# Round2 Galileo shuttle kit



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned recently.
Haven't been on the forum in awhile, kind of out of the loop on recent news.
Did a qwik search, didn't see anything.
But has anyone heard anything new on the status of the round2 Galileo shuttle kit?
Also, any mention of any new starship kits in the 1/1000 series?
Be nice to get some next gen ships or ship next time.
An Enterprise-D with smooth hull and correct grid detail on the phaser rings or a Nebula class ship would be GREAT!!! 
THANKS!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Last we heard on the Galileo was that it's still in the pipeline, but R2 put it aside for a while so they could concentrate on getting the Lindberg and Hawk lines going.

The next 1/1000 ship will be the TOS Romulan BoP.

I'd love a 1/1000 D too! PL mentioned a while ago that it would count as a "large model" and take a lot or resources.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

John P said:


> I'd love a 1/1000 D too! PL mentioned a while ago that it would count as a "large model" and take a lot or resources.


Oh this would be awesome! At that scale it would be an impressive model for sure, and it would be worth creating some custom interiors such as the main shuttle bay!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

John P said:


> Last we heard on the Galileo was that it's still in the pipeline, but R2 put it aside for a while so they could concentrate on getting the Lindberg and Hawk lines going.
> 
> The next 1/1000 ship will be the TOS Romulan BoP.


Too bad... the Galileo just keeps getting pushed back.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Jamie recently posted that we won't hear anything about the Galileo status until Wonderfest, which is May 30th.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle? We've already got the 1/50 AMT kit which isn't that much smaller than 1/32 and it doesn't seem too bad a kit.

I know there's 1 or 2 inaccuracies but these don't look hard to fix.


----------



## Scott1768 (Jul 19, 2011)

SUNGOD said:


> I know there's 1 or 2 inaccuracies but these don't look hard to fix.



More like there's 1 or 2 _accuracies_...it'd almost be less work to build one from scratch than to correct that kit.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle? We've already got the 1/50 AMT kit which isn't that much smaller than 1/32 and it doesn't seem too bad a kit.


YES, "we" really need another Galileo shuttle. A R2 kit today promises to be light years better than the AMT kit. And 1/32 is considerably bigger than 1:50. In fact, it is more than 1.5 times bigger! For me this R2 Galileo will be a must-have—like the 1:350 Enterprise.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Not to mention that at first glance, the design of the Galileo seems simple when in fact it's very deceptive with various cuts and angles which the old kit got almost entirely wrong.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

SUNGOD said:


> This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle?


YES!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle? We've already got the 1/50 AMT kit which isn't that much smaller than 1/32 and it doesn't seem too bad a kit.
> 
> I know there's 1 or 2 inaccuracies but these don't look hard to fix.












Excuse me, but are you being ironic? 

Anyway, the horribly inaccurate AMT kit is more like 1/35 or 1/36 scale.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Scott1768 said:


> More like there's 1 or 2 _accuracies_...it'd almost be less work to build one from scratch than to correct that kit.


Absolutely.

After studying both Thomas Sasser's conversion of a kit (with scratchbuilt sections) and Model Man Tom's build with third party parts, it was clear that at any size you are really better off starting totally from scratch. Very little of the original kit's plastic would be easier to use than to start fresh.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle? We've already got the 1/50 AMT kit which isn't that much smaller than 1/32 and it doesn't seem too bad a kit.
> 
> I know there's 1 or 2 inaccuracies but these don't look hard to fix.


Forgive me, but, are you on drugs?!?! :freak:


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

John P said:


> Forgive me, but, are you on drugs?!?! :freak:


No, he's right John: There are all the plastic parts that need to be fixed and the decals. That's two!


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Nailed it!!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> This might annoy some people but do we really need another Galileo shuttle? We've already got the 1/50 AMT kit which isn't that much smaller than 1/32 and it doesn't seem too bad a kit.
> 
> I know there's 1 or 2 inaccuracies but these don't look hard to fix.


"Private Joker...are you trying to offend me!?! "


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

That old AMT kit is, like, a real treasure. It deserves to be buried!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Trekkriffic said:


> That old AMT kit is, like, a real treasure. It deserves to be buried!


...in a shallow grave in the back forty...

The kit is simply an abomination- I wish they have not even tried instead of producing this half hearted joke.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Yup, the AMT version is a slap in the face. Might as well have made it a wind-up toy with wheels and a big winding key sticking out the back.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Yup, the AMT version is a slap in the face. Might as well have made it a wind-up toy with wheels and a big winding key sticking out the back.


Now you have given me an idea!


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

I had that old AMT Shuttlecraft kit when it was released in the mid 1970's, And while it was cool at the time, Hopefully POLAR LIGHTS will follow through with this proposed newer, Larger & More acurate kit.

I'll definately support them by purchasing a few of those kits.:thumbsup:

And while we are at it..Hopefully if sales on the new Shuttlecraft kit are high, 
Maby they will follow up with more larger & Accurate Trek kits.

A 1/350th scale TOS Klingon Battlecruiser would be great to see!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
It's sad that apparently a couple other kits POLAR announced were nixed. KING KONG was one i was looking forward to.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

spocks beard said:


> I had that old AMT Shuttlecraft kit when it was released in the mid 1970's, And while it was cool at the time, Hopefully POLAR LIGHTS will follow through with this proposed newer, Larger & More acurate kit.
> 
> I'll definately support them by purchasing a few of those kits.:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Straying a bit OT but I would have loved a 1/1000 Akira which was talked about by them but eventually shelved.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Trekkriffic said:


> Straying a bit OT but I would have loved a 1/1000 Akira which was talked about by them but eventually shelved.


Things like this I remember more than the enhanced repops R2/PL has been serving. It leads to a credibility problem with product announcements- they say thing you hope will be true but they change their minds often enough to make you roll your eyes when a new kit is mentioned.

I do hope the Galileo Shuttle only gets delayed instead of cancelled. I also hope they will make a 1/350 D-7 or D-7m eventually, but I want to see what actually hits the shelves next before anticipating further releases.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

It seems that R2 is only capable of around 1 new ST kit a year (2 if they do a Cadet series that year).

See their own release history here:

http://www.round2models.com/models/star-trek

Kind of sad.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The old AMT kit can make a decent Galileo -- you just need to replace virtually everything from the kit. On mine, I think I only kept the front curved piece of the lower hull and the front three window piece.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Been looking at the thumbnail size shuttle from my 1:350 Enterprise, it's way more accurate than the old AMT kit.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Ok hands up. Because I've never taken much interest in the shuttle I've never really looked at it in detail and it does appear deceptively simple when you glance at it (until you see the rear end in more detail anyway). Some parts like the nacelles and side wings on the AMT kit seem more accurate but I haven't really done much comparing with the full size prop.

That said the delay since it was announced makes me think they're having second thoughts about doing it in 1/32.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Trekkriffic said:


> Straying a bit OT but I would have loved a 1/1000 Akira which was talked about by them but eventually shelved.


StarCraft models make's a really nice 1/1000 Akira kit.
It's a type of resin, but it's a hollow cast, and it's in piece's similar to how plastic model parts are.
Federation models sell's them.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> Ok hands up. Because I've never taken much interest in the shuttle I've never really looked at it in detail and it does appear deceptively simple when you glance at it (until you see the rear end in more detail anyway). Some parts like the nacelles and side wings on the AMT kit seem more accurate but I haven't really done much comparing with the full size prop.
> 
> That said the delay since it was announced makes me think they're having second thoughts about doing it in 1/32.


Jaime over at round2 announced back in June that the plans for the shuttle had been finalize, and that it was going to mockup.
The 1/32 scale was decided on long ago, I don't think the scale of the kit is the issue that caused any delay.
I guess we'll have to wait til Wonderfest to hear anything official.
Maybe Gary could give us alittle something to hold us over til then


----------



## shabo451 (Jan 27, 2008)

Judging by the figures they included with the bridge kit, these same figures can be used with the new kit. Same scale and the three extra characters (Latimer, Boma and Mears) were the crew in "The Galileo Seven. If it is canceled, which I hope it's not, looks like time for a scratch build.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Amt/R2 won't be releasing this anytime soon- look at what has happened to them since last Summer- look at the releases(or lack of ) for 2015. Something is up there but we aren't getting much news...

Good thing Moebius is going full bore and I'm happy at least we got the 1/350 TOS Enterprise...


----------



## armymedic80 (Aug 11, 2010)

Now with MR Spock gone who commanded that Galileo 7, I want a new bigger Galileo.


----------



## shopper (Dec 6, 2003)

*Round 2 Galileo Shuttle Kit*

I may go for Randy Cooper's version if R2 is unable to produce their kit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

spindrift said:


> Amt/R2 won't be releasing this anytime soon- look at what has happened to them since last Summer- look at the releases(or lack of ) for 2015. Something is up there but we aren't getting much news...



I don't think it's necessarily all doom and gloom for R2 kits.

Yep, I'd love to see them cranking out tons of kits.

Has anyone noticed they bought out the Hawk and Lindbergh franchises, I think sometime last year.

I think they have some capital available if they could afford to do that. Perhaps some of it was tied up in the new acquistions? Just a guess.

Moreso then a question of capital - though that always has to be a concern for virtually any company out there -

taking over two new franchises and even repoping stuff has to take a lot of R2's time up.

They're a great company but it's not like they have thousands of people working for them.

While they haven't released any of them yet, I think they do have the rights now to some old 50's and 60's era Sci-fi kits that haven't been produced in awhile . . .

so eventually there is a good chance that any delays we're seeing now may lead to more formerly vintage - i.e. expensive if impossible to find - Sci-Fi kits on the market.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think it's also important to remember R2 releases a LOT of vintage car kits. I suspect that may well be their 'bread and butter' still (as it was for all the companies back in the day when there WERE all the different model kit companies) and we niche boutique market SF fans just get what we can get. 

Not really complaining. Staying in business tops everything.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> I think it's also important to remember R2 releases a LOT of vintage car kits. I suspect that may well be their 'bread and butter'...


Well, being how a Galileo is not too far off in appearance to a vintage VW bus, I sincerely hope that R2 takes that into serious consideration when deciding on their next "bread and butter" release. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

So you're saying you want a VW bus next?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

John P said:


> So you're saying you want a VW bus next?


Not unless it's the VW NCC-1701/7!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Not unless it's the VW NCC-1701/7!


From zombie_61:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Ha! Funny.

Sacrilege... but funny!


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Bwolfe- thats great! Is it a build or just some computer animation? If its a build then its FANTASTIC!
Jim


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Hunch said:


> Bwolfe- thats great! Is it a build or just some computer animation? If its a build then its FANTASTIC!
> Jim


Aeryn43 started a build of this and zombie_61 did the picture.

The build thread can be seen here:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=391297

Sadly, all but one of the build pictures is gone.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

That should be in Spaceballs!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Havok69 said:


> That should be in Spaceballs!


Mel Brooks recently announced he wants to do a _Spaceballs_ sequel, so you might get your wish. :lol:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

_Spaceballs II: The Farce Awakens_?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Actually, _Spaceballs II: The Search for More Money_.
Yes, seriously. :lol:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hope it is better than the first one.
I really really tried to like it- I had great hopes after seeing how Mel Brooks tackled the classic Western, Hitchcock and Hammer films. It had a lot of funny bits in it, but it just did not do it for me.

Back on topic- I remember how long it took the TOS-E 1/350 kit to work it's way through the system- it was even put into production limbo at one point. While the Shuttle is not as complex a kit, it still is considered a 'big' kit and one which needs to be perfect in the eyes of the fans, especially after the AMT travesty.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Richard Baker said:


> While the Shuttle is not as complex a kit, it still is considered a 'big' kit and one which needs to be perfect in the eyes of the fans, especially after the AMT travesty.


Indeed. I agree with others who have stated they'd rather wait a little longer for an accurate kit then get one sooner that was not. I have plenty of other models in my stash to built in the meantime so I can be patient.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

God. Bandai can churn out a number of new Star Wars kits in a couple of months (which are more complex than these Trek kits) and Round 2 takes years to do them.

Maybe in about 50 years we'll finally get a 1/350th K'Tinga and a new Space 1999 Eagle (both of which come top in polls quite often).


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

If they had access to Bandai's huge corporate conglomerate of factories, movie studios, and money, I'm sure Round 2 could shorten its production schedule considerably.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Plus as stated before their bread and butter are the car models - sci-fi stuff is at the bottom of their priority list I am sure. There is progress made on the Shuttle I am sure and I'm guessing most of us have plenty of other projects we can be working on.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> If they had access to Bandai's huge corporate conglomerate of factories, movie studios, and money, I'm sure Round 2 could shorten its production schedule considerably.




But R2 aren't exactly a small company now. And they're based in the US too which must be a bit of an advantage when it comes to Trek at least. And they've been dealing with movie studios for years.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> God. Bandai can churn out a number of new Star Wars kits in a couple of months (which are more complex than these Trek kits) and Round 2 takes years to do them...





Paulbo said:


> If they had access to Bandai's huge corporate conglomerate of factories, movie studios, and money, I'm sure Round 2 could shorten its production schedule considerably.


The other thing to consider is that we really have no idea how long Bandai has actually been working on their Star Wars line of kits; we only know when they were officially _announced_. Mark Hamill stated he'd heard about Disney buying Lucasfilm at least two years before that was announced, so for all we know Disney and Bandai struck their deal long before _it_ was announced, and Bandai has been quietly working on these for a couple of years.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Well, all I know for sure is that at 56 I'm not getting any younger. If a R2 Galileo kit ever comes out I'd like to have a few years left to enjoy it. :hat:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

On the one hand, I get that it takes time and money for Round 2 to research, design and build models like the TOS Enterprise and shuttlecraft. On the other hand, it is hard for me not to notice when my studio scale 33 inch Enterprise replica and my half studio scale shuttlecraft are nearly the same size as Round 2's models... both being done from conception, researched, designed and built by a guy in an apartment living off an income that is slightly above the bottom 40% in this country.

It is hard for me to look at Round 2 and realize that if I had _any_ form of monetary backing the types of things I could produce. Heck, most of the dead time between updates on my models is me waiting to have enough money to actually take the next step (which is why when I have what I need on hand I make pretty fast progress).

I don't know... should I feel sorry for Round 2 and understand their position? No. Does any of that effect me in anyway? Also no.

After all, I don't buy their models. I didn't buy the Round 2 Enterprise nor will I buy the Round 2 shuttlecraft... because in both cases what they really are is _Gary Kerr's Enterprise_ and _Gary Kerr's shuttlecraft_, and I'd rather have models I researched, designed and built rather than building something based on someone else's research. I want to have _Shaw's Enterprise_ and _Shaw's shuttlecraft_, which is why I'm sorta out of the _kit assembly_ part of the hobby at this point (because I always see someone else's work in kit builds rather than mine).

All that being said, I also understand dealing with limited funds. I know there are some people who would like a kit of the Phase II Enterprise, but I'm not going to divert what limited funds I have for model building from things I'd like to have towards something that other people want (that I already have). When I either have the extra funds or a burning curiosity to see if I can make a workable kit, I'll throw effort in that direction. I'm guessing that Round 2 is most likely making a similar choice in the case of the shuttlecraft right now. They could go forward, but don't have a good reason to do so just yet.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Shaw,

There is a MAJOR difference between building a scratch-built model and creating an injection-molded model kit. Comparing the two is like comapring apples and oranges. The only thing they have in common is that they are both fruit, and in the case of the model, that they are both replicas of something.

I understand your not wanting someone elses' idea on how a repkica should look, and I applaud your talent and drive to scratch-build your own replicas. I'm not so driven or talented myself.. Have you posted any photos? I'd love to see your work!

Larry


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

LGFugate said:


> There is a MAJOR difference between building a scratch-built model and creating an injection-molded model kit.


Yes -- it could be argued that a model kit needs to be triple-engineered: first for the look of the replica when assembled; second for how the components should be broken down and assembled by the average kit assembler yet still maintain structural integrity; and third for how those components would be manufactured using the injection-molding process by a team in a factory. And, of course, the whole thing has to hit the sweet spot of cost vs. price to ensure profitability for the company. 

I'm glad I'm not in _that_ business.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Shaw said:


> It is hard for me to look at Round 2 and realize that if I had _any_ form of monetary backing the types of things I could produce. Heck, most of the dead time between updates on my models is me waiting to have enough money to actually take the next step (which is why when I have what I need on hand I make pretty fast progress).
> 
> I don't know... should I feel sorry for Round 2 and understand their position? No. Does any of that effect me in anyway? Also no.


I don't think I am overstating the case when I say you are exceptionally talented in this field. You have an artistic eye that can discern the proper contours of your subject. Add to that the working knowledge of materials to realize it, the patience to execute it, and you are in an elite group with a few others on this site.

I'm not disparaging R2 or any company - they have marketing, licensing, and distribution/profit to consider. They manufacture for folks (like me) not at your level.

In an old post about model-builders going extinct, I said that building a model these days is less about "building a model" and more about building a studio-grade prop. Studios have whole teams of specialists to do that. Being a hobbyist means you are the teams. Design, materials, labour, painter - jack-of-all-trades artisan.

While I think many more might be able to achieve something similar, it is as you say - time and funds. (Though frankly, I think the artistic eye is something you either "get" or don't).

Since looking into models again, I've gleaned a lot about materials. I've even looked at paper models that are re-enforced with stiffeners (out of curiosity). I've taught myself (with Google ) about micro-controllers, coding, and a bit of electronics. And there is still a lot to learn about that and a whole bunch of other topics.

In the end, you've built up a model, but more importantly, yourself. All that knowledge and the character to apply it is IMO the real fruit of all this.

Plus cool models.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Zombie_61 said:


> The other thing to consider is that we really have no idea how long Bandai has actually been working on their Star Wars line of kits; we only know when they were officially _announced_. Mark Hamill stated he'd heard about Disney buying Lucasfilm at least two years before that was announced, so for all we know Disney and Bandai struck their deal long before _it_ was announced, and Bandai has been quietly working on these for a couple of years.


I am no expert, just a long time observer, but from everything I've ever seen or read about Bandai, they are able to turn around a project in a surprisingly short amount of time. Part of this is, naturally, part of being a multi Billion Dollar company. They can afford to have 20 people churning on a project.

But the other factor is, they can do everything in-house. While true they've shifted much of their production to China, they do still have the tooling and machinery to make kits, and some stuff they don't send to China. They've got bleeding edge injection molding machines. 

We see kits from our guys take a year or two to go from concept to finished kit. Sometimes even longer. I've seen Bandai develop a product, a kit, from 'go' word to on the shelf about 6 months. 

There are clear advantages to being able to do everything in-house.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

In house = no language barrier.

In house = being able to walk out of your office
onto the production floor and* actually watch *what the workers
are doing. Are they pulling the parts faster then they should,
making kits that cost more to replace distorted parts then your
entire profit margin for the kit?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> In house = no language barrier.
> 
> In house = being able to walk out of your office
> onto the production floor and* actually watch *what the workers
> ...


Oh, and so much more. I mean, we don't have to even mention stuff like "but the plan says do THIS" and no matter how many times you send it back they just keep doing it wrong because 'somebody' thinks they know better.

I think the biggest positive is the faster ability to adapt, so when a kit turns out to be selling better than expected, you can just shift production a little and crank out more kits. 

And of course the time factor of transporting stock from China and the tie-up in customs.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Steve H said:


> Oh, and so much more. I mean, we don't have to even mention stuff like "but the plan says do THIS" and no matter how many times you send it back they just keep doing it wrong because 'somebody' thinks they know better.


Reminds me of a chance conversation I had with the guy about the old 1/48 HobbyCraft Arado 234. I was ordering models from a shop by phone in the pre-WWW days, and we got talking about that kit since I was building it at the time. I was musing on how the cockpit assembly, which was only a few parts, was really hard to get together. The guy told me he happened to be the one who designed that kit, and he was furious about that very thing - he'd designed a beautifully detailed 25-piece cockpit, and the mold-makers in Korea combined parts until it only had 5! :freak:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

When a new kit is released I look at length at the photos of the parts trees- the breakdown is important. Some kits (like most by Moebius) are wonderful- they allow a high degree of flexibility on how you can enhance them. Some make you want to shake your head-


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

LGFugate said:


> There is a MAJOR difference between building a scratch-built model and creating an injection-molded model kit.


You're right... it would be like comparing me trying to scratch build an iPad in my home to one built by Apple. If I achieved results that are even remotely comparable, that would be nothing short of amazing given the resources at Apple's disposal.

People have brought up Bandai and Moebious, but we have a recent Trek example... Revell Germany kicked out a kit of the TOS Enterprise in the span of about 6 months (unfortunately they only spent a few weeks of that on researching the design of the Enterprise... and it shows). While complex, the Galileo is still a significantly simpler model to build than the Enterprise. And from what we know currently, the design part has been done for quite some time.

Round 2 could have kicked this model out before a number of other Trek kits that were started after and are now on store shelves, but they didn't. It was a matter of choice, not ability. For them, the funds and resources were better spent on the 1/1000 Romulan Bird of Prey than the shuttlecraft when looking at the bottom line.



LGFugate said:


> I understand your not wanting someone elses' idea on how a repkica should look, and I applaud your talent and drive to scratch-build your own replicas. I'm not so driven or talented myself.. Have you posted any photos? I'd love to see your work!


I actually haven't finished many models (averaging about one every two years), but my two most recent projects are a study model of the Galileo and a replica of the original 33 inch TOS Enterprise. As for finished models, there is my recent build of the Phase II Enterprise (2014), my practice build of a Round 2/AMT/ERTL TOS Enterprise (2012) and my two-thirds scale study model of the 33 inch TOS Enterprise (2010).

And yeah, I've gotten more neurotic (or OCD) about this stuff over the years. When someone asked what font I used for "Galileo" on my decal graphics, I explained that it wasn't a font, it was hand drawn... same as the "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE", "NCC 1701/7" and "NCC-1701/7" on that sheet.

I know I'm weird and honestly don't expect that type of thing out of others. It is easier for me to enjoy the work other people post than my own most of the time.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw, what you're doing is art. There's nothing else to call it. You are taking raw materials of various kinds and transforming them into something that (at least in most ways, we are always our worst critics  ) matches your vision. Your art is (perhaps) unconventional insofar as you are replicating an item used in another kind of art. Yet, it's still art. 

Nobody can say you're doing it 'wrong', or are 'misguided', or 'wasting time'. It's what you choose to do. Me, were I running a company that makes model kits, I'd surely consider hiring you for creating the prototype to be turned into parts, but then I'd have to talk to you about this 'speed of completion' stuff. 

I don't have this kind of skill. The best I have accomplished normally involved finding something somewhat close to the desired item and then brute forcing with putty and plastic and lots of sweat and swears to get it somewhat close kinda sorta. And that was good enough for my needs.  

(and then I'd look at it and hate my failure and tear this and that off and rebuild and find another, better solution to a problem and blah blah)


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I don't have this kind of skill. The best I have accomplished normally involved finding something somewhat close to the desired item and then brute forcing with putty and plastic and lots of sweat and swears to get it somewhat close kinda sorta. And that was good enough for my needs.


Here , Here!
Could not have put it better myself.
-Jim


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Thanks for the kind words guys!



Shaw said:


> Round 2 could have kicked this model out before a number of other Trek kits that were started after and are now on store shelves, but they didn't. It was a matter of choice, not ability. For them, the funds and resources were better spent on the 1/1000 Romulan Bird of Prey than the shuttlecraft when looking at the bottom line.


You know it bothered me that I noted the 1/1000 Romulan kit as an example of Round 2 rearranging it's priorities. Even though that model wasn't even on the radar back when the Galileo won the 2012 contest for the next kit, I was wondering what kits were on that ballot back then...
1:1000 scale U.S.S. Reliant
1:1000 scale Klingon K’tinga
1:32 scale TOS Galileo shuttle
1:2500 scale U.S.S. Akira
12” tall Iron Giant​And the winner was the Galileo... right?

Again, it isn't like I'm the target audience... I'll have my model (hopefully) finished soon. But why ask the public to vote if the plan was to ignore them in the end anyways? I don't follow this stuff all that closely, but did Jamie ever state why the Galileo was essentially shelved? Has anyone asked Jamie about this and pointed out that the loser of the contest has already hit the store shelves?

Again, I'm not that fully informed on all this, so am I missing something?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw said:


> Thanks for the kind words guys!
> 
> 
> You know it bothered me that I noted the 1/1000 Romulan kit as an example of Round 2 rearranging it's priorities. Even though that model wasn't even on the radar back when the Galileo won the 2012 contest for the next kit, I was wondering what kits were on that ballot back then...
> ...


Well, if I put on my "if I were in charge and made this decision" hat:

The Romulan BOP is a smaller kit, it will have fewer parts, which means smaller tooling so it's got a higher return on investment built in. It's a spaceship so that has an audience. It can be packaged in a way where you can put the Enterprise, the D-7 and the BOP in a case assortment, and you could increase the ROI by bundling the BOP with the D-7 in one box and call it a Romulan Fleet set.

The Galileo calls for as much tooling as a 1/25 scale car kit. At least if they're doing it right. There's really no way to increase the ROI with some kind of packaging trick other than a 'special edition' in a tin box. It's just a fact, and I know it hurts, that in terms of units moved, the Romulan BOP will probably do twice as well as the Galileo, only partially due to the fact it's (likely to be) a lower priced kit. Casual fans who build will tend to a snap fit spaceship over a slightly more complex glue kit.

So, that would be my thinking. Obviously I have no idea if the PTB at R2 have a similar thought process. 

I mean, it could be as simple as the Chinese company handling cad-cam and prototyping are backed up some for as much intellectual resourcing is required for the Shuttlecraft.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Any chance we'll hear something about what's going on with the shuttle kit at Wonderfest?


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Jamie said he would make an announcement about the Galileo at Wonderfest on his blog. Hopefully it's good news...


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

WF Update???


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Dead silence.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Still no word from WonderFest on the shuttle kit


----------



## eradicator178 (Sep 3, 2008)

***crickets chirping***


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

They're too busy having fun there. Shame on them!


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Well, it cant be good news since its like 9pm there and the show should be long over and not a peep. Very frustrated at the lack of progress or updates. The fact that none of the pics from the Round 2 table showed so much as a 'still working on it' sign or any indication that the project even still exists...well, this seems to be turning in to vaporware.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

onigiri said:


> Well, it cant be good news since its like 9pm there and the show should be long over and not a peep. Very frustrated at the lack of progress or updates. The fact that none of the pics from the Round 2 table showed so much as a 'still working on it' sign or any indication that the project even still exists...well, this seems to be turning in to vaporware.


This is disappointing. Maybe it's been put on hold once they decided to go ahead with the 22" Eagle. Once that kit is sorted out, hopefully R2 will finish off the shuttle. I'm hoping we'll hear more on the R2 blog in a few days.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

If they do put it on hold, I'm sure we'll see some garage kits resurface. One way or another I'll get a Galileo. I would prefer it to be Round2 as it will be both accurate and inexpensive, but I have no problem with working with resin...


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Yeah, I agree. Ive passed on a couple of opportunities for garage Galileos while waiting for this to happen and the lack of progress and updates is really starting to irritate me (to put it mildly). I find the lack of updates after having that carrot dangled in front of us particularly irksome. If they arent going to do it just man up and say so so we can move on to somewhere else. Im only interested in 3 things from them. The Galileo. 1/350 KTinga. 1/350 Reliant. I dont do 1/1000 and I dont need anymore re-pops.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

What garage kits are there? The Randy Cooper Galileo is painfully inaccurate (or stylized) for the price, so what other ones are there?

Honestly, it isn't the hardest design to do... I did my half studio scale study model in a few months, the interior research I did for Starship Exeter I did within a couple weeks, and there is already tons of information available for the large scale mockup... I'm surprised an accurate garage kit isn't ready to go.

Looking at what Round 2 was going to do, I could scratch build that within about the same amount of time as my last model... it just seemed like a waste of time before now.

Is there a market for something like this?


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

yes and I think folks are tired of waiting on R2


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I think R2 bit off a little more then they could chew when they bought out the Lindberg line. While there are a few Lindberg models that look interesting, they are completely, utterly all over the place in terms of subject matter. Serious battleship subjects, a Flinstones model kit, plastic "Pirate Pistol" models, just to name a few examples. While most of these might have an audience - they are all over the place in terms of subject matter.

I can't help but wonder how much more R2 and Jamie might have been able to accomplish in terms of their traditional Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror kits had they not invested as much time and treasure as they have over the last couple of years in the Lindberg line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly grateful for what they have given the Trek and Sci-Fi community lately - especially the 1:350 TOS Enterprise - and the upcoming 22" Eagle . . .

but I find it very frustrating that nothing has been happening with the 1/32nd scale Galileo.

Really difficult to see another Christmas season just around the corner without so much as test shots on the horizon, or even an acknowledgement that the Galileo is still in the works/que . . . 

My pipe dream of seeing a 1:350th scale TOS Klingon D7 seems even more less and less likely. . .


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Agreed but the lack of even an update at WF is pretty unforgiveable


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

So no mentioning of any kind of update at the R2 table...
Im kind of confused as to why, with all the people from this board, and others that may have been waiting for the shuttle kit right there at the event, NO ONE thinks to just go up to them and ask directly whats going on with the shuttle?
I mean they're right there, they have to say something if asked a direct question right???


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

relax,.....I dont think that R2 will put aside the Galileo when star trek is doing so well


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Shaw said:


> What garage kits are there? The Randy Cooper Galileo is painfully inaccurate


It is?
Crap.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Agreed.


bane-7 said:


> So no mentioning of any kind of update at the R2 table...
> Im kind of confused as to why, with all the people from this board, and others that may have been waiting for the shuttle kit right there at the event, NO ONE thinks to just go up to them and ask directly whats going on with the shuttle?
> I mean they're right there, they have to say something if asked a direct question right???


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Shaw said:


> Is there a market for something like this?


With no news from R2? Yes!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

John P said:


> It is?
> Crap.


The Randy Cooper kit still builds up to a nice model, just not one that follows either the large scale mockup or studio model's contours. I'm not sure if his other models are also stylized versions of their subjects as I'm not as familiar with them as I am with the Galileo.

Here is a quick comparison between an early shot of Steve Neill's build and my unfinished model (both of which are about the same overall length) at about the same angle...








And here is a shot of the large scale mockup being restored and my unfinished model...








... keeping in mind that I based my model only on the studio model, not the large scale mockup. Even the original studio model wasn't as far off the mark as the Randy Cooper kit is.

Don't get me wrong here, the Randy Cooper kit builds into a beautiful finished model. I've seen a ton of really nice builds. There was even one displayed proudly at WF 2015 that was quite nice and I doubt hardly anyone knew the difference. But if you know the difference, it can end up making a difference.

I think most people waiting for the R2 kit were wanting something that looked more like the large scale mockup than what the Randy Cooper kit can offer. And at $200 plus, it is an expensive kit to miss the mark by that much.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I think there is some panic here that I hope is uncalled for.

I don't want to speak for him, but didn't Gary post here that he had some 
family issues that delayed his work on the project? That's completely understandable.

Also Jamie has said that absorbing the Lindberg/hawk line was more work than they thought.

Jamie also has said that R2 will not be announcing/commenting on kits anymore until 
they have something physical in hand to show. 

Given those facts I think it might be premature to think this kit is done. In the past when they do cancel a kit they have announced it.

My opinion is that it is still in pre production status, still moving forward slowly, and when Jamie has a physical prototype he will announce it and post over at the collector model blog.

And if they do cancel it, it's not a crazy hard scratch build. 

What I would like to learn, is did anyone at Wondefest ask R2 about it and what was the response, I'm guessing once people get home we will have an answer to that question. I'm betting on: It's still in development, nothing else to say at this time.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

They obviously chose to bet on the 22" Eagle which is an amazing surprise and I'm fine with that; I doubt that they're canceling the Galileo after putting all the development work into it. And it looks like a number of R2 kits (like King Kong) that were said to be cancelled are being put out in one way or another. I would say at best we'll see a Galileo at the end of 2016, and I'm sure R2 is aware that 2016 is the 50th anniversary of TOS and all the marketing synergy that entails...


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

That may well be but then they need to TELL us something. This is ridiculous. YOu prime your customers for something theyve been waiting for and then A. Take forever to finish it followed by B. Go silent on it. Not great PR. A lot of people were told there would be an announcement at Wonderfest and nothing. The fact that nobody here who went apparently bothered to ask is even MORE mystifying.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

mach7 said:


> I don't want to speak for him, but didn't Gary post here that he had some
> family issues that delayed his work on the project? That's completely understandable.


IIRC Gary's part of the project has been completed and sent on to Round2 already- it is in their system and hopefully we will see something when it is ready.

Between the Lindberg/Hawk integration and R2 trying to keep things flowing with the choice of one 'Big' kit (like the TOS-E) and smaller releases (Cadet/Repops) I am not surprised about the delay. 
It looks like we are getting the Big Eagle (which looks very good BTW) and the an accurate 1/1000 RBoP this year. The All new large scale Galileo is going to be a pretty big kit by itself and I would not expect to see anything until next year on it.

Quite frankly I prefer what they released this year- the Eagle has never been done right in mass production and is long over due. It may not be Trek, but I am glad they followed through with they plan to make such a kit if the Repopped Eagle kits sold well enough.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard Baker said:


> the Eagle has never been done right in mass production and is long over due.


Same is true for the Galileo.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Richard Baker said:


> IIRC Gary's part of the project has been completed and sent on to Round2 already-


Yup. Plans are all done. The ball is in PL's court now.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Could also be Round 2 is planning to have this ready for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Wouldn't it be an awesome kit that will make Star Trek's 50th that much better.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I am guessing that's the plan and it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Whelp, just going to spend all my money on Moebius stuff this year I guess...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Could also be Round 2 is planning to have this ready for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Wouldn't it be an awesome kit that will make Star Trek's 50th that much better.




Could be. I think they should do the Galileo and a 1/350th K'Tinga for the 50th. Now that would be awesome.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

How about a 1/350 scale Fesarius? Now THAT would be impresive! Delivered in sections on a flatbed.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Trekkriffic said:


> How about a 1/350 scale Fesarius? Now THAT would be impresive! Delivered in sections on a flatbed.


Too small. I want the 1/350 Dyson sphere from " Relics"!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

mach7 said:


> Too small. I want the 1/350 Dyson sphere from " Relics"!


Let's see.. The Dyson sphere was 200,000,000 kilometers in diameter. Converting to miles, at 1/350 scale, the model would be 3,550,692 miles across. 

Manageable...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

mach7 said:


> I don't want to speak for him, but didn't Gary post here that he had some family issues that delayed his work on the project?


I have no problem speaking for Gary. 

Gary did have some family issues, but that didn't stop him from fulfilling his committment to R2. The reason for the interminable delay has nothing to do with Gary, and everything to do with R2 management. 

I suspect Gary is as frustrated by R2's silence as we are.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

I was looking forward to the Galileo too (voted for it), but it's not like R2 singled it out. Their Sulaco kit isn't being produced either and many people were looking forward to that as well. I think Aliens fans have more to feel frustrated about, as Trek is still a major brand for R2 while Alien/Aliens can barely get off the ground with just the coming resin Kane kit.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Im not buying another kit from them until the Galileo. I dont do 1/1000. I could care less about re-pops and I dont like being jerked around by a company who waves carrots then goes silent.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

They're not doing it on purpose, ya know.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

It's a government conspiracy! Men in black, Black helicopters, Contrails!!! :jest:


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

I guess it will be the end of the world if the Galileo doesn't come out soon. I might as well cancel all my plans for the near future! How dare Round 2 put this kit on hold!!!
I applaud R2 for bringing us what they have so far. No model company actually has to tell us anything in advance. I'm sure there is a good reason for the delay and it will eventually be released. I have a ton of stuff I can work on in the meantime and still won't put a dent in my stash.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Agreed!
If I had one in my hands right now I still would not be able to build it for another year the way things are going...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Of course R2 can do whatever they want with their various licenses. That's not the point. These guys have tied up one of the most coveted properties in sci-fi and they seem completely unmotivated to produce new kits. Go or get off the pot, you know?

Oh, and the reason for the delay? The guy running the show at R2 is much more interested in drawing a hefty salary than he is in paying for tooling costs.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Well guys...finally something concrete to share.
While not much, it's something.
My frustration finally got the best of me,and believe it or not, I actually got Jamie Hood on the phone and ask the question everyone wants to know???
He was VERY reluctant to say anything, and basically said as much, as in he couldn't.
But I basically said, man just give us something, if it's canceled, then say that, if it's just delay still, say that.
To that , he at least relented and said he really can't say much at this point, but it's somewhere in between canceled and delayed still, but, he WILL be addressing it on the R2 blog within the next month or so.
So there you have it from the horses mouth, no more speculation.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jamie is in an impossible position. The decision to greenlight a kit is not his to make, but he's the poor sap on the firing line when it comes to having to spin R2's dithering. I would not want to be in his shoes.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Well, on a personal note, and not to be too off-topic-morose, being almost 57 I find myself sensing the eventuality that I can't take it all with me. I'm healthy now, but at some point one will ask oneself, what happens to all of this neat stuff that I'm hoarding and that takes up so much space? So, every year (or month) of delay for this thing makes me "need" it that much less.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Just speculating..._if_ the Galileo kit doesn't get produced, I wonder where that leaves Star Trek kits in general at R2. After all, they've repoped just about every old AMT kit there is, some several times, so in order to keep the Star Trek line going, they'll have to invest in new-tool kits.

I'm wondering if the Galileo was getting too costly, especially given how big the finished kit would be (about the same length as the old AMT kit at approx 7.5" long). In other words, customers might not feel it's worth the money based on the size of it. Also, didn't they spend a lot of cash on the Lindberg/Hawk purchase? I'm sure that hasn't helped matters.

Again all this is speculation, we'll have to wait for offical word from Jamie (how much he'll be _allowed_ to say is another matter all together). And yes, he is in a impossible position.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

well if they cancel it Im done with them, they wont see another dime from me


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

What is astounding is that R2 chose to repop that horrible 'Exploration Set'- saw it proudly on display in a photo from Wonderfest.
No amount of extra decals or adding a new spru can save that kit- it will sell poorly since it is legendary how bad it was and then I am afraid R2 will shake it's collective head and wonder why Star Trek is no longer popular.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

spock62 said:


> And yes, he is in a impossible position.


Just to remind everyone, this was a position that they put themselves into. They said... "Why? Because I wanted the modeling public to get a taste of the decisions we have to make when it comes to our product line."​Did they think the 1/1000 Reliant was a sure thing? I think so. The Galileo wasn't going to be the next major kit, the Reliant was. They gambled that the public would make the same choice and lost.

Did they put some effort into developing the Galileo kit? Sorta. They got Kerr to put together designs (though they aren't any better than *Warped9*'s in my opinion, so that was a waste of money right there). And it looks like they added figures to the bridge kit that would also work with the shuttlecraft. I think that qualifies as a start.



spock62 said:


> I'm wondering if the Galileo was getting too costly, especially given how big the finished kit would be (about the same length as the old AMT kit at approx 7.5" long). In other words, customers might not feel it's worth the money based on the size of it.


The model was to be larger than the original AMT kit. About 11 inches in length. How big is that? Well, I'm sure many of you guys have an AMT 18 inch Enterprise kit around in some state of completion. Here is a side-by-side comparison of my last 18 inch build next to my scratch built Galileo which is about the same size as the Round 2 kit was intended to be...

_Click images to enlarge_
 ​
I have no idea what the price of the kit was going to be, but this was about how much physical model you'd have ended up with. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is about the same size as the Randy Cooper kit.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Shaw said:


> They got Kerr to put together designs (though they aren't any better than *Warped9*'s in my opinion, so that was a waste of money right there)..


Of course we're all entitled to our opinions, but for Gary this stuff is a labor of love. The amount of money R2 "wasted" on his designs probably wouldn't buy dinner for two at a nice restaurant. Assuming they paid him anything at all.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

I think we all need to just sit and wait


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMC said:


> I think we all need to just sit and wait


Yeah, how's that working out for you?



We need to make some noise. Let R2 (and CBS) know how we feel. Sitting and waiting is what we've been doing, and all we have to show for it are a lot of ho-hum re-pops.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

RMC said:


> I think we all need to just sit and wait


Aww man - not again! I keep getting told to sit in the corner and wait...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

I agree with RMC on this, let's see what Jamie Hood has to say about this on the R2 "Collector Blog". We have *no* idea why the kit has been delayed _or_ cancelled, let's give him a chance to explain. Beside's, I'd bet good money Jamie and others at R2 know that many modelers are disappointed in the latest developments.

UPDATE: On the R2 Collector Blog, Jamie Hood posted today that he's going to do a post about Wonderfest next week. Hopefully, he'll give us details regarding the Galileo.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

From the collectormodel.com _Galileo_ kit blog thread today:

JamieH_ says: __ June 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm_ 
_Hi all. I’ll have more to say about the Galileo next week when I get some time to write up my Wonderfest blog. Until then, please be patient, as I am also anxious to get this kit released. As always I pass along info when I feel I can with the most amount of certainty. That’s rarely as often as either you or I would hope for, but I don’t want to over-promise anything as has happened in the past._
_Please be aware that in this business, things get pushed as other opportunities within the company as a whole arise. Sci-fi model kits aren’t the only thing we have going on and Star Trek isn’t the only license we have. I can’t count the amount of factors that affect when kits come out._
_To those of you who have been patient, we appreciate it. Our intention as always is to produce the best kits we can._


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> From the collectormodel.com _Galileo_ kit blog thread today:


That's funny, when I check out the blog by going on the R2 website, I don't see this latest response, but when I click your link, I do.

At any rate, it sounds like other projects were moved to the front of the line (like the 22" Eagle?) and that pushed the Galileo back. We'll find out next week hopefully.

Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

spock62 said:


> That's funny, when I check out the blog by going on the R2 website, I don't see this latest response, but when I click your link, I do.


You have to go to the original Galileo thread on the blog, and there it is on the bottom. Man, how time flies - that blog was originally posted in September 2012. Almost three freaking years and they can't bring it to market. And I thought I was the master at procrastination!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Wow. If a model company delaying the production of a single kit was my biggest problem in life, I'd be counting my blessings.

Do I want one? Sure. Will it kill me if it doesn't get released for another five years, or gets cancelled? No. I don't know what Round 2's reasons are for delaying the production of the Galileo kit and, to be honest, I don't really care because it's none of my business and they don't owe me any explanations. When/if it gets released, I'll buy one. If it gets cancelled, I have plenty of other models to build. Life goes on.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Since when did griping about a model company's failure to produce models become controversial? This is, after all, a model forum. 

The fact that some of us would like to see a new Galileo model kit released doesn't imply we're putting our lives on hold in the meantime. You don't want a kit, or couldn't care less if it's delayed indefinitely? That's cool. Thanks for keeping us posted. Some of us feel otherwise. 

Does R2 owe its longtime customers the courtesy of an explanation? Of course not. They own the Trek license and can do, or fail to do, whatever they want with it. That is, in fact, why some of us are complaining. If our point of view doesn't jibe with yours then please feel free to disregard it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm gonna be 58 next week. I wonder if I'll still be alive when (if) this thing comes out.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Carson Dyle said:


> Sitting and waiting is what we've been doing, and all we have to show for it are a lot of ho-hum re-pops.


In fairness, however, that's not all we've gotten. We've gotten a sweet 1/1000 Reliant to make the 1/1000 scale fans happy, a new tool proportionally correct Romulan Bird of Prey that has long been on some people's list. Not to mention some of us are still sweating out how to make our 1/350 TOS E kits as good as we imagined them to be for 40 years. And -- surprise! -- we're getting a 1/48 Eagle THIS year. This is not to say your frustration isn't valid, but it's not like the people at R2 has been sitting with their thumbs up their exhaust ports. :hat:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> From the collectormodel.com _Galileo_ kit blog thread today:
> 
> JamieH_ says: __ June 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm_
> _Hi all. I’ll have more to say about the Galileo next week when I get some time to write up my Wonderfest blog. Until then, please be patient, as I am also anxious to get this kit released. As always I pass along info when I feel I can with the most amount of certainty. That’s rarely as often as either you or I would hope for, but I don’t want to over-promise anything as has happened in the past._
> ...


I read this as delayed, not canceled.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Iit's not like the people at R2 has been sitting with their thumbs up their exhaust ports. :hat:


Maybe just one thumb. 

Since you mention it, I did pick up that BoP. I just don't know where I'm going to find the room to display it! Maybe hanging from my rearview mirror.



The Eagle is welcome news though. When I read that R2 was producing a 22 inch Eagle I thought I was hallucinating. Here's hoping it doesn't get cancelled too.

Your overall point is valid. I am critical of R2, but it's not like they haven't produced some great kits (well, one great kit). Here's hoping the Galileo will follow suit.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

John P said:


> I'm gonna be 58 next week. I wonder if I'll still be alive when (if) this thing comes out.


Add a little over 21 years to that and you'll know how I feel. 

Actually, I'm in very good health and feel more than 20 years younger than my age. So, eat right and take those vitamin and mineral supplements!


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

The price of that Kane resin kit is like $120 in today's email from Autoworld, which despite AW always being overpriced rules it out as a kit for me. Gary K is on the TOS E restoration project for the Smithsonian, so he is active. As for the silence on the Galileo, color me disappointed.

Tib


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

*age*



John P said:


> I'm gonna be 58 next week. I wonder if I'll still be alive when (if) this thing comes out.



HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHN P. :hat:
Im gonna be 54 next month !....


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm not bothered at all about the Galileo but if you are it is tough when you get older and things don't appear. 
Luckily one of my grails (the Eagle) looks like it's being done but one of my other grails (a large new K'Tinga) doesn't appear to be on the horizon.


----------



## GordonMitchell (Feb 12, 2009)

Must just be a british thing,Klingon assault group etc...lol,patience my friend we're all getting older,some more past it than others but I believe Round 2 wont dissapoint with the Galileo and if they can keep a project as big as the Eagle secret who knows what is Round(2)the corner

Cheers
Gordon:thumbsup:


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

GordonMitchell said:


> who knows what is Round(2)the corner
> 
> Cheers
> Gordon:thumbsup:













Well played, sir!


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Since when did griping about a model company's failure to produce models become controversial? This is, after all, a model forum.
> 
> The fact that some of us would like to see a new Galileo model kit released doesn't imply we're putting our lives on hold in the meantime. You don't want a kit, or couldn't care less if it's delayed indefinitely? That's cool. Thanks for keeping us posted. Some of us feel otherwise.
> 
> Does R2 owe its longtime customers the courtesy of an explanation? Of course not. They own the Trek license and can do, or fail to do, whatever they want with it. That is, in fact, why some of us are complaining. If our point of view doesn't jibe with yours then please feel free to disregard it.


Fair enough. And it's not like I don't understand the frustration of having a decent kit of a long-awaited subject announced, only to find out there's no actual deadline for getting it on the shelves and that it "might" happen "whenever". I was just providing a little counterpoint to all of the grousing.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

For me, the frustration lies in the fact that as of now the Galileo is the only model that I want—and have been wanting for a long time.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I'm pretty sure Lowe and staff are aware of what people want that will sell and a shuttle thats a good size is a no-brainer. I would be VERY surprised if it did not come out.
And the eagle, talk about coming out of left field! Not only a pleasant surprise but it shows that sometimes they dont share whats coming down the pipe.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Hunch;5140809 it shows that sometimes they dont share whats coming down the pipe.[/QUOTE said:


> I think we will se more of the not knowing till its at least a prototype build-up or even further along. that way they don't have to hear all the whining about delays, etc.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

[QUOTE SHAW= And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is about the same size as the Randy Cooper kit.

I have to respectfully disagree with your size comparison.
The R2 Galileo kit would only be slightly larger than the old AMT kit.
I say this because, weather it really is 1/32 scale or not, if the new figures that come in the updated bridge kit, are supposed to be able to go with the shuttle kit, they would be MUCH to small to fit with the Randy Cooper kit, which I have.
The figures would have to be almost twice as large, if not, to go with Randys kit, which I think is closer to 1/24 scale.
I have to check with Randy On that.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Gotta say, if ANYONE is equipped to make a decision that is a "no brainer" it would be Mr Lowe. :thumbsup:
Tom


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

bane-7 said:


> SHAW said:
> 
> 
> > And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is about the same size as the Randy Cooper kit.
> ...


I have no idea what Cooper used for a scale, for references or anything else... and visually, his model doesn't reflect any version of the Galileo I've seen (even from fan based plans). Beyond it being a pretty representation of the Galileo, I can't say much more about it. And as it is quite inaccurate, there isn't really any reason for me to want to follow up on it's design history.

As for the Round 2 kit and Kerr's work on it, he has outlined the model's dimensions...*Kerr, 03-09-2014:*
_The final model should be just over 11" long and 7" wide. That represents a 1/32 scale model of the almost-30' "real" shuttle, or a 1/24 scale model of the mock-up. I've talked with Gene Winfield, who built the mock-up, and as a result kit should include a few *optional* parts that Gene intended to be on the shuttle, but which were not installed at the studio, presumably thanks to the bean-counters in Finance. There might be a few more surprises included in the kit. If having a bottom on the model bothers the studio scale purists, you can always cut it out & add a metal framework. I know that Jamie Hood at Polar Lights wants to give modelers the most bang for their buck, so let's wait to see what Polar Lights says after the factory gives them an estimate._​
As for the bridge kit figures, they included the following _Galileo 7_ crew members... Lt. Boma, Lt. Latimer and Yeoman Mears (according to the instructions on this page, which also list the bridge model as 1/32).

Does any of that mean anything? Not until there is a kit ready. You and anyone else can _respectfully disagree_ because we got nothing right now.

As for my model, it is one-half studio scale... so half the size of the studio model. I don't know or care what the studio model's scale was, I only cared about faithfully documenting the studio model itself as a historical artifact.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I have absolutely no desire for "crew members" with this kit. I know that they would be woefully inaccurate as far as human proportions go—almost all model kits of human figures are, especially at that small scale—and so they would add nothing to the authenticity of the model. In my opinion, they would only detract.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Shaw said:


> I have no idea what Cooper used for a scale, for references or anything else... and visually, his model doesn't reflect any version of the Galileo I've seen (even from fan based plans). Beyond it being a pretty representation of the Galileo, I can't say much more about it. And as it is quite inaccurate, there isn't really any reason for me to want to follow up on it's design history.
> 
> As for the Round 2 kit and Kerr's work on it, he has outlined the model's dimensions...*Kerr, 03-09-2014:*
> _The final model should be just over 11" long and 7" wide. That represents a 1/32 scale model of the almost-30' "real" shuttle, or a 1/24 scale model of the mock-up. I've talked with Gene Winfield, who built the mock-up, and as a result kit should include a few *optional* parts that Gene intended to be on the shuttle, but which were not installed at the studio, presumably thanks to the bean-counters in Finance. There might be a few more surprises included in the kit. If having a bottom on the model bothers the studio scale purists, you can always cut it out & add a metal framework. I know that Jamie Hood at Polar Lights wants to give modelers the most bang for their buck, so let's wait to see what Polar Lights says after the factory gives them an estimate._​
> ...


My comments were about the size comparison ONLY, not the accuracy of Coopers kit.
As stated, regardless of what ever the true scales of the figures or the shuttle itself are, the figures are WAY to small to go with Coopers kit.
So if the bridge figures are intended to go with the new R2 kit,as well as the bridge, which Im pretty sure they are, then the kits cannot be the same size, as you're estimating.
But... as you say, we have nothing yet, so we'll have to wait to be 100% sure.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

bane-7 said:


> My comments were about the size comparison ONLY, not the accuracy of Coopers kit.
> 
> ...then the kits cannot be the same size, as you're estimating.




Unfortunately, accuracy plays a part when looking at the proportions of the shuttlecraft, and the Cooper kit's odd proportions makes a full comparison difficult. That having been said, general size is easy enough...*Kerr:* _The final model should be just over 11" long.."_
*Cooper:* _"the kit measures 12" long.."_​I'd say that puts them at about the same size.

Now, if you are saying that the seats that come with the Cooper kit are bigger than the ones that'll most likely come with the Round 2 kit, I agree completely. But the size of the seats doesn't change the overall size of the models... which empirically are going to be about the same.

I would say that there is a slight difference in size between _just over 11"_ and _12"_. If we go by your definition of _slight_...


> The R2 Galileo kit would only be slightly larger than the old AMT kit.


... then _just over 11"_ is _slightly larger_ than _7.5"_.

Lets look at this visually... you are saying that either shuttlecraft A or B is only _slightly larger_ than shuttlecraft C in this picture...








...but that shuttlecraft A and B are not approximately the same size as each other.

You seem to have some strange/warped views on relative sizes based on your posts. :freak:


----------



## Bugfood (Jan 9, 2010)

When Round2 eventually release the Galileo - which hopefully there'll be more news on the next couple of weeks - it'll most likely be as accurate as they can make it, to the scale in which they choose to release it. 

Given the absolutely excellent news about the development and mooted release date of the Eagle, there are any one of a number of reasons what R2 have yet to finalise and release the G. Bottom line: only they know. 

For what it's worth I have no doubt and only the greatest respect for what both this company and Moebius are doing in our fields of interest. 

Round2 have proven their mettle with their Trek releases to date and - by comparison to other subjects and licenses - there have been an awful lot of those. They have also shown that they listen - as far as they can - to fan input / wishes. 

So, if anyone seriously thinks that an extended development time will result in a poorer or off-scale result: have a sit down on the porch and watch a Summer sunset.

Because nothing bad will happen.

It's all win!

(Just like the Eagle). 

*BF*


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Shaw said:


> You seem to have some strange/warped views on relative sizes based on your posts. :freak:


WOWWW...now my opinion is strange and warped, just because it differs from yours 
Well as I stated before, I have the cooper kit, and it's NOT just the seats, the door size and overall size of the kit is WAY to big for the bridge figure's to go with.
Even if the hulls are the same or close in size, the inside is scaled wrong for the figures to go with it.
It seems you have a need to be right, and you may be, but this is simple polite debate on my part.
I haven't been rude to you at all, but you seem to have for some reason, a need to throw digs.
My thoughts are warped, because they don't jive with yours??
Nothing I posted is strange or warped, but how you take it does seems to be.
It's just a difference in opinion, until we have a kit in hand, no one will know for sure! :wave:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, bane, I understand what you're saying about the figures being too small for the Cooper kit, and you're correct that with its interior scaled at 1/24, they would be horribly out of scale.

But the fact is that R2/PL/Gary Kerr definitively stated that their model kit will be 11" long. So if you're trying to say their kit will be smaller than that - no, it'll _be _11" long. That's nobody's opinion, just stated fact.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

John P said:


> Well, bane, I understand what you're saying about the figures being too small for the Cooper kit, and you're correct that with its interior scaled at 1/24, they would be horribly out of scale.
> 
> But the fact is that R2/PL/Gary Kerr definitively stated that their model kit will be 11" long. So if you're trying to say their kit will be smaller than that - no, it'll _be _11" long. That's nobody's opinion, just stated fact.


Yes John...that was the point I've been trying to make from the start.
The 11" Gary is talking about is still just an estimate, but if it is 11" the hull's would be about the same size.
But my point all along in the debate has been based on the figure's being in scale with the ship in general, but as you say, the interior is way off,and would have to be scaled down, the control panel, the seats, the side door, would all have to be reduced in size to fit the figures, even if the hull is 11".


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

bane-7 said:


> Yes John...that was the point I've been trying to make from the start.
> The 11" Gary is talking about is still just an estimate, but if it is 11" the hull's would be about the same size.
> But my point all along in the debate has been based on the figure's being in scale with the ship in general, but as you say, the interior is way off,and would have to be scaled down, the control panel, the seats, the side door, would all have to be reduced in size to fit the figures, even if the hull is 11".


You should have agreed with me long ago then. You started all this by _respectfully disagreeing_ with this size comparison...


Shaw said:


> The model was to be larger than the original AMT kit. About 11 inches in length. How big is that? Well, I'm sure many of you guys have an AMT 18 inch Enterprise kit around in some state of completion. Here is a side-by-side comparison of my last 18 inch build next to my scratch built Galileo which is about the same size as the Round 2 kit was intended to be...
> 
> _Click images to enlarge_
> ​
> I have no idea what the price of the kit was going to be, but this was about how much physical model you'd have ended up with. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it is about the same size as the Randy Cooper kit.


That statement doesn't include anything about interior sizes or scales... just a general size comparison of the overall models.

I'm not trying to pick on you, I just don't understand why you started this to begin with. Specially if the statement you disagreed with doesn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make from the start.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Shaw said:


> You should have agreed with me long ago then. You started all this by _respectfully disagreeing_ with this size comparison...
> 
> That statement doesn't include anything about interior sizes or scales... just a general size comparison of the overall models. And I still do.
> 
> I'm not trying to pick on you, I just don't understand why you started this to begin with. Specially if the statement you disagreed with doesn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make from the start.


What ever 
You just didn't get what I was saying, general size comparison include's the interior when one is included, which you were well aware one was included.
That's part of the whole is it not?
I said many times my statements were based on the FIGURES working with the size in general as is, NOT so much the hull's them selves being the same size.
John P understood what I was saying,but my mistake, I guess I should have broke it down better for you to understand.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

WTF? Is this a joke? Are you kidding here?

I was using my model, which is about the same size as the Round 2 kit's size as a general comparison and displaying it next to an AMT 18" Enterprise kit to help illustrate the size of the model. My model (based on the studio model) has no interior (because the studio model had no interior), and the AMT 18" Enterprise kit doesn't have an interior either (not that it would have mattered).

You are trying to say that you were hung up on _scale_ when I was using my model (which essentially has _no scale_ or interior) next to an AMT 18" Enterprise kit (at some wholly unrelated scale) to help illustrate the relative size of the models?

Lets not forget, you said..._"I have to respectfully disagree with your size comparison.
The R2 Galileo kit would only be slightly larger than the old AMT kit."_​



bane-7 said:


> You just didn't get what I was saying, general size comparison include's the interior when one is included, which you were well aware one was included.


Amazing... I didn't get it but was also well aware at the same time. I think we're entering strawman territory here, so you don't need my active involvement to continue your argument.

Best of luck, I hope you prevail over _Strawman-Shaw_ in your continued debate. :thumbsup:


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

:freak:


Shaw said:


> WTF? Is this a joke? Are you kidding here?
> 
> I was using my model, which is about the same size as the Round 2 kit's size as a general comparison and displaying it next to an AMT 18" Enterprise kit to help illustrate the size of the model. My model (based on the studio model) has no interior (because the studio model had no interior), and the AMT 18" Enterprise kit doesn't have an interior either (not that it would have mattered).
> 
> ...


:freak: :wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Some things never change.

:freak:

ANYWAY, here's hoping R2 will figure out a financially viable way of bringing a Galileo to market in a somewhat larger scale than the old AMT kit. The Cooper model, for all its flaws, is a nice display size, but I'd be happy with something that falls somewhere between the two.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Personally I would just like a nice replica with the correct hull shape- hard not to improve over the AMT mess.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Bwain no more said:


> Gotta say, if ANYONE is equipped to make a decision that is a "no brainer" it would be Mr Lowe. :thumbsup:
> Tom


LOL! Good one Tom. I was thinking more of the staff, Jamie etc.
Jim-Judy says Hi!


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Hey Jim, tell Judy hello for me! HOPE to see you guys on a Chiller Saturday to catch up, maybe in October.:thumbsup: And yeah, Jamie is pretty much in an IMPOSSIBLE situation from ALL sides. Personally, just for his work on the '66 Batmobile ALONE, us 60s kids owe him a HUGE debt of gratitude! That he keeps plugging away is a testament to his quality as an individual. He was my contact point at R2 when they purchased the Barnabas and Werewolf sculpts from me, and he could not have been more helpful and professional! I raise my mug of diet Mountain Dew to him in tribute! 
Tom


----------



## eradicator178 (Sep 3, 2008)

What is the exact deal on the shuttle? Is it postponed, cancelled or still in progress?


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

I think a better question is will Round2 still be in business? Jamie was supposed to update his blog last week and that didn't happen. Hopefully they sort out their Paypal fiasco and get back on track with the Galileo and a release date soon...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think the PayPal theft was big but not a deal breaker for Round2- IIRC it happened over the course of several years before anybody noticed.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Well they must have been hit fairly hard as now they're talking kickstarter for R&D, rather than just funding a new project.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

What's this about a PayPal theft??????????


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

spock62 said:


> What's this about a PayPal theft??????????


From the Kickstarter thread:



Bwain no more said:


> This story broke AFTER Wonder Fest, but it MAY have an impact on any future new tooling that comes out of R2.
> http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/...0000-theft-at-SB-based-company-306046911.html
> Note that the story does not even MENTION model kits, but that is ALOT of pesos to absorb in your bottom line.
> Tom


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Wow, that's a sizeable chunk of change! It's understandable that they would put some projects on hold until that mess gets sorted out.

My wife is a co-owner of a small company that installs, maintains, and repairs commercial air conditioning and heating systems, and several years ago an employee embezzled about $45,000 over the course of several months; it nearly ended the company. They recovered, but still haven't seen a dime of the court-ordered restitution.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

This is sickening. Happened to my brother in law's company too. You always need to have someone watching the bean counters. It is far too easy a temptation for accounting clerks to start processing invoices from shell companies that they set up themselves.

$360,000!!! Here we are buying R2 kits (I bought 4 Eagle repops) hoping that will encourage them to make more and better kits. And then they look at their finances and don't have the resources to tool new kits. Because of her. 

I hope R2 pushes for jail time. With my brother in law's company, the police would not lift a finger. He had to take all the evidence to a judge, who then issued an order for her to be arrested and charged. But none of that puts your company back to where it should have been. The money is long gone, spent on vacations, gambling, and Oxycotin.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

My company just lost around $300,000 with a major client declaring bankruptcy. They were a regional multi-state retail operation that was constantly expanding- they even ordered new signs the day before they went toes up.
My company is a small one, family run, with under ten employees right now- been working here for 26 years. With any luck we may, just may, see some of those outstanding invoices be honored, but only a fraction of what is due and minus the legal costs.

If Round 2 is put under by this loss I really must question their business model- they are a huge operation compared to my sign company and we are still operating...


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

In his latest blog post (comments), Jamie says he will talk about the Galileo in his next post, next week.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Fozzie said:


> In his latest blog post (comments), Jamie says he will talk about the Galileo in his next post, next week.


You beat me to this ;-) I was the one he responded to. I am looking forward to that post.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yay! Please pass on any news.


----------



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Jamie posted on the R2 blog in the 22" Eagle thread on June 16th, that he will be talking about the Galileo kit in his next post this week. :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Just finished reading the R2 blog and Jamie is saying the Galileo is expected to be out some time next year.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh good.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

I did enjoy the More from Wonderfest post which was about 2/3 about the Eagle and 1/3 about the Galileo. :-/


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

*For those who do not have time to fish around for it:*
"I’ll touch on some of the other stuff we had on display in a future post, but I didn’t want to take too long before addressing one question that came up a couple times. A few kind folks wanted to know what’s happening with the Galileo Shuttle model kit. The honest truth is that we are looking to put it out in 2016 as part of the 50th anniversary celebration of Star Trek: The Original Series. Is waiting for the anniversary the only reason for the delay? No. As with all delays, there are many factors involved that would include “business” in that that kit is not our only concern company wide. Other unrelated circumstances and opportunities pop up and sometimes we have to take advantage of them. In other ways I can honestly say “life & death” have gotten in the way a little bit on this project on many levels. I don’t feel it is appropriate to get into any of the details. Can I promise that the Galileo will come out in 2016? I am not in the position to promise anything. I can’t predict the future. I can only proceed and work and fight until I’m told not to. Why do the Eagle now and not do the Galileo? When we examined all of the costs and possibilities, we felt that the Eagle was the better kit to do right now. As I’ve said before, I really appreciate everyone that has been reasonable about this. To those that have gotten a bit… testy… about it, well… Thanks for your interest too. - See more at: http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.doLV77Fk.dpuf"


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I am just glad to hear it is still happening.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

We had to wait a long time for the 1:350 _Enterprise _kit and it was great. I am sure the _Galileo _kit will be worth the wait as well.

Gotta get my 22" Eagle order in now...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

"_Can I promise that the Galileo will come out in 2016? I am not in the position to promise anything. I can’t predict the future. I can only proceed and work and fight until I’m told not to._"

I take this to mean they _want_ to release the Galileo in 2016, and that's the current plan, but that unforeseen circumstances could lead to further delays. Smart. They know this kit is in high demand, they know some modelers are upset by the current delays and/or lack of information, but they're running a business and sometimes they have to make difficult decisions. It's not a big deal to me--I'd prefer they release the kit when they're ready rather than rush it to appease a small percentage of customers and produce an inferior kit. In other words, as I've said before, I'd rather have it _right_ than have it _right now_.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

Zombie_61 said:


> In other words, as I've said before, I'd rather have it _right_ than have it _right now_.


I agree.

Hopefully this doesn't turn into the Duke Nukem of models. You gamers know what I'm talking about...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm not really interested in the Gallileo but it would be really cool if we could have 2 big Trek kits for the anniversary next year. The Gallileo and the 1/350th K'Tinga.

Seeing as the K'Tinga has often come tops in polls (along with the Eagles).


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not really interested in the Gallileo but it would be really cool if we could have 2 big Trek kits for the anniversary next year. The Gallileo and the 1/350th K'Tinga.
> 
> Seeing as the K'Tinga has often come tops in polls (along with the Eagles).


A reliant would sell better tho !


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RMC said:


> A reliant would sell better tho !




Maybe but I don't think the K'Tinga would be far behind. It's often come higher than the Reliant in polls.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

I wouldn't hold my breath on any 1/350 kit. Between the engineering and cost of producing the Eagle and upcoming Shuttle, I'd be surprised to see them do a 1/350 kit in 2016. But, maybe they'll surprise us.

I would like to see a new "mid-sized" TOS Enterprise is 1/500 scale. Something that would slot in-between the 1/350 and 1/1000 scale kits in both size and price.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's good news about the _Galileo_ kit. I had a feeling that is what the announcement would be.

I would imagine that there will be a "50th Anniversary Special Edition" release of the 1/350 Original Series Enterprise in 2016. They could include some special parts (as with the pilot parts included with the 1701 Club pre-order release) and commemorative memorabilia to resell the kit all over again at a higher price without having to create new tooling.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not really interested in the Gallileo but it would be really cool if we could have 2 big Trek kits for the anniversary next year. The Gallileo and the 1/350th K'Tinga.
> 
> Seeing as the K'Tinga has often come tops in polls (along with the Eagles).



I don't think that ANY 1/350th is likely to be done next year, considering R2's recent financial hit it took at the hands of someone at their company.  




Maybe if there were a Kickstarter program.


A Galileo now seems much more likely then any 1/350th tooling.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I don't think that ANY 1/350th is likely to be done next year, considering R2's recent financial hit it took at the hands of someone at their company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes if she's guilty (and I state if) then she should have to pay it all back.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not really interested in the Gallileo but it would be really cool if we could have 2 big Trek kits for the anniversary next year. The Gallileo and the 1/350th K'Tinga.
> 
> Seeing as the K'Tinga has often come tops in polls (along with the Eagles).


Next year will be the 50th anniversary for _Star trek The Original Series_ not star Trek The Motion Picture.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> Next year will be the 50th anniversary for _Star trek The Original Series_ not star Trek The Motion Picture.






Yes but it's all Trek and STTMP was the first film and it carried on from the original series.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> Next year will be the 50th anniversary for _Star trek The Original Series_ not star Trek The Motion Picture.


Actually, I think that is a valid point. What better time to market and release a Galileo than on the 50th anniversary of the series?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

It would be a good time for the Galileo but it's not just about celebrating the original series. It's about celebrating 50 years of all things Star Trek.


----------



## eradicator178 (Sep 3, 2008)

*Yes......*



SUNGOD said:


> Yes if she's guilty (and I state if) then she should have to pay it all back.


Yes, but that will take years.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It was not like she pulled a gun and took all the money at once- she quietly siphoned it off over a number of years and they did not notice. If the financial hit is such that they were not even aware of it I doubt it would have a devastating impact on things- they even have more operating capital now since she had stopped doing it and they had already adjusted to the lower amount available before.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS (Nov 15, 2013)

Are there any news to this kit out there ?? :freak:


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Chances are they are still trying to straighten out their daily operations. If this one woman had sole access to much of the money, it's going to be time consuming and difficult for the staff that is left to juggle all that while hiring new people to handle their finances. I can't imagine they are able to make any final, big decisions on kits right now. Hopefully Richard Baker is right and this will eventually work out in R2's favor. 


At the very least they have closed a bleeding wound they didn't even know they had.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).


Fine, be that way!
:wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).



You might be interested in this thread 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255&highlight=TOS+Galileo+Shuttlecraft%2C+The+Bob+Villa+version+-Part+1 

and the other associated threads labeled Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.


Many of us here on Hobbytalk have been working to reconcile - or more accurately lay out - methods of dealing with that issue independent of Gary and R2's work. 

Since 2003 on this board, and one member/contributor created the first documented attempt to do so in blueprint form decades ago. 

Those four threads alone contain/contained well over 2,000 posts (several hundred of the most interesting ones were accidentally deleted by moderators a few years ago) dealing with the issues involved.


*What did all of us learn?*

*There is zero possibility of making everyone happy with a single Galileo kit.*


* But to R2 and Gary Kerr's credit they have taken one of the wisest ways to solve the problem.*


Personally - no offense to Gary's compromise, I would have made her a tad under 32 feet long, not just 30 feet.


I believe the final plans Gary sent in put the craft at a hair under 30 feet.

Having said that let me first point out something that is most important to most of us 
_*He took great and painstaking care to keep all the outside contours accurate.*_

_*Even on that issue some will complain*_ because_* the contours of the Stage Prop and the Filming Miniature*_ were/are* not exactly* the same.

So even if R2 produced an exterior only kit some people might balk at some of the dimensions.

Yes, the interior of the front cabin windows' angles will be the angles of the set piece / not the interior set.

Yes, - going on what I know about the subject - their will have to compromises to the cabin lengths - but those will not be noticeable to the naked eye.

Yes, - going on what I know about the subject - their will have to compromises to the cabin heights on the interior - but those will not be noticeable to the naked eye, even with 1/24th figures placed inside.


* There is no way to solve all these issues to every single person's satisfaction. It's impossible without the use of Tardis Technology.*


If you are someone who only cares about the exterior, just put a painted piece of plastic behind the windows(or even a back lit translucent transfer decal of the interior - if you want to get fancy) 
and you should have a model that is externally accurate to the stage prop.


If you want to have a perfectly scaled, uncompromised interior, I'm willing to bet that with a couple of months of the model coming out someone will product 1/32nd scale replacement parts for the interior that won't be too expensive. 

Personally I think 98% of people who buy this kit will be happy - estatic in fact. 

But since there were in fact two exterior examples of the Galileo, 
and there are at least 5 different ways to integrate the film set interior into the exterior of the ship.


It's asking a bit much for R2 to come up with a perfect integration of the interior and exterior that everyone will love in a single sub- 12" model.


Or even a model at 1:1 scale! 


And to do all that and assume the craft was actually 24 feet long, not very likely to happen in a mass produced kit.


But again, I think this kit is going to satisfy 98% of the people who actually plop down the money to buy it. :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> It would be a good time for the Galileo but it's not just about celebrating the original series. It's about celebrating 50 years of all things Star Trek.


But it will be TOS 50th and any new Trek kit should have the honor of being from TOS before any other new Trek kit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).


The Galileo type shuttle was not 30+ feet long but was 24 feet long as mentioned in the episode The Galileo 7.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> The Galileo type shuttle was not 30+ feet long but was 24 feet long as mentioned in the episode The Galileo 7.



It was mentioned in the script, true.


But it was built as a 3/4 scale set piece so it would not only cost less, but also fit on a standard trailer for transporting it to the studio.


The intention was probably to always try to film her from an angle that didn't let you know the actual size of the ship. 


But they flupped up on a couple of shots, most notably in Way to Eden.


There are probably about a half dozen shots that completely contradict the stated 24' length of the shuttle.


So personally I have no problem disregarding a single quip that makes no sense whatsoever.


If you wanted to be a purist about it, you could imagine Kirk was thinking about the VERY long trip he took chasing Spock and the Enterprise in the two part episode.


If the_* interior*_ two cabins were 24 feet long from the front of the first to the back of the second, you could grow the exterior proportionally and make everything fit believably.


But again, there is no way to satisfy all of the facts as seen on TV.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).



Nothing personal Owen, But I can not understand this mentality.

I did NOT want the grid lines on the 1/350 TOS E. I bought one anyway.
Why? because it was the best kit EVER made of the Enterprise for a reasonable price, and I love the TOS Enterprise.

I don't agree with every decision R2 has made on the new Eagle kit. I have one on pre order and will get at least 2. Why? because it is the best kit of the eagle ever produced for a reasonable price, and I love the eagle.

You can NEVER reconcile everything between exteriors and interiors of filming models and sets. Even the 2001 moonbus interior will not fit inside the exterior.

Everything in life is a compromise.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

I don't build 1/24th scale models. The 3/4 scale comment was an off-hand comment by Jefferies with no non-anecdotal evidence ever to the corroborate it and as such goes in the trash bin with Gene's famous three rules of Warp nacelles, which contradicts much on-screen evidence. He may have said something that it was 3/4 the scale of the interior set, but even that on its own means nothing. Matt's own drawings of the Galileo in TMoST show the canon length even though they showed the angled walls that would later become a feature of the AMT 1/37 scale model. Shows that AMT did not even look at their own plans for either the set piece or the studio model. The exterior set piece was 22' long. The dialogue says 24'. That much of a discrepancy I can live with, and shows that they at least tried to make the shuttle to the size specified in the script. This may be, size excepted, the most accurate model one could get, but I like to do dioramas and I couldn't put 1/32 scale figures with this model. In point of fact, I have scaled screen shots of the interior set with actors in the seats, and the width of the interior set was correct for the exterior set piece. Only the ceiling was raised, and the forward bulkhead adjusted in angle to compensate, so even there it's an abortion. You don't understand my position? Sure, fair comment, but I sure as hell don't understand yours, either. I'm not saying others shouldn't buy and enjoy the kit - I hope they do, but I am on an extremely tight budget and won't spend money on this kit.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Fair enough Owen. To each his own.

I want something as close to the exterior as possible. The interior can be fudged, But that is me.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Me too, but I want it in a scale I can use. I've been tinkering with a scratch-built 24' shuttle for years now, and am going to finish it - complete with interior. I've extensively rebuilt the AMT seats and cast copies, and have done the console as well, scrupulously researched from behind-the-scenes photos as well as screen-grabs (thank you TrekCore.com!)


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Its funny when people get bent over a fictional vehicle with variable dimensions and that the full size prop doesn't match the interior set. Do you make a model based on the measurements of the prop? based on what the interior would represent? Based on some technical book written by a third party 20 years later? makes me laugh.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

djnick66 said:


> Its funny when people get bent over a fictional vehicle with variable dimensions and that the full size prop doesn't match the interior set. .... makes me laugh.


LOL! Yes, me too.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> But it will be TOS 50th and any new Trek kit should have the honor of being from TOS before any other new Trek kit.




Well you're biased as you want a Galileo and you see it as 50 years since the first episode of the original series (which of course is true).

I'm biased as I don't care about the Galileo and I see it as 50 years of Star Trek (which is also true) and I want the K'Tinga.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Me too, but I want it in a scale I can use. I've been tinkering with a scratch-built 24' shuttle for years now, and am going to finish it - complete with interior. I've extensively rebuilt the AMT seats and cast copies, and have done the console as well, scrupulously researched from behind-the-scenes photos as well as screen-grabs (thank you TrekCore.com!)


Photos please!


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

When you get this type of problem, with the interior set does not fit into the exterior prop/model, there's 3 ways of dealing with it. The first 2 comes down to which one you prefer - have an accurate exterior and an inaccurate interior or have an inaccurate exterior and an accurate interior. The third option is in the middle - modify both the exterior and interior and kludge them together so that they fit. Depending on the model in question, people can get quite passionate about it. No matter which option the model maker chooses, some people would be ok with it and some people will not. You can't please everyone, so you try to please the majority.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

The_Engineer said:


> When you get this type of problem, with the interior set does not fit into the exterior prop/model, there's 3 ways of dealing with it. The first 2 comes down to which one you prefer - have an accurate exterior and an inaccurate interior or have an inaccurate exterior and an accurate interior. The third option is in the middle - modify both the exterior and interior and kludge them together so that they fit. Depending on the model in question, people can get quite passionate about it. No matter which option the model maker chooses, some people would be ok with it and some people will not. You can't please everyone, so you try to please the majority.


Exactly. Personally, since the R2 Enterprise is an "exterior" model I would also prefer an accurate exterior Galileo, hands down.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> Well you're biased as you want a Galileo and you see it as 50 years since the first episode of the original series (which of course is true).
> 
> I'm biased as I don't care about the Galileo and I see it as 50 years of Star Trek (which is also true) and I want the K'Tinga.


Yes I too would like a K'tinga in 1/350 scale but I already know R2s next big kit is the 1/48 scale Eagle. Maybe in a couple of years.......:wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Owen E Oulton said:


> I don't build 1/24th scale models. The 3/4 scale comment was an off-hand comment by Jefferies with no non-anecdotal evidence ever to the corroborate it and as such goes in the trash bin with Gene's famous three rules of Warp nacelles, which contradicts much on-screen evidence. He may have said something that it was 3/4 the scale of the interior set, but even that on its own means nothing. Matt's own drawings of the Galileo in TMoST show the canon length even though they showed the angled walls that would later become a feature of the AMT 1/37 scale model. Shows that AMT did not even look at their own plans for either the set piece or the studio model. The exterior set piece was 22' long. The dialogue says 24'. That much of a discrepancy I can live with, and shows that they at least tried to make the shuttle to the size specified in the script. This may be, size excepted, the most accurate model one could get, but I like to do dioramas and I couldn't put 1/32 scale figures with this model. In point of fact, I have scaled screen shots of the interior set with actors in the seats, and the width of the interior set was correct for the exterior set piece. Only the ceiling was raised, and the forward bulkhead adjusted in angle to compensate, so even there it's an abortion. You don't understand my position? Sure, fair comment, but I sure as hell don't understand yours, either. I'm not saying others shouldn't buy and enjoy the kit - I hope they do, but I am on an extremely tight budget and won't spend money on this kit.




I can assure you the exterior will be accurately proportioned. If you want to replace the interior with a scratchbuilt one of your own making I think you'll end up with a *very* accurate model. At least accurate to the stage prop.


If money is extremely tight (and I know the feeling, believe me) and you are determined to go with something nearer the size of the AMT kit,


There is an aftermarket kit for about $30 bucks to help accuratize the AMT kit's exterior.


To make it closer to accurate externally, you will need to hatchet out the rear of the AMT kit fore of the point where it bows back inward,


then add a piece from a second kit, then re-insert the rear side walls of the model to get the appropriate "wedge" shape seen onscreen, as well as finesse the length.


Not easy but doable.




Mind you the AMT kit is way smaller then 12 inches - which if you are determined that the length of the shuttle is 24 feet, would be the length of the shuttle at 1/24th.


Personally I don't think that you'll be able to get a decent integration at 1/24th scale unless you bump the model's size up to at least 14.5" and I'd say it would have to be about 15.75" to be thoroughly and convincingly done.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Forgive me if I missed something but....What stage is this kit at....Is it going to be 2016 release?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Owen E Oulton said:


> Since the Galileo model depicts a 30+ foot long Galileo, it is actually 1/25-1/24th scale, _NOT 1/32_ and thus R2 has lost any hopes of a sale to me. Making it so the interior set fits inside, which means having to completely distort the shape of the interior set itself, is a cop-out compromise. The reason that the set had an elevated roof was not so the actors could stand up, it was to fit the cameras inside (even though the walls were "wild", so even that makes no real sense).


So buy some 1/24-1/25 scale figures to replace the ones that will come with the kit, then never open the door. That seems a pretty easy fix to me. :wave:


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Paulbo said:


> So buy some 1/24-1/25 scale figures to replace the ones that will come with the kit, then never open the door. That seems a pretty easy fix to me. :wave:


I think what he wants is a 1/32 scale shuttle based on the stated 24 ft length of the shuttle. What Round 2 is producing scales up to a shuttle over 30 ft long which makes it wrong given the on screen stated 24 ft length. 
To me it does not matter, as long as the exterior is right, that is all I want.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

fluke said:


> Forgive me if I missed something but....What stage is this kit at....Is it going to be 2016 release?


My understanding is that the Galileo is under consideration as a possible kit for 2016, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of TOS. But it is not confirmed, and may never happen at all. 

The next Trek kit is to be a 1/1000 Excelsior - it is unclear if it will be an all new kit, or just partial updates to the old kit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Oops, never mind.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BWolfe said:


> I think what he wants is a 1/32 scale shuttle based on the stated 24 ft length of the shuttle. What Round 2 is producing scales up to a shuttle over 30 ft long which makes it wrong given the on screen stated 24 ft length.
> To me it does not matter, as long as the exterior is right, that is all I want.


He seems to want to only do a 1/24th scale diorama. However . . . 

I have it on good authority that the kit will be only a bit under 12 inches - so it will be extremely close to 1/24th scale if you consider the shuttle to be 24 feet long. 

Also, I doubt that the interior front wall will be molded into the kit. So there should be no problem with any "distortions" to the exterior. As someone else above pointed out, as long as you don't cut out the doorway and leave it open it shouldn't be noticeable in a 1/24th diorama.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

No problemo. The photos I have currently are almost 15 years old and I've done some work since, I'll have to dig the box the model is in out of storage and take some new pix. Maybe in a few weeks, as my camera is out of batteries. I can post the old images, which show the lower hull with the seats and basic console, the nacelles and two figures in a day or so... I'll do it up as a page and put it on my site for display. A couple of the images show it compared to the AMT 1/37 Galileo kit and the Monogram BSG Viper for size reference...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

BWolfe said:


> What Round 2 is producing scales up to a shuttle over 30 ft long which makes it wrong given the on screen stated 24 ft length.
> To me it does not matter, as long as the exterior is right, that is all I want.


Exactly. Me too.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Personally I don't think that you'll be able to get a decent integration at 1/24th scale unless you bump the model's size up to at least 14.5" and I'd say it would have to be about 15.75" to be thoroughly and convincingly done.


You missed the whole point of my message, though - I don't build 1/24th, I build 1/32 and have done several modified Airfix Multipose 1/32 figures in TOS uniforms. A 1/24 scale Galileo is just not on for me. Frakly, I wouldn't care whether they used the 22' length of the actual exterior set piece or the dialogue-specified 24' - that's less that a 10% difference. I have done a rebuild of the AMT kit, but at 1/37.5 it's much too small for 1/32 - kind of acceptable for 1/35, though.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

BWolfe said:


> I think what he wants is a 1/32 scale shuttle based on the stated 24 ft length of the shuttle. What Round 2 is producing scales up to a shuttle over 30 ft long which makes it wrong given the on screen stated 24 ft length.
> To me it does not matter, as long as the exterior is right, that is all I want.


Same here. It wouldn't bother me if they sold the exterior as the main kit, and sold the interior parts separately as an accessory pack.


----------



## seaview62 (Nov 30, 2012)

Zombie_61 said:


> Same here. It wouldn't bother me if they sold the exterior as the main kit, and sold the interior parts separately as an accessory pack.


I agree!:thumbsup:


----------



## TomD66 (Apr 25, 2009)

I agree also. As long as it looks correct, and the detail is right, I'll buy one.:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And as long as it isn't too expensive, I'll buy several.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic (Aug 4, 2014)

All those in favor of just having the exterior of the shuttle Galileo, at a desirable size & in the correct exterior detail, please raise your hand.

:wave:


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

enterprise_fanatic said:


> All those in favor of just having the exterior of the shuttle Galileo, at a desirable size & in the correct exterior detail, please raise your hand.
> 
> :wave:


I'd be happy with that too...:wave:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

StarCruiser said:


> I'd be happy with that too...:wave:


Me three... :wave:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Me 4:wave::wave::wave::wave:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Sure, sure. Now if we can just convince _Round 2_ to go along with that idea... :lol:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nope, I want the innards too.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I'm not buying one if they don't put it out.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

pagni said:


> I'm not buying one if they don't put it out.



From the smell of things you may just have to for them to put it out.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

John P said:


> Nope, I want the innards too.


Yeah, me too. No interior, and I probably won't buy it!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Heck, why not build the innards separate from the outards???


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> Heck, why not build the innards separate from the outards???



Or the innards could be outta scale since they can't be to scale... since they never were to scale in the "real" bus. i mean, it's clear you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Proper2 said:


> Or the innards could be outta scale since they can't be to scale... since they never were to scale in the "real" bus. i mean, it's clear you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?


Says you!!:wave:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> Or the innards could be outta scale since they can't be to scale... since they never were to scale in the "real" bus. i mean, it's clear you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?


You can if you're willing to accept a few compromises; such is the nature of sci-fi modeling sometimes.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Zombie_61 said:


> You can if you're willing to accept a few compromises; such is the nature of sci-fi modeling sometimes.


Exactly - when I eat cake it has to be gluten free! But I eat it anyway!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Well, they're either to an accurate scale (that never existed) or they ain't. Either way, I really don't care. I'm only passably interested in the exterior. And the more time that passes the less interested I become. At this point I can take it or leave it. But I am curious to see what transpires.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

As far as I can tell, based on extensive study of screencaps and behind-the-scenes photos, the interior set was pretty much accurate in size to the exterior in width and length - only the ceiling seems to have been raised. The aft compartment seems to have been too big, as well. Since it no longer exists however, unlike the exterior set piece, this can't be verified by measuring the original.


----------



## Cappy1 (Jan 17, 2011)

Its been a while. Has there been a update on this kit from Round 2. I thought 
Jamie was going to release a update, weeks ago. Or did I miss it, which might be 
the case.


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

......I havn't seen an update either.........
I wonder if this is going to be put on the "back burner ?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Keep an eye on the R2 blog because Jamie said a couple of weeks ago the next blog should be about the new molds for the old AMT Excelsior kit, and if that's the case you could always ask him then, if you're registered on the blog that is.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Anyone know of anything new on this? The last post on the blog is June 4 in which Jaimie said that he'd have more info on the Galileo in a week from that time...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think that things became overwhelmed with the developments of the Eagle kit. Once that is out the door and onto shelves, I'm sure that the focus will be more toward the _Galileo_. Next year is the 50th anniversary after all.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> I think that things became overwhelmed with the developments of the Eagle kit. Once that is out the door and onto shelves, I'm sure that the focus will be more toward the _Galileo_. Next year is the 50th anniversary after all.


Yeah this sounds about right. I think the Eagle kit had them focusing all their time on it. Jamie stated the Galileo was still a go, but it won't be until next year sometime.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Maybe I can finally do that diorama I've been collecting figures for, but I couldn't bear using the crappy AMT kit on.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Now the blog indicates: 

_*Bandwidth Limit Exceeded*
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later_.

Hope that gets resolved at some point.


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm thinking Christmas 2016 release date, if at all...


----------

