# Pan Am Space Clipper "Orion" Thread



## DX-SFX

_*Moderator's Note: This conversation is split from a previously running thread related to the Moonbus from "2001: A Space Odyssey": http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=119101*_


Just want to throw this into the pot. Some may recall earlier in the thread I mentioned that the Moonbus kit Aurora produced was one third the size of the studio model. There's further evidence for this. If the excepted length of the studio Orion is 42" without the tail spikes, guess what size the Aurora kit of the Orion is? Yep, exactly a third of that. Both Aurora kits have a few errors but I noticed that Aurora did manage to include the subtle shapes of the Orion tail that most people don't even notice from photos let alone reproduce, namely the top profile is more like a series of straight lines rather than a smooth curve. It does suggest that Aurora were fairly on the ball.


----------



## Carson Dyle

DX-SFX said:


> It does suggest that Aurora were fairly on the ball.


Yeah, the Aurora clipper kit comes a lot closer to the mark than many give it credit for. Ditto the Moonbus. Granted some of the surface details have been fudged, but in both cases the overall shape and contours are surprisingly accurate. Clearly the company was furnished with some fairly decent reference materials.


----------



## X15-A2

The last segment (closest to the tail) is a gentle curve, not straight. Also, the detail in the exhaust nozzle is the cylinder ring from a radial aircraft engine, probably from an early B-17 kit.

Phil


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, the Aurora clipper kit comes a lot closer to the mark than many give it credit for. Ditto the Moonbus. Granted some of the surface details have been fudged, but in both cases the overall shape and contours are surprisingly accurate. Clearly the company was furnished with some fairly decent reference materials.


I wonder if any of the Aurora reference material used still exists? The most I've seen is the Aurora Moonbus study blueprint (see my in photo gallery here: http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showphoto.php/photo/17804/size/big/ppuser/5509) which does not exactly match the proportions of their final Moonbus kit as produced. Although the Moonbus kit proportions and details look very close in most respects.


----------



## DX-SFX

X15-A2 said:


> The last segment (closest to the tail) is a gentle curve, not straight. Also, the detail in the exhaust nozzle is the cylinder ring from a radial aircraft engine, probably from an early B-17 kit.
> 
> Phil



I wasn't suggesting it was dead straight but you can see that the tail in three quarter view is not a constant curve. I think this is the model makers attempting to reconcile the smooth curve depicted in the art department side profile drawings with the straight lines depicted in the art department top plan drawings. The Aurora kit has captured this anomaly quite well. Looking at the kit illustrates it better than I can describe it. It also suggests some very attentive pattern makers or they might have had the studio model in front of them to work from.

Also the parts in the engine exhausts are the impellor blades from the Airfix SRN1 hovercraft rather than a radial engine.


----------



## stargazer

I have the same (large) picture of the orion... and here is a detail shot of the engine detail.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/ianwalsh/?action=view&current=engine.jpg (and click 'full size' top left)

I have an (unmade) kit of the hovercraft DX mentions, and the 'impellor' does not much resemble the image seen in my picture.

however it does resemble strongly a radial engine...I do not have the B-17 (or B-29 part...or any other) does anyone here have this 

part to compair to the picture ???


Also interestingly. I eyeballed my (stargazer models) Orion for the 'flat' curves, and though I for sure did not purposely create them.

they are apparent on my model and are I think, an artefact of the curved tail end and the sharp reduction of the 'edge' diameter 

towards the wing from the twin antenna. http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/ianwalsh/?action=view&current=curve.jpg

stargazer


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Hey Ian, glad to see you chiming in. Have you moved your website? I haven't been able to access it. Hope to see you at 'Fest this year!


----------



## stargazer

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Hey Ian, glad to see you chiming in. Have you moved your website? I haven't been able to access it. Hope to see you at 'Fest this year!


Hi Phil.

Yep I let the 'old' server fade out, and the server guys finaly pulled the plug... 

But for nearly a couple of years it linked to my 

'new' site address to direct folk there. 

Its now www.planet3earth.co.uk :thumbsup:

cant make the fest this year... which is a shame as it will 'feature' 2001 

PS I have heard from a good source that Harry Lange (of 2001 fame) passed away on June 5th.


----------



## ukwookie

stargazer said:


> Hi Phil.
> 
> I have heard from a good source that Harry Lange (of 2001 fame) passed away on June 5th.


Obituary here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2119614/Harry-Lange.html

Tony


----------



## Carson Dyle

Sorry to hear of Lange's passing. Clearly his work lives on.


----------



## GKvfx

According to the obit, he died on May 22nd - the same day as Trumbull's talk at the Academy. An odd sort of symmetry there.

Gene


----------



## DX-SFX

stargazer said:


> I have the same (large) picture of the orion... and here is a detail shot of the engine detail.
> 
> http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/ianwalsh/?action=view&current=engine.jpg (and click 'full size' top left)
> 
> I have an (unmade) kit of the hovercraft DX mentions, and the 'impellor' does not much resemble the image seen in my picture.
> 
> however it does resemble strongly a radial engine...I do not have the B-17 (or B-29 part...or any other) does anyone here have this
> 
> part to compair to the picture ???
> 
> Also interestingly. I eyeballed my (stargazer models) Orion for the 'flat' curves, and though I for sure did not purposely create them.
> 
> they are apparent on my model and are I think, an artefact of the curved tail end and the sharp reduction of the 'edge' diameter
> 
> towards the wing from the twin antenna. http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/ianwalsh/?action=view&current=curve.jpg
> 
> stargazer



Nevertheless, I'm afraid it IS the impellor blades from the SRN1 kit or to be more accurate, the vaned hub directly above the impellor blades. Did I let you down about the straight lines on the front end of the Discovery engine module? I think what's throwing your eye is the fact that there's a fill light aimed up into the engines and the vanes are casting a shadow onto the flat surface the parts are fixed to. The blades stand off that surface so the shadows are giving a false impression of a far more complicated part than it actually is. There's definitely eleven vanes.










As far as the straight lines of the tail go, again I can only urge you to look at the Aurora kit and the classic alternative angle photo in the Bizony book.


----------



## stargazer

Well I got to say that the shadow does explain what I see in the picture. Can I ask though how you figured this is the part from that blurry picture??? or do you have some 'insider knowlege' 

But I still think it more resembles a radial engine...What do others here think..anyone with a radial engine part ??? its the 'n' detail between the 'half past to 25 to' . that fits a B- 17 radial...

... about 'the lines' I was agreeing with you there, and just saying that I have the same effect on my model even though I did not purposely create them.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

One of you ought to email Martin Bower to get his take on it. He usually takes time to respond with a lot of detail and insight about 2001 model particulars if you write a nice email. I'm very grateful that I've learned so much about the Moonbus and Discovery models used in 2001 from him. He made a great studio scale Orion on his webste at http://www.martinbowersmodelworld.com/html/orion.html


----------



## stargazer

Steve Mavronis said:


> He made a great studio scale Orion on his webste at http://www.martinbowersmodelworld.com/html/orion.html


Mmmm this is why I am interested of the 'part' it may give a clue to the size of the studio model.

I have some 'strong proof' that the studio Orion Drawing was 42 inches. 

yet i have other (evidence) that the model itself was made 36 inches.

and 36 inches is what Martin made his scale model.


Ps, Martin is wrong about being the first to spot the 'bump over the flight deck window'....I was


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Martin seems to have good reference information from industry people in the know that he's worked with on movie and TV projects. I would trust what he says as authoritative from the things he's clued me on through our correspondence. But question anything with him that you'd like to clarify about sizes or parts, etc. I'm sure he will be helpful and you should gain some insight or learn something you didn't directly ask about sometimes! Send him a thanks reply back afterwards. Everyone likes to feel appreciated for their help.


----------



## DX-SFX

stargazer said:


> Well I got to say that the shadow does explain what I see in the picture. Can I ask though how you figured this is the part from that blurry picture??? or do you have some 'insider knowlege'


Er... good kit part recognition skills? How can I answer that? :lol: Sometimes you need to stand back and look or turn the picture 90 degrees. It seems pretty clear, to me anyway, it's the SRN1 part and we know that kit was used on the 2001 models. That and twenty five years doing the same thing with Gerry Anderson models.



stargazer said:


> But I still think it more resembles a radial engine...What do others here think..anyone with a radial engine part ??? its the 'n' detail between the 'half past to 25 to' . that fits a B- 17 radial...


The obvious donor kit that also turns up all over the 2001 models is the Airfix B29 but it's not the radial engine from that. That engine section is also quite crudely blacked up by an airbrush wash. You can't assume that the slight colour variations indicate shape rather than streaks and runs. I think you're seeing a random marking in the paint dirtying.



stargazer said:


> ... about 'the lines' I was agreeing with you there, and just saying that I have the same effect on my model even though I did not purposely create them.


Let's make the most of those occasions. Us modellers deserve some good fortune at least sometimes.


----------



## DX-SFX

Try this:










Upside down and levels played with in Photoshop.


----------



## Carson Dyle

I've split this thread off from the Moonbus thread...


----------



## DX-SFX

I take it we're all happy that it's the SRN1 part?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Works for me.

I'm going to stick this thread in the hopes that it may gradually come to serve as an all-inclusive reservoir of _Orion_-related data (photographic or otherwise).

Currently I'm in the process of re-organizing my reference pix, and will post everything I've got on this particular subject within the next few days. In the meantime, I invite my fellow "2001" fans to contribute to the cause.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well then, here are a few detail reference shots of the Orion in my collection. I can't remember where I got them from over the years, either across the web or from personal emails. Hopefully, everyone is alright with that. Feel free to chime in if a shot came from you or if you want any removed if they were meant to be private between us:

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/2001/2001-space-clipper-large.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/2001/detailed.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/2001/colour.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/2001/oriwing2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~photonlasertag/2001/ORION bottom.jpg


----------



## falcondesigns

Guess I'll have to get back to workin on this again.This is the old Lunar Models solid resin kit I got in the 90's.Thanks for all the great pictures.alexander


----------



## Prince of Styrene II

Those are great pictures! I've got an Orion inthe stash that I'm going to tackle soon & these will be invaluable! Thanks for posting those! :thumbsup:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

stargazer said:


> Also interestingly. I eyeballed my (stargazer models) Orion for the 'flat' curves, and though I for sure did not purposely create them.
> 
> they are apparent on my model and are I think, an artefact of the curved tail end and the sharp reduction of the 'edge' diameter
> 
> towards the wing from the twin antenna. http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm5/ianwalsh/?action=view&current=curve.jpg
> 
> stargazer


Any word when your new Orion will be available, Ian?


----------



## stargazer

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Any word when your new Orion will be available, Ian?


Yes ....soon...

The kits are being cast 'over the pond'. and John of Starship modeler tells me he has the first batch in now. He is just waiting on the decals getting printed. See here for a preview 
http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/orion_3_spaceplane.htm

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion_2_cargoplane.htm


----------



## SteveR

Looks great, Ian. Really nice.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Here's a scan of the instructions for the (orginal issue) Aurora kit...


----------



## scotpens

Boy, that instruction sheet brings back some memories! I always wondered how that engine setup was supposed to work. It's obviously meant to be some kind of atomic propulsion, but the layout makes no sense at all.

Oh well, neither did the sucking-air-from-nowhere engines of Aurora's Flying Sub.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Phil posted this on another thread, but since it's Orion-related I'm taking the liberty of re-posting it here:



X15-A2 said:


> About the "Orion", my recent 3D computer studies of it suggest to me that the Aurora kit version was based on another model instead of the 3-4 foot filming version. I'm thinking that it may have been based on the smaller "display" model seen on the desk in the office on the space station set. The forward fuselage roof is much too curved (fore to aft) to match the much straighter wedge-like contour of the big filming model. We know that different scale FX models of complex compound curve shapes like the "Orion" built in England back then rarely matched each other in shape. This is because the studios there typically did not produce contour control drawings, instead they drew simple multi-view ortho drawings which left the model builders to eye-ball the contours. The results are several models of a given subject that look like each other generally but not when studied closely. The Aurora model matches the big FX model in most respects except for the forward contours so for this reason I think that they got photos of one of the other models (we do know that there were more than one and that they were different scales but not how many in total).


----------



## Richard Baker

Hey Stargazer- I have been going through this thread and every link to your Photobucket images requires a Log-in. I am a member but my ID/Password does not work of course.
Any other way to view those iamges?

.


----------



## stargazer

For all you Orion III fans 


My re-mastered Orion is just out....
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=65885




Hi Richard, there were only a couple of pics. see them here http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/temp/


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

stargazer said:


> For all you Orion III fans
> 
> 
> My re-mastered Orion is just out....
> http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=65885
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Richard, there were only a couple of pics. see them here http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/temp/


Thanks for the heads up Ian, mine's on the way!

Scott


----------



## stargazer

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Thanks for the heads up Ian, mine's on the way!
> 
> Scott


 
Hi Phil...no prob.

send pictures when you have it done, and I'll put them on my site....

PS My Orion II cargoplane will be out 'soon' http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion_2_cargoplane.htm


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

stargazer said:


> Hi Phil...no prob.
> 
> send pictures when you have it done, and I'll put them on my site....
> 
> PS My Orion II cargoplane will be out 'soon' http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion_2_cargoplane.htm


Got mine today, my first impression is WOW! Very nice job Ian, it makes the Aurora Orion look rather plain and dowdy. I'm really busy today, and only had time to look quickly thru the box, but the detail and casting job look first rate at first glance. This one goes to the top of the 'build next" pile!

Will post pictures later!


----------



## stargazer

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Got mine today, my first impression is WOW! Very nice job Ian, it makes the Aurora Orion look rather plain and dowdy. I'm really busy today, and only had time to look quickly thru the box, but the detail and casting job look first rate at first glance. This one goes to the top of the 'build next" pile!
> 
> Will post pictures later!


great... glad you like it


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Photographing unpainted resin never looks that hot, but these should give you a better idea of the detail and quality. On close examination, the casting on mine is dead solid perfect!


----------



## Prince of Styrene II

Wow! Were all those little seats in one casting to their base?!


----------



## John P

Well, sure, fine, remaster it after I already bought the first ones! Ain't no way my financial officer is going for repeats.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe

Prince of Styrene II said:


> Wow! Were all those little seats in one casting to their base?!


Yep. There's a detailed(for this scale) cockpit too.


----------



## charonjr

What differences are there between the Aurora and Airfix kits?

Thanks!


----------



## SteveR

The shape of the Airfix kit is less accurate. Too tall.


----------



## spindrift

Ian-
Will email you from work tomorrow- I need to order an Orion and Aries as the local (US) distributor is sold out of them. I hope you can send me them direct!
Gary


----------



## John P

spindrift said:


> Ian-
> Will email you from work tomorrow- I need to order an Orion and Aries as the local (US) distributor is sold out of them. I hope you can send me them direct!
> Gary


Did you check Starship Modeler?


----------



## DX-SFX

I'm posting this both in the Orion thread and the Moonbus thread because I think it's relevant to both.

I was kindly sent a copy of the original art department drawings for the Orion and it's obvious that the Aurora kit is based on these as it matches the panelling line for line. Even small rectangular panels and other details on the Aurora model that don't appear on the film model have been matched to the artwork very faithfully. I've checked the measurements and other than being a tad too long, the Aurora Orion kit is exactly a third of the size of the drawings. This would seem to lend weight to my previous ideas that the Aurora Moonbus kit is exactly a third of the studio drawings and not such a bad kit. Any discrepencies in proportion between the studio drawings of the Moonbus and filming model are likely to be down to the film model makers. I'm not saying either kit is perfect as I'm sure a few detail areas may have been fudged for the convenience of production but I'd place good money on both kits being produced with reference to the art department drawings.

Also, what research I've done so far indicates that in the case of the Orion, the filming model is very close to the AD drawings in size and proportion. A few of the contours have been smoothed by the model makers but it's essentially accurate to the drawing. Would this indicate that the AD drawings for the Moonbus, the Aurora kit and filming model sharing a similar level of accuracy?


----------



## stargazer

I have a photo of the studio Orion drawings, not good quality but enough to be useful, and more so that there is a measuring stick divided into 6 inch sections laid over it.

from this can be determined that the Orion drawing is ~ 40 inches.... However I also have some evidence that the studio Orion model was made about 36 inches long !. Martin Bower seems to think so too http://www.martinbowersmodelworld.com/html/orion.html 

That the drawing and a model 'could be' made different scales also shows up in the Aries drawings, whereby the studio drawing of it is just 10 inches in diameter (1/60 th) with a note 

beside it to make the model 'three times larger' e.g. 30" (1/16th) and indeed it was this size. So to make the Orion smaller than a drawing is also a possibility...

The Aurora kit at ~ 13.5 " X 3 + 40.5 inches is indeed 1/3 the size of the drawing.


----------



## DX-SFX

The copy of the drawings I have show the Orion at 42 1/2" long not including the spikes on the tail. In the details box it's scale is marked as "1:1 to model / Oct 65". I've no reason to doubt their authenticity. Perhaps if you PM me your photo I can confirm if they're the same drawings.

This might sound confusing and even contrary to what I said before but the Aurora model is technically 1/3.09 to the drawings which is why it's slightly smaller than the 14" the maths says it should be but the proportions are still more or less correct.

I'd be surprised if the modelmakers made the studio model a few inches smaller. I can't imagine why they'd bother if they had drawings. BTW I have a top view and side view, separate sheets both drawn at the same size.


----------



## DX-SFX

Actually, Astrocat has put forward an obvious point that I feel stupid for not thinking of given that I pointed out the SRN1 part in the engine exhausts of the Orion. The Orion can't possibly be 42 1/2" long as the kit parts won't fit. Keith came up with a figure of 62" independently and taking that on board, I'm erring towards 63 3/4 based on an assumption they built the model at a factor of 1.5 to the drawings. It does strike you as smaller than expected even modelled at 42 1/2". I'll come back once I've cross referenced some figures.


----------



## stargazer

"I'd be surprised if the modelmakers made the studio model a few inches smaller. I can't imagine why they'd bother if they had drawings."

Yet they made the Aries bigger than the drawings..... And now you say the Orion was bigger than the drawing too... 

But maybe not ! If the part used was radial engine as I mentioned previously...

and that would fit a 36" model





DX-SFX said:


> Actually, Astrocat has put forward an obvious point that I feel stupid for not thinking of given that I pointed out the SRN1 part in the engine exhausts of the Orion. The Orion can't possibly be 42 1/2" long as the kit parts won't fit. Keith came up with a figure of 62" independently and taking that on board, I'm erring towards 63 3/4 based on an assumption they built the model at a factor of 1.5 to the drawings. It does strike you as smaller than expected even modelled at 42 1/2". I'll come back once I've cross referenced some figures.


----------



## DX-SFX

Give it up Ian (said with a big teasing smile on my face) . It's an SRN1 part in the engines. There are also Airfix Prestwin parts on the Orion which confirm it's size. If you're going to the IPMS do at Telford, a group of us are meeting at Comet's stand at 1pm on the Saturday. I'll bring the drawings with me. We can have a group Orion discussion.


----------



## brucewoollatt

Any chance of some version of those drawings being posted here....?

Pretty pleeeeeeeease?

(Insert sad puppy dog eyes here)


----------



## stargazer

DX-SFX said:


> Actually, Astrocat has put forward an obvious point that I feel stupid for not thinking of given that I pointed out the SRN1 part in the engine exhausts of the Orion. The Orion can't possibly be 42 1/2" long as the kit parts won't fit. Keith came up with a figure of 62" independently and taking that on board, I'm erring towards 63 3/4 based on an assumption they built the model at a factor of 1.5 to the drawings. It does strike you as smaller than expected even modelled at 42 1/2". I'll come back once I've cross referenced some figures.


Well Ok. 

I just spent the day counting pixels (on the high def.orion studio pic.) Assuming the SRN1 part is used, and the B-29 part is indeed used as the 11 forward facing 'cowlings'
then both parts do indeed agree to the Orion studio model being 62 inches long. ( having done the math in pixels and to have the calculator then immediately come up with exactly 62 inches says that Astrocat is spot on with his calculations.)


----------



## DX-SFX

You counted the pixels??!!


----------



## stargazer

DX-SFX said:


> You counted the pixels??!!


 
Well the computer did...  between any two points.



.


----------



## DX-SFX

Here's an update for those following this thread. I gathered together the known kit pieces on the Orion and blew up the drawings I had, both the art department ones and Simon Atkinson's drawings that appeared in 'Filming The Future' to make the Orion 63 3/4" long, *exactly* half as big again as the art department drawings showing it at 42 1/2" long. Everything fits perfectly. Simon's drawings had a couple of minor detail points not quite right that threw me for a little at the start (too many little retro motors depicted running around the fuselage at the front of the engine section - there should be 11 in total) but generally they're very good with contour and proportion well reproduced. The wing plan is just a shade off too as the scribed panel lines on the top of the wing should line up parallel with the leading edge of the forward part of the wing but again it's a minor nitpick easily corrected and mentioned purely for the anal amongst us (that includes me).

The other thing that strikes you is how big the studio model was. Obviously not in the same league as the Discovery models but it's still quite a big beast.

I'm satisfied that the art department drawings showing the model at 42 1/2" were the basis for both the final studio model and the Aurora kit.


----------



## stargazer

I too over the past week or so have 'scaled' the studio model using all the visible kit parts...

I just did the final scaling using the SRN1 impellor.

and I too get a size for Orion at between 60 to 63 inches ( depending on which kit part I measure from)

And I found that the Ladder from the B 29 kit is used on the tail end of the Orion


All this does come as 'something of a surprise' to me, as I tended to believe 'other sources' such as Agel's 'Making of 2001'...that says the Orion model was "three foot' (36")....goes to show !!!!

Ps I can confirm that the drawings DX has, are indeed the same as I have... seen pinned on a wall in a studio photograph .


----------



## X15-A2

There was more than one "Orion" model, doubtless several different sizes. I've seen photos of one of the model builders holding a smaller one (around 3 or 4 feet long). Possibly the smaller one was a study model for approval before making the bigger one?

How do I get copies of those studio plans mentioned above?

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Carson Dyle

What he said.


----------



## heiki

Carson Dyle said:


> What he said.


How do I get copies of those studio plans mentioned above?


----------



## StarshipClass

heiki said:


> How do I get copies of those studio plans mentioned above?



That what he *asked!*


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ For real...


----------



## Daikaiju1

Greetings all,

Do any of you know where I can get suitable Pan Am decals for an Orion kit sized about the same as the Aurora or Airfix one?

My various searches have been unsuccessful. 

Thanks GS


----------



## DX-SFX

I might be able to come to some arrangement for the WIP drawings of the Moonbus in the other thread. I'm not sure how far they've advanced but a nice set of profiles printed at studio size might clinch it. I wouldn't expect the electronic files themselves or the kit detailing to be showing. I just want something I can build from. I need to check with the guy I got the Orion drawings from first though. It's his call.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks I hope it works out. - crossing fingers


----------



## SteveR

Daikaiju1 said:


> Do any of you know where I can get suitable Pan Am decals for an Orion kit sized about the same as the Aurora or Airfix one?


There was a set made by Tangents, which then became Griffon Games, which then became Greenfield Games. If you drop them a line, they may be able to help you.


----------



## Daikaiju1

Hi Steve, Thanks for the reply. I did try the Greenfield website/ebay store, no luck. But I will email them as you suggest and see what happens. 

I got me an Airfix Orion lined up as a Christmas Hols modelling project.
Cheers GS


----------



## dreamer 2.0

If you have any luck, let us know please. I need them too.


----------



## Daikaiju1

*Decal Alert*

I have just ordered a set of these from ebay. I do not know the seller and have not seen the decals in person, so I can not recommend them, simply taking a punt on them to complete my model.

http://cgi.ebay.com/AIRFIX-ORION-SP...temQQimsxZ20081221?IMSfp=TL081221113002r16602

Of course, when I receive them I will post my opinion of them.

Regards, GS


----------



## SteveR

Nice work! I sense you've done this modelling thing before, Robert-el ... 

Please, post more pictures!


----------



## Prince of Styrene II

Looks like a fantastic start!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Okay, _that's_ what I'm talkin' `bout!

Welcome to HobbyTalk.

Beautiful, inspiring work!

I've never built a miniature entirely from scratch either, and I've always thought the Orion would be a great subject to cut one's scratch-building teeth on. You're obviously off to a good start. 

Thanks for sharing these pix -- and by all means keep us posted.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Robert-el said:


> I am finished the main fuselage, and am getting ready to make a mold to cast in resin.


Looks great.



Robert-el said:


> I intend to scribe panel lines in the body, and lay down some outside panels. This next step will also include laying in the windows.Is anyone able to describe how to scribe lines in a nice controlled way?


Given the scale you're working at, I'd suggest checking out REL's amazing Enterprise D thread, starting at about post 175...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=178063&highlight=scribe&page=12

In terms of laying down controlled panel lines and panels (both raised and recessed) I've found this thread to be particularly helpful.


----------



## Lamarth

Well, the last time anyone addressed this question was some months ago so I'll ask again: does anyone know of a source for the Orion decal set? I've got a reissued version of the Aurora kit that I bought some years ago (it's billed as something other than from the movie I guess to get around copyright) which it seems mostly identical to the original kit except the decal set isn't the 'Pan-Am' type.

And I've tried checking out the ebay link, but it's long dead....

Thanks in advance!
David


----------



## Carson Dyle

Lamarth said:


> I've got a reissued version of the Aurora kit that I bought some years ago (it's billed as something other than from the movie I guess to get around copyright) which it seems mostly identical to the original kit except the decal set isn't the 'Pan-Am' type.


Are you sure you're not referring to the reissue of the Airfix Orion? Reason I ask, there may be scale issues involved.

In any case, I'll ask around on your behalf. I know aftermarket PanAm decals for the Airfix re-pop are floating around out there; just a matter of tracking them down.


----------



## Lamarth

Carson Dyle said:


> Are you sure you're not referring to the reissue of the Airfix Orion? Reason I ask, there may be scale issues involved.
> 
> In any case, I'll ask around on your behalf. I know aftermarket PanAm decals for the Airfix re-pop are floating around out there; just a matter of tracking them down.


Actually I wasn't 100% sure- I had to dig it up out of my model closet to check (it's been a while since I laid eyes on it)- but it's a Airfix 'Snap and Glue' Orion 2001. Paint scheme of course is nowhere like that of the original.

I didn't know though that there might be a scale difference between the two, but if you (or anyone else out there) hears of a source for these decals I'd certainly appreciate it!

David


----------



## Carson Dyle

*MOD NOTE: I've relocated Robert-el's posts re: his Pan Am Space Clipper scratch-build to a new thread specifically dedicated to that subject. This thread shall remain stuck, as a general repository of discussion, debate, reference data, etc. pertaining to the original filming miniature.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen the new issue of Bowerhouse? I just ordered one from Steve Iverson's site, and am hoping against hope for some juicy reference shots of his (Martin Bower's) Orion replica.*


----------



## Carson Dyle

No sooner had I posted the above when the new Bowerhouse landed atop my desk. 

Great stuff. No long-lost shots of the original FX miniature (as if), but lots of great WIP shots of Martin's replica. The text is equally informative. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this subject.


----------



## Robert-el

Carson Dyle said:


> No sooner had I posted the above when the new Bowerhouse landed atop my desk.
> 
> Great stuff. No long-lost shots of the original FX miniature (as if), but lots of great WIP shots of Martin's replica. The text is equally informative. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this subject.


I have seen Martin's Orion, and he sent me a slightly larger format image of a 3/4 rear view, which appears to show an airlock on the port side of the fuselage. I have looked very closely at the images of the original, and I can't for the life of me find any evidence for an airlock there.
However, his ship still rocks.
Robert.


----------



## Carson Dyle

For the record, Martin pegs the length of the original Orion FX miniature at 57 inches -- NOT COUNTING THE TWIN TAIL AERIELS -- this figure having been extrapolated from the vintage kit parts he sourced as reference for his scratch-build (said parts having previously been identified in reference pix of the production miniature).


----------



## Robert-el

Carson Dyle said:


> For the record, Martin pegs the length of the original Orion FX miniature at 57 inches -- NOT COUNTING THE TWIN TAIL AERIELS -- this figure having been extrapolated from the vintage kit parts he sourced as reference for his scratch-build (said parts having previously been identified in reference pix of the production miniature).


I wonder why he created his model at just around 3 feet?














Oh well, I would still be carving the fuselage at 57 inches!
That is a beast!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Robert-el said:


> I wonder why he created his model at just around 3 feet?


I've been corresponding with Martin via email; his Orion replica was built per a client's specifications (at approximately 5 feet a true studio scale reproduction obviously presents certain display challenges).


----------



## Steve Mavronis

That's a nice size though for display. You don't always have to be studio scale to make a great replica.


----------



## stargazer

Robert-el said:


> I wonder why he created his model at just around 3 feet? .


On page 4 of this thread I say

"All of this does come as 'something of a surprise' to me, as I tended to believe 'other sources' such as Agel's 'Making of 2001'...that says the Orion model was three foot" 

Perhaps Martin believed Agel too. I think martin only became aware of the kit part stuff after building it' and seeing the kit parts here.

Also, on page 4 we discuss the Size of the studio Orion and have it pegged at about 60 inches by using kit parts for scale.

GREAT build by Robert-el btw. 

on Eagle Transporter.com is a similar thread about the size of the orion. http://www.eagletransporter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6915

and on page 3 'Known space' builds one of my Orion 1/144 scale kits. http://www.eagletransporter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6915&page=3


----------



## Carson Dyle

stargazer said:


> I think martin only became aware of the kit part stuff after building it' and seeing the kit parts here.


I'm inclined to give Martin a bit more credit than that. Certainly it came as no surprise to him that kit parts had been used to detail the filming miniature. Martin and his "helpers" have been sourcing vintage kits used on the 2001 ships for _years_. Given his reference data it wouldn't have been too hard to arrive at a reasonably accurate figure for the overall length. As for the size of his replica, this was determined by the client for whom it was built.


----------



## stargazer

Oooo Mmmm, that does come out 'heavier' than I intended... it was meant to be an observation and written in a hurry when I had a few mins.this afternoon.

Martin is a great model maker and his Orion is fantastic.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Lol, no offense taken, Stargazer.

BTW, I've got one of your Orion kits, and it's easily the best, most accurate kit of the subject anyone has produced to date. I just wish the scale was bigger; then again, that's what scratch-builds are for.


----------



## Robert-el

stargazer said:


> GREAT build by Robert-el btw.


Thanks, but I am now currently deep in thought on how to create those intakes on the leading edges of the wings. I have NO IDEA on how to do this. The dremel approach failed miserably. So, I have to fabricate a leading edge from scratch.
Does the bowerhouse magazine have any groundbreaking ideas?
Fresh out,
Robert-El.


----------



## stargazer

Robert-el said:


> Thanks, but I am now currently deep in thought on how to create those intakes on the leading edges of the wings. I have NO IDEA on how to do this. The dremel approach failed miserably. So, I have to fabricate a leading edge from scratch.
> Does the bowerhouse magazine have any groundbreaking ideas?
> Fresh out,
> Robert-El.


 
Well I'll tell you how I made the 'leading edge master' for my kit. 

I took a strip of thin aluminium perhaps just under 1/16 thick, and for my model about 3 inches long and 2 wide...

I then folded it in half not with a 'sharp' fold but with a 'curved fold' that matched the required leading edge profile of the wing, e.g. thicker one end than the other. 

It took some time to get right. but when the shape was achieved, I cut away most of the sheet to leave a hollow leading edge,

I then marked out the intakes with a narrow marking pen, and filed out the apertures with needle files. When I was happy with them, I filled the inside with car body filler, and while still 'wet' drew my finger along the leading edge so that the filler was 'indented' behind the intakes. When hard the filler was hand sanded to get a smooth finish in the intakes. Fine paper will give the leading edge a 'soft' look and rounded corners/edges to the intakes, panel lines can be cut into the aluminium with a triangular needle file

Here is a picture of a casting from the master 

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/edge.jpg

I only needed to make one as the other wing edge is a duplicate... for moulding purposes.


.


----------



## stargazer

Carson Dyle said:


> Lol, no offense taken, Stargazer.
> 
> BTW, I've got one of your Orion kits, and it's easily the best, most accurate kit of the subject anyone has produced to date. I just wish the scale was bigger; then again, that's what scratch-builds are for.


Thanks Rob :thumbsup:

I chose that scale because I want to do ALL the 2001 craft in a common scale and 1/144 makes that affordable.


----------



## Robert-el

stargazer said:


> Well I'll tell you how I made the 'leading edge master' for my kit.
> 
> I took a strip of thin aluminium perhaps just under 1/16 thick, and for my model about 3 inches long and 2 wide...
> 
> I then folded it in half not with a 'sharp' fold but with a 'curved fold' that matched the required leading edge profile of the wing, e.g. thicker one end than the other.
> 
> It took some time to get right. but when the shape was achieved, I cut away most of the sheet to leave a hollow leading edge,
> 
> I then marked out the intakes with a narrow marking pen, and filed out the apertures with needle files. When I was happy with them, I filled the inside with car body filler, and while still 'wet' drew my finger along the leading edge so that the filler was 'indented' behind the intakes. When hard the filler was hand sanded to get a smooth finish in the intakes. Fine paper will give the leading edge a 'soft' look and rounded corners/edges to the intakes, panel lines can be cut into the aluminium with a triangular needle file
> 
> Here is a picture of a casting from the master
> 
> http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/edge.jpg
> 
> I only needed to make one as the other wing edge is a duplicate... for moulding purposes.
> 
> 
> .


That is a great idea. I must admit, I wish I could make SOMETHING without body filler, but it just seems to do the job for just about everything.
In the front view of the ship, it looks like a structure inside the wings intakes, like a second hole? Maybe a ring, can't be sure.
Anyways, thanks for the advice. Looking at your model, makes me even more concerned about detail, and perfection. Being a novice at scratchbuilding, I will have to work even harder at this.
Thanks,
Robert.


----------



## stargazer

"That is a great idea. I must admit, I wish I could make SOMETHING without body filler, but it just seems to do the job for just about everything.
In the front view of the ship, it looks like a structure inside the wings intakes, like a second hole? Maybe a ring, can't be sure.
Anyways, thanks for the advice. Looking at your model, makes me even more concerned about detail, and perfection. Being a novice at scratchbuilding, I will have to work even harder at this.
Thanks,
Robert."

Thinking on it I only made a 'depression' in the Intakes to make it work at my scale. It's too small for more detail, Thinking on it the Intakes Aught 'go 'somewhere, and you could make the leading edges the way I described but not fill them with filler, and put detail inside instead that would work at your larger scale.


----------



## ProfKSergeev

I'm curious as to what function those leading edge depressions are meant to represent. Intakes for an atmospheric, air-breathing engine? Something else entirely? _2001: ASO_ is so well scientifically grounded that I'm sure the depressions can't be just detail for detail's sake.


----------



## stargazer

ProfKSergeev said:


> I'm curious as to what function those leading edge depressions are meant to represent. Intakes for an atmospheric, air-breathing engine? Something else entirely? _2001: ASO_ is so well scientifically grounded that I'm sure the depressions can't be just detail for detail's sake.


 
well there was a British design from about the time for a aircraft that had similar built-in-wing ramjets. The intakes in the front of the wings and exhaust at the rear of the wing.

 The 'raised step' on the orion wing would be the exhaust 

note the mention of "square section bays" which is what you see in the 'exhaust' of the Orion

see here....Note the wording in the red box.

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ramjetwing (1).jpg

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ramjetwing.jpg


----------



## Hed

Looking at the close up of the wing edge holes posted by Robert-el there seems to be a hole up in the right hand edge of each of the ovals. Could these ovals actually be round holes drilled perpendicular towards the body rather than oval holes made parallel to the body? Instead of them being some form of intake could they be lateral maneuvering thrusters?

I realise they could just be shadows caused by a combination of the lighting and the angle the picture was taken.


----------



## Robert-el

Hed said:


> Looking at the close up of the wing edge holes posted by Robert-el there seems to be a hole up in the right hand edge of each of the ovals. Could these ovals actually be round holes drilled perpendicular towards the body rather than oval holes made parallel to the body? Instead of them being some form of intake could they be lateral maneuvering thrusters?
> 
> I realise they could just be shadows caused by a combination of the lighting and the angle the picture was taken.


I think the holes you are referring to are actually pointed along the longitudinal axis, and any lateral effect is just lighting illusion.
Robert-El


----------



## X15-A2

Robert-el,

Another approach to the leading edge "intakes" might be to work in the negative. Make a mold of the basic wing leading edge (including as much of the wing as is needed), then make the intakes as solid shapes to be glued into the mold. This mold only need be used once so it doesn't matter if the parts come away when the new leading edge is cast. This approach will give better control over the shape of each and a better ability to make them consistent because you will be shaping them as a part, rather than as a cavity. You would then add this new leading edge casting to your master pattern where it would become part of the final mold.

Just a thought. Great work so far!


----------



## Robert-el

X15-A2 said:


> Robert-el,
> 
> Another approach to the leading edge "intakes" might be to work in the negative. Make a mold of the basic wing leading edge (including as much of the wing as is needed), then make the intakes as solid shapes to be glued into the mold. This mold only need be used once so it doesn't matter if the parts come away when the new leading edge is cast. This approach will give better control over the shape of each and a better ability to make them consistent because you will be shaping them as a part, rather than as a cavity. You would then add this new leading edge casting to your master pattern where it would become part of the final mold.
> 
> Just a thought. Great work so far!


Well, I've already gone past that point. 
I have finished the wings. 
I used a mould of the rounded wing part, then cast it in resin, the filed out the wing using a half round file, then dremeled the hole in the middle of the depression.
I figure these were meant to be a ram or scram jet intake? Just a guess.


----------



## OzyMandias

Just wondering if anybody has had any luck finding a Pan Am decal sheet to suit the Airfix kit? I have just come by the kit and I can't stomach the new decals they have provided with it... Yuck...


----------



## Richard Baker

You might want to check online hobby stores for some Pan Am Airliner decal sheets. There are also some GK decal companies who can produce custom decals for you if you can find some source artwork.- for that matter if you buy some decal paper and make some hi-res images to scale a QuikPrint/InstaPrint or whatever your local one is called can run them off for you on a laser printer...

Just a couple of ideas...

.


----------



## OzyMandias

Thanks for the tips Richard. I had a look around the net but the Pan Am Airline designs vary drastically and some of the sheets are quite expensive. I was hoping that someone had produced an after-market set for the Orion with just the markings required in the correct scale.

As for getting them printed, I would have to just about pack for an overnight trip to get to a store that handles this sort of thing from where I live.


----------



## jockdeboer

Did you try Jbot?


----------



## Auroranut

Bruce, there's a modelshop in Oxley that can do one-off custom decals- they used to do it for me a few years ago. They sell diecast cars but decals is decals so they should be able to do what you want.
It's Motorfocus Diecast Models and they're in Cook St near the railway station.
Their phone no. is 3379 5966. 
I wish I could remember the name of the guy I dealt with but it's been a while....

Chris.:wave:


----------



## OzyMandias

Hi Chris, my friend you are a fountain of information. I will give them a ring, thank you. :wave:

Jockdeboer, J-who?


----------



## jockdeboer

http://www.jbot.ca/space.shtml

He lists the decals, I am sure he can scale it up for you. he is hard to reach.


----------



## OzyMandias

Thanks for that. I'll try and contact him.


----------



## OzyMandias

J-Bot is the winner with a really great set of decals available scaled to fit the Airfix Orion (Which I found out is not 1/144 scale). I'll post some pictures of the final product once I get everything together.
Thanks for the tip Jock!


----------



## OzyMandias

I thought you all might be interested in an update. Still waiting on J-bot for his decal set, but I had a windfall from a great guy in the US (Cheers Ed!:wave who was kind enough to run a swag of Pan Am logos and lettering off for me.

I have also come into possession of an original decal set from the Airfix kit that DID include the Pan Am logos as well as the new Orion 2001 decals. If anybody would like a copy of them I can scan them at your preferred resolution and send it by email. I don't have the provision for printing decals, unfortunately.

Now I've got two Clippers in the 'bench queue...:thumbsup:


----------



## Jim55

> For all you Orion III fans  My re-mastered Orion is just out....


Ian,

Is the re-mastered Orion III still available? If so, did it go up in price by
$30.00 USD? I see it on SSM's site for $114.95. Is that true? I was hoping
to pay the $85.00! How crisp are the molds, if it's still available?

Sorry for the questions...


Jim


----------



## stargazer

Hi Jim

The molds are always crisp. The castings are done in Canada by Dave (blappy) of blap models ( http://www.blapmodels.com )

as to the price I have no control over this but it is worked out at the current price of materials/labour/decals etc. and to be 'fair' the $85 was from the original version from back in 2004

more pix of the orions can be seen here as well as in the starship modeler store

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/stargazer models for sale.htm


----------



## LeonArtO3D

*Orion III 3D model project*

Hello Ian, and all you other 2001 freaks, like myself. I'm a 3D artist (in training) and am currently building Orion III in what I believe will be the most accurate virtual model of it ever done. My thread for the project is at Luxology in the Work In Progress Forum here: 

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=50208&page=0

My project is only two weeks old but I have amassed a large collection of images and data, and as you might expect, I'm constantly looking for more. As you all know, a 3D model must follow the original as closely as possible, whereas a physical scale model needs an exaggeration of seam lines and other features I don't even know about. It's been 50 years since I build my last AMT kit, which was a '57 Chevy. For this reason, I can't use the scale models as reference for all things, but I can learn from them, and it might be that some of you have access to source material that I lack. For instance, there is a blueprint of the interior sets floating around that I'd like to have a copy of full scale. I have some very small images of it, too small to read clearly but I'm playing with them in Photoshop to get the best use from them until I get better images. If you can point me in their direction, I'd be very grateful. I demonstrate what I'm doing with those images in my thread. If you look over the thread and realize you have an image I lack, feel free to make a post there, or here if you prefer. Sometimes, I post an image that I've had to reduce the size of to fit on the page, but I try to keep them full sized. If you have posted images here or elsewhere that were downsized, and you have the full sized versions, please contact me.

I hope you all enjoy my efforts, and find some source material over there you find useful. I hope to get to know you all in the course of this project.


----------



## LeonArtO3D

*Cockpit/Hull anomaly.*



DX-SFX said:


> Just want to throw this into the pot. Some may recall earlier in the thread I mentioned that the Moonbus kit Aurora produced was one third the size of the studio model. There's further evidence for this. If the excepted length of the studio Orion is 42" without the tail spikes, guess what size the Aurora kit of the Orion is? Yep, exactly a third of that. Both Aurora kits have a few errors but I noticed that Aurora did manage to include the subtle shapes of the Orion tail that most people don't even notice from photos let alone reproduce, namely the top profile is more like a series of straight lines rather than a smooth curve. It does suggest that Aurora were fairly on the ball.


Thanks for that observation, DX-SFX. I've incorporated that into my reference drawings.

There's one thing I've noticed. Though I have only seen a few models of Orion III, I have never seen one that had an accurate windshield configuration, as shown in the original. (See my post at Luxology, page two). The outside contours of the hull are rounded in the original. It may be that this was a final change made to the original model before shooting it, but modelers have noted the hump in the fuselage over the cockpit, and tried to compensate for it, without taking into account this rounded contour of the hull at that point. Even when using the blueprint section of the cockpit for reference, it is often misplaced relative to the window glass/ hull interface, and therefore alters all the rest of the calculations based on that starting point.

If you compare the model, with the cockpit set, you can see that the two designs are integrated, and true to the blueprint.


----------



## heiki

Now if somebody can make the launch config!

http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09629.jpg
http://douglastrumbull.com/sites/default/files/images/DSC09629.jpg


----------



## heiki




----------



## LeonArtO3D

That is my plan, but there is little to go on but this sketch. The original idea for the Orion was to have the aft section a booster...and then the front section would be a return vehicle. But, as you seen in Bob McCall's ad rough...there was a powered flight ship that the Orion rode on...close or into Orbit. Returning, the Orion would have some power. There are intakes on the bottom of the ship that indicate some sort of air breathing engine capability. The authentic method for getting the Orion into orbit was never really solidified for the production...and we only have Clarke's descriptions in the novel. Still, one look at that ad (which is posted in my thread at Luxology) and I was hooked. However, I'll be modeling Space Station V, Aries, Moonbus, Discovery, including the POD, first...Maybe even the Lunar Base and the site of TMA1. Orion will be the most difficult as it was shown the least of all the vehicles, and there is so little by way of reference material ATM.

For a humorous account of the ship see: http://www.scifiairshow.com/ships-orion.html

Also, did you notice where they put the boarding tube in this sketch? Right in the middle of the windows secton of the hull. LOL. And on the wrong side of the ship. The Hatch is on the starboard side, forward of the passenger section.


----------



## stargazer

Leon Art said "Though I have only seen a few models of Orion III, I have never seen one that had an accurate windshield configuration"


In mitigation, time was when there were non of the photos that are available now (that show the Orions front window0 when I made the masters in 2004 for my Orion Model, I know... I looked long and hard...
it is an easy fix though, 



Also I would take the above Orion launch picture with a large pinch of salt..there is so much wrong with it that I dont know where to start.

The only realy 'cannon' version is that of A.C.C in the 2001 Book (and not a magazine ad). 


From the book 2001: a Space Odyssey by Arthur C Clarke.

As the plane banked Dr Floyd could see a dead-straight scar across the flat Florida landscape - the multiple rails of a giant launching track. At its end ,surrounded by vehicles and gantries a spaceplane lay gleaming in a pool of light. Then tiny figures on the ground brought home to him the real size of the spacecraft. It must have been two hundred feet across the narrow V of its wings..........................

The launching track began to sling its thousand ton payload out over the Atlantic. It was hard to tell when they lifted from the track, but when the roar of the rockets doubled in fury Floyd knew that the first stage engines had taken over....

...the noise abruptly slackened and captain Tynes announced "Preparing to separate from lower stage"

The spacecraft was flying now beyond all the dreams of da Vinci....and its exhausted companion was winging back to earth, in a thousand mile arc....the empty lower stage would glide down through the atmosphere and in a few hours, serviced and refuelled it would be ready again to lift another companion towards the stars.

Floyd shielded his eyes... out there the swept back wing of the Orion was blazing like white hot metal in the reflected sunlight


----------



## LeonArtO3D

No put-down intended, stargazer. I never suspected it either. Nor, obviously did anyone else. Though I have not taken a microscope to your model, as near as I can tell, yours is the closest to GOLD as they come. In my thread, referring to David Larson's upcoming book, I said about my model, that this one would be called Phase One, and I'd take it as far as I could with available data, then, after the book comes out with all the goodies in it, I'd remodel it as Phase Two. I think you did a fantastic job of it.

In a way, there is something sad about that event, as great as it will be to have all those detailed pictures, blueprints, etc., for we will make our models, very accurately, and a lot of mystery will evaporate. All my life, I've wanted to zoom in on Orion, in flight, and look through those windows, at the people going places, to the moon, and beyond, wishing it could be me. Now, I'll be able to. I can even model myself as a passenger, making the trip. I can photograph that beautiful hull from any angle, with any focal length I choose, wide or narrow angle lens. I can fill in the missing frames at that space waltz and dock the Orion, debark the passengers. My imagination is the only limit. But eventually, I will have used up, and satisfied all those old dreams, and I will evolve, maybe a little closer to being a star child. Then maybe I can park Orion in that huge space ship graveyard Clark spoke of.

But that's a long way off as yet. Keep up the good work, my friend.


----------



## stargazer

"No put-down intended, stargazer" 

None taken... 

I hope to help you as much as pos. I am quite excited by your project.


----------



## LeonArtO3D

Steve Mavronis, just wanted to thank you for the image of Orion showing the underside contours. I've blown it up for my post over at Luxology (on page 3), but will soon be getting a high rez scan of the original photograph, which I'll post. That image saved me a brain hemorage.

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=50208&page=0

I've only been at this project for a month and it seems like three. I've had so much material thrown at me that I am just getting around to reading all of the posts in this Forum on Orion, but not all the links supplied, as yet. It'll take awhile longer before I can digest it all.

Thanks to all of you who contribute to this great *creative thinktank*.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Thanks but the real deserved credit goes to whomever gave it to me a while ago, I can't even remember because there have been many who've shared (sometimes different sources providing the same photo but at different graphic resolutions) along the way! LOL, but glad it helped you with your project. Amazing work too!!!


----------



## LeonArtO3D

Steve Mavronis said:


> Thanks but the real deserved credit goes to whomever gave it to me a while ago, I can't even remember because there have been many who've shared (sometimes different sources providing the same photo but at different graphic resolutions) along the way! LOL, but glad it helped you with your project. Amazing work too!!!


Hi Steve,

Thanks again, and I found out where you got it...it was Ian, the Stargazer, Walsh, who is responsible for many images I have, as is true for most of us. We are indeed fortunate to belong to such a giving community. I too lost track of a few of the many images that came in early-on. I'm saving them now in the senders folder, as well as placing them where they will be used, in my Resources Library. I'm getting them sorted in this way.

Still, I found it in your name first, else I'd never have known it exists, until Larson's book comes out, which is bound to have it, along with every other image we've ever wanted. He and Douglas Trumbull are going to 'make our day' sometime this coming year. so, thanks again, and you too, Ian, my friend.

Best
Leon


----------



## mattjaco35

*Orion I- a slightly-different "development history"*

So, awhile back I came up with an "alternate" history of the Orion III- after all, the "-III" makes me think there HAD to be "-I" and "-II" models. So, on a lark, I created the Orion I, a LOX/hydrogen chemically fueled version of the Orion III- with a few elements "borrowed" from another design...














































The front section is the Airfix Orion III kit, cut off just aft of the radiator bulge. The rear section is actually from the Revell/Monogram "Armageddon" shuttle kit, cut just at the bay door opening and modified very slightly in height. (It's amazing how close the kits are in general shape...) The boosters are 1/144 Shuttle boosters, from... some kit. (I got them in a trade.) The tank is from a Heller Ariane V, with the motor mount on the bottom changed out for a simple tank end. (I liked the longer, more tapered main tank- it fit the long, tapered shape of the Orion I better, even if it looks a little obscene without the shuttle and boosters...

I planned on replacing the "Pan Am" roundels with an appropriately-sized NASA "meatball". Unfortunately, I ended up botching the paint job, and ended up throwing it onto the stack of ideas to follow through on, someday...


----------



## Fozzie

I think that's pretty neat, Mattjaco35. :thumbsup:

You did a very good job of mating two disparate kits. And, I agree, the longer, more tapered fuel tank looks "just right".


----------



## edward 2

if it could fly better than the STS it could be the next STS.


----------



## fluke

Howdy fellow Astronutz.

I don't have a copy of 2001 .....does the Clipper have any NAV lights?

Thanks!


----------



## Paulbo

Nope.


----------



## fluke

I was afraid of that. 

Well it will now! Mwahahahaha:devil:

I figure a few well placed 20 mil optics should do.....a buddy of mine can 'stamp' program strobe like effects for led's ...his Nav lights on the ST Tydirium Shuttle are amazing! 

Placing a detailed PGM interior inside with lighting and no outside nav strobes would be a bit to boring.


----------



## fluke

OK.....Lets put it this way.

Is it true that the Clipper is bi-atmospheric craft? ...and if so wouldn't it make sense that a ship that size would have wing tip nav strobes and maybe one under the belly?..if not for the below atmosphere travel? 

Hmmm.........


----------



## mach7

I don't believe the space shuttle does. They would have problems surviving reentry. I suppose they could be retractable on the Orion.


----------



## fluke

That is a very good point! :thumbsup:

I'm going to do it anyways cuz it will look so nifty! I just like it better when it makes more sense even if it is a fictional subject. 

What the heck the Tydirium Shuttle, firefly and I bet a few more ships have them! ...can't argue with that! :tongue:

 Another thing that would be interesting is to have the back section in jettison mode with led's as the break away thrusters, most have never seen those drawings or knew it was planned but never filmed.


----------



## Philster68

*Clipper nav lights*



fluke said:


> OK.....Lets put it this way.
> 
> Is it true that the Clipper is bi-atmospheric craft? ...and if so wouldn't it make sense that a ship that size would have wing tip nav strobes and maybe one under the belly?..if not for the below atmosphere travel?
> 
> Hmmm.........


One can see clear inserts at the wing tips of the filming model. Nav lights?


----------



## fluke

I'd love to see these images or image.....I'll give you a free bag of ice for it!


----------



## Paulbo

Holy crow - I hadn't looked for the nav lights detail and never noticed them on the wing tips. Super cool! Thanks for making me take a look.

EDIT: Does this mean that I get a bag of ice?


----------



## Philster68

Paulbo said:


> Holy crow - I hadn't looked for the nav lights detail and never noticed them on the wing tips. Super cool! Thanks for making me take a look.
> 
> EDIT: Does this mean that I get a bag of ice?


Thank you for posting for all to see Paulbo! I ran out of time to do so myself.

Doug Trumbull has posted a different color shot of the clipper on his site. The clear piece is visible as well... However a bit of reflection on the leading edge tricks the eye.. making it look solid.


----------



## fluke

Where do those this images come from....are they studio pics?

Yes! Free ice on me! I'll send it UPS next day! :tongue:


----------



## Paulbo

No need, Fluke. You can put a couple of cubes in my martini in May ... assuming you're going to Wonderfest 

As for the photos, I've scoured the web for years tracking down whatever I can find. What I posted is cropped from a much larger photo.


----------



## Carson Dyle

fluke said:


> Where do those this images come from....are they studio pics?


Go here...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=320527

...and check out pg. 1.


----------



## fluke

Thanks!:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Nice conversion mattjacco. I like it!

Also nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed the wingtip lights on the studio miniature.


----------



## starlord

I was looking at my stack of models and I found that the 2001 space clipper model I have is a airfix one.


----------



## starlord

Last night I at last opened my space clipper to start on it. It is an airfix model and so far I am just looking at the main parts to remove any plastic flash on them. So far it's very good very clean but I've not put any glue on it yet.


----------



## starlord

Last night I opened the box of the model I've had for a few years. it's a airfix model of the 2001 space clipper. Being it looks good I'll be working on it very slow to make sure it's done right. So far I've only glued the wings together, then I'll look at the main body of the craft.


----------



## starlord

Yesterday I stared working on my 2001 space cliper from airfix. it's not doing to bad, I'm going slow on it. Only thing is I droped the clear font window and I've not been able to find it yet. I'm hoping I fo before I pit the base on.


----------



## fluke

Sorry to hear about your lost window 

I can't wait to see what your going to do. Are you using the photo etch set?

Keep us informed :thumbsup:


----------



## dreadnaught726

TSDS has a decal set for the Moebius Orion that include PanAm decals as well as a card interior/cockpit inserts. I believe it will work for the Airfix kit.


----------



## g_xii

dreadnaught726 said:


> TSDS has a decal set for the Moebius Orion that include PanAm decals as well as a card interior/cockpit inserts. I believe it will work for the Airfix kit.


Actually, the promo photos on my website ARE the Airfix kit with the TSDS interior and decals applied. It was designed to fit the Moebius kit as well as the Airfix kit. And it looks great in there, too! 

--Henry


----------



## Gemini1999

g_xii said:


> Actually, the promo photos on my website ARE the Airfix kit with the TSDS interior and decals applied. It was designed to fit the Moebius kit as well as the Airfix kit. And it looks great in there, too!


Henry -

This is good news... I just recently acquired an unbuilt Airfix Orion Clipper. The decals are obviously not like what was on the original model. I'll be placing an order soon!

Bryan


----------



## g_xii

Gemini1999 said:


> Henry -
> 
> This is good news... I just recently acquired an unbuilt Airfix Orion Clipper. The decals are obviously not like what was on the original model. I'll be placing an order soon!
> 
> Bryan


Yeah -- I know -- those are some terrible decals that it came with! The good thing about that kit is the passenger windows are larger than on any of the other versions of that model. They are literally twice the size of the other kit's windows. If you put some really clear thin plastic on the inside of the hull (rather than the crappy kit "windows") then the interior that comes with the decals shows up really well if you stick a light in there! 

--Henry


----------



## kekker

Has anyone else noticed what is in the Space station 5 Hilton office window?

Have a look at it here.

A black Orion, and a white model of something else. Could the something else be the launcher craft of the Orion?

Kev


----------



## SteveR

It's the Titov V: http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ilyushin titov.htm


----------



## Tim H.

Interesting pic, hadn't really seen the black Orion before.

And look what appears to be in the upper left corner on a shelf - 2001 astronaut figures! And something else I can't make out, maybe the Discovery antenna.


----------



## stargazer

"And something else I can't make out, maybe the Discovery antenna".


its an X- 15 flying out of a 'display stand'




"A black Orion, and a white model of something else. Could the something else be the launcher craft of the Orion?"

Kev 



For what its worth, here are my musings on the 'orion one launcher' based on the 2001 book description. http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/2001%20page%205.htm


----------



## spock62

Since this is the "offical" thread on the Pan Am Space Clipper, I'll repost a question I asked on the Moebius forum, but received no answer for. Has anyone built this kit as the Pan Am version? Did you use the kit supplied decals or did you use another method for representing the panel lines/multi-colored panels? I'm about 30% into the build and will probably use the kit decals, but I'll have to paint on the panels/panel lines the kit decals don't include but are shown on the filming miniature. Would love to see photos of what you guys came up with. Thanks.


----------



## kekker

What I'm doing for mine is staring repeatedly at the two good side shots to define the color patterns. There are four main color shades: almost white; light bluish gray; light warmer, slightly brownish gray, and a slightly darker, neutral gray. A couple of panels have a darker version of the blue or the neutral gray. Taking the shots and changing the contrast and brightness does a lot to show up the locations of the different color panels, and then the actual values can be seen in the unchanged shots. In close inspection, there are very few actual panel lines - they all seem to be color borders. Except for the ones right in front of the "radiator" section, I'm filling in all the ones on mine.

Some years ago I made a four-view of the Orion based on the Simon Atkinson drawings and shots in "Filming the Future". I used CorelDraw, so it's in vector and the lines and errors are easy to correct (like the "thing" on the top being too far back on the Atkinson drawings). I'm currently editing them to reflect the color patterns and corrections. I'll upload them for comment and corrections when they're done.

What this suggests is that the best bet would be to paint overall pale gray, then mask off the panels and paint the different colors. Then thinned overcoats of white to bring the tone down to match the pics and screencaps. Basically pre-shading, but with different colors under the main white overcoat. Either that or mix the colors to your satisfaction and mask. Either way, there's heaps of masking to do!

Oh, one thing I noticed about the Moebius version: the hatch on the right side is both the wrong shape and too far forward. It should be a real oval.

Anyway, I should be done with the diagrams in a week or so. I'll put them up as images and see if anyone else has things that should be changed.

Kev


----------



## spock62

Thanks Kev for the info. Looks like you put a lot of thought into it. Look forward to seeing your diagrams.


----------



## kekker

Now let's add to the shape confusion!

While looking at the pics available, I noticed this:

There appears to be some "chines" (for lack of a better term) that go from the lower "corners" of the main fuselage to the front of the wing. This seems to blend the wings less abruptly than is usually done.

This shot shows them best: (this is where I noticed it first)









Notice three things in this shot:
1 - The line of the lower edge of the port side - the yellow line goes straight back, but there is a triangular section that goes from the edge to the "start" of the wing. This can be seen on both sides here.
2 - on the starboard side, with the light coming from above the area under the hatch definitely curves outwards! This blends the vertical side with the fairly flat bottom that extends outwards to the start of the wing. The upper part is much brighter than the curving-under parts forward of the "chine", and there is a much sharper edge to the shadow to light area.
3 - the ridge around the oft-debated "landing lights" or "thrusters" also curves outwards. If the fuselage at this point curved under to the bottom, this shape would not be possible.

Looking closely, you can also see them on the underside shot:









In this shot it is lit from below, so the edge of the shadow shows that the chine extends out. If you look at the fuselage area forward of this, you can see the difference between the chine and the curved-under part, as well as the triangular shapes of the chines.

It also show up here:









You can see how that lower edge changes angle from about halfway between the cockpit and the "thrusters" at the start of the wing.

And finally, from the front:









It's most evident on the left side of the picture (starboard side of the clipper). There is a definite outward curve there. The light coming from that side makes it clearer than the port side in darkness.

So, what?

There's definitely a structure that fairs or blends in the bottom/side corners of the fuselage with the start of the wing. 
It starts about halfway between the line that comes down from the back of the cockpit windows to the "thruster". A good marker is a line drawn down from middle of the two black "darts" on the top. 
It continues the angle of the narrow part of the wing to where it meets the lower corner of the fuselage, and is faired in with an outward curve from the fuselage side. 
The outward curve lets the raised rim around the "thruster" make more sense visually, since you can see it following that curve, and not an inward curve if the chine wasn't there.

Time to break out the sheet styrene and putty...

Kev


----------



## stargazer

yes there is....you can see it duplicated on my resin kit 
here http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion%203/sg.jpg

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion 3/sg (2).jpg

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/Orion model/modeld.jpg


----------



## kekker

Good to know I wasn't just imagining it. I hadn't seen it done to any other model, including Bowers', the Moebius, Airfix or Aurora.

I also hadn't seen it mentioned as a fix for any of the kits.

So, now it's in the sticky.

Kev


----------



## kekker

OK, here they are: four views of the clipper with the best color matches. When you look at these, the colors are exaggerated for clarity. The red represents raised areas, the blue lines are where I could see actual engraved lines on the movie prop.

Let me know what you think. I spent a lot of hours doing these! The diagrams are as accurate as I could get them by eyeballing the various pics around here. 

The plans were done in CorelDraw and then exported to Corel PhotoPaint to color them.

Hopefully they will be of help.

Top:









Bottom: (Obviously, with the lack of anything like clear pictures of the bottom, the colors and some details are purely conjectural. No doubt now that I'm done nice big shots will come out!)









Starboard side:









And finally, Port Side:









They were shrunk some in the shipping. I have them as much larger files that would be a lot clearer.

Kev


----------



## Paulbo

Very cool, Kev! Thanks.


----------



## SteveR

Yes, thanks for your hard work.


----------



## stargazer

fantastic job.


----------



## Bubba 123

stargazer said:


> fantastic job.


if anyone needs/wants the "Pan-Am' global logo...
2 just printout & laminate 4 the missing kit decal...
i already did it/scaled to fit the emblem area on the model...
just PM me & i'll email it 2 u...in light blue over white...
thin/clear packing tape on BOTH sides of printer paper works good
4 sealing them w/ glued & futured....
cheap-trik, but works well ;-)

Bubba 123


----------



## GordonMitchell

kekker said:


> Good to know I wasn't just imagining it. I hadn't seen it done to any other model, including Bowers', the Moebius, Airfix or Aurora.
> 
> I also hadn't seen it mentioned as a fix for any of the kits.
> 
> So, now it's in the sticky.
> 
> Kev


The Aurora kit gives a clear piece for this,possibly thinking it was a light of sorts but at least they included something unlike the others,so they had obviously spotted something in the drawings or pics they were given,
cheers,Gordon m:thumbsup:


----------



## kekker

OK, I posted the full-sized pictures online here.

They're pretty big, 10,000 X 4707 for the top and bottom views, but there is a lot more detail there.

Enjoy.

Kev


----------



## spock62

Thanks Kev, these diagrams will be a BIG help when finishing my kit. Thanks again!


----------



## [email protected]

Has it been determined whether or not the ribbing on the "PanAm" area went over the top or not? The nice big pictures Kekker posted seem to show it stopping just above the logo. Your opinions please, did Moebius get it right or not?


----------



## spock62

[email protected] said:


> Has it been determined whether or not the ribbing on the "PanAm" area went over the top or not? The nice big pictures Kekker posted seem to show it stopping just above the logo. Your opinions please, did Moebius get it right or not?


A while back I had sent an email to Moebius asking this question. According to Moebius; "...the model itself is correct, the instructions should not have the grooves showing all the way up...The kit itself is not based on any filming miniatures.".

Assuming their sources are correct, then the kit is correct regarding the ribbing. Too bad they couldn't see fit to give a complete set of panel line/panel decals and instead give only about 50%.


----------



## kekker

The back ribbing area and the one in front of the passenger area are a real tough call. In some pics, it looks like the lines are penciled in, but the logo itself is raised. Almost as if they printed out a logo, cut it out and glued it on. 

I went with the assumption that both have the lines penciled in. The front area especially. There also seems to be a slightly raised area on the top of the front area, kind of like a raised panel. The edges seem to catch the light from some angles, but only on the top.

Like I said, this was my best guess based on a lot of squinting. If there are good pics of any of these areas I'd love to have a definitive answer.

Kev


----------



## Astrocat

kekker, you're right about the logo being printed out and glued on.
The ribs DO go over the top though. Think of a piece of ribbed plastic sheet - the sort of stuff used in railroad models to represent wood planking - cut into a wide strip and wrapped around the fuselage. That's what you've got.

There are no pencil lines.... anywhere. All the lines between panels were finely scribed into the surface, but when you're reducing a miniature 5 feet or so long down to this scale Moebius was quite right not to put the engraved lines on for those areas... they would have looked far too heavy IMO.

Keith


----------



## SteveR

This fellow might remember ...

http://douglastrumbull.com/


----------



## spock62

Astrocat said:


> Moebius was quite right not to put the engraved lines on for those areas... they would have looked far too heavy IMO.
> 
> Keith


While I can understand why Moebius chose not to add panel lines, I feel that if the kit had very fine engraved lines like on a Tamyia kit, for example, it would have looked fine. All aircraft kits have engraved lines today, and if done right, look great. As it is, Moebius decided to go with decals to represent panel lines/panels, which is OK, as long as you provide ALL of the panel lines/panels. Unfortunatley, Moebius did not, which makes it harder on the modeler to finish the kit. You have to either a) ignore the decals and paint everything yourself or b) use the decals and try to match the colors when you paint the rest of the panels. Not impossible, just harder then it needs to be.


----------



## Richard Baker

To be honest the partial panel decal 'solution' is one of the reasons I have not bought one yet. I have a lot going on and could really enjoy a quick build- all other projects are involved and bogging down. I have not built some Trek kits for the same reason- I hate having to lay out a complicated paneling scheme that takes more time than building the model.
I will be getting a kit eventually, it is well done and one of my favorite designs.


----------



## DX-SFX

Kekker, if you've based your colour scheme drawings on the Simon Atkinson drawings which I suspect you have, you've replicated the fault of including too many retro engines around the fuselage behind the ribbed banding. There should be 11 on the upper fuselage the 6th being the one in the middle at the top. Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## kekker

Yep, the original line work was based on the Atkinson art. I corrected several things from that, but missed the incorrect number of retros. When I get the time, I'll get back to it and modify it some more.

Kev


----------



## starlord

I found a old space clipper model that I had gootn a log time ago, no decals or anything. so this is what it looks like now:


----------



## starlord

I'll need to try again on posting the photo, but I'll let you know now that it is far from the others you've seen. I'll get it uploaded in 24 hours.


----------



## starlord

Here is the photo, and as you can see it's now as good as others have built


----------



## g_xii

You can't tell a whole lot from the little 2" x 3" photos, but from what I can see it is surely a different take on that ship! It looks interesting, too.

--Henry


----------



## starlord

with the size being over the 500k limit, I had to edit it down to post them.


----------



## jheilman

You can make them a *LOT* bigger. Your file is only 16K!


----------



## starlord

When I edit any photo I post I get the size and then save it, when I did those if they where any bigger that one the editing software said they where it would have passed the limit, If I was reading all the thing right.

Here is the same one, I did a "slight" change of the software and it's by itself.


----------



## jheilman

That one looks like a small pic simply made larger. 

What you are missing here is that jpeg files are compressed when saved. The file size you see when the file is open is not what the final size will be when saved. Example, this attachment is 2.15MB when opened and 144K when saved.


----------



## starlord

When I did make it bigger the file size sais it was just under 500K in size and as this system only lets uploads of 500k, I figured that was a good size. Play that photo was one the one that I took with my Canon A620 camera and it's size when first downloaded was over 2,000k. That size I could never upload as I would be blocked by the system.


----------



## jheilman

Re-read my post. The file size you are using as a guide is when the file is OPEN. When saved and compressed as a jpeg, the file size is MUCH smaller. The upload feature views the compressed file size. Take one of your digital camera files, save it as a jpeg to your desktop and then attach it. If your original is truly 2000K, when saved it should be less than 200K.


----------



## jheilman

Take your image from a few posts back. Here is the data.










Note the data circled.

On the right is the file size when the file is open. 
417.4K. 

On the left is actual size of the compressed file. 
25K.


----------



## starlord

As I use a Canon A620 to take photos of my models with, I then have to downlone them from the card they are saved on. So By the time they download at that time on my computer screen they are from 2 to 4 megs big. and aftr I edit them downward, they are the size that I then post.


----------



## jheilman

How about don't edit them downward nearly as much? What application do you use to edit them? When you edit them down, try finding the pixel dimensions of the file and edit that to 800 pixels wide. That's a nice big screen size.


----------



## jheilman

Here's a pic of mine. This image is 2.58MB when open and 1200pixels X 751pixels. When saved with moderate jpeg compression, it's 328K.


----------



## jheilman

starlord said:


> So By the time they download at that time on my computer screen they are from 2 to 4 megs big. and aftr I edit them downward, they are the size that I then post.


2 to 4 megs when opened in your editing program? Or, do they truly occupy 2 to 4 megs of disk space? Make one of your files about 2 megs when opened. If saved as a jpeg it will only occupy about 200K or less. Really.


----------



## jheilman

Starlord - sending you a private message.


----------



## jheilman

OK, here's the pic you sent me. I sized it down to 1000 pixels wide. It's a bit over 2 megs when opened and takes up 312K of disk space when saved as a jpeg. So, you can successfully post bigger, clearer pics if you choose.


----------



## starlord

I must of misunderstood the the post that tell every one what the size that they can post. 
it says nothing over 500k that's why I have always made them smaller.
that one I sent you was one I got from all the ones I from my camera during my midnight download. if anyone has samples of what I should do, or how, My email address is : [email protected]


----------



## jheilman

OK, I'll try again. 

Yes, 500K is the file size limit. Jpeg files are a COMPRESSED file format. Meaning a 2 meg file when opened will save as a significantly smaller file because it is compressed. As I stated in my post, the file when OPENED is 2 megs. When SAVED TO DISK, it is compressed to 312K. That's it in a nutshell. I would use my suggestion of resizing your files to about 1000 pixels wide, save them as jpegs and attach them. If one gets flagged as too big, shrink a bit more and reattach.


----------



## Paulbo

Don't check the filesize from within your graphics program, open Explorer and click on the file - the status bar will indicate the SAVED size of the file.


----------



## starlord

when I log on, it's not via explorer, that is what netzero uses as a base program, then I close the Explorer and the email section and then open my START MENU and run open "Groole Chrome" and from it I get to the many boards and such I log onto. I could even fire up Firefox if I wanted too.


----------



## Richard Baker

I think he meant WINDOWS EXPLORER, not the Internet browser.
Hold down the windoes key on your keyboard (between CTRL and ALT beside the spacebar) and while you are holding down that key hit the 'E' key and let go of both. Windows Exploer will launch and you can use it to examine your files. Right click on the filename and select 'Properties' to see the info about the file.


----------



## starlord

I'll copy that onto my notpad and then try that out.


----------



## starlord

I just tried those keys and got NOTHING .


----------



## Richard Baker

Works on my XP and Vista machines- if you have Win7 then it could have been changes- Microsoft seems obsessed with with removing useful features. Just find Windows Explorer in your program listing and run it from there, or use whatever file system you use to find stuff on your computer. The whole point is to right click on the fimename of your photo, select properties and see the actual file size, not what the paint program is telling you.
If you send it by GMail as an attachment that program would also tell you the file size after you attach it. GMail is free and can be used by anybody who has a computer, it does not matter whatbrowser of operating system you have.


----------



## starlord

I tried what you said, fist I used Goole Chrome and that was when NOTHING happened, then I closed all of this system out and was at the desktop and clicked on a set of pics and using what you had said, I did that to one and while the image in the line did not seam to change the PREVIEW image did, and now every time I click on the pic it's preview dose show it bigger. But on every other file it stays the same size and does not show nothing bigger.


----------



## Richard Baker

How about starting a new thread to straighten out your problems with posting images and return this thread to being about the 2001 Orion?


----------



## starlord

That would be ok, right now I can't thing of a name for it, so send me a name in PM and I'll try to get it up. In the mean time check out the last post in this thead and tell me how it is; http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=368372


----------



## Richard Baker

starlord said:


> That would be ok, right now I can't thing of a name for it, so send me a name in PM and I'll try to get it up. http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=368372


I am lost on this one- a name for what?


----------



## Zombie_61

Would everyone look right here please.










This thread deviation does not exist. It's a hallucination brought on by years of inhaling glue and paint fumes. You think the Pan Am Space Clipper is the most interesting subject in the universe. Carry on.


----------



## starlord

Only if your not in haling Acetone at that time.


----------



## Tim H.

*2001 model maker guest at Pure Speculation*

Sf convention in Edmonton, Alberta in November has Michael Mott as a guest.
I'm not sure I can make it there but perhaps someone can. I did work with Mr. Mott for a few months at the Science Centre but had no idea he worked on 2001.

http://www.purespec.org/

his bio from the con website:
*Michael Mott*

Born in England, Michael has been active in some form of art since 1954. His early work was mostly drawing and his first oil painting was done in 1963 --a copy of Albert Durer's Squirrel. He began a Tool and Die-making apprenticeship in 1964 but only completed one year. Switching to Models and displays, while working for a model engineering company, *Michael designed and built props for the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey*, the BBC and many others. He emigrated to Canada in 1967, settling in Calgary. Eventually his work brought him to Edmonton, and in 1969 Michael began working for the Department of Fine Arts at the U of A, where he taught materials and machining processes from 1969-1977. In 1977 Michael started Professional Scale Model Building Company ltd. The company operated from 1977-1984. From 1984 to 2002 Michael worked as the Exhibit designer at the then-called Edmonton Space and Science Centre. During his time at the Science Centre, he developed an interest in Astronomy and began the series of drawings of galaxies. Michael began working in watercolour in 1992 and also continues to work in sculpture with various materials.


----------

