave me these two shots). He sais there's a nice shot of the underside, that I'm REALLY keen to get hold of! I know from another source that there's an almost dead-on rear shot that exists in a private collection, although I don't know if this is one of the lighting shots or a 'workshop bench' photo.


Actually I looked and have two of them:

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/studio_20mb.jpg

http://photonlasertag.home.comcast.net/moonbus/moonbus_alt_view.jpg

Somehow we need to get copies of all these that exist, even the two I just linked if they are of higher resolution. I'm thinking about putting up an online photo album (Bravenet.com has a free one) where we can have a central place to freely upload all that we have. I really want X15-A2 (Phil Broad) to get his Moonbus webpage online soon since he started this discussion thread. I've been iching to do one myself for years on the 2001 vehicles and sets in general so I don't want to streal his thunder.


----------



## DX-SFX

I've not seen that first one before. Does anyone have a higher res version of that?


----------



## stargazer

I posted that one awhile ago...tis the 'best' res. of it.

stargazer


----------



## DX-SFX

OK, thanks.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

*2001: The secrets of Kubrick's classic (25 October 2005)*

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/article321643.ece

Never-seen-before footage released to the 'IoS' reveals the extraordinary discarded prologue to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'

Also -

*Kubrick leaves treasures to Britain (October 23, 2005)*

*http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1598707,00.html*

It will be the first time the archives - including scripts, photographs, props and letters - have been displayed in Britain


----------



## stargazer

*done ??*

is this thread done... or are you all working away on the quiet 

stargazer


----------



## Steve Mavronis

stargazer said:


> is this thread done... or are you all working away on the quiet


I'm trying to keep it alive but I don't want to keep having conversations with only myself. I'm thinking of creating my own message board that is sci-fi model related with multiple topic forums. Not to take the place of here but something maybe more dedicated to 2001 and/or other sci-fi movie/tv/model related stuff. I'd really prefer is Phil Broad would do something like that on his Cloudster sets and vehicles site. I don't know so what do you think? It you want to see an example of the type of message board software I'd use check out (O.T.) my music fan related site called Yngwie Malmsteen 100% at http://yngwie100.home.comcast.net and click on the Forums link from the menu area at the top. It has the same board features as here where you can post images, edit posts, etc. for example.


----------



## X15-A2

As far as I am concerned, this thread will go dormant for the forseeable future. I am still involved in a different drawing project so the Moonbus must wait until that one is completed. By no means will the Moonbus go away, it is next on my list of subjects to draw so don't worry about that. I will pick it up again as soon as I can. This thread was titled "Preliminary" because I knew that i would not be able to get to the project in ernest until later.

I would like to extend a huge "thank you" to everyone who participated in this thread, we all learned a great deal that we did not know before and I am greatful for everyone's help. I will re-launch this thread when I officially start on the drawings, until then feel free to continue discussing the ships of "2001" here as you like, the thread is not closed.


----------



## LeeS223

Well I've only just arrived so I hope this forum keeps going! 
I've only just got through the 39 pages, but there's some good stuff!

I'm mainly interested right now in finding info on the Space Station V and the Nuke Satelites, but I'd love a studio scale Moonbus.
Anyone have any inside info on them? I think I've found most of the usual suspects online.

Lee


----------



## X15-A2

Steve,

I thought about starting a BB on my site but it doesn't really seem necessary, what with all the other model building boards out there. I don't think that I would have the energy to monitor one anyway.

Lately I have been spending my spare time trying to convert the garage into a dedicated workshop. This shop will be used for renovating the house but also for model building  

This doesn't leave me much time for internet-type activities.


----------



## X15-A2

Hey Lee,

Welcome to the board and the thread. I don't have any info about the satelites or the station, beyond what has already been posted here, but perhaps some of the other members do.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> Steve, I thought about starting a BB on my site but it doesn't really seem necessary, what with all the other model building boards out there.


I know what you mean, there are a ton of them now. It might only be cool if it were part of a dedicated 2001 movie fan site or something. Glad to see you post again on the forum. I know you are busy. Looking forward to when you have time to get past the "preliminary" stages of your Moonbus project.

Take care,

Steve


----------



## DX-SFX

I'm interested in seeing ANY exterior drawings so far even if not completed.


----------



## stargazer

Hi Lee.......I have some stuff on the station on my site on the 2001 section......might be worth a look

www.planet3earth.co.uk

glad the moonbus is still between stops.

stargazer


----------



## LeeS223

*Ahh ha*

Hey Ian!

So YOU'RE the one that's doing the cargo version of the Orion! One of the best original ideas for a kit in years, so obvious, yet no one had done it before  You'll be getting an email from me shortly with an order!
So are you planning to do the Orion 1 mothership?, please say yes!

L


----------



## stargazer

Thanks Lee.......I dont plan to do an Orion 1......

and if you are on the other side of the pond it will be easier and cheaper to get an Orion 2 from
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/store/store.cfm


Stargazer.


----------



## DX-SFX

Any progress on the Moonbus from anyone? Still keen to contribute. How are the drawings going Phil?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yeah, we need a re-cap or something. I'm also anxious to continue on with this subject and hope to contribute where I can.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I am back to work on my previous drawing project so the Moonbus is on hold until that is finished. The Moonbus is next, so don't worry but I won't be able to get to it until next year sometime. I will definitely give you all a heads-up when it gets started again.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

I just scored a built Aurora moonbus fairly cheap. It's missing the landing gear and antennae, but is complete including the astronauts and interior.

One major problem, one windshield is smashed and the other is badly fogged from glue, does anybody make replacement parts for this kit? I can scratch the rest, but have no idea how to duplicate those big curved clear parts.


----------



## DX-SFX

They shouldn't be on the kit at all. The movie model doesn't have them.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

DX-SFX said:


> They shouldn't be on the kit at all. The movie model doesn't have them.


After skimming thru this thread, I'm kinda looking forward to restoring this. I was a little worried about finding replacement windshields.

Any of you moonbus experts know of any articles on accurizing the Aurora kit besides the great info in this thread?

Here's what I got to work with:


----------



## DX-SFX

That model has certainly seen better days.

As far as articles on accuracy are concerned, I think this thread is the nearest to cutting edge research I know of.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

DX-SFX said:


> That model has certainly seen better days.


What, you mean the filming miniature didn't have lime green window frames and a baby blue interior?!!!!

I wuz robbed!

Seriously, it will need a lot of work, but it's still far cheaper than any of the garage kits of the moonbus I've seen, it cost me fifty bucks. I was mainly curious how others dealt with that big honkin' gap on the removable roof and correcting the nose.

Otherwise, with a lot of puttying,sanding, kit bashing, and painting, I think it's got definate possibilities! Especially with some lights!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

If you find any after market replacement parts let me know. I have a kit in similar condition that was built in the 70's or before by other person. I've ripped it apart as best I can over the years in hopes to redo it. I would like to know if there are replacement engine bells for example. I'm also missing a few landing gear pylons which I think I can build from scratch, unless someone has castings. I will also redo the interior to match the movie set as best I can based on the drawings I've done and posted here earlier.

Also, on yours - get rid of all the clear parts. There were never conformal to the outer hull profile. I'm going to remake the passenger window frames and sandwich thin clear plastic in between the inside and outside. The cockpit windows curve to match the insrument panel/anti-glare deck profile and upper window inner lip.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Actually, after reading thru the whole thread (it took awhile!)I think everything I could possibly need is right here!

I gotta rewatch the DVD, I thought the nose was more angular in the film, nice to find out the basic lines are pretty close!

Impressive work, guys :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

I too was going to add that replacement landing gear might be tricky. Don't know if anyone can make replacements for these?

Good luck and yes, ditch the windshields.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Slightly off topic but it does relate: Can anyone recommend free CAD software I can download so I can translate what I've drawn to scale on paper on the Moon Bus? I can draw detailed things fine on paper but it is very tedious to redraw repeating shapes, etc. With software a lot of these repetative tasks can be automated and thus save time. I do have Adobe Illustrator but it is a learning curve to delve into that right now. What can you recommend to me as CAD software to use?

Steve


----------



## Andyreb3

Check the microfilm files at the library as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics both did stories on the making of 2001 at the time of 1968-1969.


----------



## DX-SFX

Still sourcing parts but finding enough Corsairs is going to be a problem. Yeah, I know I could mould them but I prefer using the actual kit parts.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Anything new on this topic from anyone who has been participating?


----------



## X15-A2

I'm still trying to wrap up my current drawing project. There is a little Moonbus news however, I have been successful at buying examples of all the source kits for the details found on its exterior. They will eventually be rendered as 3D models so I don't have to plot views of them at all the various angles they will appear on the Moonbus. I'll simply build a basic 3D model, then export different views to 2D.

My current project is reaching an advanced stage but there is still a lot of detail work to do. It will be close to 100 sheets of drawings when completed which is why it is taking so long (spanning 2 years of spare time work!).

I'm looking forward to working on something that is not as complicated as my current project...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

And the current project would be....?


----------



## X15-A2

SSSSSSHHHHHHHHH!! Its a secret...


----------



## X15-A2

I don't want to officially announce it until its ready to be published.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Understood. Hope you'll be doing it in 3D too.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Understood. Hope you'll be doing it in 3D too.


Me too!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

New reference information on the Moonbus on Scott Alexander's (Capt. Cardboard) Atomic City forum at http://p197.ezboard.com/fatomiccityfrm79.showMessage?topicID=1.topic

OMG, look at this never seen before photo Scott just posted in his forum of the Moonbus interior set showing the rear door wall!!!!!!!!! Please comment.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Does anyone have a better cleaned up photo of this behind the scenes still? We can finally scratch build a proper rear wall to the Moonbus!


----------



## DX-SFX

Does anyone know where the seats come from?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Weren't they from some British airliner or transport plane? I would like to know as well...


----------



## X15-A2

I'm keeping my eyes open for them, best-guess right now is some airliner from the late 50's. Aviation is one of my chief interests so I'm always looking for aircraft salvage places (I collect aircraft junk, among othe things...) and those seats are something that is on my mental check list while searching. If I ever find them, I will pass along the info.


----------



## Gilusions

Hey guys I have looked at most of the treads and I like to know if there are blueprints of the Moonbus I have the old Aurora kit and I am going to cast the whole model so I can do a hanger with 2 or more Moonbus like in repair or like a Moonbus station something different to do. Thanks


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well if any official plans from the movie still exist they are being horded up like the holy grail or the arc of the covenent by someone out there. At least X15-A2 started this topic so he could get reference info to make accurate digital blueprints based on sizing from plastic kit parts used to detail the movie model. The only other reference plans are the Aurora model kit peliminary study blueprints which differ in proportions (especially the nose angle) from the final kit release, but they do contain a few little details that never made it on the kit. I posted links to them (provided by another user) back in this thread someplace. If you find any real movie plans let us know!


----------



## Gilusions

I guess I have to find that mountain climb it and ask where where where LOL Well I will start with the movie and pictures that I have so far I am thinking of doing a winter project I have seen somewhere with the shuttle at the space staion with another ship, and I figure why not with the bus I will take pictures as I go alone thank you for your time.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well there is a great wealth of reference info here to help you. It's the best we have!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just got the following new Moonbus parts info from famous sci-fi model builder Martin Bower. He hopes this will be useful in this forum so I feel at liberty to post it here:

_"...the “AIRFIX” (NOW DAPOL) MEAT WAGON is used extensively. The centre 4 louvers (see yellow outlined area) on the front & back of the truck’s bulkhead are made into strips which sit directly below the “Refrigerator van” sides. They are put together to form strips of grill." (see attachment MEAT WAGON):_










_"Also, the 6 parts on top of the attitude control thrusters are not made from the linking hooks as you have on the site. They are made up from part of the brake lever (PART No 26 –see this tiny part outlined in yellow) which is cut off & joined to the round end of the wagon’s hook (as you have on your site) So it’s not the whole hook that’s used, only the round piece on the end." (see attachment MEAT WAGON BRAKE):_

_







_

_"Also there are no bomb halve from the “Airfix” Superfortress used on the model. They’re too small. The bombs are from the “Airfix” “CORSAIR”. The Superfortress interior round bulkhead is on the bottom and is attached to a plug that fits into the mounting pole hole on the underside to disguise it, much as I did on “Narcissus”._

_Keith & I have now kind of sourced the central piece above the cabin between the 2 “Honest John” grills. It’s the front half of an old large-scale PETROL PUMP with the top cut off & sanded down so that it slopes! Now I’ve said that, take a look & you’ll see the shape is obvious. The ONLY problem is we don’t know which toy it’s from. But it enabled me to make one up. _

_The other thing nobody seems to notice is that the Bismark/Tirpitz turret is also considerably sanded down with about 2mm having been taken off the bottom so it sits much lower. Doug Trumbull (who detailed this model) seldom used kit parts straight from the box. I must admit to doing this myself. The problem is that this has come back to haunt me when people have asked what parts I used & where I used them. When I recently built a replica of “Narcissus” from ALIEN I had one heck of a job trying to remember what kits I’d used! Serves me right!_

_Anyway, Hope this info is of use on your forum." - Martin Bower 9/26/2006_


----------



## jheilman

Nothing beats info straight from the authoritative source. :thumbsup:


----------



## stargazer

Soooooooo what have you guys been up to all this while.......You must have drawings by now that are second to none with all the info. here....

or even an actual model.

Post pictures and drawings please....need to see how this thread turned out.

what is the length of the bus (if real) how did the interior sizing work out... 
and did you get a 'best' fit into the body for it.


Stargazer


----------



## CmpstCreations

stargazer said:


> Soooooooo what have you guys been up to all this while.......You must have drawings by now that are second to none with all the info. here....
> 
> or even an actual model
> 
> Post pictures and drawings please....need to see how this thread turned out
> 
> Stargazer


Probably working on a new kit. :thumbsup:


----------



## stargazer

Over the past few days... I have had a go myself at working out some sizes.

By looking at frame grabs and stills (I did a lot more work than these few lines imply) I too now think (and agree with others here) that the Aurora kit is proportionally quite accurate.

Also the size of the figures and ceiling height seem to look right for what is seen in the movie both inside and through the windows compared to what you see with the aurora kit

Putting numbers to this, the maximum ceiling height of the aurora kit is 35 mm, if this represents 6ft 6" (1981mm)
then the aurora scale is 1/56.6.....Then at 9.5 inches long (241mm) the Real thing would be 56.6 X 9.5" = 44.8 ft long

Interestingly comparing the 73 mm long detail part from the SRN1 hovercraft (less the X shaped bits on the ends) to the same scaled down detail on the aurora kit 'skids' at 21.5mm ( 73mm divided by 21.5mm) a ratio of 3.395 is derived........ If the whole aurora kit were also 3.395 times smaller than the studio model then 3.395 X 9.5 inches = 32.25 inches long for the studio model.......

Also The 21.5 mm detail divides into the length of the 241mm long model 11.209 times. 
And 11.209 times the length of the 73mm SRN part = 818mm (32.25 inches) for the studio model.

So if the 'real thing' were ~44.8 ft long and the Studio model is ~32.25 inches long, the scale of the studio model is near 1/16th....... and a half studio scale model would be 1/32 scale and 16 inches long


 I have found that the interior of the bus as seen in the movie can be made to fit the aurora kit with very little alteration to include the 'half as big again' 6th 'blanked out' window...

 see this picture...

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/altered%20moonbus.jpg

stargazer


----------



## X15-A2

Very cool study. I hadn't looked at the interior set vs the interior of the Aurora model but I like the results that you got. It would appear that Aurora had sufficient room to do a correct interior but just didn't do it for some reason. Very strange considering the change is not that drastic.


----------



## ajmadison

*UFO DVD's*



scotpens said:


> Regarding the UFO SkyDiver interior pic: Love those outfits! Apparently, SkyDiver was manned by gay male models!
> 
> And, IIRC, the SHADO Moonbase was staffed entirely by women wearing purple wigs -- obviously for some scientific reason.


FYI, Sylvia Anderson 'explains' her costume reasoning on one of the DVD alternate sound tracks. The purple wig had some sort of important function for anyone (well any woman) running one of the consoles. Sylvia didn't espouse what that important function was, just that it was a necessary wardrobe element, for any women personnel in the moonbase command center. This was consistent at least for the women, for even an otherwise earthbound female character, wore the purple wig when she was in the moonbase command center. However, the moonbase CO's, all portrayed by men, never wore the wig or similar contraption when sitting in the 'center seat'.


----------



## scotpens

ajmadison said:


> The purple wig had some sort of important function for anyone (well any woman) running one of the consoles. Sylvia didn't espouse what that important function was, just that it was a necessary wardrobe element, for any women personnel in the moonbase command center.


Right, just like it was functionally necessary for female Imperial Starfleet officers in the Mirror Universe to show their belly buttons!


----------



## stargazer

Thanks X15 A2...

So how are you getting along with the plans/model ???as no one else has replied.

stargazer


----------



## X15-A2

Well, my current project is still not complete but it is REALLY close to being so. My next problem will be "how to publish", once that is solved I will begin in ernest on the Moonbus drawings. Hopefully they won't take anywhere near the three years that this current project has taken! (Don't worry, they won't)


----------



## DX-SFX

Bumpety bump bump bump. Come on guys. Can't let this drop off.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Go Moonbus! Go Moonbus! Go Moonbus! Rah! Rah! Rah!

(Having a Moonbus cheerleader moment)


----------



## mach7

Anything new?


----------



## DX-SFX

Ditto.


----------



## dreamer

CaptCBoard said:


> The question of a smaller Moonbus model can now be resolved. I have been in contact with David Larsen, who is currently working on a very extensive book on the FX of 2001. He has collected a vast number of unpublished photos from the production, from people who were there, including Douglas Trumbull, Con Pedersen, Fred Ordway and many others.


Is there any news on this book?


----------



## John P

Never mind the book, what about the model?


----------



## mach7

I just posted a question on the Atomic City boards about the moonbus. The good Capt. says it is on the back burner. Too bad.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I'm more interested in X15-A2's blueprint/virtual model project. Then we can make our own physical models based on that!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just uploaded some of my collection of "Moon Rocket Bus" movie miniature reference pictures and drawings to the members photo album here:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5509

Some of you had sent me a couple of these over the years, so if you feel any of them should be removed please private message me and I will delete them from the photo album area. Also, if you want photo source credits please let me know too.

I thought it would be earlier to host them here in one place as model reference.


----------



## MGagen

Great collection! Some are higher resolution than I've seen them before. 

Thanks for sharing.

M.


----------



## DX-SFX

Yes, thanks for that. There was one picture I'd missed before.


----------



## ukwookie

I don't know if this is any help, but here's an interesting pic I found in my archives...  

Tony M


----------



## Steve Mavronis

ukwookie said:


> I don't know if this is any help, but here's an interesting pic I found in my archives...  Tony M


OMG you never know what will turn up after all these years! Thanks for that one 

You made my weekend Tony!


----------



## ukwookie

You're welcome Steve! Feel free to add it to your archive site  

Tony M


----------



## MGagen

Fantastic! That's Frederick Ordway, I believe. I didn't have that one. 

Thanks!

M.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

ukwookie said:


> You're welcome Steve! Feel free to add it to your archive site  Tony M


Thanks Tony, I just added it under my picture gallery. I've been collecting enough good model reference stuff that I probably should make a dedicated website on the "Moon Rocket Bus" and other vehicles from 2001 

Steve


----------



## ukwookie

A while ago I asked if anyone had identified the rectangular frame details on either side of the 'chin' area, suggesting they might be windows from a building kit...

Maybe we should be looking at Faller kits since we know their railings were used (and window frames on the space helmets).

Do any of these bits look plausible?

Tony M


----------



## DX-SFX

There is a huge crossover of kits from the Anderson series into 2001. I think Derek Meddings and Brian Johnson (then Brian Johncock) established which kits were good for pieces and that same kit list went, probably with with BJ, to 2001. The same Faller/Hegi/Kibri building kits turn up, Airfix B29 Superfortress, Airfix railway roilling stock range, Revell Gemini, UPC military kits, even the Anderson cliche Airfix Girder Bridge appears on Clavius Base (look at the edges of the segments when they open as the Aries approaches), the Discovery (ends of each indivdual storage module) and the inside of the full size one man pod claws.

The Aries is covered in Superfortress parts and Revell Gemini pieces.


----------



## ukwookie

There is also some crossover from 2001 back to Anderson. Earlier in the thread we saw how one of the moonbus seats ended up in Skydiver from UFO. In the UFO episode Close-Up there is a spacewalk sequence where one of the astronauts can be seen wearing a gutted and redetailed shell of one of the Clavius spacesuit backpacks. I have some screencaps somewhere if anyone is interested.  

Tony M


----------



## X15-A2

Yes, I too came to the conclusion that those cheek boxes were windows from one of the Faller kits. I need to model one in 3D and see if it looks right, size-wise. It would be the window with two panes in your attached image. One pane is square while the other is rectangular.


----------



## DX-SFX

ukwookie said:


> There is also some crossover from 2001 back to Anderson. Earlier in the thread we saw how one of the moonbus seats ended up in Skydiver from UFO. In the UFO episode Close-Up there is a spacewalk sequence where one of the astronauts can be seen wearing a gutted and redetailed shell of one of the Clavius spacesuit backpacks. I have some screencaps somewhere if anyone is interested.
> 
> Tony M


Since the first two thirds of UFO was shot at MGM Borehamwood, that's not too surprising.


----------



## ukwookie

The links go backwards and forwards, don't they? Bits of Space:1999's Moonbase Alpha set later turned up in early episodes of Blake's 7 - though how a Discovery spacesuit backpack ended up as set dressing in the same episode is anybody's guess!  

Tony M


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Do you have any more "rare" shots of the moonbus interior set or exterior model?


----------



## ukwookie

Sadly not Steve, that Fred Ordway pic was a screengrab from a documentary called "2001 and Beyond" and I can't remember seeing any other Moonbus references in it. It might be worth watching again though, just in case!

Tony M


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I'm going to have to see that documentary if I can find it anywhere.


----------



## DX-SFX

Was that the one shown by Channel 4 in the UK? Excellent documentary.

Do we have even a basic exterior dimension drawing yet?


----------



## ukwookie

I found the documentary on DVD a while ago, I don't think it's the one that was shown on Channel 4 though. I will check the details when I get home from work  


Tony M


----------



## MGagen

More info, please! I can't turn up any DVD with that name -- even on Amazon.uk.co.


----------



## ukwookie

According to the blurb on the cover it's "a film by Michael Lennick - a look at the production and impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey". Published by Stax Entertainment (who have a website at www.staxentertainment.com and the DVD is listed there - cat no STX 2041, released 06/05/2002).

The cover looks like this:

Hope that helps!

Tony M


----------



## ukwookie

Since no-one seems to want to talk about drawings  maybe we could get back to kit-spotting...

There are still a few parts that I haven't seen identified yet, particularly the detail on the lower part of the RCS housings and below the 'ping pong ball' domes on the lower forward fuselage. The vertical grid detail from the RCS housings seems to be repeated - on the Aurora kit at least - towards the rear of the roof.

At the front of the roof is a large detailed rectangular panel that to me resembles the base of something like the Airfix/Dapol turntable, as it has what appears to be a pivot assembly part of the way along.

Does anyone have any observations/suggestions?  

Tony M


----------



## X15-A2

My first guess about the part on the lower RCS pod would be a section of tank tracks. I was thinking perhaps from the small scale Airfix armor (armour?) line of kits. It is true that many of them had rubber tracks included, which I don't think would have been used here, but if there were a few that had plastic (hard) tracks, then perhaps a section from one of those? It reminds me of the outer pattern of a German Mk IV Panzer style of track. Anyone else have any ideas?


----------



## ukwookie

As far as I remember all the Airfix tank kits of the time had rubber tracks, though as I was rather young I could be mistaken!  

I've just had a thought - the outer edges of the Meat Wagon parts that were removed to make the louvred strips appear to have some kind of raised strip detail on them. Could these have been recycled to be used on the RCS ports?  

Tony M


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

trevanian said:


> I no longer have a copy, but I remember that the Criterion 2001 Laserdisc box had a still section that had a couple high quality images in B&W of the 'bus. Not sure if this is the same as the Bizony or not, but if anybody has that box (I dumped mine in favor of the MGM LD box, which had better contrast even though Kubrick didn't approve it), the image might be of help to you.
> 
> I've always loved the moonbus, and it slays me to think that the original model company (master models?) delivered what was basically a brick or butterdish - competently made, but lacking entirely in detail. It could be that some of the discrepancies are due to the detail being added changing the the contour, maybe?
> 
> Also, I congratulate you on picking up the interior aspect with respect to the lenses. Kubrick used very wide lenses on all of the interiors, so that really makes figuring these spaces out awfully tough (even for the pros; I think the 2010 messed some stuff up pretty badly, either that or Hyams did a disservice by being his own cinematographer on the sequel.)


This one?

http://cgi.ebay.com/2001-A-SPACE-ODYSSEY-CRITERION-BOX-SET_W0QQitemZ110100994159QQcategoryZ381QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item110100994159


Does the original filming miniature exist anywhere?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I posted pictures of the original (pre-detailed) studio model from Master Models here:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5509


----------



## Astrocat

X15-A2 said:


> My first guess about the part on the lower RCS pod would be a section of tank tracks. I was thinking perhaps from the small scale Airfix armor (armour?) line of kits. It is true that many of them had rubber tracks included, which I don't think would have been used here, but if there were a few that had plastic (hard) tracks, then perhaps a section from one of those? It reminds me of the outer pattern of a German Mk IV Panzer style of track. Anyone else have any ideas?


The ribbed bits on the RCS pods are indeed from a tank kit - the Airfix Tiger I (the same one that the wheels below the cockpit windows come from). Although there is a section of 'spare track' in the kit in styrene, it's the rubber tracks that were used. The way to tell is the styrene section doesn't have the row of holes for the drive sprocket that the rubber ones have - and those holes can be seen in the photos.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> I posted pictures of the original (pre-detailed) studio model from Master Models here:
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5509


 
Fantastic pictures! Thanks!

So does the original still exist?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Astrocat said:


> The ribbed bits on the RCS pods are indeed from a tank kit - the Airfix Tiger I (the same one that the wheels below the cockpit windows come from). Although there is a section of 'spare track' in the kit in styrene, it's the rubber tracks that were used. The way to tell is the styrene section doesn't have the row of holes for the drive sprocket that the rubber ones have - and those holes can be seen in the photos.


I'm in awe of the kind of info sharing the web makes possible.

And that Astrocat could come up with such info! Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay, Mr. Broad. You've got mail!

Don't let it pile up, the neighbors will get nosey!


----------



## DX-SFX

Can't remember if this was covered in the numerous pages that have come before and as I'm not about to wade through them all to find out, I'll take the chance of repeating tis post. This single Faller kit piece is the best reference for scaling the model accurately. It's like laying a ruler up against the model.


----------



## scifieric

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So does the original still exist?


I thought all the models except the space station were destroyed ... and the station was PRACTICALLY destroyed by languishing in a field somewhere.


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Can't remember if this was covered in the numerous pages that have come before and as I'm not about to wade through them all to find out, I'll take the chance of repeating tis post. This single Faller kit piece is the best reference for scaling the model accurately. It's like laying a ruler up against the model.


Yes, the railings have been mentioned several times before, but you're right - they are by far the best bits for measuring from.

Over the last year or two I've been using them to try and get the lengths on the Moonbus side, despite the very annoyingly blurry photos! I keep going back and revising them, but I think it's just about nailed now...! 

What I've got is (in milimeters):

From the back bulkhead to the rear of the shoulder: 487mm

Length of the starboard shoulder (the port side shoulder is longer and/or positioned slightly further forward on the body. This can be clearly seen on the front/top shot in the movie): 102mm

From the front of the shoulder to the bottom edge of the window cut-out: 158mm. 
Bear in mind this it the measurement along the body surface, but as the upper sides of the model start to taper in from about 40mm forward of the shoulder, then the length to the windows on a straight line front to back of the bus will be slightly different (if that makes sense).
Interestingly, the lower sides don't seem to start tapering in until they're almost 105mm forward of the shoulder, which makes for a very interesting shape where the upper and lower sides join....

As I said, these are the best measurements I can get at the moment, although by the time another year's gone by I might have had a re-think 

Keith


----------



## DX-SFX

Keith, I'm going to start putting some drawings together as things are starting to drag a bit here. Are you up for a bit of collaboration possibly? 

Chris


----------



## Lee Staton

MGagen said:


> Fantastic! That's Frederick Ordway, I believe. I didn't have that one.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> M.


Yes, that is definitely Fred Ordway. He was a client on a model project I did back in 1991. Other than salt & pepper hair, he looked the same.

Lee


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Keith, I'm going to start putting some drawings together as things are starting to drag a bit here. Are you up for a bit of collaboration possibly?
> 
> Chris


Hi Chris,

Yes, I'm happy to help if I can - although my research is still very much ongoing (and there's a long way to go yet!)

Keith


----------



## DX-SFX

Bumpety bump bump bump!


----------



## drewid142

Forgive me if I'm asking someothing that has been covered... this is quite an evolved thread! 

Do we know how the doors on the side open? Up? Out and to the side?


----------



## SteveR

If I recall, the door is aft. Those side thingies are supposed to be thrusters.


----------



## drewid142

Really? The fancy door-like structure to the front is not a door?

The design, overall, seems to be lacking an airlock...





...at 1/350 scale she's just over an inch long!

...at 1/72 scale she's about 5.3 inches long!

...thinking...


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, those appear to be thrusters on the sides. The only door is aft. Airlock shmairlock.


----------



## Steve244

yeah, the pilots had to hold their breath while the passengers went walkabout.


----------



## SteveR

Public transit these days ...


----------



## Steve Mavronis

When I was young I used to think that was an airlock, only because that's what the Aurora kit instructions (I think) called them. I used to invision them opening like gull wing doors. But know I now the only door was aft like on a school bus. The pilots wouldn't hold their breaths. They have suits on too!


----------



## [email protected]

*Aft Door*



Steve Mavronis said:


> ...But know I now the only door was aft like on a school bus. The pilots wouldn't hold their breaths. They have suits on too!


And the aft door seems to have latches all the way around it as though a lunar version of a "jetway" tunnel could be attached to it when it arrived at a base. 

Tom


----------



## scotpens

Steve Mavronis said:


> When I was young I used to think that was an airlock, only because that's what the Aurora kit instructions (I think) called them. I used to invision them opening like gull wing doors. But know I now the only door was aft like on a school bus. The pilots wouldn't hold their breaths. They have suits on too!


[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=47589&stc=1[/IMG-LEFT]


The Aurora instruction sheet simply refers to them as "bays," a loose term that can mean just about anything.

I don't know what kind of buses you took to school, but the ones I remember had the main door at the front, opposite the driver, like a transit bus.

You didn't happen to go to school on the LITTLE bus, did you? :jest:


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Haha, no not a short bus! But all yellow school bus' around here have an emergency escape door at the very back.

In retrospect maybe bays isn't a bad term, at least for the inner walls. They are equipment bays if you look at the labeling on the square panels real close in dvd movie screenshots, you can make out some of the names. But the model just had the position inside wrong. They are supposed to be located more forward close to behind the pilot seats, to make room for the forward passenger compartment wall vent section (missing from the Aurora model) that is proportionally around 1.5 times the length relative to a window section length. Therefore they don't match up with the position of the exterior thruster pods anyway.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, I have to agree that for the longest time I thought those were hatches too.


----------



## DX-SFX

Don't want to let this one drop off.


----------



## bigjimslade

If's not a door, you have to wonder what the windows to nowhere are for though.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

What windows to nowhere?


----------



## scotpens

bigjimslade said:


> If's not a door, you have to wonder what the windows to nowhere are for though.





Steve Mavronis said:


> What windows to nowhere?


I believe bigjimslade is referring to the RCS thruster ports. The Aurora model lacks that detail and has only a plain bulkhead behind the openings.


----------



## bigjimslade

Steve Mavronis said:


> What windows to nowhere?


The rounded triangle on Pt. 55.


----------



## scotpens

Those openings are trapezoids, geometrically speaking. And as I said, they're meant to contain recessed RCS thruster nozzles.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

scotpens said:


> Those openings are trapezoids, geometrically speaking. And as I said, they're meant to contain recessed RCS thruster nozzles.


Yeah, you can almost see them here (orange) on the raw pre-detailed model made for the movie by Master Models:


----------



## bigjimslade

Thanks, makes all clear.

If I remember from reading the book that the moonbus was a wheeled vehicle there.


----------



## jheilman

Even in that photo, that is such a cool ship.


----------



## MGagen

bigjimslade said:


> Thanks, makes all clear.
> 
> If I remember from reading the book that the moonbus was a wheeled vehicle there.


The original concept was for it to only use its rockets to jump large obstructions.

The preproduction art shows caterpillar treads on the landing feet. At some point they decided to leave them off and just have it fly. The core of the tractor feet remained, giving the impression that they were intended as skids.

I always wondered why the didn't change the foot design, after they altered its function, to something more like lunar lander feet. Of course, tractor treads would still be useful in "taxiing" up to an airlock.

M.


----------



## dogfish

hi i have the moonbus it is complete it has never beenstarted


----------



## jheilman

Great! Send it over, I've been waiting for it.


----------



## Carson Dyle

_*Moderator's Note: posts re: the Space Clipper Orion have been moved to a thread devoted to that subject:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=222210*_


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Anyone ever think of making an up-scale version based on the Aurora Moonbus kit?


----------



## DX-SFX

Isn't that what Monsters In Motion did although I don't think their's was studio scale?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> Isn't that what Monsters In Motion did although I don't think their's was studio scale?


MIM got the bottom detail all wrong though, and completely made it up! The Aurora kit is generally more accurate than most believe. Bottom screen captures from the movie match the Aurora detail:


----------



## DX-SFX

Can we make this thread sticky too? There's 40 odd pages of gold dust here that I bump occasionally for fear of it disappearing for good.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Done.


----------



## DX-SFX

:thumbsup:


----------



## akoenig

Hello there! I'm a complete newbie, this is my first post, you people have a nice place here!

I've spent a few hours reading (more or less) the entire thread. I'm planning to build a big scale Moonbus, so I found it very useful. If you don't mind, I'll tell you my own ideas about the thing.

First of all, I think everything is easier if we try to understand the design philosophy of the main responsables: Lange and Kubrick. One propose, other decide. Lange designed spacecrafts like no one else has done, from a very utilitarian and informed point of view. I think that Kubrick liked his designs because they looked good. They looked purposeful, realistc, believable. Because they were.

But the last decission was in Kubrick hands. And if he thought of changing something because it was going to be better for the movie, he didn't hesitate. It was the case with the Discovery radiators and, I'm sure, many others. It's said that Kubrick decided to discard the radiators because they looked like wings of some kind. I've always thought that he tried to make the Discovery to look as similar to a spermatozoid as possible. By the way, about the pods being useful or not, as being stated at the beginning of the thread, I vote for a big "YES". First of all, the spacesuits probably carry with them small amounts of propellant for the backpack thrusters, and they are used only for the very last maneouvres. And after that, The entire Discovery crew was going to be in suspended animation for several months. They are needed for the ship maintenace and possible reparations during that time. 

I'm pretty sure the Moonbus was designed as a "walker", as in the book. But probably K decided at last that the thing looked better flying (and possibly he was right). Not to mention that the interior scene would had been a bit "shaky" because the not-near-perfect lunar pavement... So, at the end, we have a flying Moonbus with walking legs, needed only the tracks to do the work.

I've always thought of the rear end of the thing like being designed for docking purposes, probably in Clavius hangar, imagining it like a vast space (think in the Aries trench), possibly in vacuum conditions, and with the Monnbus docked to a common hub via its rear door. Anyway, it's more than possible that the side protrusions were designed as doors, too, along with its thruster purpose. Why not? I can't imagine Lange designing a spacecraft with only ONE door, which would leave the crew blocked inside in a emergency if the rear door couldn't be used.

I imagined always, because the the Aurora kit, that the central area between bulkheads could be an airlock, taken for granted that the side protrusions were doors. But I dropped that idea later. In the movie you can see the cockpit door being a flimsy thing, and you must insert your Lange chip again to rethink it. The most logical place for the airlock would be the rear end, a small antechamber before the outer door.

Once we see a crew member completely spacesuited, it's obvious for me that there are no airlock in the bus nor docking facilities in TMA1.

By the way, something that always puzzled me are the cheap wooden crates in the Moonbus cargo and the rope used to secure it. Not very futuristic, uh?

After reading the thread, I'm quite convinced now that the Aurora kit is very accurate. I was stunned with the Aurora plans you presented here, they are a wealth of info about our case. First of all, the date: Feb 1968, way before the film was released. It is clear then that the Aurora decission was not an after-official-film-release one. If the drawings were made in that date, the discussions between companies had started months before that. This is important, because in that time, the original miniatures were readily available.

After studying the plans, I'm pretty convinced Aurora people worked with the original miniature, and not with blueprints. Mainly because the model taken out directly from blueprints was the Master Models one, which I'm sure Kubrick found poor and decided later to add detail to it, and that's what we got in the Aurora drawings. Probably the model lacked of clear parts (removed during the shooting to avoid reflections), and the draftman deduced then the convolving front windows.

All in all, a very interesting matter. Congratulations to all the talented people who contribute to this fascinating thread.


----------



## Carson Dyle

akoenig said:


> By the way, something that always puzzled me are the cheap wooden crates in the Moonbus cargo and the rope used to secure it. Not very futuristic, uh?


How this got past Kubrick and his technical team I'll never know. If I didn't know better I'd swear it was some sort on in-joke; product placement for the folks at Wells Fargo Wagon ("Uncle Heywood brought me some grapefruit from Tampa and a cross-cut saw")!

At a recent screening of the film Douglas Trumbull let it be known the crates in question are one "special effect" he's more than willing to let SK take the credit for (his exact quote was "Not my department," lol).


----------



## Steve Mavronis

akoenig said:


> After reading the thread, I'm quite convinced now that the Aurora kit is very accurate. I was stunned with the Aurora plans you presented here, they are a wealth of info about our case. First of all, the date: Feb 1968, way before the film was released. It is clear then that the Aurora decission was not an after-official-film-release one. If the drawings were made in that date, the discussions between companies had started months before that. This is important, because in that time, the original miniatures were readily available.
> 
> After studying the plans, I'm pretty convinced Aurora people worked with the original miniature, and not with blueprints. Mainly because the model taken out directly from blueprints was the Master Models one, which I'm sure Kubrick found poor and decided later to add detail to it, and that's what we got in the Aurora drawings. Probably the model lacked of clear parts (removed during the shooting to avoid reflections), and the draftman deduced then the convolving front windows.


If you look close at the master models "raw" Moonbus, it does have clear windows and you can see the reflections. The from cockpit windows are not conformal to the outer hull shape. The are recessed inside the black area and follow the curvature of the instrument panel edge. The passenger windows inside the black area too and sit behind/inside the 5 window frames on each side and thus are not at the outer angled hull position. The Aurora kit was wrong in that respect but otherwise pretty accurate overall.


----------



## akoenig

Steve Mavronis said:


> If you look close at the master models "raw" Moonbus, it does have clear windows and you can see the reflections. The from cockpit windows are not conformal to the outer hull shape. The are recessed inside the black area and follow the curvature of the instrument panel edge. The passenger windows inside the black area too and sit behind/inside the 5 window frames on each side and thus are not at the outer angled hull position. The Aurora kit was wrong in that respect but otherwise pretty accurate overall.


Yep, I know that! What I mean is that these windows were probably removed later for filming purposes, and the Aurora people got after that a detailed but windowless bus. Then, probably decided the conformal window as logical solution.


----------



## DX-SFX

akoenig said:


> Yep, I know that! What I mean is that these windows were probably removed later for filming purposes, and the Aurora people got after that a detailed but windowless bus. Then, probably decided the conformal window as logical solution.


Actually the windows were probably literally "cut out" of the still photos used for most of the close up shots showing interior activity. It's possible the glazing was removed from the model but it wouldn't have to be.


----------



## akoenig

DX-SFX said:


> Actually the windows were probably literally "cut out" of the still photos used for most of the close up shots showing interior activity. It's possible the glazing was removed from the model but it wouldn't have to be.


Very true! But, if the model was heavily weathered, it's quite possible that the clear parts were removed, with more reason if they weren't going to be seen.
(by the way, hello, Chris!)


----------



## Richard Baker

Personally I think the (for lack of a better term) 'Socketed' windows seemed consistant with the other technology we saw in the movie. The Orion, Aries, Discovery even the space pods had the socketed type. I like the look of the Aurora version, but there does not seem to be any reason for them to be conformal on that one vehicle.
I always wondered what the New Jersey those shoulder units were supposed to do. Atomic City's pending model being mastered by Randy Cooper-
http://atomiccity.yuku.com/topic/539/t/Coming-in-the-FALL.html?page=1
shows the side thruster pods. While the shapes are a little weird they do make sense. I have seen others attempt to show those Aurora doors open and hinged tops. Not only awkward but why would you build these huge hollow panels and wedge shapes just to make a door that would need external power to lift, even on the moon? I assumed they were some attachment-docking adapters for unseen equipment.
Regarding an airlock. With limited internal space I doubt room would be taken up with an airlock which could only hold a couple of people when they could just depressurize the cabin and step out. The rear door as an airlock attachment point also makes sense- there is even clamp detail around the outside edge. The Moonbus is one of my favorite craft. Capital ships are grand, but I relate to a vessel with a size/interior room like this (Flying Sub, Spindrift and Proteus also fit this category). Big enough to walk around in and carry stuff, but small enough to maneuver and get into some interesting environments.
I have the Aurora model, but I would like to eventually get Atomic City's Moon Bus. They do excellent work and it is worth every dime.


----------



## X15-A2

I think we can be pretty certain that the Aurora folks never saw the models in person but rather worked from photographs of same. This is born out by the reversal of some details, they being raised instead of recessed, that sort of thing. This is the type of mistake that would be easy to make when working from photos only.

About the "Orion", my recent 3D computer studies of it suggest to me that the Aurora kit version was based on another model instead of the 3-4 foot filming version. I'm thinking that it may have been based on the smaller "display" model seen on the desk in the office on the space station set. The forward fuselage roof is much too curved (fore to aft) to match the much straighter wedge-like contour of the big filming model. We know that different scale FX models of complex compound curve shapes like the "Orion" built in England back then rarely matched each other in shape. This is because the studios there typically did not produce contour control drawings, instead they drew simple multi-view ortho drawings which left the model builders to eye-ball the contours. The results are several models of a given subject that look like each other generally but not when studied closely. The Aurora model matches the big FX model in most respects except for the forward contours so for this reason I think that they got photos of one of the other models (we do know that there were more than one and that they were different scales but not how many in total).


----------



## james50

This is my first post here. Yesterday I found a half-finished Aurora Moonbus model in my basement, still in its original box, which I had started when I was a high school student back in 1969 but never finished. 

Hope all the parts are still there. The instructions are missing but I suppose I can figure out what goes where. I was happy to find this forum and the info here will be extremely useful if I ever actually get around to finishing it. (Hey, it's only been, what, 40 years. 

I'm a big 2001 fan and remember watching it with my parents in a theater. (Wide screen, I think.) I remember saving the souvenir booklet they sold in the theater, and the issue of Life magazine that featured lots of photos of the movie. 

Anyway, I'll enjoy reading through all the posts in this thread!

James


----------



## scotpens

james50 said:


> . . . Yesterday I found a half-finished Aurora Moonbus model in my basement, still in its original box, which I had started when I was a high school student back in 1969 but never finished.
> 
> Hope all the parts are still there. The instructions are missing but I suppose I can figure out what goes where.


If you PM me your email address, I'll be happy to send you scans of the kit instructions. From a Canadian issue of the kit, no less, with the text in both French and English!

Let me know if you prefer PDF or JPEG files.


----------



## james50

> I'll be happy to send you scans of the kit instructions

Thanks! I'll send you my address.

James


----------



## scotpens

akoenig said:


> . . . I can't imagine Lange designing a spacecraft with only ONE door, which would leave the crew blocked inside in a emergency if the rear door couldn't be used.


Perhaps the side windows could swing open or be punched out in an emergency, like on today's transit buses.


akoenig said:


> By the way, something that always puzzled me are the cheap wooden crates in the Moonbus cargo and the rope used to secure it. Not very futuristic, uh?


Wooden crates secured with ropes have been used to store and transport cargo for centuries. They're even still used to some extent today. The problem is, in a self-sustaining lunar colony, where would they get the lumber to make packing crates?


----------



## John P

I'll give you_ FIVE DOLLARS_ for that kit, no questions asked!!!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

It's hard to tell from a low res picture, but it looks like you've got all the parts. At least all the major ones!

And I'll give you $6.50:woohoo:


----------



## james50

> I'll give you FIVE DOLLARS for 
> that kit, no questions asked!!!

Hmmm... let me think about it... 

James


----------



## james50

But seriously, I know that moonbus models are collectable these days, but I doubt if I'd ever sell it as it has sentimental value. And I'd loved to finally get it finished and have it displayed on my desk!

James


----------



## scotpens

james50 said:


> But seriously, I know that moonbus models are collectable these days, but I doubt if I'd ever sell it as it has sentimental value. And I'd loved to finally get it finished and have it displayed on my desk!


From the picture, it looks as if your Moonbus was already about 80 percent built, and you don't really need the instructions to figure out what to do with the remaining parts. But if you still want scans of the instruction sheet, just let me have an email and I'll send them post-haste.

I know the filming model didn't have conformal front windows, and they wouldn't be necessary on a vehicle that operates in an airless environment. But I always liked the curved split windshield on the Aurora model. It just gave the thing a more "bussy" look, for lack of a better word.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

In the film/script, they call it a Rocket Bus. I've heard it called Moon Rocket Bus too. And yeah leave the outter hull conformal windows off. The glass should be at the recessed window frames. You can see the proper glass position good on the Master Models pre detailed model made for the film. I posted a picture of it a few pages back, or check my photo gallery here for it. The inner recessed cockpit windows do have a curve where it follows the instrument panel outline. You can see the curve glare.


----------



## james50

> it looks as if your Moonbus was already about 80 
> percent built, and you don't really need the instructions 

Yes, you're right. It seems pretty clear.

> But if you still want scans of the instruction sheet, just let 
> me have an email and I'll send them post-haste

Actually I sent that to you a couple days ago by private message; didn't you get it? But in any event, don't worry about it.

I think my biggest challenge is not assembling it, but improving the paint job. Can old paint be stripped off?

James


----------



## james50

Steve, thanks for the advice on the windows.

James


----------



## GKvfx

scotpens said:


> .........The problem is, in a self-sustaining lunar colony, where would they get the lumber to make packing crates?


Maybe from the trees in the Agridomes from SILENT RUNNING?......

Gene


----------



## GKvfx

james50 said:


> .........I think my biggest challenge is not assembling it, but improving the paint job. Can old paint be stripped off?


I highly recommend a product called Easy Lift Off that should be available at a good hobby shop. Made by Polly S (I think). Get an old tray and an old toothbrush and coat the parts with ELO (it has the consistency of cooking oil, so it will run off, hence the tray and toothbrush). Make sure all the paint is covered by the stuff. Let it sit overnight (you don't need to submerge it in the stuff, just let it sit). Next morning, you should see the paint all wrinkled up. Pour some ELO on the toothbrush and gently scrub away the paint. For extra thick 60's-era gloss enamels, you may have to do a second pass to get all the stuff out of panel lines and in corners. But it works wonders. After the paint is removed, give it a good cleaning with regular dish cleaning liquid.

Gene


----------



## Darth Humorous

Castrol Super Clean should do the trick for removing paint from styrene without harming it at all. Put the parts in a non-metallic container and immerse them in the Super Clean overnight. Maybe not even that long, but that is a good way to do it. Make sure the liquid covers the parts. Rinse under running water, and the paint usually comes off in sheets. I recommend using rubber gloves when coming dealing with the Super Clean. Although this stuff is water soluble and biodegradable, it can start to dissolve your skin at full strength.

Anyway, this stuff has been the best paint stripper for styrene I have ever used.

Mark


----------



## james50

Thanks for the advice on paint removers; I appreciate your help!

James


----------



## jheilman

I am SO envious of your find. I wish I still had my moonbus kit from way back in the early 70's. Some day I will have one again. Whether it's an over-priced Aurora or Captain Cardboard's similarly priced version...who can say. The Monsters in Motion kit is still attrcative for it's larger size. But that's $200 I just don't have right now.


----------



## falcon49xxxx

My favorite product,Gene.Easy Lift Off now packaged by Testors,use to be in the Polly-S line.Hope your well,alexander


----------



## Greg Roccaro

*Source of Resin Aurora Moonbus Parts ?*

Was wondering if there is a source for individual resin parts for the Aurora Moonbus..I only need one part to complete my builtup. It is the cabin light #22/23. Would buy an original part but that is probably impossible.
Thank you.


----------



## Lee Staton

Greg Roccaro said:


> Was wondering if there is a source for individual resin parts for the Aurora Moonbus..I only need one part to complete my builtup. It is the cabin light #22/23. Would buy an original part but that is probably impossible.
> Thank you.


You might try The Parts Pit website: http://www.thepartspit.com/home.htm

The part you're asking about isn't listed, but you could write to them and see if they could get it.

Lee


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

FYI, Sarge from Wilco Models very graciously cast me a replacement landing gear set a year or so ago off the original parts of his moonbus that my bought built-up was missing, you might drop him a line.


----------



## DX-SFX

I'm posting this both in the Orion thread and the Moonbus thread because I think it's relevant to both.

I was kindly sent a copy of the original art department drawings for the Orion and it's obvious that the Aurora kit is based on these as it matches the panelling line for line. Even small rectangular panels and other details on the Aurora model that don't appear on the film model have been matched to the artwork very faithfully. I've checked the measurements and other than being a tad too long, the Aurora Orion kit is exactly a third of the size of the drawings. This would seem to lend weight to my previous ideas that the Aurora Moonbus kit is exactly a third of the studio drawings and not such a bad kit. Any discrepencies in proportion between the studio drawings of the Moonbus and filming model are likely to be down to the film model makers. I'm not saying either kit is perfect as I'm sure a few detail areas may have been fudged for the convenience of production but I'd place good money on both kits being produced with reference to the art department drawings.

Also, what research I've done so far indicates that in the case of the Orion, the filming model is very close to the AD drawings in size and proportion. A few of the contours have been smoothed by the model makers but it's essentially accurate to the drawing. Would this indicate that the AD drawings for the Moonbus, the Aurora kit and filming model sharing a similar level of accuracy?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Just to clarify, when you say AD drawings do you mean Aurora Development drawings? The Moonbus Aurora Development drawings that someone sent me (and I posted online links to the scans earlier here and posted smaller versions in my hobbytalk gallery) do not seem to match up totally to the Aurora kit. The nose and other proportions seem different or somewhat flatter in the vertical direction, and the Aurora drawings contain other subtle details from the filming model that are not on the kit.


----------



## DX-SFX

Sorry, AD = Art Department.

Actually, Astrocat has put forward an obvious point that I feel stupid for not thinking of given that I pointed out the SRN1 part in the engine exhausts of the Orion. The Orion can't possibly be 42 1/2" long as the kit parts won't fit. Keith came up with a figure of 62" independently and taking that on board, I'm erring towards 63 3/4 based on an assumption they built the model at a factor of 1.5 to the drawings. It does strike you as smaller than expected even at 42 1/2". Again Ill duplicate this post in the Orion thread and also come back once I've cross referenced some figures.


----------



## Richard Baker

These duplicate posts on both threads are driving me nuts- I subscribe to both of them. They are almost the same conversation but different contexts and responses-

It is like deja vu all over again...


----------



## Steve Mavronis

The Stargate is open


----------



## DX-SFX

Richard Baker said:


> These duplicate posts on both threads are driving me nuts- I subscribe to both of them. They are almost the same conversation but different contexts and responses-
> 
> It is like deja vu all over again...


Sorry to have spoilt your day.


----------



## Richard Baker

> Sorry to have spoilt your day.


Not so much spoilt- it 's just I have trouble keeping keeping track of time and space properly.
I am going to dump the Orion thread- between the two the Moon Bus wins out.

.


----------



## heiki

I'm the guy that provided the Aurora BluePrints of the moonbus.

Would you be able to post or send the drawings you have?




DX-SFX said:


> I'm posting this both in the Orion thread and the Moonbus thread because I think it's relevant to both.
> 
> I was kindly sent a copy of the original art department drawings for the Orion and it's obvious that the Aurora kit is based on these as it matches the panelling line for line. Even small rectangular panels and other details on the Aurora model that don't appear on the film model have been matched to the artwork very faithfully. I've checked the measurements and other than being a tad too long, the Aurora Orion kit is exactly a third of the size of the drawings. This would seem to lend weight to my previous ideas that the Aurora Moonbus kit is exactly a third of the studio drawings and not such a bad kit. Any discrepencies in proportion between the studio drawings of the Moonbus and filming model are likely to be down to the film model makers. I'm not saying either kit is perfect as I'm sure a few detail areas may have been fudged for the convenience of production but I'd place good money on both kits being produced with reference to the art department drawings.
> 
> Also, what research I've done so far indicates that in the case of the Orion, the filming model is very close to the AD drawings in size and proportion. A few of the contours have been smoothed by the model makers but it's essentially accurate to the drawing. Would this indicate that the AD drawings for the Moonbus, the Aurora kit and filming model sharing a similar level of accuracy?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I found this today on the Internet from a film event called "2001 in 2008: A Cinematc Odyssey" hosted by Tom Hanks and Douglas Trumbull. Someone took photos while watching the film so they are distorted but still very useful as 2001 modeling reference:

The Moonbus model and Douglas Trumbull:










Moonbus interior looking aft:










Moonbus interior looking forward:










All (and more behind the scenes 2001 stuff) from this photo gallery with higher rez versions: http://flickr.com/photos/bernardr/sets/72157605198501769/


----------



## DX-SFX

How much would you give to see those photos presented properly?

Note the reflection of glazing in the cockpit of the Moonbus. Clearly the model was glazed at some point.


----------



## Paulbo

DX-SFX said:


> Note the reflection of glazing in the cockpit of the Moonbus. Clearly the model was glazed at some point.


BUT notice that the glazing is only mounted into the inner window frame, not the outer frame like the old Aurora model.


----------



## DX-SFX

Yes, that seemed apparent. We know the Aurora kit is wrong.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

At least we see more of the rear interior bulkhead where the door is, even though its just the wooden construction stage before being finished up.


----------



## Richard Baker

You can also see the thruster nozzles in the 'shoulder' units in the first photo.

.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> We know the Aurora kit is wrong.


But its more right than wrong in most other respects. I don't know how they got the windows wrong. It must had been more trouble to make those incorrect conformal windows for the kit.


----------



## DX-SFX

Yes, I'm the one that led the campaign *for* the accuracy of the Aurora kit when people were trashng it. I was pointing out we knew *the cockpit windows *on the Aurora kit were wrong.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I remember that DX-SFX very well. I hope it didn't sound like I was disagreeing with your comment because I wasn't. I only meant to expand on it by referring to the fact that all the clear window pieces on the Aurora kit were completely wrong, while the majority of the rest of the kit (except the interior) is more accurate than most people believe. As we know all the windows on the real film model were recessed inside the hull body contour to the so-called "inner" window frames. Also the bottom of the Aurora kit is dead on. That's one of the disappointments on the MIM Moonbus (with a completely made up bottom) and why I didn't consider getting one.

DX-SFX - about your comment "How much would you give to see those photos presented properly?" Were you hinting you have other "undistorted" behind the scenes photos of the Moonbus interior set? That would be cool to see!


----------



## DX-SFX

Sorry for the confusion. Unfortunately I don't have a source for those pics either. I'd pay good money to see them too. There's some great stuff there by the look of it. It would be criminal if they weren't going to be published in some form or other. Fingers crossed they'll surface at some time in a documentary or book.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

It would be nice is they released that documentary on DVD to purchase. I don't understand why everything has to be so elite and secretive in some cases.


----------



## Richard Baker

It has been how many years since it was released? They do not even use the same techniques today so it is not like any secrets will be revealed to the competition...

.


----------



## stargazer

I had a go at straightening out the picture... it is still stretched toward the right hand side....... but tis the best I can do !

What great pictures though !!! , If only we could see the originals


----------



## stargazer

This is interesting...

The picture shows seven roof ribs!!! and the five windows, numbered 1 to 5, as well as 'the longer blanked out window' No 6...

But the picture shows another blanked out window No 0 !!!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

#0 is the space between the rear most window and the rear door bulkhead. #6 is not a blanked out window. It is a vent there that you can see its slots if you freeze frame when the camera goes past in 2001. In some geometric proportion study I did (see my gallery pics here), the #6 area appears to be about 1.5 times the length of a window area spacing. Note that because of this, the equipment bay (next to the cockpit just behind the pilot seats) does not line up with the outside "shoulder" RCS thruster pods, like the Aurora kit incorrectly portrays.


----------



## Astrocat

DX-SFX said:


> Sorry for the confusion. Unfortunately I don't have a source for those pics either. I'd pay good money to see them too. There's some great stuff there by the look of it. It would be criminal if they weren't going to be published in some form or other. Fingers crossed they'll surface at some time in a documentary or book.


The photos were provided by David Larson and Doug Trumbull for the Acadamy talk. All of them (along with many, many more) will be published in Dave's book, so don't worry, you'll get to see every one of them in full - hopefully in the not too distant future! 
On the down side, the 'release' of these shots hasn't helped the cause, as many of the owners of the photos had agreed to their use on the understanding that they were for the book only, in the appropriate context and with the apppropriate credits, and were NOT to be distributed freely on the web. Unfortunately this will make Dave's task in gathering remaining photos just that little bit more difficult..... That was the reason for the strict 'no photos' policy at the lecture in the first place. I gather Doug isn't very happy about them being posted either.....

Keith


----------



## stargazer

Steve Mavronis said:


> #0 is the space between the rear most window and the rear door bulkhead. #6 is not a blanked out window. It is a vent there that you can see its slots if you freeze frame when the camera goes past in 2001. In some geometric proportion study I did (see my gallery pics here), the #6 area appears to be about 1.5 times the length of a window area spacing. Note that because of this, the equipment bay (next to the cockpit just behind the pilot seats) does not line up with the outside "shoulder" RCS thruster pods, like the Aurora kit incorrectly portrays.


I guess what I meant was that there is a space there at #0 that is the size of a window that is larger than I had reckoned on... (I know about the 5 windows and the 1.5 Vent)...

I jigged the aurora moonbus around awhile ago, and it is indeed possible that the equipment bay fits forwards of thruster pods without 'half lapping it' as in a 'larger kit' that is out there ! 

BTW. Did any of you guy's ever finish the drawings you were doing ???


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> The photos were provided by David Larson and Doug Trumbull for the Acadamy talk. All of them (along with many, many more) will be published in Dave's book, so don't worry, you'll get to see every one of them in full - hopefully in the not too distant future! On the down side, the 'release' of these shots hasn't helped the cause, as many of the owners of the photos had agreed to their use on the understanding that they were for the book only, in the appropriate context and with the apppropriate credits, and were NOT to be distributed freely on the web. Unfortunately this will make Dave's task in gathering remaining photos just that little bit more difficult..... That was the reason for the strict 'no photos' policy at the lecture in the first place. I gather Doug isn't very happy about them being posted either.....


The actual photos aren't distributed on the web. Just someone snuck a camera into the movie presentation against the rules and got some low quality distorted images. I don't think seeing these harms the book. If anything it makes any 2001 fan more likely to buy the book. I'd like to by the DVD too!

It seems to be sort of a double standard since Kubrick ordered everything destroyed after 2001 was made, and I'm glad some stuff indeed survived. So the book people are mad that we got an advance sneak peek, or really should Kubrick be mad at them from his grave for possessing the material they used anyway? There is a disconnect there in my mind. Yet I think it is a good thing information is finally leaking out now for us fans.

Not to be disrespectful but I don't know why anyone waits 40 years to publish this stuff. It's almost like Roswell 1947 where we wait for witnesses to get old before they say what they really know about it.

I'm in a situation myself where I have been shown indirect material relating to the Moonbus model that I can't yet show the rest of you because someone else promised to keep it private for a while longer, so now I have to honor their wishes until I'm released of my obligation. I hate that and I'm trying to understand the motives or fears behind it. It's a vicious circle I tell you that is trapping us!

As far as 2001 goes I thought MGM has the rights to the movie, not private collectors holding historical items or just specific information about it that would help us in this case to re-create a super accurate Moonbus model? There should be some release of this stuff under a creative commons license, non-profit clause or something if they are afriad someone will make a buck off of it.

The movie and special effects may have been groundbreaking back in 1968, but now (and for quite a while) in the 21st centrury technology has surpassed what was done then. For a long long time its just been fascinating history about the making of 2001: a space odyssey for a select group of avid fans. I saw 2001 back in 1968 when I was just 9 years old. Now I'm almost 50 and who knows how long it will take to get everything out on the table!


----------



## stargazer

What steve said...

"If anything it makes any 2001 fan more likely to buy the book. I'd like to by the DVD too!"


I agree. I cant wait for the book 



This too.. "I can't yet show the rest of you because someone else promised to keep it private." 

I also have a very large 'collection of rare pictures' but cant show them for the same reason, (and I do keep my word). I dont know why this is
such an issue sigh, but such is the aura of 2001. 

"It's a vicious circle I tell you that is trapping us!" Yep!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ It's funny that a case could be made that all the promises we are keeping are the same ones we've made to each other behind the scenes! Sometimes I think this place is just a big masquerade ball 

When can the masks come off?


----------



## stargazer

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> It seems to be sort of a double standard since Kubrick ordered everything destroyed after 2001 was made, and I'm glad some stuff indeed survived. So the book people are mad that we got an advance sneak peek, or really should Kubrick be mad at them from his grave for possessing the material they used anyway? There is a disconnect there in my mind. Yet I think it is a good thing information is finally leaking out now for us fans.
> 
> Not to be disrespectful but I don't know why anyone waits 40 years to publish this stuff. It's almost like Roswell 1947 where we wait for witnesses to get old before they say what they really know about it.


Steve,

I agree with you, it's frustrating the air of secrecy that still pervades 2001, however that is unfortunately the situation we have.

The point I am trying to make is that the people who have all this material are not 2001 enthusiasts who feel the world is entitled to see the photos - for most it was just a film they worked on a long time ago, and at the time Stanley Kubrick didn't want the images revealed, so they are adhering to the spirit of his wishes. The rights and wrongs of that are not even an issue, that's just the way it is. These are the people with the pictures, so we have to work to their rules.
In many cases it's taken Dave Larson many long years of gentle coaxing to persuade people to open up their archives of material, with one of the guarentees to help that process along being the very specific use for his publication only (which is sanctioned by the Kubrick estate). Extra permission had to be sought for the inclusion in the Acadamy of Motion Pictures event, which specificaly included the no photos policy.

Now, the pictures will be 'out there' soon anyway, in Dave's book, but it's the way they come to be seen that concerns many of the people involved, and the low resolution, distorted versions with no acnowlagement is precicely what they were worried about. It just has the potential to undermine the confidence of the remaining people who have material to give, however logical or not that may sound to us, and means we may not now get to see some of the additional stuff that would otherwise have been given for publication..........

That said, there is already a vast amount that Dave has collected together over the ten or so years he's been working on the project, so whatever happens it's going to be a stunning book 

Keith


----------



## GKvfx

Astrocat pretty much covered all of this in his response to Steve, but I'll throw in my $1.98 since I've been involved in similar presentations and Dave is a buddy of mine. 

So someone snuck a camera into the Academy presentation, huh? Good job, security in that place was tight. Sadly, I could have snuck my good camera in there as they _didn't_ search my computer bag when I went to the reception. Damn.

About photos in general and the 2001 specifically. The photos from that presentation were collected by Dave Larson and Doug Trumbull from a number of sources. A great many had not been seen because they were in the hands of some crew people that worked on the film. Dave has developed a lot of trust with those people and they feel comfortable loaning him pictures to use for these types of presentations or the aforementioned book.

The really good stuff - the stuff that had Phil Broad, Carson, and myself weeping for joy just to be in the same room, came from the Kubrick Archive. This is a large collection of photos, scripts, paperwork, and drawings that is now under the control of some Royal College of Art in London (I forget the full name....). Part of the agreement for them to receive the items in the first place was that the College was to maintain a certain amount of control over the items. It is an archive, not a library. And right now, the issue of imagery getting out is moot - the archive is so disorganized, I doubt anyone but Dave could actually find something in there. Dave and Doug had to sign an agreement that the imagery was only going to be used for that one presentation. Any subsequent use, either in the book, or on a DVD, or even another presentation, will have to be negotiated. (I should also mention that there is a pretty good collection of Fred Ordway's and Harry Lange's material from 2001 in NASA's Huntsville archive.)

As for the long rumored book - Dave is still working on finding a publisher that will be willing to not only print the book, but go through all the legal loopholes in order to get the imagery we all want included. The Kubrick Estate still has the right to approve anything that comes out regarding Kubrick's films. And to do it in a format befitting the subject (along the lines of a Taaschen book) is going to require a lot of talent, and a lot of money. And while we all here would gladly pay $50, $100, or even $200 for the ultimate geek guide to 2001, we have to take the big picture into account. How many others will want to pay that? That's the stuff the potential publishers have to take into account.

OK, that was the behind the scenes info, now I'm going to offer an opinion.

Over the fast decade or so, I've had the opportunity to get to know quite a few people who have worked on these types of films. Some I've worked with, others I just got to know socially. And lately, I *have* been asking them to share photos and experiences. Some of them have been incredibly generous and have opened up boxes (and sometimes warehouses) and tolerated a seemingly endless number of questions from me. Some of them haven't really thought about the value of such items. Others have, and might want to capitalize on it (that number is few). And a few others, just downright don't want to talk about the past - they don't care that anyone is a fan, they don't want to help out, and that's that. (Thankfully, I've only run across a handful of those people in over 10 years.)

In a way, we are invading their past lives. Some guys don't mind. Others kinda felt it creepy. I try to explain to them that the guys interested in this stuff really just want to see the model - they don't really care about the people in the photos or what else is going on. It's hard to explain in a way. Regardless of your personal feelings on the issue, you have to respect their wishes, otherwise you are violating their trust, and you risk losing their friendship. So, basically, if I'm giving something to use in a presentation, and I'm asked not to pass it around, I'm going to honor that. Of course, I'm going to ask to use it again if the need arises, and hopefully, they'll agree.

Thankfully, some of the VFX guys have been thinking about what to do with all this stuff, and their has been talk of trying to establish various archives with some organizations involved in the film industry. (Actually, I use the imagery of the Space Station from 2001 in the field in 1974 to prompt people _not_ to throw stuff away.)

An archive is different than a library. An archive usually exists to assist people with specific research tasks, whilst a library is a just a repository of information that you have to wade through on your own. A library is generally stocked with commonly available books and journals, while an archive has raw documentation and notes, and generally only one copy - the original. Archives are generally harder to get access to and come with many more restrictions on the use of the items they have. Yeah, it sucks that you just can't go and find/use this stuff. 

I think both institutions have benefits. Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Archives can offer a much more in-depth look at a particular project than a library because people or institutions have donated their private records.

I'm with you that it is extremely frustrating at times. 

The cloak of secrecy isn't there to frustrate you. Actually, 'secrecy' might be too strong a word. 'Privacy' might be better, for some of the reasons I mentioned above, though I will admit there is some secrecy involved. The idea that a new book can offer up some never before seen photos could be a selling point to a potential publisher. Again, that's not done to aggravate you - that's just business. And regardless of how you feel about having access to this material (personally, I don't think having the stuff locked away for no one to see is of much use), there are rules you have to play by.

Gene


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Astrocat said:


> I agree with you, it's frustrating the air of secrecy that still pervades 2001, however that is unfortunately the situation we have.
> 
> Now, the pictures will be 'out there' soon anyway, in Dave's book, but it's the way they come to be seen that concerns many of the people involved, and the low resolution, distorted versions with no acnowlagement is precicely what they were worried about.


I understand what you are saying. I'm still not sure how any of the people involved could be damaged in any real way or somehow undermine their private collections of original material by poor quality and distorted second hand photos hitting the web. If anything it becomes a teaser for and free promotion for their projects. I don't see anyone running to Kinkos to make wall posters of some guy's photo documentation of this special event. But because of the many good points you and others are making about it I went back and edited my original post to at least mention this:

"2001 in 2008: A Cinematc Odyssey" hosted by Tom Hanks and Douglas Trumbull. Someone took photos while watching the film so they are distorted but still very useful as 2001 modeling reference. 

It probably doesn't help much to add that but now that it's leaked out by the person (not me) who took these pictures, I view myself as a spectator and fan enjoying the fact that much did survive the 2001 purge by Kubrick. I do not wish to disrespect Mr. Trumbull because I am a big fan of his work, nor the Kubrick estate, or any of the others who now own collections of original 2001 material. I eagerly await buying Douglas Trumbull's book and anything else that comes to market regarding 2001. I hope he includes a large section about his film Silent Running too!

So I'll just bite the bullet and wait it out like everyone else. I hope the item I have pictures of (that someone well known sent to me) can be shown one day soon too. But it used original 2001 source material (which I haven't seen) donated by others to do it, and that's what unfortunately is stopping its release to the public. So I too have to keep the trust going by playing along with this Psychological thriller of insider trading.


----------



## DX-SFX

I'm not having a pop at the guy for posting the images he took but he basically blatantly violated the rules. He knew he wasn't supposed to take them but took them anyway. In practice, I doubt if those poor quality images do cause any real damage and speaking selfishly, I'm glad to see them now they have been posted but I also feel for the people involved in organising the event whose trust was essentially abused. What happened to honesty? I've got at least one guy on another forum who took against me because I declined to provide him with information that I'd got from someone else on the proviso I didn't pass that information on. I stuck to that promise but nevertheless have been considered public enemy number one by the forum guy ever since. We just ignore each other now but the sense of entitlement some people feel when it comes to information never ceases to amaze me because it is all about 'I want and therefore you should let me have it'. Funnily enough, I think the guy is finally starting to see it from the other side of the fence but unfortunately again, the damage has already been done and we're unlikely to ever be buddies.

The fact is that a lot of this information does have a commercial value to it. It's just been said that a book on 2001 with these photos in would fly off the shelves to people like us for a tidy sum. You can't blame the more savvy people for wanting to hold things back for the right time or price. Frustrating, yes but also understandable. Some people may have all sorts of reasons why they want to withold things. It's irrelevant whether we think their reasons are valid. The fact is they have those reasons and we just have to respect them.

For example, the Orion drawings I've recently been sent I don't consider mine to copy. A number of people have asked and I've sent a couple generic photos to people to get a look but nothing good enough so that they can actually be duplicated because the fact is that if I did, someone somewhere would run off some covert copies in the same way that our photographer friend took those pics and have them on eBay in a flash. I have no idea if my source would be bothered by that or not but I'm not going to second guess. The best thing to do is not betray any trusts you've been given in the first place. There's a good chance that legitimate copies are already out there but I'm still not passing any copies on without permission from the guy I got them from. He's not selling them (as far as I know) so it's not even about money. It's just plain old fashioned courtesy and promise keeping. In my experience, the guys who don't honour their promises are the ones who find the drawbridge raised next time.


----------



## stargazer

I am one of the guys that DX sent the 'plans picture' to. I have to say that even had I received the actual plans they would not have ended up on e-bay. I had info that was useful to DX in that I have a photo showing Orion plans on a studio office wall, and I was able to confirm via this picture that DX's plans were legit,and not some clever forgery.
I gave DX my word that the pictures he sent would go no further, This is the problem,
ALL the stuff I have, people who sent it have asked the same, and I well believe that all of us who have stuff, have it for the same agreement.


----------



## DX-SFX

No sweat, there's no suggestion that you would do such a thing Ian. I trust you implicitly. The point was based more on previous personal experience which has taught me that if you don't want something out there, don't pass it on in the first place. Unfortunately, as usual, it's the rotten apples that spoil it for everyone else.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well then, getting back to the Moonbus topic what is the current status of scrapping together enough bits of info to make publicly available model plans? I know X15-A2 has been busy with his work projects ands will tackle this afterwards. Have any of the rest of us been making any independant progress as well?

Turning a blind eye to what is out there hidden behind the scenes may make this endevour just a best guess excercise based on known kit parts and the 2001 movie itself, so then are stuck with aiming for just having a psuedo-accurate version comparable to the Aurora kit - more right than wrong? If so we could save a lot of grief by just building upscaled models the Aurora kit 3 times larger or whatever the actual size factor is.

Also just to help me keep my head on straight, what are the ethics in using any of the non-public info we have privately gathered to actually be reflected in any plans or drawings we may make to be released to the public? Beyond Douglas Trumbull's book coming out and having the new reference material contained in it to use, I'm sure that will just be scratching the surface and much more important info will still remain from public eyes.

Hypothetically, if I know of Moonbus design details that has been only seen in confidential photographs I was sent, am I expected to forget what I saw and never reflect those details in my drawings because the public would see my end result reflecting those same details? I'm assuming someone will tell me I should omit these details resulting in a wrong version of the Moonbus. That doesn't motivate me to bother doing anything if it is doomed to be inaccurate from the get go. It's akin to producing a lie, or ironically much like HAL 9000's situation having been programmed to never distort information and tell the truth but told to keep the true mission a secret from the command crew, in other words lie and even worse.

This is an interesting paradox for me because the photos I'm refering to (and asked to keep to myself which I am) are just a "mirrored reflection" of those private source references and plans, and my source doesn't want me to show the photos of his double-take of an end result because those details will be revealed since he has promised his sources that they wouldn't be made public!

How does one resolve this dilema - by hoping the sources of reference material that my source used has a change of heart one day before I die? Isn't this project here then being subject to the same secrets, promises, and trusts, destined to never see the light of day?


----------



## DX-SFX

I think one makes the deal with oneself when one accepts the material. If your source says you can have the info on the proviso that you keep it to yourself, you either agree to it or not. As far as things that have been made public, they can't be made unpublic so once they're out there, you can't blame people for using them.

In respect of generating an accurate model, which is what I would imagine most of us want, we (collectively) can only use the material we personally have to hand or feel comfortable sharing. Short of someone offering casts of the original model or copies of accurate studio blueprints, all models offered are the result of honing and finessing the available material.

My personal barometer in all this stuff is simple. If I'm going to potentially be putting an individuals nose out of joint and they're right to feel aggrieved about my actions, then I won't do it. Basically, I ask myself how I'd feel about it if the roles were reversed.


----------



## Richard Baker

The whole motivation is to get better data to produce an accurate replica. It that data is supported/generated by 'special' information which is not to be freely distributed, then is the accurate renderings based on that data still 'special'?
A rather awkward question above but this is an example of what I mean. Suppose ther is a spacecraft 'X' from a old movie which people have never had a proper kit of. ther are some areas of it which have never been seen in plan view and every kit thus far has gotten them wrong. Now I meet a fellow who had worked on that movie and he has some original photos and diagrams of this ship. He shares them with me but under the restriction that I do not distribute/share them with others. I gather this and all the other info on the 'X' ship and I produce a set of blueprints. It covers the before unseen areas and it is accurate to the actual filming model. Do those blueprints which I made using the restricted material have any restrictions or can they be freely used/distributed to others? The original source material is not being shared, but the information from it is.

.


----------



## stargazer

This is tricky...you cant take back what you know !!! and I for one, cannot make a model with incorrect detail if I know better.

As far as I can see the picture/plans whatever may not be shared if that is the wish of the 'donor'.

However some of my models have been made with the detail I 'know about' as a result, and I cant do anything less... this aspect has not been mentioned

to me by anyone sending me stuff as a pre-requisite to sending.

This is not to say that my models are 'exact' they are not, because there are still areas of detail that I have not been privy to.

I might be out of line here, but I would say that Steve would find it difficult not to add to his drawings/model what he 'knows'.
and I don't think, (from my own experience) that this was the intention of the 'Donor(s), quite the opposite in fact...


Take as an example the 'wooden construction picture of the moonbus'... for what reason is this particular picture to remain hidden???
is it 'just' because it is a nice picture showing as well the huge station 5 section under construction... and Carpenters milling about in their aprons, and the studio lights, and chains hanging down, and all the detail that would make it a very interesting picture to go in a book.... 
or is it to stop 'a model maker' from making himself an 'accurate moonbus model' with a 'detail' he gleaned from it... I truly don't think the latter is the intention.


----------



## DX-SFX

There is a common sense line that can be walked down the middle. It depends entirely on the nature of the material. For example, I sell a set of drawings for a particular spacecraft giving all the original kit detailing that no one to my knowledge has ever worked out before. If I didn't want anyone else to produce a model sporting the same detail then I shouldn't put the drawings out there. It would be an unreasonable expectation on my part to control any model building because I produce the drawings that make it possible. I would feel highly miffed if someone merely copied my drawings either directly or by 'tracing' over them to produce their own drawings to sell but I couldn't very well complain about someone producing a kit based on those drawings.

It should be ascertained at the time the material is offered what conditions come with it. Another personal example is the one I mentioned before where I was allowed access to an original model providing I wasn't going to kit it. I agreed to that condition and haven't done so. If I was planning to do a kit, I'd inform that person that was my plan and let them decide if they were happy to continue.

Earlier in this thread I pointed Capt Scott to some kit parts he wasn't aware of on the Moonbus. Now if I planned to make a kit available of the Moonbus, and I'm not prepared to say I never would, I could have witheld that information but in my opinion it would be a little petty. Even commercial companies can exchange technical information between themselves if it benefits both parties and unless it's something that really does give you a huge commercial advantage over the competition, the advantages of sharing information outweigh any perceived trump card you think you might hold.

There are two obvious solutions to any conflicts of interest. One is simply to ask the source if they mind or if they can clarify the terms of use. The other is to offer the source something in return to acknowledge their input which makes a big difference when they're probably only used to people who only ever want things from them. Again, it's not always about money. People just like to be recognised as being the enabler.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Good points to ponder from all of the repliers above. I take all of it to heart.

There could be hope after the Trumbull book comes out and everyone involved contributing to it feels comfortable with letting it all out or not! Until then if and when I get the word I will keep it to myself. Thanks for letting me get this off of my chest and having a constructive conversation about it.


----------



## DX-SFX

Steve Mavronis said:


> Over time I've asked my source diplomatically several different ways if or when I could ever post copies of the photos he sent me of his project because I feel it would really help all of you here. But I always get the same answers that the people who gave him reference material to use did so under conditions that it not be shared with the public at this time. So his thinking is if we the public see what he did with the information they would know and get mad that he violated their trust.


He's doing the right thing. He said he wouldn't go public with them as per their request and he clearly trusts you enough not to go public with them either. If you posted them publicly, you'd drop him in it with them and yourself in it with him. Two lost friendships and a dried up source of information.



Steve Mavronis said:


> This reaction to the "2001 to 2008: a cinematic odyssey" film screening leak makes me wonder if this could be related to what I have mentioned about why I've been asked to hold back what I have been shown in private. If so there could be hope after the Trumbull book comes out and everyone involved contributing to it feels comfortable with letting it all out or not! Until then if and when I get the word I will keep it to myself. Thanks for letting me get this off of my chest and having a constructive conversation about it.


You could be right. Fingers crossed this stuff will be made available and generate further interest in a subject that some find hard to understand. In the case of these photos, the owners can only really realise any value they have once, on the initial publication of the book. After that, the odds are that someone will post some of the pics from the book on the internet (because people do but at the risk of getting a very nasty letter from the book people) which means Joe Public, who is too cheap to buy the book, will get them for free and sales will dwindle. Again I can't blame the owners from protecting the photos current value based on the fact they've not been published before.

How much did that recently discovered bootleg tape of the Beatles from 1965 go for? A lot more than it would if it was put on a free file sharing site or You Tube.

Going back to the original content of the thread, a set of drawings derived at by wireframing stills from the film and working out the kit detailing is, in my opinion, fair game since they are the product of many contributors who have done their own detective work without calling on 'secret' information. Presumably all the contributors have been happy to share what they know by the sheer fact they offered it here in the first place so therefore no foul. If people had information they couldn't share then all they've had to do is just not offer it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

How is the wireframing process going? I remember seeing some 3D views earlier in this thread. But will any wireframe based plan view drawings under development be posted here or Phil's site (like his excellent Shuttlecraft plans and renders) so we can comment on them along the way and offer suggestions or input if any 'adjustments' are in order? Is anyone working on the interior set design as well, based on the 2001 film footage and other set images posted throughout the years?


----------



## treddie

*One reason why archives are "private"*

Just thought I would add this. Archives represent original materials, and as such these materials age with time and often are in such bad shape that strict rules have to be applied as to who will be allowed to handle these artifacts. If an artifact is in pristine shape, the general idea is to keep it that way as long as possible. One BIG, BIG (and I repeat BIG) issue is the problem of skin oils...just handling artifacts ages them due to acids and other chemicals in skin oils, which react with everything from paper to plastics, metals, you name it. Cotton or surgical gloves are mandatory, and this is not so easy to enforce unless the individual UNDERSTANDS the importance of gloves. I personally have had the opportunity to view and handle rare Apollo program artifacts for my own research project. The problem with gloves is it is difficult getting used to using them (dexterity is very much compromised) and it is VERY tempting to remove the gloves. Often I have taken the chance of removing one glove so that I can use that hand to hold a pen (I tend to write very small) or a set of calipers or whatever, but you risk the chance of forgetting what you are doing and brushing that hand against the artifact, or brain-farting completely and grabbing it with the unprotected hand.

When you are allowed into an archive, you have garnered a CERTAIN amount of professional trust by the curator, and that trust can only TRULY be gained when you prove that, 1. You are willing to follow the rules so that you will be allowed back, and 2. That you aren't just a looky-loo and that you will remain diligent and produce something of value to the public when all is said and done. If they see that you are serious, they MAY let you back another day.

I hate to say it, but the general public is reckless; they don't understand how important it is to protect artifacts or exactly what that means, and may even steal what they feel they can get away with. Curators understand all too well human nature, and typically, the ones who DO understand protocal are most usually people from academia.

There is also the prestige value of owning a particular collection. I cannot totally disagree with this impulse; it is what makes one museum or collection unique from another. The upshot is that eventually materials make their way to the public, but in doing so, you remove the importance of your collection to a certain degree, every time you release some of the material in the form of copies. As well, curators are faced with just what is the best way to display those artifacts in a manner that brings the most amount of people to their museum. After all, most museums are privately owned and it is the buying/donating public that keeps them alive. Should the artifacts be restored? Should they be left as is? How fragile are the artifacts and can they be put on display and not be adversely affected by the lighting? This all takes time and money...and floor space. When a museum or institution has thousands of artifacts in their collection, everything must be prioritized. It doesn't happen overnight, and they SURE aren't going to necessarily share it until they know what they are going to do with it and when. If they are NOT a museum, the situation may even be worse in that they do not have the infrastructure to display collections in general, so there is no desire to do so. So we are back to the beginning...only serious researchers are allowed in.

The only power we have as the general public is to strongly PETITION an agency to make items public. But that takes organization, so if you REALLY want those items available to you, you have to be willing to do the ground work and organize with others to stubbornly petition. After all...you will be dealing with a stubborn or hesitant agency.


----------



## X15-A2

Thank God someone got those photos at the Academy presentation. Otherwise we would never see those images again.

With all due respect to Mr. Larson, his book will likely never be published. It cost far too much in effort and in Dollars to get legal approval to publish (no body really knows who owns "2001" in the first place) and there is only a tiny, tiny market for such a book. Don't hold your breath waiting for its future release.

I have not worked further on the 3D model of the Moonbus. The basic proportions have been established, which was the primary reason for building it, but I have not moved on to creating ortho views of it.

How many people here are working on drawings of it and who would like to collaborate on such an effort?

Phil


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Good, then I don't feel so bad for posting image links to the photos in the guy's gallery. That's what I'm afraid of too in the back of my mind.

I would like to help and collaborate if possible, maybe with proportionally mapping out a good interior to start with as well as other miscellaneous details.

Also, I'm learning to use the great free Blender 3D modeling program. I can make complex 3D shapes pretty good now at precise angles, etc. I may start modeling the Moonbus and/or it's interior as a study with that.

Right now the only 'physical' reference I have to go by is my disassembled Aurora Moonbus model. But I hear the exterior anyway is pretty close to the movie version, minus the window glass, the interior, and other minor issues. Maybe I can draw you plans for my take on a movie version interior that fits the Aurora model and based on that so you can take it and scale it proportionally to fit into your 3D version already in the works.

Steve


----------



## stargazer

"who would like to collaborate on such an effort?"

me !!!


----------



## DX-SFX

X15-A2 said:


> How many people here are working on drawings of it and who would like to collaborate on such an effort?
> 
> Phil


Well, I'm game. Can't you just create 2D orthos from the 3D wireframes though?



X15-A2 said:


> With all due respect to Mr. Larson, his book will likely never be published. It cost far too much in effort and in Dollars to get legal approval to publish (no body really knows who owns "2001" in the first place) and there is only a tiny, tiny market for such a book. Don't hold your breath waiting for its future release.


Piers Bizony obviously had a lot more faith. "Filming The Future" presumably did well enough to warrant a slightly revised second version to be published. There have recently been two new books on the work of Derek Meddings, the first about his Anderson years and the second his movie career with a third new book about the Anderson Century 21 studios due in the new year. There must be a market for these sorts of books.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

There was supposed to be a Martin Bower book in the works too. I haven't heard if anything came of that. All these special effects modelmaker's books would be interesting to have.


----------



## treddie

I think there is. You have to be a good salesman though, but you also need someone with good intuition at the publisher. Let's face it...they're taking a financial gamble on any project they commit to. It's not like the movie industry where if it flops at the box office, you make up for the loss in DVD sales. There is no security like that in publications. Also, I believe that "Filming the Future" is no longer in print. I may be wrong there, but Amazon no longer has any in their personal stock (just 3rd party resellers). I'm glad I got my copies though. Let's pray to the Publisher Gods that Larson's book finds a home.


----------



## X15-A2

There is a big difference between large hardbound "Tashen" style books and small perfect-bound volumes. Those other books did not include all these highly "proprietary" photos and other information which apparently need whole lists of approval sign-offs before they can be used. And what about the royalties for using all those images? How many persons and business entities does the prospective publisher have to share with in order to publish this "highly desirable", "sure to be a number one best seller" tome? It is simply a case of costs versus profit (potential). Is there really a huge market for an expensive-to-produce book about "2001"? Maybe there was IN "2001" but that window has been well and truly missed. There is of course a "huge" market waiting for it on this BB but I doubt that any publisher will see that as big enough. I hope that Mr. Larson finds a publisher who is willing to take this project on, God knows that I want this book, but the question is, will he?

And in the meantime, we are left to find data any way we can.

BRAVO for cell-phones with cameras!


----------



## Richard Baker

Instead of a physical book I would settle for a DVD with photos & text- they can burn them as needed and sell online. Star Wars had a couple CD's like that and they are still helpful.
The publishing industry is havin gtorubles with keeping cost down- the once plentiful 'the making of...' books have all but disappeared since they consider the DVD extras to do the same thing. Books like the one for Stargate SG-1 with the DVD are a good way to go also.


----------



## X15-A2

As for collaborations, this is an area that for me is unexplored. We are talking about sharing data across different applications and possibly different platforms. We would need to make some decisions about the softwares used and the final format. I know that I am the only "Microstation" user here, what do the rest of you create drawings in?

Yes, I can create ortho views from the 3D model. The "but" is that they are certainly not clean enough for publication and they would only be of the basic shape, not the many details seen on the exterior. Other software packages seem to create very clean and much more sophisticated ortho views from 3D models and I have always been jealous of that capability. Perhaps "Autocad" would be the final destination for this drawing project?

Steve, stargazer, DX-FX and I should communicate privately and work things out. For instance, do we have a complete list of kit parts available for this project? If so, we will need to create 3D versions of them for application to the exterior of the model. Do you guys want to send PMs with contact info and we can go from there?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Phil,

Maybe you should control the primary drawings in Microstation or whatever you are an expert in using like with your fine Shuttlecraft. Each of us can contribute what we can and you can filter what is useful or not? You can also reach me at [email protected] if you have any thoughts or ideas. Even if you find I can't help in the end no hard feelings so don't worry about that.

Primarily I'm an old school pencil drawing person, you can see some of my artwork on my MySpace page here: http://www.myspace.com/yngwie100 and go to the Pics section and look under my artwork album. Actually here is a better direct link: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind....viewPicture&friendID=57704799&albumId=902900 since you don't have to be a MySpace member to access my page. I'm into computers and graphics as a hobby too but I can get out ideas faster with pencil and paper. 

Here is a Moonbus cabin cross-section in pencil I was working on a while back too: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showfull.php?photo=17802 based on studying and making measurements from 2001 movie screen captures. It also seems like it would fit in the Aurora kit from door bottom to ceiling. The window sills though are as depicted in the movie Moonbus interior set mockup. Some compromise may have to be made to make it match the angle of the exterior window frame struts, because in the movie interior set the cabin window glass placement appears to be simulated by the outside "strut" window sills instead of the inner window openings next to the side padded walls like the model has it.


----------



## DX-SFX

Steve Mavronis said:


> There was supposed to be a Martin Bower book in the works too. I haven't heard if anything came of that. All these special effects modelmaker's books would be interesting to have.


That idea was morphed into the idea of doing a series of magazine style books. At least one has been published so far but I'm not sure if demand is going to be high enough to sustain it. If it covered a bit more about things done for film and TV and a little less about well built but (respectfully) meaningless own designs, the interest might be a little higher. I know there's a second one due shortly though.


----------



## DX-SFX

I'm more a pencil and paper man too but I also collaborate with a good friend in Montreal called Daniel Prudhomme. I provide the reference and initial drawings and Daniel CAD's it all up. 

http://www.smallartworks.ca/PS/Space1999/ChrisTrice/Blueprints/Blueprints.html

http://pages.infinit.net/danielgp/firsteRend.htm

As you'll see from the link, Daniel can cross reference the 3D renders against film stills and create ortho views at the same time. All the reference and research was done by me. In this case the Eagle drawings are a commercial item but this doesn't have to be the case or intention in respect of the Moonbus drawings but we can talk through that by PM.


----------



## Richard Baker

Very Nice!

.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

DX-SFX said:


> That idea was morphed into the idea of doing a series of magazine style books. At least one has been published so far but I'm not sure if demand is going to be high enough to sustain it. If it covered a bit more about things done for film and TV and a little less about well built but (respectfully) meaningless own designs, the interest might be a little higher. I know there's a second one due shortly though.


Are you referring to this?

http://scifimodels.org.uk/

Martin wrote me about it just recently.


----------



## DX-SFX

Steve Mavronis said:


> Are you referring to this?
> 
> http://scifimodels.org.uk/
> 
> Martin wrote me about it just recently.


Yep, that's the one (as far as I know).


----------



## GKvfx

Just coincidently, as we were discussing the issues relating to the taking and posting of images from the 2001 lecture, Dave Larson was in town. Carson Dyle and I managed to grab a cup of coffee with him yesterday......

Here's the deal - he is meeting with various publishers regarding the long rumored book (in fact, that was one of the reasons he came to LA), and continuing to interview people and go through the Kubrick archive files in London. The publisher meetings were positive, and he is specifically looking for a publisher specializing in the high end coffee table/art books he (and the rest of us) feels the subject deserves. He is confident that any legal issues regarding imagery from the film can (and will) be worked out.

Nothing is set in stone, but he is determined to get this thing out. And believe me, I'm gonna keep buggin' him till it does........:freak:

So there's the update. Keep the faith.

Gene


----------



## Richard Baker

I hope it works out- that movie deserves more that what has been done already.


----------



## DX-SFX

Me too. I like to think optimistically.


----------



## Carson Dyle

GKvfx said:


> ...he is meeting with various publishers regarding the long rumored book (and going) through the Kubrick archive files in London.


Those who think going through the aforementioned files is an easy task might want to have a look at this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779

Just to give you some idea of what Dave is up against research-wise.


----------



## Richard Baker

That is a LOT of boxes...

.


----------



## Atemylunch

That is fantastic, I could only imagine what is in the 2001 boxes. After seeing 2001 in Blu-Ray I never realized how much detail was in that film. 

Thank God he categorized it all. 

Keep on him for all of us Gene.


----------



## treddie

Reminds me of (in a much smaller sense) going through 4 jam-packed file cabinets (4 drawers each) full of original Apollo space suit blueprints from A6L to A7LB. The cabinets were so full you had to tug hard to get anything out of them. The problem was, they had been acquired but not yet organized, so I spent two days of a research trip simply organizing everything and tabbing everything so that the different suit models were easily found. THEN I could do my research.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Atemylunch said:


> After seeing 2001 in Blu-Ray I never realized how much detail was in that film.


Amazing, isn't it.

I recently purchased a new TV and Blu-Ray player, and 2001 was the first disc I popped in. It was quite late at night, and I'd only intended to watch a few minutes of the film so as to get a sense of the image quality. Of course, I ended up watching the picture in its entirety. There's something hypnotic about 2001. Once you start looking at it, it's rather difficult to look away.

BTW, there is a _very_ brief montage of 2001 props near the tail end of the Ronson documentary, and it includes a couple of shots I've never seen before. Nothing Earth-shattering, but it certainly whets the appetite for more.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Carson Dyle said:


> Those who think going through the aforementioned files is an easy task might want to have a look at this...
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779
> 
> Just to give you some idea of what Dave is up against research-wise.


Amazing stuff. Kubrick was a very intriguing person for sure!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Kubrick almost never committed his thoughts to tape, but during pre-production on 2001 Jeremy Bernstein got him to go on the record in an in-depth and wide-ranging interview. Previously released on a disc that accompanied the big Taschen book, the interview can now be found on You-Tube, where someone has thoughtfully taken the liberty of combining it with appropriate imagery from Kubrick's films.

While I would urge Kubrick fans to listen to the entire interview, the portion pertaining to 2001 can be found here...


----------



## DX-SFX

Thanks for the link. Good interview.


----------



## heiki

This link appears to go nowhere....



Carson Dyle said:


> Those who think going through the aforementioned files is an easy task might want to have a look at this...
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779
> 
> Just to give you some idea of what Dave is up against research-wise.


----------



## Richard Baker

Lately all the good stuff gets pulled off of YouTube before I get to try the link- this is another example.

.


----------



## SHADO

The detail is not too hot, but there are a couple of extra Moonbus pics on the Master Models site here.

They don't 'save' when viewed in the Gallery. Click 'download', off to the right, and they'll download as jpg's.


----------



## DX-SFX

Just done the same thing.



















Note the part I've arrowed. This is relevant to the discussion we were having several pages back about the sides of the outriggers and what angle the returns were at. Clearly they're at ninety degrees to the side walls otherwise there wouldn't be the odd trapezium shaped lower surface. Another small question answered.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Thanks very much for posting the link, SHADO. In addition to the nice Moonbus shot, pix of Blofeld's satellite from "Diamonds Are Forever" are _extremely_ scarce.


----------



## SHADO

:thumbsup: You're welcome! I must credit mat2244 on Eagletransporter.com for the find, though.

I thought the satellite looked familiar!


----------



## DX-SFX

Re: My last post, the photo indicates that the fold line on the outriggers should definitely be as per the blue line on this pic:


----------



## Richard Baker

That is a great photo- you can actually see the thrust nozzels recessed in the outrigger unit. 

.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Great stuff. I'm glad Master Models updated their site with these new pics!


----------



## ukwookie

That underside shot also shows that the whole "lattice" structure is recessed into the bottom surface... unlike the Aurora kit where it is surrounded by a raised rim.

Which lends credence to the idea (discussed earlier) that the Aurora designers worked from profile photos to develop the kit. 

Tony M


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Are you sure there is not a rim around there. I thought that I detected a rim when I was playing with contrast of the pic from screencaps I took off the website. One thing though, the Monsters In Motion kit is dead wrong as far as the bottom goes.


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> Are you sure there is not a rim around there. I thought that I detected a rim when I was playing with contrast of the pic from screencaps I took off the website. One thing though, the Monsters In Motion kit is dead wrong as far as the bottom goes.


Steve,

You'll find that the whole framework section is a sort of 'tray' that sits into the underside of the body, and is removable to gain access to the model's interior. Unfortunately, it's slightly warped, so in places the side wall of the tray hangs down below the level of the body, and in other places it sits up inside the body slightly. The areas where it's protruding must have been noticed by the paternmakers at Aurora (they were working from photos) and interpreted as a rim wall. As far as I can gather the intention was that the edge sit flush with the bottom of the Bus.

Keith


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks Keith for that info. I didn't know that. Also, maybe its a image contrast artifact, but does the surface under the framework have a ribbed pattern?


----------



## Astrocat

Steve Mavronis said:


> Thanks Keith for that info. I didn't know that. Also, maybe its a image contrast artifact, but does the surface under the framework have a ribbed pattern?


I'm pretty certain it's an artifact of the photo enhancement, as the effect also appears on other areas that are definitly not ribbed.

One thing of note is the mount point for the miniature that should be in the centre of the framework (covered by an Airfix B29 bulkhead dome once it's detailed up) isn't there, which suggests the armature for the model was added later at the studio, not built in by Mastermodels.


----------



## DX-SFX

Astrocat said:


> I'm pretty certain it's an artifact of the photo enhancement, as the effect also appears on other areas that are definitly not ribbed.
> 
> One thing of note is the mount point for the miniature that should be in the centre of the framework (covered by an Airfix B29 bulkhead dome once it's detailed up) isn't there, which suggests the armature for the model was added later at the studio, not built in by Mastermodels.


My impression is the same as Astrocat's. It's an artifact from resizing and sharpening.


----------



## jheilman

Anyone able to replicate some missing pieces for an Aurora moonbus? Just won one on eBay that is missing the astronaut figures and (possibly) a couple other details. Or does anyone offer superior figures?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I second that. I'm missing a couple landing pads/feet and the passenger cabin bulkhead. I'd also like to find a set of better replacement rocket nozzles.


----------



## jheilman

Upgrade parts would be a bonus. I just want to replace what is missing. I agree that better nozzles would be sweet.


----------



## Richard Baker

The Movie was shown 41 years ago and people still want infl/kits from it- now that's "Longevity."


----------



## DX-SFX

The whole point of the thread is to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## jheilman

Richard Baker said:


> The Movie was shown 41 years ago and people still want infl/kits from it- now that's "Longevity."


Yeah, I don't think popularity has an expiration date. How many people would scoop up an accurate, affordable Maria robot kit from Metropolis? I would. And don't forget how many kits at Wonderfest covered all the classic Universal horror films many of which are over 70 years old.


----------



## John P

jheilman said:


> Yeah, I don't think popularity has an expiration date. How many people would scoop up an accurate, affordable Maria robot kit from Metropolis? I would. And don't forget how many kits at Wonderfest covered all the classic Universal horror films many of which are over 70 years old.


http://www.inpayne.com/models/maria.html


----------



## heiki

John P said:


> http://www.inpayne.com/models/maria.html


John,
That is one mean looking Maria!


----------



## akoenig

Ufffff... long thread...


----------



## fluke

Scott at Atomic is still working on the 1/24 Moonbus kit.

I am scheduled to go over the kits early run parts to make sure the model
can be lit with little hassles. Sorry no lighting kit will be offered from Atomic or with the kit but I will either add a page of ideas or offer an aftermarket lighting kit.

I can't wait....uh...yes I can...after all its been two years since its announcement.


----------



## breid

Martin Bower has posted an article about his 2001 Moon Bus. Very informative with lots of pics. 

Here's the link http://www.martinbowersmodelworld.com


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Oh man! I didn't think he was ever going to go public with this. Great article and I see he's finally updated his website too! I would call Martin's the Ultimate Moonbus for accuracy.


----------



## Hunch

Martins build is very involved and looks fantastic. Best I've seen yet. Wish I had the time to tackle something like that!


----------



## treddie

Pretty amazing is all I can say.


----------



## stargazer

Fantastic Build. Well that's the purpose of this thread done...

size, proportions, kit parts


Interior ?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well hopefully Martin's build helps much with the blueprinting of the Moon Bus proportions.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Here is a medium size version of a drawing that I did ages ago based on the Aurora Moonbus model interior from my HobbyTalk gallery as an illustration to explain the following.

I was studying the position of the equipment bay moving it forward towards the cockpit. This is to make room for the white vent panel section between the forward passenger window and equipment bay bulkhead as the film depicts it. The top example is similar to as in the film 2001, and the bottom example is as in the Aurora kit. The equipment bay should actually go a bit more forward so the vent section is 1.5x the length of a windowed section. I just stopped it where the kit floor (incorrectly) rises before the cockpit seats:










My 'tardis' question is for anyone to help with suggestions concerning the floor elevations from the full size live action set used in the film. In 2001, the floor does drop down when going from the cargo area to the equipment bay. But it appears to stay at that elevation through to the cockpit floor. In the Aurora model this is impossible unless you fudge the forward landing gear bay height. What would you advise if modifying the Aurora interior floor elevation to arrive at a compromise between the film and this kit?

Now this part of my concern about modifying the coming Moebius Moonbus interior. I have the kit on pre-order. I wasn't sure about posting about this in their forum so they don't think I'm asking for them to modify the interior. I know they want to re-issue an original version of the kit and I want to make an attempt at an interior correction.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Delete


----------



## StarshipClass

Steve Mavronis said:


> Here is a medium size version of a drawing that I did ages ago based on the Aurora Moonbus model interior from my HobbyTalk gallery as an illustration to explain the following.
> 
> I was studying the position of the equipment bay moving it forward towards the cockpit. This is to make room for the white vent panel section between the forward passenger window and equipment bay bulkhead as the film depicts it. The top example is similar to as in the film 2001, and the bottom example is as in the Aurora kit. The equipment bay should actually go a bit more forward so the vent section is 1.5x the length of a windowed section. I just stopped it where the kit floor (incorrectly) rises before the cockpit seats:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 'tardis' question is for anyone to help with suggestions concerning the floor elevations from the full size live action set used in the film. In 2001, the floor does drop down when going from the cargo area to the equipment bay. But it appears to stay at that elevation through to the cockpit floor. In the Aurora model this is impossible unless you fudge the forward landing gear bay height. What would you advise if modifying the Aurora interior floor elevation to arrive at a compromise between the film and this kit?
> 
> . . . I want to make an attempt at an interior correction.


It would appear from your sketch and notes that there is a lot of room for fudging things one way or another. From the photos I've seen, I've not really been able to pin things down too hard and fast. Is the floor too high if you were to keep it at that higher elevation above the landing gear bay?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It would appear from your sketch and notes that there is a lot of room for fudging things one way or another. From the photos I've seen, I've not really been able to pin things down too hard and fast. Is the floor too high if you were to keep it at that higher elevation above the landing gear bay?


If you kept the floor level over the forward landing gear bay, you would lose the step down from the passenger/cargo area into the equipment bay. The equipment bay should be positioned even more forward almost to the backs of the pilot seats, but that raised cockpit floor is a problem. I was thinking of a couple ways to possibly fudge it:


Move the equipment bay up against the incorrect raised cockpit floor (close as possible to the gear bay wall) and modify the forward bulkhead so that the flexible sliding pull door curtains are shown in the shut position. One may also want to fake a higher bulkhead opening only on the pilot side adding the height of the step. Then when looking separately from either the cockpit or passenger/equipment bay, the casual observer may not even realize the floor heights are different!
Keep the floor low from the equipment bay and the cockpit, letting the forward gear bay stick up through the floor between the pilot seats.
Shorten the forward gear bay height to be the same level as the floor. This would mean cutting off some of the top of of the forward landing gear 'mounting box', which may not be that noticable in the hole. The pilot seats will sit lower too but the instrument panel may then be too high.
Another issue is along the outside based on pictures of the film model, the space between the rear landing gear bays and panels above is too short. One could widen that space which would have the effect of lowering the height of all 3 landing gear bays and the incorrect raised cockpit floor level. Very tricky though to recreate all the panel detail to fill in the gap!
Another thing I was wondering about is the passenger/cargo area floor level. Is the walkway in between the same level as the door bottom? If the interior could be re-scaled to make room for a step down to the door behind the last seat position, then the cockpit floor could be flat with the equipment bay and still have a step up into the passenger/cargo area.
I will try to make new interior pencil drawings this weekend to explore the possibilities. Some of the ideas above may or may not work or be practical.


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Ive never posted anything before and Im asking if I can post a picture of my CG Moonbus that Im working on. It is based on Martin Bowers Model and is Studio Scale.


----------



## jheilman

Well, I want to see it. Post away!


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Here is a couple just one moment!


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

here is my photobucket url

http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/...on=view&current=2001MoonbusCompleteBody29.png

http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/...on=view&current=2001MoonbusCompleteBody30.png


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Im new at this here are larger jpegs


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

lets try again


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Excellent renders! What 3D software are you using? How are you coming about the dimensions and proportions from Martin's photos?


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

the software is rhino, and it took me two weeks of examining photos and size relations to 
airfix model parts (mainly the rearbulkhead) alot of trial and error but everything seems to 
be falling into place. I need good clear pictures of the parts on the rearbulkhead door plus
pictures of what is on the bottom to finish my model. The measurements could be slightly
off but very close. Overall model is 32 inches long.


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Here are somemore photos


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Also the last four photos are early build renders and more details had not been added and
the size of the engines were to small. the first photos were the latest renders.


----------



## jheilman

Ooh, very nice.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I like the detail you put into this! If I may, the only improvement is that you could make is the window plane's cross-section profile angle closer to the bottom of the separator struts instead of vertical and parallel? At least from the interior set views the cabin walls where the windows are on seem to be around 60 degrees from horizontal, and the exterior model shots show the tapered angle too.


----------



## treddie

Nice work!

You mentioned Rhino, but it has a very Maxwell Render feel to it.


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

yes your right steve I was already aware of that plus there are other minor errors. The reason I modeled this was to get the overall proportions to build a physical model and 
have yet to go back and correct all the errors. I may also produce a set of workable blueprints. It was fun to build. Took about 1 month total to get where im at today. Perhaps 
Astrocat could produce some more kit scans especially of the rear door and bottom parts
so I can complete this more accurately.


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

Hear is an ortho of the rearbulkhead, plus a pdf file blueprint of the rearbulkhead


----------



## Carson Dyle

Lovely renders. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## misterggg

*update*

I have made some improvements to the mesh here are some pictures


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Wow! Much nicer now! Are you going to model an interior too? 

The only other thing I notice is you can add rib detail to the passenger window deck at each strut (see Martin's model) and the rear pair of legs seem too close together. Shouldn't they be alinged with the front leg pontoons where the separation space would fit one in between them, just like your other rear view picture in your previous post where the spacing is correct?


----------



## misterggg

Steve Mavronis said:


> Wow! Much nicer now! Are you going to model an interior too?
> 
> The only other thing I notice is you can add rib detail to the passenger window deck at each strut (see Martin's model) and the rear pair of legs seem too close together. Shouldn't they be alinged with the front leg pontoons where the separation space would fit one in between them, just like your other rear view picture in your previous post where the spacing is correct?


Yes I do plan on doing the interior but Im not sure when. There is a rib line around the window and your right it may not match martins, good observation. This is my second rebuild but not my last. I know what you mean about the pontoons but they look right to me, here are some more pictures









































What am I doing wrong on displaying images everything looks screwed up?


----------



## misterggg

*CG Moonbus*

I apologize steve your right again the back pontoons are too close together and I am in the process of making adjustments. Thanks for the advice. Now Ill have to make NEW RENDERS aargggh!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Hey no problem. It's always going to be some fine tuning taking place with constructive critiques being offered here. You're doing a great job!


----------



## CaptCBoard

I think your pontoons are fine, its the point where each mounts to the underbody that might be a bit too far inboard. You are also lacking a lot of 'curves' on the front, particularly noticeable in the thruster area.

Scott


----------



## Paulbo

That's looking really cool!

(To fix the picture layout so we can see them without scrolling all over creation, add a line break after the line of text before the first image code, then after each image code so they're displayed one after the other.)


----------



## misterggg

*Refining My Model*



CaptCBoard said:


> I think your pontoons are fine, its the point where each mounts to the underbody that might be a bit too far inboard. You are also lacking a lot of 'curves' on the front, particularly noticeable in the thruster area.
> 
> Scott


Yeah your right Scott Im already remodeling the front section again. I knew about several
areas that have already been mentioned its just the front section is rather harder to construct with all the compond curves. I quess it serves me right for my haste of putting 
something on the forum before I was really ready to. Even my blueprint PDF measurements
are not the same anymore. My model is 32" long (without the door) 12" body width, and
7" body height (without landing gear) is that about right?

Thanks for the picture displaying tip Paulbo it was driving me nuts.


----------



## CaptCBoard

The height of the body is 8 inches. As far as my estimations go, the length and width is correct, though the body is closer to 12.5 than 12. I have the body nearly finished on my 1:24 scale model and that should tell the tale, proportionally.

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Measurements*



CaptCBoard said:


> The height of the body is 8 inches. As far as my estimations go, the length and width is correct, though the body is closer to 12.5 than 12. I have the body nearly finished on my 1:24 scale model and that should tell the tale, proportionally.
> 
> Scott


I cant see how the body height can be 8 inches, that was one area that I layed out very 
carefully as a base to start my model, and the placement of model parts and the size of the door. To add another inch! I just dont see it.


----------



## joshuafrfld701

it followed the angle and perspective of the main body in the photo. This takes some time to get everything to match up but once done, you can now measure in perspective


----------



## CaptCBoard

misterggg said:


> I cant see how the body height can be 8 inches, that was one area that I layed out very
> carefully as a base to start my model, and the placement of model parts and the size of the door. To add another inch! I just dont see it.


It depends on if you're following the Aurora proportions or generating the model by extrapolating the interior. We know the interior set was definitely designed to fit the exterior, so when you take the interior headroom into account, the exterior height is definitely 8 feet, or 8 inches on a 1:12 scale model. Here's a photo of my studio-scale (32-inch) Moonbus with a 1:12 scale figure beside it--










The front of this model has been changed since this photo was taken, but notice how the rest of it works. What was gotten wrong on this model is being corrected in my 1:24 scale kit.

One thing to take into account in your CAD model is if the side details were derived by actually measuring the real kit parts. I don't recall if you were able to do that, but that is how the proportions of the model I have was derived.

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Studio Scale Moonbus Measurements*



CaptCBoard said:


> It depends on if you're following the Aurora proportions or generating the model by extrapolating the interior. We know the interior set was definitely designed to fit the exterior, so when you take the interior headroom into account, the exterior height is definitely 8 feet, or 8 inches on a 1:12 scale model. Here's a photo of my studio-scale (32-inch) Moonbus with a 1:12 scale figure beside it--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The front of this model has been changed since this photo was taken, but notice how the rest of it works. What was gotten wrong on this model is being corrected in my 1:24 scale kit.
> 
> One thing to take into account in your CAD model is if the side details were derived by actually measuring the real kit parts. I don't recall if you were able to do that, but that is how the proportions of the model I have was derived.
> 
> Scott


How I came to my CAD model measurements was from several sources of kit part scans and information of various sites that listed kit part measurements such as this site.
However even though it is possible to make measurement errors, until I am convinced buy other evidence that the studio scale model is 8" body height and not 7" body height I will stick to my findings. We all can agree that a studio stage set (such as the Moonbus interior) does not always reflect the studio scale of the Moonbus model. So Im going in the 
other direction of fitting the interior to the studio scale model because it is the exterior that
is more important to relation of the interior in my opinion. Also if I am correct in my measurements then somewhere in your measurements your are compensating for the differences and it will be apparent in your exterior and that will be noticed. It is good to see that this thread is becoming active again because lets face it we love the Moonbus! Oh I will give you this Scott, your engine bells look more like the Moonbus than mine or Martin Bowers (in overall bell shape) in my opinion. That is just another area of mine to correct.


----------



## CaptCBoard

One thing that is known about the production of 2001, is there were several shots done that never saw the light of day. One of those shots was to be a 3/4 front view of the Moonbus showing not only the pilots in the front windows, but also the passengers would be seen in the side windows. For this shot to work, the interior set had to match the exterior model. This means that the interior set and the exterior model had to be built from plans such that when the two elements were shot and lined up on the animation stand, where the guys were on the interior had to line up with were they were supposed to be seen from the outside. If the interior set was not built with this requirement in mind, they could not have done the shot. I have a photo (shared with me privately) that shows the interior set prepped for this shot. 

It does not make sense to design an exterior and an interior that have to line up in this manner such that the design causes problems. The same goes for the Aries Passenger Cabin. The interior matches the exterior perfectly. I'm not just referring to the film for this, I matched the blueprint to my 1:32 scale model and they were only off by 1/10 of an inch.

Given this evidence, I set about to derive the proportions of the Moonbus. My estimate of an 8-foot height is based on matching the interior set to the cross-section of the Moonbus. I ran the height using different dimensions and settled on 8 feet. This is the only height that accommodates the interior headroom. It also makes the floor match up with the door at the back, again something that is confirmed by the photo I can't share. One thing I can say about the floor/door/ceiling relationship is that the door is very small. One would have to place one foot over the sill, like a knee-knocker on a ship, and then stoop and duck under the top of the opening. If you look at the headroom in this shot, you'll notice the ceiling is no more than 6' 3"--










Notice how he's touching the padded ceiling rib. Very low clearance. So, with an exterior height of only 7 feet, there isn't enough left over to make the exterior work. There is a ramp stored under the floor of the passenger cabin, the end of which can be seen under the door on the exterior. With a height of 8 feet, the cross-section begins to work--










I realize that there will be those who say the interior should not be considered. I can't argue with that because we simply don't have the model to measure, so we all have to approach this from our own points of view. But, I think I have something everyone will agree on--



















I've studied several different photos and HD screen grabs (the best one is seen above) and have determined this to be the best interpretation of the shape of the engine bell. This image is derived from the CAD file that will be used to grow the master for my kit and replace the ones on my 1:12 scale model. One thing to note is the number of 'handles' on the engine bell is not 4 or 6, but 5.

Scott


----------



## fluke

Don't mess with this guy....he has put way too much into this.

Way to go Scott! :thumbsup: I can not wait for your kit.

Check you mail here ok. Troy.


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus measurements*



CaptCBoard said:


> One thing that is known about the production of 2001, is there were several shots done that never saw the light of day. One of those shots was to be a 3/4 front view of the Moonbus showing not only the pilots in the front windows, but also the passengers would be seen in the side windows. For this shot to work, the interior set had to match the exterior model. This means that the interior set and the exterior model had to be built from plans such that when the two elements were shot and lined up on the animation stand, where the guys were on the interior had to line up with were they were supposed to be seen from the outside. If the interior set was not built with this requirement in mind, they could not have done the shot. I have a photo (shared with me privately) that shows the interior set prepped for this shot.
> 
> It does not make sense to design an exterior and an interior that have to line up in this manner such that the design causes problems. The same goes for the Aries Passenger Cabin. The interior matches the exterior perfectly. I'm not just referring to the film for this, I matched the blueprint to my 1:32 scale model and they were only off by 1/10 of an inch.
> 
> Given this evidence, I set about to derive the proportions of the Moonbus. My estimate of an 8-foot height is based on matching the interior set to the cross-section of the Moonbus. I ran the height using different dimensions and settled on 8 feet. This is the only height that accommodates the interior headroom. It also makes the floor match up with the door at the back, again something that is confirmed by the photo I can't share. One thing I can say about the floor/door/ceiling relationship is that the door is very small. One would have to place one foot over the sill, like a knee-knocker on a ship, and then stoop and duck under the top of the opening. If you look at the headroom in this shot, you'll notice the ceiling is no more than 6' 3"--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how he's touching the padded ceiling rib. Very low clearance. So, with an exterior height of only 7 feet, there isn't enough left over to make the exterior work. There is a ramp stored under the floor of the passenger cabin, the end of which can be seen under the door on the exterior. With a height of 8 feet, the cross-section begins to work--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there will be those who say the interior should not be considered. I can't argue with that because we simply don't have the model to measure, so we all have to approach this from our own points of view. But, I think I have something everyone will agree on--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've studied several different photos and HD screen grabs (the best one is seen above) and have determined this to be the best interpretation of the shape of the engine bell. This image is derived from the CAD file that will be used to grow the master for my kit and replace the ones on my 1:12 scale model. One thing to note is the number of 'handles' on the engine bell is not 4 or 6, but 5.
> 
> Scott


Well I can see errors in your CAD model of the engine bell and your cutaway blueprint even though they look real close and of course there are errors in my own CAD model that Im always updating on, So I quess we can agree to disagree with each other until the cows come home. I will stay with my findings for now but will respect your view point too. For now Ive gone over the rearbulkhead enough times and corrected many errors to the point that everything fits very well and I just dont see an additional inch added to the overall height. I dont have to be a professional model builder to have an EYE for the attention to 
detail as Mr. Fluke may have eluded to. The airfix and other model company parts detailing tell the story.


----------



## Paulbo

misterggg said:


> Well I can see errors in your CAD model of the engine bell ...


The errors in the engine bell were intentionally introduced during discussions with Scott so that we could ensure that the parts could be cast properly without the mold degrading too quickly. The overall shape, however, is pretty much dead on.

Boy, I'd love to see the "prepping the full-sized set for the composite shot" photo you've mentioned, Scott. If I promise not to share it ...


----------



## breid

Hello everyone, I've been following this thread for years , but have been reluctant to add my thoughts until now. For well over a year, I've been working on drawings for a “studio scale” bus with the intention of building a model of it. I've also collected every kit mentioned here and spent countless hours studying every photo I could get my hands on. Thanks to all who freely supplied this information. I'm not finished with the hull yet, still waiting on a kit so I can verify the door size. I draft on paper and want to get done as much as I can before I take them off the drawing board to scan and post. As it is now, my hull is 7 11/16 high, 33 9/16 long and 11 ¾ wide not including the rcs pods . All of the kit pieces fit well and everything seems to be in the proper relationship with everything else. I will post drawing as soon as I can and will welcome any and all input.
What prompted me to post was Captcboard's rendering of the vtol engine. That is pretty much what I've thought it should be. It seemed obvious that there were more than four “handles” around the bell,(I thought maybe six) and it always bugged me that the experts never caught it. My only concern is with the “gussets” around the neck of the bell. I've spotted them in that classic head on shot of the bus, but I can't see them in any other photo, especially in the Master Model shots which have the clearest view of both the bells and the landing gear. 
Well here are drawings of my bell and landing gear. 

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus measurements*



breid said:


> Hello everyone, I've been following this thread for years , but have been reluctant to add my thoughts until now. For well over a year, I've been working on drawings for a “studio scale” bus with the intention of building a model of it. I've also collected every kit mentioned here and spent countless hours studying every photo I could get my hands on. Thanks to all who freely supplied this information. I'm not finished with the hull yet, still waiting on a kit so I can verify the door size. I draft on paper and want to get done as much as I can before I take them off the drawing board to scan and post. As it is now, my hull is 7 11/16 high, 33 9/16 long and 11 ¾ wide not including the rcs pods . All of the kit pieces fit well and everything seems to be in the proper relationship with everything else. I will post drawing as soon as I can and will welcome any and all input.
> What prompted me to post was Captcboard's rendering of the vtol engine. That is pretty much what I've thought it should be. It seemed obvious that there were more than four “handles” around the bell,(I thought maybe six) and it always bugged me that the experts never caught it. My only concern is with the “gussets” around the neck of the bell. I've spotted them in that classic head on shot of the bus, but I can't see them in any other photo, especially in the Master Model shots which have the clearest view of both the bells and the landing gear.
> Well here are drawings of my bell and landing gear.
> 
> Joe


Hello Breid

I for one thank you for sharing your studies, can you show us your rearbulkhead and side 
elevations. I think I can safely speak for everyone that any input is helpfull.


----------



## Hunch

Am I crazy, or is the lower "rib" on the engine bells thinner than the top ones? The drawings presented here dont seem to represent that.
Dont hit me.


----------



## Gemini1999

Hunch said:


> Am I crazy, or is the lower "rib" on the engine bells thinner than the top ones? The drawings presented here dont seem to represent that.
> Dont hit me.


You're not crazy - I noticed that too...


----------



## breid

Hello Misterggg 
I meant to complement you on your fine renderings this morning but I was pressed for time to finish the post and I forgot. I wish I was cad savvy but just being able to participate here at Hobbytalk is pushing the envelope of my computer skills. It will be some time before I can post my drawings, I have a few details to check. As soon as they are ready I'll have them up.


----------



## misterggg

*CAD Savvy*



breid said:


> Hello Misterggg
> I meant to complement you on your fine renderings this morning but I was pressed for time to finish the post and I forgot. I wish I was cad savvy but just being able to participate here at Hobbytalk is pushing the envelope of my computer skills. It will be some time before I can post my drawings, I have a few details to check. As soon as they are ready I'll have them up.


Thanks Breid

Im not really CAD savvy. My model took 2 months to make from research to final model as you see it. This model is my FIRST real attempt at using Rhino Nurbs modeler. Ive been unemployeed for now and was able to dedicate more time (than maybe say in your spare time). As with the well known Sinclair blueprints of TOS Starship Enterprise I will be refining my model. I would like to see more references of model kit parts and their measurements, as well as what parts are on the rearbulkhead door and bottom. Its to bad that many people are too tight with releasing reference information for what ever reason. Not to be disrespectfull to Stanley Kubrick but destroying the models and making everything else top secret is STUPID in my opinion. There I feel better to get that off my chest! Who knows maybe when we are all in our 80's everything will be made public!


----------



## breid

I feel your pain Misterggg, I've been laid off for almost a year now, but that will hopefully change by January. Good luck to you in that regard. I'll see what I can do about posting pics of the parts I have. I can't add much more to the parts list that hasn't already been mentioned here or by Martin Bower. I'm going to need help identifying the rest of the parts myself. I'll certainly share whatever I come up with.

 Joe


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Here is a cabin cross-section (see attached) that I drew based on proportional measurements of 2001 stills. The window sill represents the movie set and is not accurate to the model exterior's angled window struts. I hope maybe it helps you somewhat...


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Reference Information*



breid said:


> I feel your pain Misterggg, I've been laid off for almost a year now, but that will hopefully change by January. Good luck to you in that regard. I'll see what I can do about posting pics of the parts I have. I can't add much more to the parts list that hasn't already been mentioned here or by Martin Bower. I'm going to need help identifying the rest of the parts myself. I'll certainly share whatever I come up with.
> 
> Joe


I have a folder of about 82 megs of model part pictures but I dont know how to upload it on this forum ( im still rather new at this web-site-forum-stuff ). All my reference was freely found on the internet though, but if you have the PHYSICAL model parts maybe you could compile a list of parts and corresponding measurements. Just think of how fast and far we could go with this thread and other threads by getting all the information out there! If anyone knows how to upload 82 megs of information on this site and I will upload it!!!

It just boils down to IF YOU GOT INFORMATION BUT CANNOT SHARE IT THEN WHY BOTHER TELLING US ABOUT IT IM NO FURTHER AHEAD THEN I WAS BEFORE YOU MENTIONED IT!!!!!!!


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Reference Information*



Steve Mavronis said:


> Here is a cabin cross-section (see attached) that I drew based on proportional measurements of 2001 stills. The window sill represents the movie set and is not accurate to the model exterior's angled window struts. I hope maybe it helps you somewhat...


Thanks for sharing Steve. I cant explain it but I love blueprints, cross section diagrams, Isometric exploded view drawings, and any other Technical drawings, ( especially of the Movie/Tv Sci-fi topic ). This stuff is just GREAT!!!


----------



## misterggg

*Honest John Kit Scans*

I acquired 2 of these kits at an estate sale for 12 bucks for both, 1 built 1 unbuilt still in the box! I made these Kit Scans today!

Ill keep these zip files up for a little while so download awwwwaaay!


----------



## hal9001

misterggg said:


> Who knows maybe when we are all in our 80's everything will be made public!


Yeah, but by then, who would care? Or for that matter, who would _remember_ to care! :lol:

hal9001-


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus on life support*

Hey Astrocat where are you? can you give this thread some more reference information 
after talking it over with your good buddy Martin Bower? help us out this thread has struggled long enough with the lack of INPUT arrrrgghhhhhhahhahah!


----------



## breid

Here are some pics of parts that I don't think have been posted before. I hope they are useful. I apologize for the poor quality, my camera isn't good at closeups. I really need to upgrade to a good digital SLR. The first is of the doors and end wall from the Airfix Interfrigo, and the end wall off the AF Meat Wagon. The doors are 57/64 L x21/32 W x1/16 T with 1/8 rad corners. The Interfrigo end wall is 1 5/32 L x 1 9/32 W x 1/16 T . I think this is the part used up front under the rear hemisphere. )The meat wagon end wall is 1 ¼ L x 1 15/64 W x 9/64 T ( measured at the louvers). The louvers are 3/8 wide and about 9/32 point to point. 
The second pic are parts from the Atomic Cannon. The top is the front end from one of the tractors. The two tear drop head lights are fitted into the top of the bus near the port side windows. You can clearly see these on Martin Bower's model. The head lights are 25/64 long, the large dia is ¼ and , the small dia is about 5/64, all taken from the inside. The two little knobs inside are 3/16 on center. Of the two bottom parts only the top section is used and they go on top of the RCS shoulders. They are not mirror images,so I don't know if they were used as is, or if one was modified to look more like the other.
The last pic are parts used for the antenna base. The big one is from the Cannon,it's 2 21/64 L x 1 13/32 W ( 1 31/64 OA) x 3/64 T. The center doughnut is 51/64 OD, 3/8 id x 3/32 T. The other piece is the front grill from the Honest John truck. It's 1 3/8 L x 27/64 ( 31/64 OA) W x 11/64 T. It looks to me that Martin removed the headlights. 

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Excellent Information!!!*



breid said:


> Here are some pics of parts that I don't think have been posted before. I hope they are useful. I apologize for the poor quality, my camera isn't good at closeups. I really need to upgrade to a good digital SLR. The first is of the doors and end wall from the Airfix Interfrigo, and the end wall off the AF Meat Wagon. The doors are 57/64 L x21/32 W x1/16 T with 1/8 rad corners. The Interfrigo end wall is 1 5/32 L x 1 9/32 W x 1/16 T . I think this is the part used up front under the rear hemisphere. )The meat wagon end wall is 1 ¼ L x 1 15/64 W x 9/64 T ( measured at the louvers). The louvers are 3/8 wide and about 9/32 point to point.
> The second pic are parts from the Atomic Cannon. The top is the front end from one of the tractors. The two tear drop head lights are fitted into the top of the bus near the port side windows. You can clearly see these on Martin Bower's model. The head lights are 25/64 long, the large dia is ¼ and , the small dia is about 5/64, all taken from the inside. The two little knobs inside are 3/16 on center. Of the two bottom parts only the top section is used and they go on top of the RCS shoulders. They are not mirror images,so I don't know if they were used as is, or if one was modified to look more like the other.
> The last pic are parts used for the antenna base. The big one is from the Cannon,it's 2 21/64 L x 1 13/32 W ( 1 31/64 OA) x 3/64 T. The center doughnut is 51/64 OD, 3/8 id x 3/32 T. The other piece is the front grill from the Honest John truck. It's 1 3/8 L x 27/64 ( 31/64 OA) W x 11/64 T. It looks to me that Martin removed the headlights.
> 
> Joe


Thank you very much Breid! This is the stuff we need more of. Im still a little confused on the TEAR DROP parts and the RCS Shoulder parts are from the Honest John kit, but still this 
is what we need more of on this thread. Its all in the details. If you have more of this stuff I would really like to see it, especially of the parts that Martin Bower has not disclosed on his site. I just want to build a CAD model as accurately as I can before trying to build a physical model. Again this stuff is Excellent!


----------



## Astrocat

misterggg said:


> Hey Astrocat where are you? can you give this thread some more reference information
> after talking it over with your good buddy Martin Bower? help us out this thread has struggled long enough with the lack of INPUT arrrrgghhhhhhahhahah!


Hi misterggg,

Sorry I've been a bit quiet of late, but I'm in a bit of a difficult position here. 
As I'm sure some of you are aware, for the last few years I've been helping Dave Larson with research for his 2001 book (which is still progressing well, despite many people's doubts). There are plans to include a comprehensive list of parts used on the 2001 miniatures in the book, and my small part on the project is advising on these. Now, as I REALLY don't want to compromise Dave's publication, I've been keeping my head down. As the quote goes:



> It just boils down to IF YOU GOT INFORMATION BUT CANNOT SHARE IT THEN WHY BOTHER TELLING US ABOUT IT IM NO FURTHER AHEAD THEN I WAS BEFORE YOU MENTIONED IT!!!!!!!


The information will be available as soon as the book is published of course, so it's not 'hidden forever'.... there's just a slight delay. I know that's frustrating, and to some it may paint me as 'the bad guy', but I'm afraid that's just the way things are......

I did help Martin out with his Moonbus replicas, I have to admit, providing him with casts of most of the parts, but that was a bit of an exception (as they were intended purely as private commissions). However, as Joe (breid) has found, it's not all that difficult to spot the bits from Martin's photos (bearing in mind that at the time Martin made the models SOME of the parts were still unidentified, and so 'best guess' bits were used as he was on a tight deadline - always double check with pictures of the original miniature). 
Joe - just to confirm - the Honest John parts on the RCS thrusters are part #82 used on both. Good work with the spotting by the way 

One other thing I will just mention before I go back to lurking, and that's my take on the dimensions.
Working from the kit parts, I get a body size of: 195mm high, 317mm wide (not including RCS pods), and 845mm long (not including the door). 
Just to add fuel to the fire!

Keith


----------



## misterggg

*There maybe hope for this thread after all!*



Astrocat said:


> Hi misterggg,
> 
> Sorry I've been a bit quiet of late, but I'm in a bit of a difficult position here.
> As I'm sure some of you are aware, for the last few years I've been helping Dave Larson with research for his 2001 book (which is still progressing well, despite many people's doubts). There are plans to include a comprehensive list of parts used on the 2001 miniatures in the book, and my small part on the project is advising on these. Now, as I REALLY don't want to compromise Dave's publication, I've been keeping my head down. As the quote goes:
> 
> 
> 
> The information will be available as soon as the book is published of course, so it's not 'hidden forever'.... there's just a slight delay. I know that's frustrating, and to some it may paint me as 'the bad guy', but I'm afraid that's just the way things are......
> 
> I did help Martin out with his Moonbus replicas, I have to admit, providing him with casts of most of the parts, but that was a bit of an exception (as they were intended purely as private commissions). However, as Joe (breid) has found, it's not all that difficult to spot the bits from Martin's photos (bearing in mind that at the time Martin made the models SOME of the parts were still unidentified, and so 'best guess' bits were used as he was on a tight deadline - always double check with pictures of the original miniature).
> Joe - just to confirm - the Honest John parts on the RCS thrusters are part #82 used on both. Good work with the spotting by the way
> 
> One other thing I will just mention before I go back to lurking, and that's my take on the dimensions.
> Working from the kit parts, I get a body size of: 195mm high, 317mm wide (not including RCS pods), and 845mm long (not including the door).
> Just to add fuel to the fire!
> 
> Keith


Hello Keith

Thanks for the input. I for one am looking forward to the book (hopefully not in several more years). Its just gets old hearing
all the time MY HANDS ARE TIED on the matter, if it isnt this model or some other model.
My CAD model is off 1/2 inch short both width and height and the length being over 33 inches that throws me too. I assumed that when Master Models made the model they would
use standard measurements for simplicity(metric/standard conversions) such as my scale of 12"W-7"H-32"L. I dont know what the grills are on the rearbulkhead and if somebody knows, it will help me figure out where im in error on my CAD model. Also I noticed parts that I do not see on Martin Bowers model that are on the original, one on the top,several on the tops of the landing gear pontoons and an odd shape on the rearside of the RCS thrusters! I hope Breid has more to share since his hands dont appear to be tied! See I just threw another log on the fire!


----------



## breid

I'm glad I could help a little.

Keith, thanks for your measurements. My height is virtually the same at 7 11/16 (195.25 mm), the width and length are off slightly 11 23/32 (297.65mm) and 33 9/16 (852,48mm) respectively, but I'm still not done with the door so things may change, and I could be a little long. Also thanks for clarifying the Honest John #82 for me. 

Misterggg, there are two pics on Martin's web site that should help with the “tear drops” and the RCS. One is a high shot from the rear showing the aft end and most of the top. The “tear drops are off to the left. I believe you have them as circles. The other is a close up of the top of an RCS pod. This is where the top portion of the Honest John part # 82 that Keith and I and Martin are referring to goes. If you stare at these and my pics long enough it will come to you. It was kind of an eureka moment when I finally saw it. I hope we're talking about the same thing and this helps. I'm pretty sure that the detail on the front of the plate that the landing gear pontoons attach to is the hexagonal valve cover from the Airfix Prestwin. Like Martin said “they are all over the place. A picture of this was posted here way back on page 30 something I think. This is purely conjecture, but it looks to me like the rectangular bit on the top sloping side just aft of the windows is the Interfrigo door put on upside down with an unidentified round piece applied to the center. If I come up with anything else I will post it but now I have to help make dinner.

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Keep the information flowing!*



breid said:


> I'm glad I could help a little.
> 
> Keith, thanks for your measurements. My height is virtually the same at 7 11/16 (195.25 mm), the width and length are off slightly 11 23/32 (297.65mm) and 33 9/16 (852,48mm) respectively, but I'm still not done with the door so things may change, and I could be a little long. Also thanks for clarifying the Honest John #82 for me.
> 
> Misterggg, there are two pics on Martin's web site that should help with the “tear drops” and the RCS. One is a high shot from the rear showing the aft end and most of the top. The “tear drops are off to the left. I believe you have them as circles. The other is a close up of the top of an RCS pod. This is where the top portion of the Honest John part # 82 that Keith and I and Martin are referring to goes. If you stare at these and my pics long enough it will come to you. It was kind of an eureka moment when I finally saw it. I hope we're talking about the same thing and this helps. I'm pretty sure that the detail on the front of the plate that the landing gear pontoons attach to is the hexagonal valve cover from the Airfix Prestwin. Like Martin said “they are all over the place. A picture of this was posted here way back on page 30 something I think. This is purely conjecture, but it looks to me like the rectangular bit on the top sloping side just aft of the windows is the Interfrigo door put on upside down with an unidentified round piece applied to the center. If I come up with anything else I will post it but now I have to help make dinner.
> 
> Joe


I am learning alot from your posts. I couldn't tell they were tear drops the resolution of Martins pictures are too poor to tell alot. Here is a picture of what parts I was talking about that I didn't notice on Martins model (of course the size has been reduced they are much larger pictures). The areas Im referring to are circled in red. The last picture has a "SPOON" shape on the side of the RCS thruster.


----------



## breid

Thanks Misterggg. I've never seen these shots before, I've also never noticed the “spoon” before. In every picture I have that area is either in shadow or is completely washed out. I'll look through my kit stash and see if I can find it. I think the area you've outlined on the top is one of the six“wheels” that can be seen on Martin”s model. They would all seem to be identical to each other, and to the four on the nose of the bus which would mean they're from the Airfix Tiger. I haven't tried to calculate their size to be sure though. I never knew there was detail on the tops of the pontoons until Mr. Bower mentioned it. You can see it in a couple of his finished photos, but I never could make it out in a photo of the studio model until now.

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Close up*



breid said:


> Thanks Misterggg. I've never seen these shots before, I've also never noticed the “spoon” before. In every picture I have that area is either in shadow or is completely washed out. I'll look through my kit stash and see if I can find it. I think the area you've outlined on the top is one of the six“wheels” that can be seen on Martin”s model. They would all seem to be identical to each other, and to the four on the nose of the bus which would mean they're from the Airfix Tiger. I haven't tried to calculate their size to be sure though. I never knew there was detail on the tops of the pontoons until Mr. Bower mentioned it. You can see it in a couple of his finished photos, but I never could make it out in a photo of the studio model until now.
> 
> Joe


Well joe it is not one of the tiger wheels it is square or rectangular, again I have a large 
version of this picture, also there are different parts on top of the pontoons that I didn't
see on Martins model. Even with the file compressed it still is to large to put on the forum.
I could email them to you. send me a private message with your email address!


----------



## breid

Mistergg, I sent you a pm.


----------



## jheilman

Excellent progress in this thread lately. Bravo guys!

I have a question on building the future Moebius kit that relates to the original. Are the rocket engines gimbaled or fixed? On the original, they angle out, but on the Aurora (and presumably the Moebius) they are straight. Anyone know what the configuration was on the original. I plan to modify the kit to have the nozzles angle out, but I'd love to know if straight up and down was possible on the original.


----------



## misterggg

*taking close up pictures*



breid said:


> Here are some pics of parts that I don't think have been posted before. I hope they are useful. I apologize for the poor quality, my camera isn't good at closeups. I really need to upgrade to a good digital SLR. The first is of the doors and end wall from the Airfix Interfrigo, and the end wall off the AF Meat Wagon. The doors are 57/64 L x21/32 W x1/16 T with 1/8 rad corners. The Interfrigo end wall is 1 5/32 L x 1 9/32 W x 1/16 T . I think this is the part used up front under the rear hemisphere. )The meat wagon end wall is 1 ¼ L x 1 15/64 W x 9/64 T ( measured at the louvers). The louvers are 3/8 wide and about 9/32 point to point.
> The second pic are parts from the Atomic Cannon. The top is the front end from one of the tractors. The two tear drop head lights are fitted into the top of the bus near the port side windows. You can clearly see these on Martin Bower's model. The head lights are 25/64 long, the large dia is ¼ and , the small dia is about 5/64, all taken from the inside. The two little knobs inside are 3/16 on center. Of the two bottom parts only the top section is used and they go on top of the RCS shoulders. They are not mirror images,so I don't know if they were used as is, or if one was modified to look more like the other.
> The last pic are parts used for the antenna base. The big one is from the Cannon,it's 2 21/64 L x 1 13/32 W ( 1 31/64 OA) x 3/64 T. The center doughnut is 51/64 OD, 3/8 id x 3/32 T. The other piece is the front grill from the Honest John truck. It's 1 3/8 L x 27/64 ( 31/64 OA) W x 11/64 T. It looks to me that Martin removed the headlights.
> 
> Joe


I was going to mention and forgot that to take close up pictures I used a maginfying lens 
lamp and shot the pictures through the lens, I think it works pretty good!


----------



## breid

Well thanks to the pictures provided by misterggg I was able to ID one more part. The one on the top sloping section of the landing gear plate looks like that iconic Revell Gemini piece that's used about eight times on the big Eagle. They loved that kit back then. It shows up all over UFO and 1999. The problem is that it looks too big to me; especially when put next to the Prestwin part that I believe is on the front of the plate. I'm going to have to do some more drawings and maybe even build a mock to check it. The second picture is of castings of the Gemini part and the actual Prestwin. The first shows the Bismarck(in this case)/Tirpitz turret with the SR-N1 duct piece that's on the side of the landing pontoon. The third piece is a possible candidate for the square part on top of the bus that mistergg inquired about, but without another view to corroborate it, it's only a guess. The last picture is of the duct parts from the B-29 that Martin Bower mentions are on the rear door. At least I think they are, I haven't been able to spot them yet. I've look through my kits, but I haven't found the “spoon” that's on the back of the RCS or the part that's on top of the pontoon. Again, well spotted mistreggg. But I still have to search through my Gemini parts so hope springs eternal. For the record here's a list of the kits I have.

Airfix Prestwin Silo wagon, Meat Wagon, Refrigerator Van ( Interfrigo), 1/76 Tiger, 1/600 Bismarck,
HO/OO Locomotive Turntable, and 1/72 scale B-29, F4U Corsair, SR-N1 Hovercraft, Buffalo 
Amphibian and Jeep.

Lifelike Atomic Cannon (a kit bashers dream), Honest John

Faller Fencing #180401

Joe


----------



## breid

Sorry, here are the last two. I maxed out my attachments so I had to delete some of my Eagle pics. I think it's time to upgrade my membership.


----------



## misterggg

*Dont stop your on a roll Master Kit Scanner*



breid said:


> Sorry, here are the last two. I maxed out my attachments so I had to delete some of my Eagle pics. I think it's time to upgrade my membership.


Im like a kid in a candy store. Please, Please, Please scan all your parts Joe. I know I sound a little greedy but I can't help it, this stuff greatly helps my project! You have know Idea how much time I spent looking for this Kind of reference pictures on the internet, and coming up short!!! Especially trying to find pictures of the Atomic Cannon parts, (next to impossible).


----------



## ukwookie

Joe, don't forget the Revell Gemini kit was available in two scales, 1/24 and 1/48. Your castings look like the 1/24 parts... but the smaller scale kit has more or less the same parts breakdown. The smaller parts might be a better match.

Tony.


----------



## breid

Thank you ukwookie, that clears up a lot. I was hoping that was the case.

Jheiman, the thrusters are defiantly canted but I don't know to what degree.

Misterggg, here are some more, all from the A Cannon, The left goes on the bottom, starboard side, forward. 

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Nice Clean Close-ups Great!*



breid said:


> Thank you ukwookie, that clears up a lot. I was hoping that was the case.
> 
> Jheiman, the thrusters are defiantly canted but I don't know to what degree.
> 
> Misterggg, here are some more, all from the A Cannon, The left goes on the bottom, starboard side, forward.
> 
> Joe


Great kit scans here is a little something that Ive done tonight with a couple of them! Some of the measurements could be in question but when your down to 1/64 of an inch
well that should be close enough!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Oh this is cool. Please do more of these!


----------



## misterggg

*Got your interest!*



Steve Mavronis said:


> ^^^ Oh this is cool. Please do more of these!


I would like to build a really accurate CAD model and set of blueprints from that, and the
really cool thing is ill make public for everyone to download FREEEEEEEEE!


----------



## breid

I have to second that with a way cool. I'm a sucker for blueprints and the like too. They look better than the real thing. A 1/64th plus or minus is more of a tolerance than you will need on a model this size, and not that hard to achieve. A 1/32 or 1/16th tolerance wouldn't be seen either.

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Blueprints are the bomb!*



breid said:


> I have to second that with a way cool. I'm a sucker for blueprints and the like too. They look better than the real thing. A 1/64th plus or minus is more of a tolerance than you will need on a model this size, and not that hard to achieve. A 1/32 or 1/16th tolerance wouldn't be seen either.
> 
> Joe


Its strange isn't it, how you can get excited over blueprints and other technical drawings.
Well this is just a sample, and I would have to go back over them to correct any variations
from one picture to another to make a uniform set. I could wallpaper a room with blueprints
but I don't think my wife would agree!


----------



## X15-A2

I too am grateful for the pictures of the kit parts. Every shot is a big help. May I make a request concerning future pictures? When taking the photos, position the camera as far away as is practical and zoom into the part. This method will help minimize any perspective distortion. This not intended as a slam to those who so kindly provided the photos above, just tip that I hope will make new images even better.

Thanks again for providing those photos! The drawings are really great too.

Phil


----------



## breid

Misterggg, I check the Interfrigo door with a caliper and compared it with your rendering. You did an amazing job considering you were working from a less than perfect photo. I have some corrections for you, if you're interested.

The two pairs of holes are 3/64 dia and a 1/16 apart, not on center.

The overall thickness is 5/64 (I may have given the wrong measurement)

The ribs running along each side are 19/32 L and a 1/64 in from the edge. They also have L shaped returns that face outwards on each end.

The flange that's around the reverse side is a 1/16 wide.

The bottom center rib is 13/64 L

Lastly, I noticed a raised rectangle in the lower left corner on the face side. It's 1/8 L x 11/64 W . I can't tell how thick, it's just above the surface.

I hope this helps. I can't promise that I'll double check everything, but as always I'll help out where and when I can. I'm in kind of limbo with respects to my drawings, I'm waiting on another kit that I hope will get over the impasse I'm at, and once it arrives I'm going to concentrate on those. If there are certain parts that you really need photos of let me know, I'll concentrate on those.

Joe


----------



## misterggg

breid said:


> Misterggg, I check the Interfrigo door with a caliper and compared it with your rendering. You did an amazing job considering you were working from a less than perfect photo. I have some corrections for you, if you're interested.
> 
> The two pairs of holes are 3/64 dia and a 1/16 apart, not on center.
> 
> The overall thickness is 5/64 (I may have given the wrong measurement)
> 
> The ribs running along each side are 19/32 L and a 1/64 in from the edge. They also have L shaped returns that face outwards on each end.
> 
> The flange that's around the reverse side is a 1/16 wide.
> 
> The bottom center rib is 13/64 L
> 
> Lastly, I noticed a raised rectangle in the lower left corner on the face side. It's 1/8 L x 11/64 W . I can't tell how thick, it's just above the surface.
> 
> I hope this helps. I can't promise that I'll double check everything, but as always I'll help out where and when I can. I'm in kind of limbo with respects to my drawings, I'm waiting on another kit that I hope will get over the impasse I'm at, and once it arrives I'm going to concentrate on those. If there are certain parts that you really need photos of let me know, I'll concentrate on those.
> 
> Joe


Actually your measurements in many ways are more usefull then the kit scans (dont get me wrong the kit scans are a plus too!) every little bit of information makes it that much more
accurate. Im very gratefull for the time you have taken away from yourself to help my project, I dont know what to say but...... thanks! Now I know your not sitting back and laughing that I have to start over are you (there I am sitting in front of my computer reading your message and " what you got to be kidding me I have to start over again, serves me right for not investing into all the available kit parts!"). You know your really helping a lot of people other than myself.


----------



## misterggg

*Engine bell Measurements*



CaptCBoard said:


> One thing that is known about the production of 2001, is there were several shots done that never saw the light of day. One of those shots was to be a 3/4 front view of the Moonbus showing not only the pilots in the front windows, but also the passengers would be seen in the side windows. For this shot to work, the interior set had to match the exterior model. This means that the interior set and the exterior model had to be built from plans such that when the two elements were shot and lined up on the animation stand, where the guys were on the interior had to line up with were they were supposed to be seen from the outside. If the interior set was not built with this requirement in mind, they could not have done the shot. I have a photo (shared with me privately) that shows the interior set prepped for this shot.
> 
> It does not make sense to design an exterior and an interior that have to line up in this manner such that the design causes problems. The same goes for the Aries Passenger Cabin. The interior matches the exterior perfectly. I'm not just referring to the film for this, I matched the blueprint to my 1:32 scale model and they were only off by 1/10 of an inch.
> 
> Given this evidence, I set about to derive the proportions of the Moonbus. My estimate of an 8-foot height is based on matching the interior set to the cross-section of the Moonbus. I ran the height using different dimensions and settled on 8 feet. This is the only height that accommodates the interior headroom. It also makes the floor match up with the door at the back, again something that is confirmed by the photo I can't share. One thing I can say about the floor/door/ceiling relationship is that the door is very small. One would have to place one foot over the sill, like a knee-knocker on a ship, and then stoop and duck under the top of the opening. If you look at the headroom in this shot, you'll notice the ceiling is no more than 6' 3"--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how he's touching the padded ceiling rib. Very low clearance. So, with an exterior height of only 7 feet, there isn't enough left over to make the exterior work. There is a ramp stored under the floor of the passenger cabin, the end of which can be seen under the door on the exterior. With a height of 8 feet, the cross-section begins to work--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there will be those who say the interior should not be considered. I can't argue with that because we simply don't have the model to measure, so we all have to approach this from our own points of view. But, I think I have something everyone will agree on--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've studied several different photos and HD screen grabs (the best one is seen above) and have determined this to be the best interpretation of the shape of the engine bell. This image is derived from the CAD file that will be used to grow the master for my kit and replace the ones on my 1:12 scale model. One thing to note is the number of 'handles' on the engine bell is not 4 or 6, but 5.
> 
> Scott


Hello Scott is the studio scale engine bell dia. 2" and If not than what did you come up with? Oh by the way I notice you have the gussets aligned with the piping on your CAD drawing and they should be arranged equally between the 
piping.


----------



## misterggg

*Engine Bell*

After going over many pictures from different angles in my opinion there isn't any extra details or "gussets" on the engine bell, the one photo that shows something could be weathering details and a cast shadow from one of the piping around the bell here is a CAD drawing of my new measurements with the gussets and a rendering without them. After going over so many other photos you would think you would see even a hint of the gussets
but I don't see it.


----------



## misterggg

*Landing Gear Measurements*

Here is what I have based on Joe Breids Kit Scans and Drawings posted earlier. Are the measurements correct? You be the judge!


----------



## breid

Well, I've double checked a few measurements on the hovercraft part, and your within a 1/64 or less. So that much is correct. Good work, I love the isometric.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Yes, 2 inch diameter at the open end of the engine bell. 72 degree spacing on the piping, 90-degree spacing on the 'gussets'. My guess is what you call gussets are the engine bell mounts. The terminology isn't really all that important, but everyone likes to try to define the job of the details!

You should have another look at the photo I posted. You have your ribs spaced too far apart. And while this is definitely up to interpretation, it appears to me there is no curve to the 'bell shape'. It seems to be straight cone sections. My drawing shows 3 cone sections to the main bell, but I'm now of the opinion that it is only two sections: The first from the bottom of the bell to the ribs and the second from the ribs to the top of the bell. I'll probably have my parts grown both ways and make the final decision once I have them in my hand.

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Mystery of the Engine bell mounts!*



CaptCBoard said:


> Yes, 2 inch diameter at the open end of the engine bell. 72 degree spacing on the piping, 90-degree spacing on the 'gussets'. My guess is what you call gussets are the engine bell mounts. The terminology isn't really all that important, but everyone likes to try to define the job of the details!
> 
> You should have another look at the photo I posted. You have your ribs spaced too far apart. And while this is definitely up to interpretation, it appears to me there is no curve to the 'bell shape'. It seems to be straight cone sections. My drawing shows 3 cone sections to the main bell, but I'm now of the opinion that it is only two sections: The first from the bottom of the bell to the ribs and the second from the ribs to the top of the bell. I'll probably have my parts grown both ways and make the final decision once I have them in my hand.
> 
> Scott


 Thanks for the input Scott it always helps to have more viewpoints on confirming something, and to add to the topic here is a picture I have that clearly shows no engine mounts. There are other pictures where you dont see any engine mounts but this one pretty much says to me anyways that they are not there.


----------



## misterggg

*Help Long Tom assembly instructions*

I have 2 built Long Tom models that I bought at an estate sale that I what to use for parts but no assembly instructions would anyone have assembly instructions to post?


----------



## Paulbo

misterggg said:


> Thanks for the input Scott it always helps to have more viewpoints on confirming something, and to add to the topic here is a picture I have that clearly shows no engine mounts. There are other pictures where you dont see any engine mounts but this one pretty much says to me anyways that they are not there.


I have to respectfully disagree - I see the gussets / engine bell mounts in the posted photo. Perhaps we're talking apples and oranges with the terminology and we're not realy disagreeing.

On the Long Tom assembly instructions question ... wouldn't that be better in the Military / Aircraft Models forum?


----------



## breid

I see the gussets/engine bell mounts in the posted photo too. I noticed them in that photo years ago. The problem is I can't see them in any other photo I have. I can't see them on the other engine in that photo . I can't see them on the same engine in different photos. I can't see them on other engines in other photos. Please, somebody in the know help explain this discrepancy to me. Show me some more evidence . I don't like basing design details on a single data point, I like corroboration. Personally, I think the engine looks better with the mounts, but if they're not there, they're not there.

Respectively seeking an answer Joe


----------



## CaptCBoard

I know these are hard to see, but I do see the engine mounts in your photo--










Notice how the shadow on the angled surface (left arrow) doesn't follow the surface. There is also a very small shadow just below and slightly to the left of the tip of the right arrow. I realize this does not show any definite detail, but it shows something is there. The photo I posted from the screen grab indicates something is there, so with this other angle also showing something is there, I have to draw my conclusion.

Scott


----------



## CaptCBoard

I would also like to point out the two dome-shaped details. These are not from the Airfix tank-cars, as most people think. I have heard that these are ping-pong balls that Douglas cut down. I can't say for certain that's what he used, but they are definitely not from the railroad car.

Scott


----------



## VFX2G

This might be an easy one but I can't seem to find it looking at past posts. What are the four circular pieces on the front of the moonbus that also appear on the top?


----------



## misterggg

*No engine mounts*



CaptCBoard said:


> I know these are hard to see, but I do see the engine mounts in your photo--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the shadow on the angled surface (left arrow) doesn't follow the surface. There is also a very small shadow just below and slightly to the left of the tip of the right arrow. I realize this does not show any definite detail, but it shows something is there. The photo I posted from the screen grab indicates something is there, so with this other angle also showing something is there, I have to draw my conclusion.
> 
> Scott


It appears to me Scott that the engines mounts on your photo are BETWEEN the 2 pipes
which would show up on the HIGH LIGHTED area of the picture I posted, unless of course
they are moving around,. The evidence to me supports that they are not there. I quess we 
can agree to disagree on the matter. Just like Martin Bower has 6 Tiger tank wheels on top
of the moonbus but 2 of the details are NOT tiger wheels they are a different size, dont cast the same shadow, and are a darker shade than the other Tiger wheels like this photo here shows!


----------



## breid

Thank you Capt C, I welcome your input. I can see by the shadows that something might be there. I'll scrutinize my photos further for them and in the meantime reserve judgment.

VFX2G, the four “wheels” on the front are from the Airfix Tiger Tank. I also think that these are the same as the four identical “wheels” on top of the bus. I have no proof of this however it's just an opinion. 

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*No engine mounts*

This took a little time to setup but should illustrate the point ive been trying to show that
there is no engine mounts. Here is your photo Scott with my superimposed CAD model engine with engine mounts that correspond to your photo example. The engine mounts are
clearly BETWEEN the piping, so without altering my CAD model except for alignment in the 
second photo you can clearly see that the engine mount IF IT WERE THERE would be directly on the HIGHLIGHTED area and not off to the side as you pointed out. So since you 
cannot see it at all in the high lighted area, then they just are not there!


----------



## Astrocat

CaptCBoard said:


> I know these are hard to see, but I do see the engine mounts in your photo--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the shadow on the angled surface (left arrow) doesn't follow the surface. There is also a very small shadow just below and slightly to the left of the tip of the right arrow. I realize this does not show any definite detail, but it shows something is there. The photo I posted from the screen grab indicates something is there, so with this other angle also showing something is there, I have to draw my conclusion.
> 
> Scott


Hi Scott,

I know I said I was going to keep my head down for a while here, but I just felt I ought to make an observation before you spent money on the masters.

The dark shadows and lines you're seeing on this photo are actually black paint streaks (and on the earlier photo you posted, a combination of paint and the shadow of one of the wire loops on the body behind). 
A while ago I had the opportunity to examine some of the original black and white cut-outs that were used in the movie (and before anyone asks, no, I don't have copies I can post). The resolution of the photos was crystal clear, and I can say for certain that those marks are random 'weathering' painted on. The engine bells are simple turnings. The five wire 'loops' and the small rectangular plates the loops fit into on the main part of the bell are the only additional parts.
Sorry.

Keith


----------



## breid

Thanks Astrocat. NIce composites Misterggg.


----------



## misterggg

*Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!*

Im not trying to step on anyones toes or offened anyone, Im just trying to contribute.


----------



## breid

Well with a picture supplied by misterggg and a mention from ukwookie that Revell also made a 1/48 scale Gemini, I'm 99.9999% sure that the square parts on the top side of the landing plate are part #133, the attachment plates, and the parts on the top of the pontoons are part #158, the equipment mod maneuvering rockets. The gray parts in the photo, 133 on the left 158 on the right. I've included the Prestwin part that goes on the front end of the plate for size comparison. I hope this is helpful.

Joe


----------



## fluke

Does anyone know what happened to the Atomic City site?


----------



## Rainfollower

I was just there and didn't notice anything unusual. Having problems accessing it or is it something else?


----------



## fluke

Its still there.....must have been a glitch. For about 30 min it came up as one of those 'This is a non working address' kinda thing.


----------



## Robert-el

fluke said:


> Does anyone know what happened to the Atomic City site?


I haven't been able to view it for three days now.
Hope everything is okay!
Robert-el


----------



## Richard Baker

I just went to Atomic City and posted- everything seems fine.

.


----------



## Robert-el

Yup, it's working now?!
Weird.
Robert-el


----------



## fluke

Its still there.....must have been a glitch. For about 30 min it came up as one of those 'This is a non working address' kinda thing.
_ *Last edited by fluke : 12-06-2009 at 02:34 AM. *_


----------



## Steve Mavronis

This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.


----------



## jheilman

I can see how non-working address errors can be upsetting. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.


----------



## Robert-el

This problem's origin, still a total mystery.
Robert-el.


----------



## misterggg

*Rearbulkhead blueprint!*

With the help of Joe Breid and myself here is what we came up with for the measurements of the rearbulkhead, plus thruster shoulders, and landing gear. We would appreciate any input!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Looks great! Do you have cross-sections for the window sill and frames overlayed on this? That way I can refine my interior a bit. Thanks.


----------



## breid

Hi Steve, I didn't give the windows too much thought other than the basic opening in the side wall. I'm going to start redrawing the profile next to incorperate the change in height and length. All I can give you now is that I calculated the height of the sill from the hull bottom to be 4 1/2" I'm sorry, I know that's not much, hopefully there will be more soon. 
Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Interior overlay*



Steve Mavronis said:


> Looks great! Do you have cross-sections for the window sill and frames overlayed on this? That way I can refine my interior a bit. Thanks.


Hello Steve here is what I came up with using your interior drawing. I like the way it looks 
however the floor doesn't seem to be where it is supposed to be, but then with a little work adjusting some measurements I think it will fit fine. If and when you can make it fit 
please post your results I would like to CAD the interior as well as the exterior!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yeah my interior drawing of the live action set doesn't fit at that scaling. It is too big. I believe the center aisle floor should be at the bottom of the door and should be scaled accordingly. I'm curious to see if the movie set window sill opening heights would fit the exterior model proportions or not. Also note that the outer window frame is depicting how the movie set looks, which differs from how it looks on the Moonbus model. I think as a compromise, once you go outside the inner window frame you have to match the model's separation strut angles instead. Just a quick GIMP edit rescaling the interior size - something like this:


----------



## misterggg

*Possible interior adjustment*

I put this together, I know its distorted but the window size and inset do not look right if you dont conform to some degree. It dosen't have all the detailing ( top cushions, etc.). I hope it can help you Steve, because this is probably the direction I will be going to try and fit the interior, but of course Im open to other suggestions.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yeah that way has a better fit. I like it! I know you must conform to the model's inset window slot angles and position. What angle do you figure the interior slanted walls are? The appear about at 60 degrees from horizontal to me in the movie stills.


----------



## breid

First I like to correct my last post. The height of the sill is 5 ½ not 4 ½ . My dyslexia strikes again. I like the look of this new rendering too, it makes me think you could actually fit an interior in there. I think the outside should take priority when making compromises to the final fit, however. I don't intend to put one in my model, because that simplifies construction. I just want to get the outside as right as can be.
Misterggg, you have the height of the window opening at 1 3/4”, I have it at 1 15/16”. I was thinking of using the Airfix Turntable parts that are forward of the window as a check for it's size. The part is exactly 3/8 x 5/8. I estimate the distance between them at 1/4” but I can't tell if the two are centered on the window top to bottom. I tried this out on both window sizes, and both looked passable. Let me know what you think and if this helps.
Steve are you just building a cgi model, or do you intend to build a flesh and blood and plastic one too.

Joe


----------



## breid

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that the part on the left is the one next to the window. The other one goes under the rear doom that's on the lower front side just forward of the RCS. You probably know this already but for those who don't.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

breid said:


> I like the look of this new rendering too, it makes me think you could actually fit an interior in there. I think the outside should take priority when making compromises to the final fit, however. I don't intend to put one in my model, because that simplifies construction. Steve are you just building a cgi model, or do you intend to build a flesh and blood and plastic one too.


I agree never compromise the exterior proportions. In my mind the interior can be adjusted, stretched, and pulled to make the best fit while preserving the general geometric proportions, angles, and ratios. As far as CGI goes, I mess with the free open source Blender program a bit but haven't tried rendering the Moonbus yet. Maybe I'm holding out for Martin Bower to release his model blueprint someday but that is a fantasy. Or I may be tempted to scratchbuild a Moonbus based on Misterggg's finished plans which are shaping up nicely. The best I can do in the short term is remodel a new plastic interior that fits inside the pending Aurora Moonbus re-release kit by Moebius coming in March that I have a pre-order in on.


----------



## misterggg

*Revised Interrior Layout*

Here is another go at it. On my CAD Moonbus the window panel was 2" as what you mentioned Joe, and I may have to go back to that. For now here is what I came up with.
Im sorry that I have to dump attachments to put up new ones. Ok I went back and updated the window to reflect the 2" measurement, and updated the photo!


----------



## scotpens

Where Aurora screwed up on the Moonbus was in the too-small scale of the interior, making the inside ridiculously roomy instead of the cramped cabin seen in the movie. By my reckoning, fitting mistereggg's interior layout to the Aurora model makes the kit pretty darn close to 1/48 -- a nice standard scale.

Is anyone planning to produce an accurately scaled aftermarket interior?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

It would be nice if someone at least had corrected aftermarket kit parts (called the 2 side glass retainers in the original instructions) for the window sills. I'm not planning on producing any aftermarket kit but do plan on scratchbuilding and interior based on this drawing that I made of the Moonbus set taking measurements from the stills. I drew it 2X the size of the Aurora kit to get some detail. The outer window sill will have to be altered from the set design to match the different movie model exterior:


----------



## Richard Baker

IIRC the repop will have the revised from windows inset as an option, I hope they also privide alternate side ones too. I am more interested in the shoulder thrusters as an aftermarket piece- that to me is the biggest problem with the original kit.


----------



## CaptCBoard

The floor does not line up with the bottom of the door. It falls below the door, as seen in Post 944, which creates a 'knee-knocker'. Anyone entering or exiting the Moonbus has to step over it and they have to duck under the top of the opening. The outline of the door in this photo is off a bit, but you get the idea.

Misterggg: your interior height is set at 5.25 inches. If I recall correctly, your drawing is 1:1 for the filming model. The scale of the Moonbus filming model is/was 1:12, which makes for very short occupants! Dropping the floor to below the door will add headroom, though I'm not sure how much because I haven't printed the drawing to be able to scale from it. 









The figure in these photos is exactly 3-inches tall, or 6-feet in 1:24 scale. His head is touching the top of the opening in this photo. If you watch the film, you'll see the guy walking around inside the MB has to duck under any rib in the ceiling. I've set my interior ceiling height to be 6' 3", which makes the bottom of the padded ribs lower.

Of course, this is a work in progress and won't be finished for another month or so. Everything you see here fits inside the confines of the accurate exterior shell, allows for realistic wall thicknesses and lines up with points common to the exterior and interior. In other words, the interior set fits into the filming model almost perfectly. What I've built and the dimensions given for the exterior in Misterggg's drawings match within .25 inches when compared at 1:12 scale. The match is only in the cross-section, though. It'll be interesting to see if we match in the overall length!

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Your work looks nice. The door on the set in this photo appears to be at floor level and also close to ceiling height too. I wish there was a clearer picture of this still on the net:


----------



## CaptCBoard

Yes, I wrestled with this image for quite a while. Where the door fits in relation to the floor is the only real question. But, when I drew a cross-section using the exterior position of the door, the only way the ceiling height can work out is to place the floor below the door opening. It occurred to me that since stepping over sills and stooping under doorways is something common in the military, such as in submarines, that a real-life precedent could be used here to explain the relationship of the MB door to the interior. The door must open inward such that the air pressure inside the MB would work to keep the door from opening accidentally. If this is true, it would make sense to make the door as small as possible without hindering the ability to go through it. This way, when the door is open, it takes up as little space as possible, so it doesn't block anyone going through the door. Of course, this is my version of how the designers may have approached the problem. Since the door was never used in the film, but we know Kubrick was a stickler for getting all the probabilities right, I'm assuming how the door works was figured out.

I admit my basis for concluding the interior fits the exterior is based on a photo showing a particular set-up of the live-action set. This photo shows the MB pilots in position, as well as one of the actors sitting in his seat in the passenger compartment. In fact, the photo of the door is part of the photo I'm referring to, but I can't publish it. It is obvious from the way the set appears in this photo that the idea was to capture an angle that would show those 3 occupants and use the resulting plate to comp into a photo of the model so their positions would line up with the appropriate windows. For that to work, the set and the model had to be built such that the interior fits into the exterior, even though they are different scales. If this was not true, then I'd probably have found more discrepancies other than the position of the door in relationship with the floor. Further, if this was not true, then my solution to the relationship of the door to the floor would probably result in other issues popping up. The fact is, setting the floor about 6 inches below the bottom of the door is the only thing that makes the interior fit and still have the headroom seen in the film.

One last point. The top of the door has to clear the padded rib, so it has to be lower than the ceiling. If the ceiling height is between 6 feet and 6'3", or higher, then the top of the door is at least 6 inches lower. My guess is that since the padded rib is curved, that to get the door fully open, the top of the door has to be even lower, to clear the lowest point on the padded rib. I will be working all this out since my model will have a functioning door and I'll let you know what I discover.

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Ok I'm going to vent a little. Don't take it personally because this seems widespread more than with one person involved. Why can't you publish it? - I know it's probably yet another secret photo that no one can see in order to study and verify. They almost enter the realm of heresay just talking about them. While such claims might in fact be true, in general we are still stuck with taking someone's word for it as gospel. No disrespect intended please understand but this gets very frustrating for amateur fans like us working with less than avaliable resource material other than the film, an Aurora model kit, and a few leaked shots. Only professionals seems to be privy to this exclusive material to aid them in their kit projects being marketed. When's this Larsen 2001 book coming out? I assume much of the secrecy has to do with that. But I wonder if even his book release will allow the secrecy to end with these unpublished photos from 2001 going public, just like with the TOS Enterprise model plans that apparently somehow always get in the hands of kit makers to market their goods? Too bad this kind of stuff can't just be 'open source' with maybe a license required only if you are to profit from using it.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Steve--

Your frustration is definitely understood and shared. My problem is that when a photo is shared with me by someone who requests the image be kept private, I have to honor that or not get the photos to use in my projects. One of my sources is Dave Larson. You have to remember that one of the reasons a publisher would take on a project such as Larson's book is that it contains a lot of previously unseen images. One could argue that if Dave didn't want the images published online, then he shouldn't be putting people like me in this position. His enthusiasm for the subject matter (2001) is such that he wants to help people like me acquire accurate information for our projects, but he still has to be assured the images don't get out before his book does.

There are some people who are just plain stingy with information (drawings or photos). They have it and make it known they have it, but won't share it for whatever reason. There are others who have information they 'acquired' and won't share it because if they did, someone else would know it had been stolen or shared beyond a permission. My objective is to share what I know in a way that enables the information to be disclosed without breaking my word to someone. The frustration comes from not being able to share an image because I'm left to say I have the image and this is the information I have gleaned as the result of seeing it. You guys want to see it, too, because its just gratifying to see if what I'm saying is or isn't right-- to see the hard proof. The book publisher doesn't care about the information contained in the photo, he only cares that it hasn't been seen before because that is what sells books! 

I don't know when Dave's book is coming out. When I talked with him last, about 6 months ago, he was still trying to reach an agreement with several different publishers.

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks Scott for your take on this without getting mad. Everytime I read a photo can't go public my automatic reflex is to cringe. I just hope his book gets published soon. Is there any time frame or is it still years away? The big asteroid may come and settle this before who knows!


----------



## CaptCBoard

Whoops-- the answer to when Dave's book comes out was part of my edit!


----------



## breid

I'm glad to see some of the earlier participants returning to this discussion, I hope it continues and that more people will join in. Misterggg and I have spent many hours trying to produce a good set of drawings for the Moon Bus. The work has beeI'm glad to see some of the earlier participants returning to this discussion, I hope it continues and that more people will join in. Misterggg and I have spent many hours trying to produce a good set of drawings for the Moon Bus. The work has been based on scaling up the Aurora drawings, having many of the actual kit parts on hand, intense examination of available photographs and information provided by many of you earlier on in this thread (thank you). We've also been able to construct many virtual parts which really helps lining things up. By “we” I mean that I supply Misterggg with a photo and measured drawing of the part and he renders it in CAD, beautifully I might add. All of this has resulted in that really cool rear view of the bus. What I want to ask is” Is this drawing correct?” Is it the right height and width? Does the landing gear look right, is it spaced properly? Is the door the right shape. Do things line up the way they should? These are some of the questions I'd like answered. I think we're very close but we need a third, fourth, fifth etc opinion. Compare this to whatever material you have and if you can comment without betraying any confidences please do. The more input we have the better the drawings will be. Thanks

Joe B.


----------



## CaptCBoard

I've just noticed something I've never seen before--










That little black spot indicated by the arrow caused me to really look at that area to see what was going on. Then I noticed the raised rim that seems to be going completely around the door bulkhead. I'm wondering if the door bulkhead (frame) is actually inset slightly, causing the shadow at the arrow. I also believe, from looking at all this, that the detail on the sides and top of the bulkhead does not exist on the bottom.

If someone could provide a frame grab of this shot from the Blu-ray disc, perhaps this all could be answered one way or the other!

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Interior Scale*



CaptCBoard said:


> The floor does not line up with the bottom of the door. It falls below the door, as seen in Post 944, which creates a 'knee-knocker'. Anyone entering or exiting the Moonbus has to step over it and they have to duck under the top of the opening. The outline of the door in this photo is off a bit, but you get the idea.
> 
> Misterggg: your interior height is set at 5.25 inches. If I recall correctly, your drawing is 1:1 for the filming model. The scale of the Moonbus filming model is/was 1:12, which makes for very short occupants! Dropping the floor to below the door will add headroom, though I'm not sure how much because I haven't printed the drawing to be able to scale from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The figure in these photos is exactly 3-inches tall, or 6-feet in 1:24 scale. His head is touching the top of the opening in this photo. If you watch the film, you'll see the guy walking around inside the MB has to duck under any rib in the ceiling. I've set my interior ceiling height to be 6' 3", which makes the bottom of the padded ribs lower.
> 
> Of course, this is a work in progress and won't be finished for another month or so. Everything you see here fits inside the confines of the accurate exterior shell, allows for realistic wall thicknesses and lines up with points common to the exterior and interior. In other words, the interior set fits into the filming model almost perfectly. What I've built and the dimensions given for the exterior in Misterggg's drawings match within .25 inches when compared at 1:12 scale. The match is only in the cross-section, though. It'll be interesting to see if we match in the overall length!
> 
> Scott


My picture in post 951 is of a man about 5'9" or 5'10" in height with the floor below the door just a little bit for easy clearance, and door below the ceiling beams, the window sill matches good and what ever scale was intended for an actual scale moonbus is irrelevant because the height of and average man dictates what the overall scale of the moonbus would be if it was actually built, regardless of what the film makers originally intended it to be. In the real world the moonbus would not be manufactured with a door that is too small
to get through especially when it was supposed to be a mode of transportation for many a moonbase personnel on a regular basis, I mean think about it, the only reason the LEM of the Apollo mission was so small and inconvenient was the extreme cost of sending objects into space however that argument does'nt hold up in the grand scale of things in the world of 2001. I will stick to the layout that I posted its not a perfect world and ducking your head a foot to get through a door wearing a bulky environment suit is really pretty stupid not to mention unsafe. I noticed the possible inset on the reardoor as well and was going to email Joe about it but thank you Scott for bringing that up because I think the door is inset a little with a raised border around it at least thats how I see it.


----------



## CaptCBoard

The man in your drawing in post 951 is indicated to be 5.25 inches tall, which at 1:12 scale is 5'3". If you're using a scale different than what the filming model is, then this point is moot, of course; though I can point out the same figure at 5'9" would scale out to be 1:13. I have to assume you are assigning the correct scale because the dimensions of the exterior width and height match what I've come up with.

I agree the idea of having to stoop under and step over to go through the door doesn't make sense. My intention is to derive what was built rather than explain what was built. True, I have attempted to explain what was built and give a real world example to explain the logic. But since the door was never used in the context of the film, we'll never know. The only reason I decided to put the floor lower than the bottom of the door is to get the headroom for the actors seen in the film. When you translate the opening for the door as seen on the exterior into the space defined by the interior, it all works once the floor is placed 6 inches below the door.

I'm not saying anyone else needs to follow what I've derived. But there will be those who will want to know why I've built my model the way I've built it. I think the best way to think of this is to say the interior set does not fit into the confines of the FX model, unless you drop the floor. For my purposes, this could be regarded as a relatively small compromise in order to make the whole thing work.

I think once you switch to doing a longitudinal cross-section, you'll find some other things that don't work out with the cross-section you've already done. I think you'll find the floor of the cockpit will be too high to allow for the pilots to put their legs under the instrument console. That's not necessarily a problem because there is room to step the floor down.  We never really see the floor in the cockpit or the space behind it, so that's just as logical a possibility.

Scott


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> I've just noticed something I've never seen before--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That little black spot indicated by the arrow caused me to really look at that area to see what was going on. Then I noticed the raised rim that seems to be going completely around the door bulkhead. I'm wondering if the door bulkhead (frame) is actually inset slightly, causing the shadow at the arrow. I also believe, from looking at all this, that the detail on the sides and top of the bulkhead does not exist on the bottom.


There is a rim all the way around. I've noticed that some time ago. I don't have blu-ray to help you but I think I've downloaded some captures online from a blu-ray gallery. I'll look for them and post a good shot here. By the way our friend Martin Bower has the rim in question on his studio scale model. You might want to go to his site and take a peek at Martin's Moonbus model photos.

Here is a gallery with 3 pages of Blu-Ray captures from the Moonbus sequence. Click on a thumbnail and then you'll see an option for other sizes. The original size is the largest in 1920x1080 resolution:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/charletta/page49/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/charletta/page50/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/charletta/page51/


----------



## breid

Thank you Scott for confirming our dimensions for height and width. Including the dimensions Astrocat provided, that makes four people that came up with roughly the same measurements, give or take a 1/16. That's reassuring.

I've also noticed that detail around the door that Scott points out. Martin Bower also reproduced it. Recessing the door seems like it would be an awful lot of time and trouble to go to for a movie model instead of simply applying one to the back. Remember, in all things, time is money. I think it might be a thin flange along the bottom edge of the door, or, maybe it's just a scribe line. 

I'll admit that I've considered the possibility that there's no detailing on the bottom of the door. None of the photos I have clearly show it and you can infer for others that it's not there. Regardless, I'm going to put the detailing in. I don't think it would look right without it.

I've never really considered what scale we're working with, I probably should, it might help. I don't mean to be hostile, but where did the idea that the studio model was at 1/12 scale come from in the first place. And for what it's worth, I remember reading somewhere that Martin Bower thought it was closer to 1/18, although for the life of me I can't remember where I read it, damn this growing old thing. I only mention this in case it helps with the discussion.

Here's something to keep in mind for the long run, that will benefit everyone trying to draw or build a Moon Bus. The studio model doesn't exist anymore so there's no “standard” to compare to. The best any of us can achieve is to match the photographic evidence as much as possible. If of our efforts are a little off when compared to each other so what. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong. 

Joe B


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I had a bad argument over this but my take is the 2001 movie Moonbus and Martin's Moonbus were both built at 1/16th scale based on the scale size of a 6 foot human. Martin calls the 3/4" per foot scaling that he used 1/18th scale, but mathematically that is just incorrect plain and simple. If you take his "scale nomenclature" you'd have to do 0.75"x18=13.5" which is not 1 foot. If you use 1/16th scale you'd have to do 0.75"x16=12" or 1 foot.

It doesn't matter what scale language anyone uses. It you multiply the model 16 times larger you'd get a real life size. The interesting thing is if you use assume the movie Moonbus door opening is 4.5" high at 1/16th scale, and the Aurora Moonbus door opening is 1.125" high, that makes the Aurora Moonbus exactly 4 times smaller or 1/64th scale to real life and 1/4th scale to the filming model.


----------



## breid

Thanks for posting those links Steve. I had some of those shots but that hard drive crashed and burned with no back up. I've been trying to find them ever since. I'm curious, how would 1/16 scale work with that interior composite that misterggg did. 
Joe B


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I'll mess with that after I shovel snow today. We had a blizzard here yesterday on the east coast United States and I have to dig my cars and sidewalks out! Realize though at 1/16th scale a 4.5" door opening would be 6 feet high so I need to recheck what is practical because even if you assume 1/12 scale 4.5"x12=54" or a 4.5 feet tall door opening which I think is just too small.


----------



## misterggg

*Final Door Experiment*

Here is my final take on the moonbus door. The entire frame is the door as you can see in my photo let me explain.

1. the proportions that Steve Mavronis has worked out look really good to me and have been adjusted to match my blueprint in equal proportions as well.
2. the figure represents a man of about 5'9" to 5'10" average height with overall height of 6' to ceiling there is room for lighting hardware etc.
3. the exterior window frame matches the interior frame with the exception of being deeper inboard.
4. the bold red line is the door from the outside view and the bold green line is the profile as seen from the inside (small photo)
5. the recent find of the recessed area on outside frame of the door would also appear that the entire frame is the door.
6. the door opens outward not inward as did several NASA spacecraft did.
7. Access inside and outside is easier and makes more sense.

This is what Im going with any comments!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

misterggg said:


> Here is my final take on the moonbus door. The entire frame is the door as you can see in my photo let me explain.
> 
> 1. the proportions that Steve Mavronis has worked out look really good to me and have been adjusted to match my blueprint in equal proportions as well.
> 2. the figure represents a man of about 5'9" to 5'10" average height with overall height of 6' to ceiling there is room for lighting hardware etc.
> 3. the exterior window frame matches the interior frame with the exception of being deeper inboard.
> 4. the bold red line is the door from the outside view and the bold green line is the profile as seen from the inside (small photo)
> 5. the recent find of the recessed area on outside frame of the door would also appear that the entire frame is the door.
> 6. the door opens outward not inward as did several NASA spacecraft did.
> 7. Access inside and outside is easier and makes more sense.
> 
> This is what Im going with any comments!


Hey cool you're using my interior cross-section and it just about fits perfectly! I need to redo that sketch analyzing the interior stills again for geometric proportions just to make sure. There is always margin of error due to lens distortion during filming especially on the far apart corners like cabin width, etc.

The set window sills are tricky to see if they are horizontal or angle upward slightly plus there is ribbing on the window sill surfaces. It's funny because it almost matches the original Aurora Moonbus "glass holders" ever to how the window separation struts angle the wrong way which could depict where the outer window framing is on the set that is not on the filming model. But looking at your image if you account for extra area above the window frame inside the sill gap it kinda fits exactly the more I think about it. The interior roof could be dropped slightly to make more room for the supposed hull framing in between.

More imaginary conjecture on the door area but you never know if it's a double inner and outer door.


----------



## CaptCBoard

I originally believed the MB to be 1:16 scale as well. It was only after I tried to fit the interior into it that I realized the model had to be 1:12. My reasoning was that art directors always assign a scale to things. They rarely just say "make it 3 feet long", especially if he's having to design a corresponding live-action set. The other reason is that if you scale the model up to full-size, you get some interesting results. Taking 32 inches as the length (it may be an inch or two larger or smaller, but for this example we'll use 32 inches), at 1:16 scale the MB would be 42' 8" long. At that size, the interior spaces are huge, which is what tipped me off. So, at 1:12 scale, everything works out, with the length being 32 feet. 

Another reason goes back to my experience in the movie industry. The idea of being able to translate dimensions from blueprint to model (or set) in your head. Art directors try to use scales where they can measure a drawing with a common ruler and convert the scale mentally. 1:16 is not one of those that can be calculated easily, where 1:48, 1:24 and 1:12 are.

Here is a shot of my Studio Scale MB with one of my 1:12 scale figures--










He looks about the right size, I think. At 1:16 scale, the figure would be 3/4 the height he is in this photo.

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Door Concept*

this door concept design would allow passengers to exit in a remote area using a mini
environment chamber that extends from the rear of the moonbus, so as not to comprimise
the environment created for the pilots or remaining passengers of the moonbus. It uses a two door setup because one door would be very thick to the point of like a bank vault door.
It is crude in this early design but its just to illustrate a possible logical solution to the door
issue. Also the mini chamber would not have to be extended when docking at a moonbase
port


----------



## breid

That's a really interesting concept you've worked out misrerggg. If the whole door assembly telescoped out that could leave that mystery detail as nothing more than a scribe line. I don't see why you couldn't fit some sort of retractable, inflatable etc, airlock into the existing design for the back without having to alter the look of anything. You've opened the door, no pun intended, to a whole range of Moebius Moon Bus kit mods. For now, I'm going to concentrate on the side view and revisit this issue later. Has anyone thought of emailing Martin Bower and just asking him what he did?

The thought of doing the math in order to scale the bus wearies me, and so does fitting an interior. I'm going to leave this to you guys, but if I think of anything that might help I'll let you know. The misterggg/Steve Mavronis composite interior looks good despite what the numbers might say.

I swear that's a picture of something made from plastic and not a computer rendering. I can't wait to see the whole thing when it's done.

Joe B.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

breid said:


> Has anyone thought of emailing Martin Bower and just asking him what he did?


It looks like a raised line around the outer door frame and not a scribed line on Martin's model. I have an email fan pen pal kind of relationship with Martin. I can ask him for permission to post any comments he may give on the door area ridge if you want?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

CaptCBoard said:


> He looks about the right size, I think. At 1:16 scale, the figure would be 3/4 the height he is in this photo.


This is just me but the guy looks too big next to the Moonbus. Maybe I just imagined it to be larger in real life. You have mega lens distortion in that photo making your model appear stubby so that could be the problem. Just as a future suggestion try taking pictures from farther back and use your camera's 'optical zoom' range to get a better distortion-free image. If you are using a digital camera, don't go into any digital zoom range or the image will become dithered and pixelated. usually there is a zoom marker in the viewfinder or LCD screen letting you know when you cross from optital to digital zoom.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Here is a comp showing the figure at 1:12 scale and at 1:18 scale. The smaller figure scales out to be 2/3 the size of the larger, so I've provided a proportioning scale (yellow bars) to show the figures to be the correct ratio to each other.










Perhaps not a consideration, but it would make sense to me to have all those details on the side to be at the level where a guy could do maintenance on them without standing on a ladder!

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*CAD Moonbus Progress*

Well here is the latest update on the progress of my CAD model. Joe Breid has been working with me on this, he supplies me with kit scans, drawings, and actual measurements
(as small as 1/128 of an inch) of the kit parts of which he has nearly all of them plus some parts that were discovered by Joe that are not currently on Martin Bowers model. Without Joe's help I would not have been able to acheive this level of accuracy, so again thank you
Joe for your help now and ongoing with this project. I have built and rebuilt areas several
times and continue still. The overall measurements match with Astrocats measurements with a slight rounding up to standard meaurements from metric. Currently Joe and myself
are using our best quess to what the details are in the rearbulkhead door and bottom areas and since reference information is scarce there really is nobody who can argue with our findings. Im posting this not only to show everyone our progress but to also show our seriousness in creating an accurate representation of the studio model. It has been a slow
process at times and a little frustrating and tedious but worth all the effort. If anyone can
offer any help on the details of the rearbulkhead and bottom it would be greatly appreciated. As soon as I can put this thing all together I will be making blueprints to be made available for the general public. I wish I could post more pictures but I have used up me Attachment space allready to the point of taking down previous posts.


----------



## breid

Misterggg has kindly allowed me to post some more renderings since I have some space left. This work is too good not to share. One of the really helpful things he does is try to duplicate the various poses of the studio model. Even though most of the model photos have a lot a camera distortion, it's useful to compare the images to check our progress. You can see how he's managed to copy the Master Models shot of the bottom. There's still a lot of work to do with kit part identification and rendering, and the final layout of the front and bottom etc, etc, but I think it looks really good so far. As always, comments, both positive and negative, are always welcome.

Joe


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Excellent work as always!!!


----------



## breid

The CAD model is coming along, albeit slowly now. For the last few days Misterggg has been reworking the nose and it's proving to be quite challenging. Since I've furnished him with just about all of the part drawings that I can I decided to finally start construction of my model. I'm starting to make some molds and castings of kit parts. Despite the cold basement everything has cured nicely. I wrapped a heating pad around the pressure pot and put it next to a space heater. Today I poured the first shot as it were and met with limited success. The Atomic cannon part came out fine but the bomb halves didn't, but I'm confident that the fixes I made to the mold will correct the problem. I'm going to make one more mold then cast a few parts from each. I'm using different materials than I used with the Eagle so I only bought a trial size. If all goes well, and I think it's going to, I'll buy a bigger quantity. Have a look.

Joe


----------



## breid

Here is what Mistergg came up with for the antenna. Is this cool or what?


----------



## breid

For those of you still interested in identifying kit parts, I have one positive, one probable and one “for lack of anything else, we'll use this”. I don't think these have been mentioned before, either here or on Martin Bower's site, and if they have, no harm in repeating. The positive is circled in yellow and is the Interfigio Van door. The same part that's repeated four times on the back and five times on each side. Misterggg sent me one render with this part in place and I thought he was just using it for lack of anything else, because I was convinced it was a radiator of some kind. I went back and checked studio photos and Martin's, and sure enough that's what it was. The probable is in blue. I stared at that spot for a while and then noticed that what looked like a solid bar between the rings appeared to have a space in it. I don't think it's a shadow or weathering but two parts instead of one. I asked Mistergg to try putting the coupler pieces from the Airfix rolling stock there, the same that are repeated six times on the top of each RCS pod. It works for me. The “ for lack of etc etc etc” is marked in red and is from the Atomic Cannon. It was square, that's about the only reason I picked it. I've inclosed a photo of it. It doesn't look bad on the CAD model. Once you have a library of kit parts in the computer you can try any part anywhere you want to check the 'fit”, it's great. Work is progressing on that and hopefully there will be something really cool to post soon. Thanks all.

Joe


----------



## jheilman

Excellent detective work. It's kind of like an archeological dig. Reconstructing a past creature from limited remains (photos). It has shown impressive results so far.:thumbsup:


----------



## ukwookie

Are you sure that square piece is from the Atomic Cannon? The part you show in the second pic seems to be from the Honest John kit (unless the same part is in both kits?)

Tony


----------



## breid

You're right ukwookie, it is from the Honest John. After plowing throw those two kits countless times trying to ID parts, they're a little mixed up. Thanks for clearing that up.

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*possible kit parts*

Here is what I came up with today also I believe that the one thruster opening that faces
forward has angled side walls like the others and I arrived at that from the one picture of Douglas Trumbull adding details to the side.


----------



## breid

I remember reading a list of kits that were used on the bus and the Adams/ Life-Like Long Tom was on it. I just acquired this kit and for the life of me I can't match up anything. Does any one know what parts if any were used? Any one, any one, Bueller? Thanks

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*close opservations and logical theories*

Well to keep this thread from dying completely I thought I would add some thoughts
I have concerning the length of the Studio Model. To start out im convinced that the model is exactly 33" in length no more no less and I arrived at that from one of the Master
Models photos and from the input from the HAL 9000 computer (alright more like my Gateway computer). Anyways it appears from the Master Models photo that the 1" square
plates on top and side are actually cover plates to access the 1" steel armature inside
and my configuration illustrates several interesting things 1. The Antenna on top sits centered right over the top access point and runs to the bottom for the B29 bulkhead to cover that access point. 2. A bar is then welded to the Top and Bottom access bar horizantally to give access to the left and right side of the Moonbus which also illustrates a
theory as why Douglas Trumbull did not stay with the repetitive detailing of the refridgerator van sides and meatwagon parts equally divided overall of the VTOL and Landing Gear cutouts as he did from the first two starting from left to right and than he deviated the pattern to install the Atomic Cannon part over the side armature access point being a larger part to easily remove for access. 3. Another bar is welded for access to the rear of the Moonbus and would explain the slight recess to the door which I believe has a 1/8" half round bead around the opening as does the RCS side pod thrusters have. The armature is placed in the middle of the model and the blue line illustrates it dividing the model in half 16.5" double that to get 33". I think that all of the things I have pointed out
is too much to be coincidence and the model is 33". I also think the two cutouts on the rearbulkhead over the large grills are also thruster ports with angled side walls like the RCS pods and if you watch the Blu-ray version of 2 different scenes in slow motion like I have
right when the Moonbus (flying away from the camera) appears on screen for about 2 to 4 
frames show a light reflection coming from the left cutout center position, and I believe that is a light bulb reflection. Now to add further I believe that ALL of the thruster ports were rigged as light bulb sockets which would explain why Master Models painted them RED
to help show off the effect when the bulbs were lit. Also the 4 round cutouts 2 front and 2
rear which Martin Bower has as Atomic Cannon Transmission parts is incorrect in fact these
too are light bulb fixtures and if you study the photos enough as I have you will see that the Atomic Cannon Transmission part is larger than what is inside the holes on the studio model plus if you look good at some of the photos you can see the light blubs themseves.
Also the straight rods that Martin Bower has on his nose hood are not rods but 1/8" tall strips that are 1/16" thick and abruptly taper to 1/16" high at the ends, you can clearly see this on one of the Master Models photos. So any input anyone... anyone...Bueller!

"Need input INPUT Stephine!"


----------



## stargazer

Oddly enough (or not) I too have worked it out to be 33 inches long !


----------



## breid

Well that's encouraging Stargazer. How did you arrive at your length?


----------



## CaptCBoard

I agree that it is at least 33 inches long. I think you have the angle of the nose wrong as it looks a bit stubby to me. This is one of those things that remains very subjective and you probably won't agree. It only effects the length if you change the angle so that the nose gets a tad longer, rather than changing the angle so that the length stays the same, but the top of the angle moves back.

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus length*



CaptCBoard said:


> I agree that it is at least 33 inches long. I think you have the angle of the nose wrong as it looks a bit stubby to me. This is one of those things that remains very subjective and you probably won't agree. It only effects the length if you change the angle so that the nose gets a tad longer, rather than changing the angle so that the length stays the same, but the top of the angle moves back.
> 
> Scott


When I took the viewpoint of the armature placement and everything started falling into
place it was by accident that when I measured back from the center line of the armature
that it was precisely 16.5" remember I have been carefully building actual measured and detailed kit parts for accuracy so everything rear of the RCS pods has been carefully placed that is how I found that Martin Bowers model is in error of one too many panels on the refridgerator van side part just before the RCS pods, also the nose was 1/4" longer to match Astrocats figures but appeared to myself and Joe who I been working closely with that the nose was too long. Also I was able to use the Master Models Photo as a backdrop to determine the proper angle or slope of the nose section and I believe I have the correct angle. I have rendered this CAD model to closely match all of the known studio model photos availiable and it holds up pretty good right down to the front nose section VTOL cutouts that were a little tricky to build not to mention the suttle curvature to the hull the closer you get to the nose section, I have rebuilt this nose section so many times that I lost count but I will improve it if it still needs it. Also the nose is stubby which makes the model to appear quite wide from certain angles and did you notice the 4 tiger wheels are not symetrically place across the front of the nose, the wheels themselves are equally placed to each other but not between the two headlights. What I would like to know is what parts are on the rear door and what parts are the large grills on the rearbulkhead.
I asked Martin what the large grills are but he wouldn't tell me but if someone knows or has
the parts could they at least post a simple drawing with measurements, its either that or I will have to make my best quess as to what the measurements are. I do appreciate your input Scott and you may think I am a hard head but I need more concrete proof of some sort to convince me to change something, and believe me If I see it I will be the first to say I was wrong about something. Again Im glad to here any helpfull input.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I think Martin is probably aware of that extra panel error. It is amazing anyone can get as close to actual as you two have regardless! Also, I noticed the black cockpit anti-glare panels are curved in your representation rather than flat as in the Aurora version. That was always hard to tell with the flat black surface on the film model! Great job so far - keep it up.


----------



## breid

Thanks for the feedback Steve, it's much appreciated. Misterggg and I had to make some educated guesses and do lots of detective work. I think everything aft of the RCS is as close to the original as possible. The nose may be off in places but who's to say. I believe that there is enough available photographic evidence to support our findings. Here are the latest views, minus the side windows and still needing some details refined. Enjoy 

Joe


----------



## misterggg

*Lowered Slope to the Nose Bridge*



CaptCBoard said:


> I agree that it is at least 33 inches long. I think you have the angle of the nose wrong as it looks a bit stubby to me. This is one of those things that remains very subjective and you probably won't agree. It only effects the length if you change the angle so that the nose gets a tad longer, rather than changing the angle so that the length stays the same, but the top of the angle moves back.
> 
> Scott


I Knew the Nose Bridge was to high or thick and I readjusted it last night and in all fairness
to you Scott does this anwser your statement as far as the Nose appearing to short?
If this was what you were referring to than I apologize for misunderstanding. The model
is still 33" after this adjustment.


----------



## CaptCBoard

I had to import your image into Photoshop and put one on top of the other to understand the difference between them. I knew the new version did look different, but I couldn't really see why. I think the improvement does make a difference, but still a tad stubby. Again, this is very subjective and could also just be due to not holding it in my hand and seeing it with real light and shadow. Or I'm full of baloney and its dead on!

Scott


----------



## misterggg

*Window Rod Theory*

Here is another possible detail that I personally like but I dont have enough information to confirm one way or another.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Very interesting. I just thought ribs were there at those positions, just like with the cockpit window deck anti-glare panels. You have an eye for detail if they are handle bars


----------



## Richard Baker

I wonder how they would have been used, what purpose did they serve? They seem to be in an unusual position to assist astronauts move around the exterior of the craft.

.


----------



## misterggg

Steve Mavronis said:


> ^^^ Very interesting. I just thought ribs were there at those positions, just like with the cockpit window deck anti-glare panels. You have an eye for detail if they are handle bars


Well the reason I thought they were rails like by the nose was if you look closely at the photo you will notice and area of white below each one suggesting to me that they dont 
reach the hull at least from the ends anyways the rest is just speculation.


----------



## misterggg

Richard Baker said:


> I wonder how they would have been used, what purpose did they serve? They seem to be in an unusual position to assist astronauts move around the exterior of the craft.
> 
> .


the only purpose I could think of was tying down equipment that other wise could not be
fitted inside the craft and you could say the Faller Fencing was part of the tie-downs as well, that would be my explanation. I quess what we can all agree is that something is there!


----------



## CaptCBoard

Oh, no-- another detail I'll have to include!! I checked it out in Photoshop the way you did. You have a great eye!

Scott


----------



## misterggg

CaptCBoard said:


> Oh, no-- another detail I'll have to include!! I checked it out in Photoshop the way you did. You have a great eye!
> 
> Scott


Thanks Scott, It means alot to me coming from you. Your models are of a high quality and 
I have visited your site many times, and was disappointed a few years back when you could
not make it to Wonderfest, you were one of the main reasons that I went there!


----------



## CaptCBoard

Hey, Greg... Would you mind emailing me? I'd like to ask you something off-board. I don't use PMs as there is no way to keep track of them.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## CaptCBoard

Nothing's been happening here, so I thought I'd try to re-energize the discussion with these:




























The rear bulkhead is still a work in progress, but I've worked out how the door hinges (swings), which was the hard part!

Scott


----------



## Rainfollower

Hey Scott,

That's great!

Can't wait until it's time to sit by the mailbox for the completed kit.

- Mike


----------



## GKvfx

So *that's* how they went to the bathroom in that thing.......

Gene


----------



## Richard Baker

Looks fantastic!

.


----------



## scifieric

That is wonderful!


----------



## Hunch

So just where ARE the hinges? Cant even see them, but would love to know where you put them.
Jim


----------



## CaptCBoard

There is no actual hinge, in the classic sense. There is a post attached to one side of the door which fits into a molded groove, such that the post snaps into place. The door hangs on the post, which allows it to swing. Almost like a bank vault. Its hard to describe and I'll have to wait until next week to post a photo of it because its all packed up and coming with me to Wonderfest. If someone wants to shoot a photo of it there and post it, that's fine by me!

Scott


----------



## fluke

*OH! Kitty crap!! * Again a Wonderfest that I cant go to and Scott's going to be there..... teasing with the Moon bus along with some other goodies I bet.

I need a drink


----------



## stevegallacci

There is something about the basic design of the Moonbus that bugs me. The reaction control packages on the sides of the thing seem awfully - wrong - some how. Especially in how they relate to the interior. Could the lumps have been doors earlier in the design phase of the Bus? And by extension, the interior section between them could be partitioned as an airlock?


----------



## treddie

The reaction control systems of both the Moonbus, Aries and Space pod are not very well designed although they look really nice. The Aries is the best out of the three but suffers from the same problem that the pod has...the jets do not point along normals to the line that connects the thruster to the center point of the spacecraft (or rather, its perceived center of gravity). As a result a LOT of propellant is wasted since the effects are not ones of pure rotation. Part of each jet's thrust vector is wasted in a "pushing" translation (up/down, left/right, fwd/bckwrd) motion which moves the ship to a new position in space. So not only is propellant wasted by the jets not pointing in the optimal direction for rotation and thereby slowing down the rotation rates, it is also wasted because even more propellant must be used to counteract the coupling effect of rotation with translation.

The space pod has the same problem for eight of its jets, but is even worse in that although the jets provide all the translation directions needed and roll and yaw, there is no pitch capability. That means that the autopilot must make up for this deficiency by firing more of the jets in a sort of rocking fashion to get the desired pitch control...more wasted propellant. The only solution in this sense is to imagine that that space on the bottom of the pod is not a cavity for a rocket engine, but a cavity that contains two canted pitch jets inside. But that does not give the pod any delta-v capability to go on recon missions then, like at the end of the film. Unless the jets AND the "big" engine are all in there. The engine COULD have gimbals to support pitch, but that is a very sloppy, wasteful idea. In addition, the pod has the bare minimum of thrusters present (not including the pitch jet problem) which means there is no provision for backup like when a stuck jet occurs.

The Moonbus is probably the worst in that its jets in those side "pods" (and what else might they be?) are a jumbled solution. If they are aligned so that they support translation (which puts the CG right between those two "pod" shapes, which seems unlikely to have the CG there), then they provide decent roll ability, very low yaw ability and no pitch control. If you relegate some of that ability to the big engines, then you do not have fine control, and at any rate the big engines lack any yaw sense to make up for that deficiency in the little jets. Since the small jets are most likely not centered about the CG, which would be shifting most of the time anyway, then you end up with satisfactory roll but ineffective pitch and yaw, again having to put some of that pitch demand on the big engines. And like the space pod, there are no backup thrusters to allow for stuck thrusters that would have to be "taken out of the loop".

Orion and Discovery have no clearly defined reaction control systems, although Orion looks like it has some forward backward capability.

In short, 2001 does quite well in the overall, layout and design perhaps of the ships, but misses very important details that would never be allowed in practice.


----------



## scotpens

treddie said:


> . . . In short, 2001 does quite well in the overall, layout and design perhaps of the ships, but misses very important details that would never be allowed in practice.


Yeah, but they LOOK so damn cool!


----------



## treddie

Yes indeed! My favorite spaceships of ALL time.


----------



## stevegallacci

So, I'm wondering if the Moon Bus's reaction control lump may have started out as a door/airlock/egress hardware unit? Or just some bad engineering? 
Where I'm going with this is in building a couple or more of the new Moon Bus kits, one in pure movie configuration, and at least one in a better engineered what-if form. 
The reaction control lumps would be reworked as hatches, with air lock collars and extendable ladder. The interior between them as a partitioned airlock. I'd add an additional partition just behind the pilot's position to fit a lavitory and galley.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Treddie-- I agree with most of your analysis of the directional control issues of the vehicles. But, I think that the Moonbus is a bit more under control than you allow. You say there is no effective pitch control, but roll and yaw and forward/backward are fine. I prefer to think there is no need for pitch control other than that provided by the vertical thrusters, mainly because the only need for pitch control is to keep the MB level. Roll control is used for the same reason-- to keep the thing level. Yaw and translation are provided for adequately, being used for directional adjustment (going around things), but if you blast the thing high enough, get it pointed in the right direction initially and you won't have to adjust the trajectory!

Scott


----------



## X15-A2

The Moonbus was designed to drive along the surface on tank style tracks located in the pods on the "feet". The thrusters were only intended to allow it to "hop" over surface obstacles so any discussion of controlability should be based on that criteria. The exterior details were not changed when it was decided that it should "fly" instead of "drive" to it's destination. This is why it has such heavy shock absorbing ability in the landing gear any why the terrain seen through the windows of the passenger cabin appears to be very jerky and rough in some shots. The thruster arrangement is still inadequate but it should be kept in mind when studying it that it was not intended for "flight". BTW, how did the stupid thing achieve forward motion anyway, much less maintain attitude control?

With the possible exception of the space station, none of the 2001 designs are really very practical. They look "cool" (and that was their sole purpose) but practicality ends for the larger designs when you try to fit the interiors into the exteriors and the smaller designs when you try fit needed systems inside them in addition to the cabins as shown. The worst issue for them all is the same one that nearly every film spaceship has, no room (or little room) for needed fuel and other consumables.

In terms of visual "texture" the designs achieve a very realistic "feel" (for the most part anyway) but as real designs, they fall far short.


----------



## Paulbo

X15-A2 said:


> ...BTW, how did the stupid thing achieve forward motion anyway, much less maintain attitude control?...


Tons of other things to comment on (that I'll leave to the experts), but I'll answer this one - there are thrusters mounted on the back vertical wall that aren't on the old Aurora kit (and, of course, not on the Moebius re-issue).


----------



## fluke

OMG! We have become 'RIVET COUNTERS!' It was just a movie, just a prop and were building just Models. I remember when the hobby was fun :tongue::freak:


----------



## treddie

Yes! Rivet counting at its sleaziest, most decadent variety! 

And great to hear from all of you, including "The Capt'n"! Your work I really admire.

Actually, I enjoy doing it if just because although I was totally set on a career in space flight before 1968 (a career which never materialized for practical reasons), 2001 was THE influence that raised my interest 1000 percent. It is the reason I became so interested in spacecraft design, engineering and mathematics even though professionally I am an illustrator. So in that context, one of my hobbies is to go back through all of those vintage scifi spacecraft and rate them to see how well they hold up, and how much it would take to make them actually practical (with sometimes huge leeway given to propulsion and power systems that would probably NEVER fit within the tight constraints shown).

With regards to the Moonbus, and your point, Paulbo, that there are thrusters in the back of the Moonbus, I never noticed the top ones before...they look like they are fashioned very much like the ones in the side "pods". And those would certainly provide decent forward thrust. And those lower vent-like ports down below those, I have always wondered about. They are dirty like all of the thrusters, so since they have those vertical slats, I suppose it is possible those are steering vanes. If so, that would provide excellent yaw control. That leaves pitch, which I still say is a problem, CaptCboard. Yes, you could use the big engines for pitch, but a big engine like that (LM size) would just be the most inefficient way to get fine pitch control (like the kind you see demonstrated in the Moonbus landing shot). It would not be that big of a deal to add pitch control to the Moonbus design, and in fact, there is certainly enough territory on its underside to include it, since there aren't any good shots down there anyway (not any I know of anyway). And to respond to your comment, X15-A2, if we follow the book version's description of the Moonbus, which also seems apparent in the huge tractor-like contraptions at the bottom of the landing gear in the film, the bus's main mode of travel may have been rover-like, but the moment you say you want it to fly, means you can't just say, "Well, it's not that big of a deal because it won't be doing that much flying."  The fact it will be flying at all, and having to do a tightly controlled landing places constraints on controllability you can't ignore, no matter how little it will be flying. And operationally, you would always want to use as little fuel as possible, because fuel costs money and moon bases and operations would be very expensive.

Out of all the scifi movies out there, there aren't any that get close to 2001's beautiful aesthetics and model craftsmanship, although some (in their simple film model builds) certainly hold there own. One example is the Mars Gravity Probe-1 from Robinson Crusoe on Mars which was actually very closely based on a design by either the legendary engineer, Kraft Erich or Ernst Stullinger as I recall. Perhaps someone out there can remember it's origins better than myself. The original design did not have the Gemini style outrigger vehicles, but even that as an addition is quite viable. It definitely has that NASA early to mid 60's styling with regards to nuclear radiator design and the "pressure cylinder" shape of the living area.


----------



## hal9k

I've always rationalized the reaction control thruster issues with the use of gyro's for yaw, pitch and roll, and the RCT's and main engine for translation. All spacecraft and many satellites are gyro-stabilized anyway.

The moon bus could function without any RCT's, much like a Harrier. If you have fine enough thruster control from the axial engines, you could accomplish yaw, pitch and roll just by varying the thrust and angles between engines. It would be extremely sluggish at 1/6 G, but it could work. The RCT's would be useful for emergency translation maneuvers. Routine translation, such as forward flight, could easily be accomplished by angling all of the thrusters in concert. To accelerate faster, just pitch forward and use all of the main thrusters, just like a helicopter goes nose-down when the pilot want to get the hell out of Dodge in a hurry.


----------



## fluke

Thanks Treddie! 

I can't wait for Scott's Moon Bus! :thumbsup: 

I prepaid for mine quit some time ago and Scott is trying to get me the first kit so I can design a lighting kit including EL lamps for the cabin ceiling lights and the console, some leds, a reed switch etc. 

I will more post as soon as i have some more info.


----------



## treddie

Fluke> I hope to see many kits shipping soon.

hal9k > I think you're referring to Control Moment Gyros and reaction wheels for satellites, Hubble, i think even ISS. The problem with them is that they are very slow acting and are only good for situations where the torques are small. You could never use them for quick-response.


----------



## Paulbo

hal9k said:


> The moon bus could function without any RCT's, much like a Harrier.


The Harrier actually does incorporate reaction control thrusters that it uses to maintain stability at slow speeds. 

Its single main engine drives all four main nozzles so they can't be individually throttled. Also, the momentum in the turbine blades makes very fine adjustments to thrust difficult so they wouldn't be useful as RCS thrusters. I don't know how this would relate to the MB's 6 rocket engines which wouldn't have the high-momentum turbine blades.


----------



## moonbus01

A lot of people wonder what the Moonbus studio model looked like on the underside. Well here is a shot showing most of the webbing framework layout. Should make it easier on you scratch builders and Aurora/Moebius modders. Maybe even the Captain. Since I'm new here, I can't post a link or a photo.
Go to Atomic City and find my link under Moonbus- Developement Info- Martin Bowers Moonbus Top Regards to everyone.


----------



## Paulbo

Here's the direct link to the photo ref'd by Moonbus01: http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/Gallery_One/Pages/Film.html#6


----------



## moonbus01

Thanks Paulbo, for completing the link for me. I'm surprised that no one has made a sound about this photo. I check their site out about once every couple of months, and what do you know? a new photo of the Moonbus shows up! Maybe mastermodels just posted this photo recently. The question is, are there more?....


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Good one thanks!


----------



## moonbus01

Well, after seeing this photo, I think that Martin Bower was probably right. All the bell jets (as he calls them) were cast, not machined, because they look super thin.


----------



## Darth Humorous

moonbus01 said:


> Well, after seeing this photo, I think that Martin Bower was probably right. All the bell jets (as he calls them) were cast, not machined, because they look super thin.


 They could have been spun.

Mark


----------



## moonbus01

Good point, but so tiny, about an inch? I've seen big parts spun, like lamp housings....


----------



## Darth Humorous

moonbus01 said:


> Good point, but so tiny, about an inch? I've seen big parts spun, like lamp housings....


It is still doable at that size.

Could even have been vac formed.

Mark


----------



## moonbus01

Yeah, vacuum forming is probably the way.


----------



## CaptCBoard

The engine bells were about 2 inches diameter at the large end. The originals were most likely turned by a machinist. The technology for making any kind of castings like we are used to today simply did not exist back in 1966/67. But master machinists were very common!

Scott


----------



## treddie

For anybody who is interested, I built a small Windows app that calculates the various centrifuge parameters for centrifuges of desired size, gee, etc. I originally posted this over at the 2001:exhibit site, and I include it here due to the discussion way back in this thread concerning centrifuges. The link for the download is:
http://d01.megashares.com/dl/f71ee41/CentrifugeCalc v10BILLION.01.zip

It was built under Windows7, but is perfectly fine under WinXP as well.


----------



## stargazer

The Moonbus Interior is in the starship modeler store right now 


http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/shop/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=1838 

stargazer


----------



## GordonD

*Moebius kit windows*

Hi all - this is my first post here! :wave:

Apologies if this question has been asked already, but with more than a thousand posts already I haven't been able to look through them all.

I'm currently working on the Moebius reissue of the Aurora kit (a model I've wanted for more years than I care to remember!) Yesterday I spent a frustrating ten minutes trying to dry-fit part #66 (the corrected right windshield) into the frame. Nothing I did could make it fit properly. Then I tried it in the left side and it went in easily. So is this a mistake in the instruction leaflet? It clearly states that part #66 is the right side and #65 is the left but this doesn't seem to be borne out by the parts themselves. Am I missing something?

I haven't yet tried fitting part #65 as it's still on the sprue.


----------



## Bobj812

I can't remember if I had a problem with them or not. They both seemed to fit nicely if I recall.


----------



## hal9k

*New Moon Bus production photo's from Doug Trumbull*

LOTS of new photo's on Douglas Trumbull's web site, related to an upcoming re-release of 2001 on Blu-Ray, in collaboration with Dave Larson. Nice detail of the transition between the cockpit and cargo bay of the Moon Bus on one photo.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

hal9k said:


> LOTS of new photo's on Douglas Trumbull's web site, related to an upcoming re-release of 2001 on Blu-Ray, in collaboration with Dave Larson. Nice detail of the transition between the cockpit and cargo bay of the Moon Bus on one photo.


Thanks! That last 'red' interior picture solves a lot of conjecture. 

You can get to larger images by playing with the URL's like this:

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img231.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img234.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img688.jpg


----------



## stargazer

OMG... there is a photo of the Titov too.. at a 'new angle'


----------



## treddie

Notice too, that the filename numbering has huge gaps in it. The future looks bright JUST from DT's collection alone!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Maybe this deserves its own thread but I compiled a list of all the full size 2001 images from Douglas Trumbull's site:



> Douglas Trumbull website images from http://douglastrumbull.com
> 
> 
> Aries
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00020.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00022.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00024.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00025.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09018.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09098.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09674.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09675.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09676.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09904.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img003.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img004.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img005.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img142.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img144.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img232.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img257.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img549.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img884.jpg
> 
> 
> Discovery
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00072.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03753.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09304.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09615.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09922.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img028.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img036.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img050.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img066.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img109.1.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img110.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img112.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img114.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img126.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img140.1.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img186.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img190.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img217.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img225.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img398.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img528.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img623.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img623.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img632.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img634.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img635.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img694.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img803.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img823.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img841.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img870.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img871.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img916.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img941.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img957.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img970.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img972.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img973.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img985.jpg
> 
> 
> Nuclear Bomb
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00096.jpg
> 
> 
> Space Station V
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00108.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00109.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00110.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03784.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03785.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img023.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img099.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img109.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img121.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img122.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img123.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img129.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img131.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img151.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img152.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img238.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img334.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img710.1.jpg
> 
> 
> Pod
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00112.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09431.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09459.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img048.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img071.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img077.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img227.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img355.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img633.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img656.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img872.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img873.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img920.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img978.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img979.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img981.jpg
> 
> 
> Moonbus
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09592.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09595.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09928.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09930.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09931.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img139.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img231.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img234.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img475.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img518.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img592.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img593.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img594.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img597.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img602.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img688.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img710.jpg
> 
> 
> Orion
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09629.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img564.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img709.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img961.jpg
> 
> 
> Instrumentation
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03136.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img856.jpg
> 
> 
> Dawn Of Man
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09125.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09270.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09272.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09273.jpg
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09203.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09205.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09308.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09686.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09915.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img033.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img116.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img138.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img140.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img165.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img167.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img243.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img244.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img246.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img274.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img275.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img285.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img294.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img295.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img302.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img303.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img304.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img522.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img523.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img548.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img619.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img620.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img628.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img627.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img631.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img637.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img638.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img643.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img645.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img649.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img657.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img658.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img713.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img714.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img717.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img792.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img820.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img821.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img991.jpg
> 
> 
> Clavius
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img153.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img200.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img316.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img346.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img468.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img469.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img608.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img950.jpg
> 
> 
> TMA-1
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09306.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09628.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img152.1.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img197.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img222.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img228.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img237.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img331.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img596.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img601.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img629.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img785.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img897.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img900.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img902.jpg
> 
> 
> Starchild
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09382.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09383.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img570.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img571.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img696.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img997.jpg
> 
> 
> Aliens
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09401.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img573.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img575.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img787.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img789.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img790.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img791.jpg
> 
> 
> Room
> 
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img065.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img067.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img069.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img199.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img203.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img206.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img216.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img357.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img572.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img577.jpg
> http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img784.jpg


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Here is the same list above but the images are clickable. I didn't parse the links above in case anyone wanted to copy and paste them for offline reference.


Douglas Trumbull website images from http://douglastrumbull.com


Aries

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00020.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00022.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00024.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00025.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09018.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09098.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09674.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09675.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09676.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09904.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img003.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img004.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img005.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img142.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img144.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img232.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img257.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img549.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img884.jpg


Discovery

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00072.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03753.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09304.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09615.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09922.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img028.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img036.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img050.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img066.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img109.1.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img110.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img112.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img114.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img126.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img140.1.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img186.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img190.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img217.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img225.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img398.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img528.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img623.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img623.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img632.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img634.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img635.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img694.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img803.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img823.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img841.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img870.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img871.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img916.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img941.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img957.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img970.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img972.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img973.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img985.jpg


Nuclear Bomb

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00096.jpg


Space Station V

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00108.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00109.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00110.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03784.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03785.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img023.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img099.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img109.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img121.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img122.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img123.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img129.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img131.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img151.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img152.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img238.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img334.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img710.1.jpg


Pod

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC00112.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09431.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09459.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img048.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img071.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img077.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img227.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img355.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img633.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img656.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img872.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img873.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img920.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img978.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img979.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img981.jpg


Moonbus

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09592.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09595.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09928.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09930.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09931.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img139.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img231.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img234.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img475.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img518.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img592.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img593.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img594.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img597.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img602.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img688.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img710.jpg


Orion

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09629.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img564.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img709.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img961.jpg


Instrumentation

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC03136.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img856.jpg


Dawn Of Man

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09125.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09270.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09272.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09273.jpg


Miscellaneous

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09203.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09205.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09308.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09686.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09915.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img033.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img116.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img138.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img140.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img165.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img167.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img243.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img244.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img246.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img274.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img275.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img285.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img294.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img295.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img302.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img303.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img304.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img522.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img523.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img548.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img619.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img620.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img628.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img627.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img631.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img637.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img638.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img643.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img645.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img649.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img657.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img658.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img713.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img714.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img717.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img792.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img820.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img821.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img991.jpg


Clavius

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img153.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img200.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img316.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img346.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img468.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img469.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img608.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img950.jpg


TMA-1

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09306.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09628.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img152.1.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img197.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img222.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img228.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img237.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img331.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img596.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img601.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img629.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img785.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img897.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img900.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img902.jpg


Starchild

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09382.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09383.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img570.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img571.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img696.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img997.jpg


Aliens

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09401.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img573.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img575.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img787.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img789.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img790.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img791.jpg


Room

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img065.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img067.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img069.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img199.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img203.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img206.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img216.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img357.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img572.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img577.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img784.jpg


----------



## jheilman

Many thanks for that. Huge time saver.:thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Got them all. Thanks again. Now to go see what treasures I've just downloaded.


----------



## Philster68

Thank you Steve... Your fingers must be numb!

Mr. Turnbull has released some very interesting images. I won't be able to resist his next video venture on the making of 2001 called "2001: Beyond The Infinite- The Making of a Masterpiece". He actually places moving images of himself into the high quality set stills. Go to his site to see a short demo.

Philster


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks! My mind is going, I can feel it!

I saved every image to my hard drive while doing this list.


----------



## treddie

It was funny because I had just downloaded all the lores previews, thinking that because they might be preliminary until the site was completed that higher res versions might be available later. No sooner had I downloaded them all then Steve's URL jimmy was posted. DoH! Now I had to stay up till 5am to finish downloading all the hires stuff!

YOU'RE mind was going?! My mind was GONE!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

And I didn't bother trying to capture the fullscreen stuff! I'm thinking they are just really using these large images stretched to fit your display anyway so it wouldn't gain us anything.

Need more Moonbus interior set shots!


----------



## Bobj812

Wow.
As in, "Wow - those are some incredible images!"
Also as in, "Wow - many thanks for taking the time to post all those links!"


----------



## MGagen

Oh my goodness! 

Some of these images are mind blowing. 

I am speechless.

Those who know me will tell you this is unusual...


----------



## jheilman

A rarity for sure.


----------



## Tim H.

Thanks very much for posting those links. Sad the doc is on the skids maybe.


----------



## Tim H.

This throws a bit of wrench into the accuracy question - there's 3 levels of decking or a stair w 2 levels of decking in the aft section. I guess the un-detailed floor was for the camera and because it was never meant to be seen.

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/img688.jpg


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Look where the 'running board' stripes end. The image has a very compressed depth of field but I believe that is the bottom of the hatch back there?


----------



## treddie

I don't know Steve...The stripes end but the floor perspective continues to the very top. Also, you can see that no seat frames are in the shot, just the stowage in front of the seats. My impression is that the "decking" is metal and the stripes are no-skid adhesive strips that become one big piece of no-skid somewhere before where the seats start, as if they intended the passengers to have 100% no-skid under their feet and in their general area. But Tim offers a good reason for the continuous dull surface as well...that it would ( I assume he was meaning) be a completely level surface for the camera. I believe those big, heavy Panavision cameras were always mounted on a wheeled dolly. If so in this instance, that no skid could just be a big protective surface for the metal underneath. Certainly, the no-skid idea keeps dirty boots off the metal and helps keep it in good shape, especially where the metal is exposed. And that all assumes it is no-skid to begin with.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yeah you are probably right. Just strange they would allow any protective dolly surface in the shot. Although in the finished scene with front projection through the model cockpit windows you don't see back that far anyway. Let's hope more pictures surface of the interior set design.


----------



## Tim H.

Even with pictures there's always puzzles. It could be no-skid or the matting they used on the sets to prevent wheel and foot marks on the set.

I was more surprised at the heights of the of the aft section decks, looks like the top of the stowage/seating deck is at least 3 feet higher than the floor of the open space behind the cockpit. The new interior detail kit only has 2 levels - the stowage/seating deck and the walking deck - and rather more shallow. Too bad these pics didn't come out sooner for the maker to reference.

Seems to indicate the interior set of the life size moonbus was taller than the exterior of the model but that's a discussion I'll leave for the guys who have been attempting accuracy for 5 years. :wave:


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I wish set plans existed.


----------



## stargazer

"Too bad these pics didn't come out sooner for the maker to reference".



Indeed !! The extra step at the front was a suprise!!! 

But I have some small 'evedence' that the
area at the back is a step down. anyone who bought my moonbus interior kit will see what I mean.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

stargazer said:


> Indeed !! The extra step at the front was a suprise!!! But I have some small 'evedence' that the area at the back is a step down. anyone who bought my moonbus interior kit will see what I mean.


That would helpful if true because you have to deal with the floor under the pilot's seats that sits right over the raised front landing gear well. What is your evidence for this other than the interior kit?


----------



## Tim H.

stargazer said:


> "Too bad these pics didn't come out sooner for the maker to reference".
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed !! The extra step at the front was a suprise!!!
> 
> But I have some small 'evedence' that the
> area at the back is a step down. anyone who bought my moonbus interior kit will see what I mean.


Oh, hi, 2+2 just went together, :tongue: you're the guy who made the corrected interior kit. Looks like a good job from the pics, I'm undecided at this point if I'd be gluing the top on my kit so not sure about buying one.

Now that the interior has more info, are you going to redo your floor? Is there a discount for your now incorrect floor  ? Just kidding.


----------



## DX-SFX

moonbus01 said:


> Well, after seeing this photo, I think that Martin Bower was probably right. All the bell jets (as he calls them) were cast, not machined, because they look super thin.


Machining thin is far easier than casting thin. There's a distinctly turned finish inside the bells.


----------



## DX-SFX

... and quicker/cheaper.


----------



## Hunch

Wow. Surprised my jaw does not hurt seeing how it dropped so many times opening those files. Thanks a million.


----------



## johnF

*moon bus seats*

I don’t know if this has been brought up before so please forgive me for repeating.
I have the 2001 two-disc special edition DVD set and the second disc has a short documentary called 2001: A Space Odyssey- A look behind the future.
Near the end (about 9 min) of it there is a panning shot of the warehouse that stored the movie props.
In the background, you can clearly see what look like the seats from the moon bus.
The documentary is in color and the seats look to be a rich brown color.
Has any one ever noticed this before?
I know this documentary was shot back in 66 or 67 so the color may be off, but what impact would this have on the other colors for the moon bus interior?


JohnF


----------



## kenlee

Tim H. said:


> Oh, hi, 2+2 just went together, :tongue: you're the guy who made the corrected interior kit. Looks like a good job from the pics, I'm undecided at this point if I'd be gluing the top on my kit so not sure about buying one.
> 
> Now that the interior has more info, are you going to redo your floor? Is there a discount for your now incorrect floor  ? Just kidding.


You could do what I did with my original Aurora Moonbus. The strips that are supposed to be glued to the bottom edge of the roof were glued to the body instead, this allows the roof to be locked securely in place as well as allowing it to be removed to show off the interior.

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/medium/Aurora_Moonbus_d.JPG

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/medium/Aurora_Moonbus_b.JPG


----------



## SteveR

kenlee said:


> The strips that are supposed to be glued to the bottom edge of the roof were glued to the body instead, this allows the roof to be locked securely in place as well as allowing it to be removed to show off the interior.


That's so simple ... it's geeeeeenius!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Great idea! Thanks


----------



## kenlee

SteveR wrote:

That's so simple ... it's geeeeeenius!!

Steve Mavronis wrote:

Great idea! Thanks



Thanks, always glad to share ideas. One thing that I forgot to mention is that you also have to slightly round off the bottom edge of the roof on both sides so that is slots in and out easily.


----------



## SteveR

One might also add a lip under the top of the nose section to bring the detachable roof up flush ...?


----------



## kenlee

SteveR said:


> One might also add a lip under the top of the nose section to bring the detachable roof up flush ...?


Good point, I plan on building the Moebius re-issue and super-detail it, I will do that to the new one, thanks.


----------



## gwynethh

*Seat color*



johnF said:


> I don’t know if this has been brought up before so please forgive me for repeating.
> I have the 2001 two-disc special edition DVD set and the second disc has a short documentary called 2001: A Space Odyssey- A look behind the future.
> Near the end (about 9 min) of it there is a panning shot of the warehouse that stored the movie props.
> In the background, you can clearly see what look like the seats from the moon bus.
> The documentary is in color and the seats look to be a rich brown color.
> Has any one ever noticed this before?
> I know this documentary was shot back in 66 or 67 so the color may be off, but what impact would this have on the other colors for the moon bus interior?
> 
> 
> JohnF


There was a post somewhere that noted the seats were recycled (to that awful Space 1999 in the Eagles or to some worse Brit UFO series). I have a photo from that post that shows the seats to be light tan with a darker brown back side


----------



## gwynethh

Has there been any consensus on what the interior colors would be under normal lighting?


----------



## rkoenn

gwynethh said:


> Has there been any consensus on what the interior colors would be under normal lighting?


I am building mine now and have been freezing the frames on the moonbus sections of the movie on Blu-ray. I have decided that the floor and lower structure in the passenger area is a natural aluminum, which would make common sense for such a vehicle, and that those raised strips on the walkways are maybe dull orange or medium tan. I believe the upper areas in that section are a medium tan in color. It is very difficult to really determine the internal coloring with the lousy perspectives and horrible lighting. I'd like to know what the colors really are as well but scouring the web and such I cannot really find out.

Bob K.


----------



## gwynethh

Thanx. I have to agree on the floor but it looks to be a bear to paint that way.


----------



## rkoenn

gwynethh said:


> Thanx. I have to agree on the floor but it looks to be a bear to paint that way.


That's probably why I kind of stopped work on this build for a bit. I am thinking masking tape but it is going to be tedious taping each of those raised strips. However I want to turn it out as good as I can so I will grit my teeth and do that shortly. Let me know what direction you plan on going.

Bob K.


----------



## SteveR

Paint coats of tan, then one of silver, then lightly sand the silver off the raised strips to reveal the tan?


----------



## kenlee

rkoenn said:


> That's probably why I kind of stopped work on this build for a bit. I am thinking masking tape but it is going to be tedious taping each of those raised strips. However I want to turn it out as good as I can so I will grit my teeth and to that shortly. Let me know what direction you plan on going.
> 
> Bob K.


Another alternative, paint the tan color on the kit part then spray the silver on decal film and cut to the proper width and apply as a decal. I did this on the window frames of the moebius chariot kit and it worked great. A bonus is that you don't have to worry about clean-up for the occasional paint bleed under that can happen with masking.


----------



## Paulbo

Slick idea, Kenlee! I don't have a need for it right now, but I'm sure I'll use it on something.


----------



## johnF

Another product that works well is bare metal foil. You can cut it in strips and press it down. If you make a mistake, just pull it back up. Once it has set, I have never had any peel back up. It is VERY thin stuff and comes in dull aluminum.

John


----------



## robtrek

stargazer said:


> OMG... there is a photo of the Titov too.. at a 'new angle'


Yes, and with that new angle, is something the garage kits missed: the Titov has a small vertical "tail". Not very tall, but it's there almost the length of the prop.


----------



## stargazer

robtrek said:


> Yes, and with that new angle, is something the garage kits missed: the Titov has a small vertical "tail". Not very tall, but it's there almost the length of the prop.


 
Mot missed...there was no way to tell... only when this 'new' pic. turned up was that detail able to be seen


----------



## heiki

*Command Chairs from 2001 Discovery??*

OK, watching the original BBC broadcast of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when I notice what appears to be the Command deck seats from the Discovery in 2001.
Anybody else notice this?
Look like the instrument panel is still there too!


----------



## lunadude

heiki said:


> OK, watching the original BBC broadcast of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when I notice what appears to be the Command deck seats from the Discovery in 2001.
> Anybody else notice this?
> Look like the instrument panel is still there too!


Wow, never noticed that. Looks like you are right. Fun connection.


----------



## heiki

*The real Moon bus, or buggy...*

Interesting view of the Moon buggy in use at NASA for the Space Shuttles.
Found it here;
http://www.core77.com/blog/transportation/the_most_pimpin_ride_at_nasa_21334.asp


----------



## rkoenn

My wife's group out here at KSC used that, Flight Crew Systems. The crew would first exit into it and then, if they were feeling ok, they would come out and greet the recovery team walking around under the orbiter. Those days are gone now and I retire from NASA tomorrow after 35+ years.


----------



## probot

*Moonbus original miniature?*

What is this? Please more information.

http://www.sciencefictionarchives.com/en/news/271/science-et-fiction.htm


----------



## scotpens

It was a science museum exhibit of science-fiction-related objects, including some movie props and costumes. But if you were thinking of seeing it, you missed your chance — it ran from October 2010 through July 2011.

Nothing to do with _2001: A Space Odyssey_ or the Moonbus.


----------



## mach7

Looks like it had the Moonbus, Orion, Aries, and Discovery command sphere on display.

Does anyone know if they are the originals or copies?


----------



## Paulbo

They were copies.


----------



## portland182

This was from a recent post on the interior colors of the moonbus. I put a copy here so that its captured by the 'sticky' and wont disappear too quickly!

I asked Doug Trumbull, who was kind enough to forward the question to Dave Larson, who is currently working on a 2001 book.
This is the reply from Dave via Doug

the Moonbus set interior was painted, like he says, in various shades of gray...the cockpit the same as the passenger compartment. The padding detailing and seats are a cross between a khaki and olive green. That's it...they didn't paint them any differently. 
Also, they used colored jells in the Moonbus interior lighting rather than filter the film itself. You can see that in the movie, all in one shot the passenger compartment has the greenish/blue lighting and the cockpit has the red lighting (like they do in operational areas of Navy ships in the night). There are rush clips of the set lit with a more natural white light...and the set colors are easy to see...but Stanley didn't want to go that way. 

So green padding and green seats, and shades of grey walls.


Cheers

Jim


----------



## Paper Hollywood

I thought readers might be interested in seeing these relatively recent photos of my original release Aurora Moon Bus. I've made no modifications since I built it as a teenager in 1968 or 1969, in fact a number of parts were loose and are just set together for the photos.

The top never did fit very well, but, thankfully, the interior was detailed enough it was just left off a lot. Note the totally incorrect flush windshield. I guess Aurora thought that solar wind got pretty rough up on the moon. I painted the colors pretty much according to Aurora's directions, thus the green interior. I've also still got the instruction sheet.


----------



## hal9001

paper hollywood, that's a darn good job for being in '68/'69! And the fact that you _still _have it after all these years is amazing.

My mom would have long sense filed it away in the trash can. In the sixties I would have painted a little black and a little silver and would have been playing with it before the paint/glue dried. Back then, to me, that would have been a masterpiece!

hal9001-


----------



## Paper Hollywood

Thanks. I remember regretting not having worked out a way to rig lighting in the model. working lights into the removable top would have been tricky with '60s miniature lighting technology, though. My technical skills were not up to the task, so I finished it without. I see it now as an OK example of an Aurora classic built by the book.


----------



## jheilman

Nice. I built my original moonbus in probably 74 or 75. It's looooong gone now.


----------



## ukwookie

*sigh* it's all gone quiet again... and STILL no sign of the fabled Larson book!

I was recently looking through an old copy of Bowerhouse magazine in which Martin Bower details his Moonbus build. Usually I just drool over the pictures but this time I concentrated on the text.

Martin isn't stingy in detailing the kit parts he tracked down to use on the model, but one particular detail caught my eye. Back around post #487 onwards we had a brief discussion of the Faller hi-rise office kit (B905) which provided window frames used on the Discovery spacesuit helmets (and, it turns out, the US nuclear weapons satellite.) According to Martin, these same window frames are stuck around the Moonbus door frame to provide the "ribbing" detail. Apparently there's also a single frame stuck to the port upper hull forward of the RCS thruster assembly but I've never seen a picture of that area of the original model so I'm not in a position to comment...

I can't remember anyone mentioning this kit in conjunction with the Moonbus so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Thoughts, anybody?

Tony


----------



## Lee Staton

Forget the nonexistent Larson book. Instead, RUSH to order Adam Johnson's "2001: The Lost Science." http://www.apogeeprime.com/prime/bookpages/9781926837192.html

It is purty close to the book I always dreamed of for behind the scenes of 2001. Best $50 you'll ever spend if you're one of the folks on THIS thread!

Lee


----------



## ukwookie

Oh Adam's book is already ordered, just waiting for it to arrive...

Going back to the Larson book, we've been hearing about this for years and it seems no closer to fruition now than way back in - when, 2007 was it? If it ever does see the light of day I suspect it will be of no use to my 2001 modelling projects as my hands are being slowly crippled by arthritis. As it is, I will be lucky to be able to work on the Atomic City Aries when it finally arrives. When I ordered it back in 2003 my hands were fine!

Tony


----------



## Lee Staton

The extra large format of Adam's book and the crystal clear photos I never dreamed existed will really fuel your desire to model the ships. 

I was one of the original customers of the Atomic City Aries, too. Finally gave up and bought the AJA kit, which is fantastic and a more manageable size. It was worth every dime. Scott is a friend and I would not wish to turn this into a bashing thread, so I hope anyone who posts after me will stay on the thread topic. I'm just praising the AJA kit.

There's not as much Moon Bus exterior in Adam's book, but that's spoken as a real fan of the movie who would buy a whole book on each vehicle!

Lee


----------



## MGagen

Lee is right. The Johnson book will leave you speechless when you get it. It was the highlight of Wonderfest for me this year. And that's saying a lot, as Lee always puts on a heck of a show!

M.


----------



## fluke

Oh Capt! I want my MOON BUS! hehehehe

You make me wanna CRY!!!










What is that text and image is that from folks?....AND NO! GOOGLE OR BINGING!!!!


----------



## kekker

fluke said:


> Oh Capt! I want my MOON BUS! hehehehe
> 
> You make me wanna CRY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is that text and image is that from folks?....AND NO! GOOGLE OR BINGING!!!!


Psssh - simples!

Godley & Cream video for "Cry"

Kev
(Trust me, I know my 80's vids!)


----------



## fluke

Kevin wins a Used Cat Box and a pic of the Cat that did it!


----------



## kekker

fluke said:


> Kevin wins a Used Cat Box and a pic of the Cat that did it!


Errrrmmmmm....

That's OK.

I'll just go paint the interior of my moonbus...

Kev


----------



## fluke

OK....but at the bottom was a 100 dollar bill in a sealed sandwich bag.


----------



## ukwookie

Adam's book arrived yesterday 

Some beautiful photos which are new to me and which will be immensely helpful. Ditto the blueprints... An absolutely essential purchase for anyone interested in modelling 2001.

However, what is it with spanning blueprints across pages? Some of the most interesting set plans disappear into the spine of the book. I'm *almost* tempted to buy another copy to pull apart and re-scan the offending plans.

Interesting to see pics of the moonbus interior shot with a normal lens instead of Kubrick's trademark wide-angle shots - gives a much better idea of proportions. Shame they are in monochrome though - so the colour arguments will rage on!

I've seen criticisms of the "pseudo-scientific" and "irrelevant" notes on the technology incorporated in the book. Funny, but I thought they originated (apart from a few later speculations by Clarke) with Fred Ordway himself. I've seen some of these notes before and they seem to date from the time of the film's production. Hardly "irrelevant" if they were a part of the process which arrived at the designs we all know and love.

Tony


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just ordered the book too


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I got my 2001: The Lost Science book today in the mail after work and it's frigg'in huge! I only had one casual glance through the pages and love all the photos and drawings throughout. One thing confirmed in my mind is the rather "U" shape of the Discovery cockpit windows like I've always thought. Some cool Moonbus stuff too as well as all the other vehicles. I need to take my time and study everything thoroughly before commenting much more. I haven't watched the bonus DVD that came with my order yet to see what is presented there.


----------



## misterggg

*My Moonbus on cover of book!*

It Looks like my CAD rendered Moonbus was used on the cover of the book what do you guys think?


----------



## colmanbela

I don't wish to derail the talk about the book, but I have a Moon Bus model question that maybe someone here can answer:

My dad passed away a few years ago and I'm starting to clean out his model collection. I used to build with him as a kid but it's just not the same without him. Anyway, I came across a near mint original Moon Bus. I know it was worth a bit before the re-release, but I haven't seen anything post-2010. I was hoping someone here might have an idea on the value...thanks for any help in the matter!

- Dave


----------



## Steve Mavronis

You can search ebay to get an idea. Here's my search link for 2001 Moon Bus:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=2001+moon+bus&_sacat=0


----------



## colmanbela

Thanks for the link, but all the models are for the re-issued version.  Anyway, sorry to derail. Back to the book discussion.


----------



## Paulbo

Then there just aren't any old Aurora Moon Busses for sale right now - you'll have to check back a few times to see if any come up and see what they go for.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

With the new re-issue out what's the point? Unless you're a collector that never opens a box.


----------



## SteveR

I'd guess that the price of an Aurora MB dropped like a rock after the reissue. Duh.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, I was able to unload my built version immediately following the announcement of the reissue. Got a lot less than I paid for it, but still not too bad. But by now, I'd guess the value has really dropped.


----------



## colmanbela

Yeah, I sorta assumed it was not pulling in the big bucks these days. Trust me, I wasn't expecting to get a whole lot...just wanted to see if it had any value at all to collectors.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Has there ever been an accurate floorplan or reconstruction of the actual Moon Bus live action set?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I was doing my periodic Moonbus search with Google and came across this Japanese page. I had looked at several images before I realized this was a papercraft model, Holy Moley! 

You can use Google translate on the page if you have the Google toolbar installed.

http://uhu02.way-nifty.com/blogpapercraft_ver2/2011/08/027moon-bus-187.html


----------



## treddie

That guy is amazing. I was into paper modeling back when I was in my early teens, so I can really appreciate what he has accomplished. I still do paper mockups for this and that for proofing reasons.


----------



## SteveR

Is that nifty paper model shorter than Aurora's (but longer than Cap's) ahead of the side RCS thrusters?

(... landing between these two in proportion, that is)


----------



## kekker

The problem I had with this is the cliquishness of the people at the site. Ask a simple question ("So I've been to his site and want to download it, but can't see how?") and you get "Oh, just keep looking", "That's how he wants to limit distribution, so who are we to tell you" and "Use Google and figure it out - I got it but I'm not telling!"

I mean seriously - I went through the hoops, got to the library and the ID/password given by him a few years ago didn't work. "It's in plain sight! Not giving any more clues!" 

Seems a bit weird to be so retentive about something you are giving away for free! If he's worried about people selling it, free availability would put a stop to that. If he's worried about not getting credit for all his hard work, again: put it easily out there with your name on it and nobody would get it from somewhere else! Meanwhile, if somebody does want to "steal" it - all they have to do is what everyone else does and they have it, too.

Pointless.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Just curious if anyone else has a Moebius Moonbus kit with the rear bulkhead missing grill detail, shrinkage dimpling, and I don't know if you can see the slightly raised mold artifact under the grills? No biggie since I'm going to remove the molded grills and add more accurate ones plus other mods to this part, plus scratchbuild new movie accurate passenger window inserts and interior. I also noticed my roof section has a slight bow to it. I've had this repop kit since it was released waiting for more movie model reference shots to come out and finally getting to it. Luckily I also have my original Aurora salvaged parts in case I have to substitute any of them.


----------



## Paulbo

I haven't seen that particular problem with the grill, but the sink marks seem to be common. 

The back wall is inaccurate in/of itself - iIt's misporportioned and is missing the RCS thrusters. An easy fix is the ParaGrafix thruster and rocket set that also corrects problems with the RCS thrusters in the "shoulder pads" and replaces the rocket engines that are ... just wrong.

http://www.paragrafix.biz/product_detail.asp?PPartNum=PGX128

(These are not Moebius problems - they duplicated the old Aurora kit, so the inaccuracies were inherent in their "prototype".)


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Paulbo said:


> The back wall is inaccurate in/of itself - It's misporportioned and is missing the RCS thrusters... (These are not Moebius problems - they duplicated the old Aurora kit, so the inaccuracies were inherent in their "prototype".)


I might have to resort to your replacement parts if my own home made mods fail. I kind of wanted the challenge of doing that and I haven't worked with resin yet.

*You should consider making a new resin replacement passenger window frames available!*

Besides being a little oversized in general, each part's the 4 angled 'struts' in between the 5 windows stick out in the wrong direction from top to bottom and the outer ressesed window sills are not flush with the roof part side openings all the way around like on the movie model. Something will have to be done to add a new lip on the top and bottom edges too. The passenger window inaccuracies bugs me most of all so I plan to scratchbuild my own.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I was trying to upload to the members gallery but got this message: 
*



/home/hobby/www/photos/uploads/5509: Error creating directory (check permissions). Please notify the System Administrator.

Click to expand...

*Anyway the manage attachments feature when posting works just fine. 

I'm Working on some precision line drawings of the Mobeius/Aurora Moonbus kit as a study guide for modification planning to help me get it more 2001 accurate, using the free GIMP software paths tool. This one is in-progress. At 300 dpi when I print the image it will be actual size to the model kit to aid me in scratchbuilding some mods, mainly the inaccurate passenger window slot parts and the rear bulkhead zig-zag feature. You can see the gray side window slot openings in my drawing. I'll insert new window units 'through' the openings all the war around and fill the angled gaps with plastic as much as possible minimizing filler. I'll do my own movie accurate interior too, maybe with inner window sills if they'd fit. Besides the Mobeius repop kit, I also have a set of original 'Aurora' kit parts to work with to perform some plastic surgery on. For some reason the detail is more crisp and parts feel more solid on those, and no sink holes! Must have been molded in the USA back in the day. The only thing I may totally replace are the rocket nozzles. Does anyone just make those alone?


----------



## johnF

Steve Mavronis said:


> I was trying to upload to the members gallery but got this message:
> 
> Anyway the manage attachments feature when posting works just fine.
> 
> I'm Working on some precision line drawings of the Mobeius/Aurora Moonbus kit as a study guide for modification planning to help me get it more 2001 accurate, using the free GIMP software paths tool. This one is in-progress. At 300 dpi when I print the image it will be actual size to the model kit to aid me in scratchbuilding some mods, mainly the inaccurate passenger window slot parts and the rear bulkhead zig-zag feature. You can see the gray side window slot openings in my drawing. I'll insert new window units 'through' the openings all the war around and fill the angled gaps with plastic as much as possible minimizing filler. I'll do my own movie accurate interior too, maybe with inner window sills if they'd fit. Besides the Mobeius repop kit, I also have a set of original 'Aurora' kit parts to work with to perform some plastic surgery on. For some reason the detail is more crisp and parts feel more solid on those, and no sink holes! Must have been molded in the USA back in the day. The only thing I may totally replace are the rocket nozzles. Does anyone just make those alone?


Hi Steve,
I don’t know how much of a hurry you are in building, but I am doing some masters for the rocket nozzles cast in white bronze. I do resin casting work for a fellow that makes and sells white bronze landing gear sets for aircraft models.
I was talking to him just the other night about trying to cast them with the five handles in place.
When these parts have been tumbled they look spot on to stainless steel.
I’ve been going the same route as you in trying to correct certain parts of the Moonbus, especially the window frames and outside area around the cockpit.
I also took some microscope slide glass (24 by 50mm) to my friends shop and will see if his laser cutter can cut windows for the kit.
I look forward to seeing your work on this.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

johnF said:


> I don’t know how much of a hurry you are in building, but I am doing some masters for the rocket nozzles cast in white bronze. I’ve been going the same route as you in trying to correct certain parts of the Moonbus, especially the window frames and outside area around the cockpit.


No hurry, those nozzles sound cool. Let me know if you make an extra set. The model is so small and hard to modify. Sometimes I have to urge to upscale this kit to half studio scale, but I keep coming back to this kit to give it a fair representation. It would be nice if some accurate blueprints or drawings would get published just to use as reference. Proportional guessing works but it's best to remove all doubt. I was hoping one of those books using Kubrick's private material would be out by now. That's why I've been holding off building the kit just yet. Good luck with yours too!


----------



## Paulbo

Steve Mavronis said:


> ...The only thing I may totally replace are the rocket nozzles. Does anyone just make those alone?


I could probably be convinced to sell just the rocket nozzles.:wave: Scott Alexander and I colaborated on them - they're pretty darned accurate.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Paulbo said:


> I could probably be convinced to sell just the rocket nozzles.


That would be a cool option, thanks for considering. Could you PM or email me about that? And think about doing some proper side window inserts!

I can tell from my drawing made off of the Aurora Moonbus that it is not exactly the same crossection shape as the real movie moonbus (for example, 49 degree sloping sides instead of 45 degrees as in drawings of the studio model that others have mocked up) so I have to accept that and just make it look proportional.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Here's what I've come up with so far (pending refinements) for the rear bulkhead mod and I want to try. The rear alcove cutout shape isn't going to be exact to the studio model because the Aurora kit has different cross-section angles and proportions. But what I did was layer some of other's studio model rear view drawings (from posts here on the topic) as a 'guide' and I had to stretch and skew the image to get the proportions close as 'practical' for this semi-scale model representation. By the way the grid spacing is 1/10th an inch.


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Measurements Blueprint*

What do you think of this Steve? I have all six views!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

misterggg said:


> What do you think of this Steve?


Your work is awesome man! What graphics program did you make that in? Would love to see the other views 

The only 3D program I've messed with is Blender but until the true shape of the Moonbus is definitively known, any attempts to model it only to be 'semi-accurate' seems like it would be an exercise in frustration.

On my lowly Mobeius/Aurora MB, I'm deciding on the most efficient way to do some plastic surgery to cut away the rear bulkhead to re-form the indented alcove to a more proper shape that is acceptable in this semi-scale kit. When I get that done, the windows on each side are next to redo.


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Blueprints*

The 3D model and blueprint layout was made in Rhino and rendered in Vray, combination of other elements put together in Photoshop. This model is based on over 3 years of research using known photos combined with actual measurements of model parts down to 1/64". What you see in the photo is also call-outs to the various model parts but the information has been removed in respect to Martin Bower and other modelers who put their trust in me in not letting that information out in respect to the book that everyone is waiting on to come out from David Larson. Not all model parts that I have in these renders is 100% accurate however I am well satisfied in the overall measurements that would compare nicely to the studio model.

Some people think that I am stupid for not charging for my blueprints but I am not in this for monetary gain personally and just want to be apart of the modeling community and have something to offer everyone. If there is enough interest in what I have to offer just let me know and I will release these blueprints freely for everyone. 

I am currently working on an accurate 3D model of Dreamworks The Time Machine from the 2003 movie, and would like to get the blueprints of the model that are clear and higher resolution then what I found on the DVD extra disc, if anyone can help please feel free to email me.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

misterggg said:


> The 3D model and blueprint layout was made in Rhino and rendered in Vray, combination of other elements put together in Photoshop. This model is based on over 3 years of research using known photos combined with actual measurements of model parts down to 1/64". What you see in the photo is also call-outs to the various model parts but the information has been removed in respect to Martin Bower and other modelers who put their trust in me in not letting that information out in respect to the book that everyone is waiting on to come out from David Larson. Not all model parts that I have in these renders is 100% accurate however I am well satisfied in the overall measurements that would compare nicely to the studio model. Some people think that I am stupid for not charging for my blueprints but I am not in this for monetary gain personally and just want to be apart of the modeling community and have something to offer everyone. If there is enough interest in what I have to offer just let me know and I will release these blueprints freely for everyone.


Very interested here ([email protected]) as it will aid me as reference for modding the Aurora MB kit I'm starting to do. Also one day I'd like to make a half-scale studio Moonbus version. I'm sure there is much interest here for your offer of the free blueprints you've done. You've put a lot of work into them and that is very much appreciated.

One fast question about your side view: Is the ribbed cockpit window deck curved under the windows or a flat surface like the Aurora kit has?


----------



## misterggg

*Moonbus Blueprints*

I emailed the blueprints to you, and the area of the nose section you are talking about is a compound curve and not totally flat. 

I hope the blues help out, and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Merry Xmas and New Years to you as well. I wrote you back. Thanks!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

What did you guys with the 3D modeling analysis of the movie Moonbus miniature come up with for the true cross-section of the window frame pocket recessed into the sides?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, the best source for that side/rear angle photo is the Bizony book about 2001. When scanned and de-screened, that photo is clearer (and better exposed) than my 8x10! You can even see stenciling on the model! Check it out.


Hope you are still out there Phil!!!! Miss your posts!

Let us know you are still kicking out there somewhere!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Are there any 3D printer files for the Moonbus? My nephew has a 3D printer at his work that is barely used and offered to make me a few things if I wanted. So I was wondering if there are any files to 3D print new semi-accurate replacement parts for the Aurora/Moebius kit like the rear bulkhead, rocket nozzles, window frames, etc? Is there a 3D modeling program than exports 3D printer file format if I have to do it myself? I'm just taking a stab in the dark at this.


----------



## Paulbo

Why not just get the accurate ParaGrafix rear bulkhead, thrusters, rockets, etc? The window frames are fine if you simply file off thd extra lip that's part of the main hull.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yeah you're probably right. I should order that. The outer window frame (cross-section) strut angle is wrong compared to how the studio model is. Yet it's basically correct from viewpoint of the interior live action set. So I guess one could go either way with that. But you guys should add that as a aftermarket replacement part for us purists.


----------



## Paulbo

'Outer frame strut angle'. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Paulbo said:


> 'Outer frame strut angle'. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by that.


I mean the frame structures between the passenger windows -

Movie Studio Model:









Aurora/Moebius Model:









BTW, I plan on getting both your ParaGrafix exterior mod kit (you need a Black Friday sale) and the Stargazer interior mod kit (doesn't appear available so I'll have to search eBay or someplace). I think the latter comes with replacement window frames similar to the regular kit's that fit the hull better but the angle looks wrong there too.


----------



## ken1701

I am looking for some blueprints so a can scratch build a studio scale moonbus. there is very little info on 2001. ken


----------



## Paper Hollywood

Steve Mavronis said:


> I mean the frame structures between the passenger windows


Holy rat stuff. I've been looking at that thing for 4 1/2 decades and I never noticed this. Now I'll never not notice it. They got the angles upside down. I wonder why. It looks like the only way it could be corrected would be to rebuild the whole window section. The original windows seem to be slanted at a greater angle than the manuf. models.


----------



## SteveR

Hah! Never noticed. 
Thanks for posting these shots a while back, Steve.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1180985&postcount=218


----------

