# Pilgrim Observer aftermarket?



## DiceCaller (Jan 27, 2011)

Greetings,

I have been mostly lerking on this forum. I have just returned to modeling after a four year break (three kids worth). I have learned a great deal and been greatly inspired. Thank you!

My LHS just got a Pilgrim Observer and I can't explain why but I am facinated by this model. I am greatly tempted to pick it up but I am wondering if anyone is working on aftermarket improvements for this kit?

I already have picked up some magnets to play with and I know they would work here as well. Is there anything else coming down the pipe?

Thanks again,
Shane


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Three kids in four years? I like my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!


The first upgrade I've heard about is a lighting kit. I think it was announced over at www.starshipmodeler.com


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Whoops, no it was right here in this forum!
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=320291


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'll have a photoetch set coming for the kit, but it will be several weeks before I have anything to show.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> I'll have a photoetch set coming for the kit, but it will be several weeks before I have anything to show.


Paul, like, do you even have time to go to the bathroom, man?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Sometimes it doesn't feel like it


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

But you could make a photoetched bedpan for your work bench!


----------



## Ace Airspeed (May 16, 2010)

I have the Pilgrim Observer.

Hmmmmmm..........................Paul's PE kit along with some lights...............might have to go for it.


----------



## talondigital (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm going to make a set of decals in a more contemporary style for the current space agencies.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

talondigital said:


> I'm going to make a set of decals in a more contemporary style for the current space agencies.


more details please! im building one right now


----------



## talondigital (Apr 4, 2007)

Basically I got the kit because it is kind of a cool kit, but some of it is dated, particularly the decal design. I thought it would be cool to mark it up as something more contemporary with Nasa, ESA, multinational logos and markings, some more aircraft like markings like you see on the space shuttle and parts of the space station, etc. Just make it fun for me. I figured I'd make them available for anyone who wanted to do the same.


----------



## DiceCaller (Jan 27, 2011)

Now I am excited! Decals, a lighting kit (though I want to figure out LEDs on my own), and PE from Paragraphix. How can a modeler resist? I have the kit on hold now and will pick it up on PayDay.

Thanks for all the info,
Shane


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

And don't forget the motor to spin the centrifuge at 2 rpm! (I'm serious.)
Rather than painting it all, much of the kit would look very up to date (even for the late '60s) with a lot of variously colored foils attached. The horrible little CM needs to be replaced by one of the recent 1/96 Apollo CSMs, suitably modified. I love the pre-STTMP Work Bee!


----------



## dlogix (Aug 22, 2005)

*looking forward to it*



talondigital said:


> Basically I got the kit because it is kind of a cool kit, but some of it is dated, particularly the decal design. I thought it would be cool to mark it up as something more contemporary with Nasa, ESA, multinational logos and markings, some more aircraft like markings like you see on the space shuttle and parts of the space station, etc. Just make it fun for me. I figured I'd make them available for anyone who wanted to do the same.


Yeah, I picked up one of the repops, but was disappointed with the decals provided…some of the detail markings are way out of scale (too big)…if you included a bunch of sectional panel labels, targeting circles, etc, like they have on the ISS, it would help the scale a lot…look forward to see what you come up with...


----------



## Nyrath (May 3, 2004)

starseeker said:


> I love the pre-STTMP Work Bee!


Actually, there were quite a few examples of pre-STTMP Work Bees.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacesuits.php#Suit_into_Ship~Space_Pod


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

One great addition to the Pilgrim would be some way of lighting all those windows. The tricky part of that is running some kind of power into the model. You could use batteries in the head portion, easiest because the model has no stand and seems to be made to be hung by thread or wires, but I don't ewant to hang it and I prefer an external power source for my models. Which means making a stand, simple enough, but where do you mount the model onto the stand? It would be a waste not to make the centrifuge rotatable (if not actually motorized), so that leaves the section with all the tanks. I mounted a simple jack into the core, set at an angle so that the model will be displayed at an angle. The jack was epoxied into place and then covered with a styrene box cemented to the spine. That sucker should be Solid. Covered the sides of the box with more foil (it's on the bottom so it won't be too visible anyway), but will paint the plug side rather than risk foil on that surface shorting something out.
Magnets would be great for removable parts, like the Apollo. Aoshima's great little 1/72 HTV kit actually scales out to 1/101 scale, so it would be a perfect add-on for anyone looking to do a 2010 version of the Pilgrim. 
Foil, lighting, and whatever Paul has in the works for us (love it if it has lots of hand rails) should make for a fantastic display.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> And don't forget the motor to spin the centrifuge at 2 rpm! (I'm serious.)
> Rather than painting it all, much of the kit would look very up to date (even for the late '60s) with a lot of variously colored foils attached. The horrible little CM needs to be replaced by one of the recent 1/96 Apollo CSMs, suitably modified. I love the pre-STTMP Work Bee!


Yeah, I figure the exposed tanks (a carryover from the '50s in my eyes) would have to change, either foil for thermal management or just enclose all that. Or I suppose it could be super detailed with all manner of pipes, pump housings, helium tanks, boxes in random places for electronics and such like. Did they change the specs on the third arm? My original manual says it was a nuclear power plant (the other two, living quarters and hydroponic gardens). 

Yeah, that stubby Apollo needs to be replaced. Or massively refurbished. 

I'd like to see someone put the Observer on a Saturn V stack, on the launchpad crawler. That would be a cool display.


----------



## Gilusions (Apr 25, 2006)

This is a quick picture of my lighting kit for the kit the flat light is folded so it will light up both sides and give it and even glow I put in the blue green for something different But I have white in stock.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Very nice.
A very slight color variation in the windows might liven it up: just a barely noticeable variation, to hint at different content inside the rooms.


----------



## starlord (Mar 30, 2011)

I got a model or the P.O. a long time ago and I still have it but due to being packed away and having someone fool with is wile I was in a hospital, it's not buildeable noe. So I figure on getteng a new one in about 3 months and then build it like the 1st one should have been.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Does anyone else agree that the stated scale of 1:100 is not workable? Measuring the puppy, the repeat distance between the windows (vertically - assuming deck height) is only 5' and the CSM is only a shade over 8' in diameter - 20% smaller than the Apollo CSM even though it has more windows. Also, the tubular trunks between the centrifuges and the main fuselage would be less than 2.5' in diameter - nowhere near enough room for all the power, data, water, and air conduits while still allowing for crew to pass through.

1:144 scale is better. The deck height works out to be a shade over 7' and the CSM is nearly 13' in diameter. The trunks would then be about 3.5' in diameter.

1:200 scale would be ideal - 10' deck spacing (plenty of room for "guts" between the decks), the CSM would be around 16' in diameter, and the connecting trunks would be nearly 5' in diameter.

I'm inclined to assume 1:200 scale for the etch set I'm working on. Does anyone have a different opinion?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The Pilgrim was supposed to be launched on top of a Saturn 5, I thought, so its 1/100 scale comes pretty close to matching that. On the other hand, I'm putting decks inside its modules, based on that drawing in the little folder, and there is only 1/2" space between decks. I figure the interior being 1/196 or so. Maybe it should have been launched on top of a Nova? 
I sure don't envy you trying to figure out another Irwin/Tardis. I'd go with the 1/200.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm still in favor of 1/144 because I'm an idiot. 

You don't need room for stuff (piping/wiring trunks, etc) between decks, that's what the angled parts, the 'left' and 'right' side of the module are for. 

I don't buy 1/100 at all.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Thanks for reminding me of that illustration, Starseeker. I just went and double-checked it and there's boatloads of head room. (With no pipiing and such in the thin floor/ceiling.)

A quick and dirty calculation based on the stading figure makes 10' deck spacing just about perfect. 1:200 scale it is.

Of course this now makes the "work bee" a shade over 9' in diameter which doesn't jibe with its illustration in the same pamphlet, which looks to be not much larger in diameter than a compact car is high - say 4'. Ah well - the decking is the larger of the two to measure, so that's what I'm sticking with.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

You can go with 1/200 but I am going to do mine with 1/144th scale kit accesories (CSM, LM, ETC). I'll be looking forward to your PE set.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

John Duncan said:


> You can go with 1/200 but I am going to do mine with 1/144th scale kit accesories (CSM, LM, ETC). I'll be looking forward to your PE set.


I'm tempted to go with one of the 1/96 scale Apollos modified to look like 1/200 versions of these contemporary Boeing and Rockwell studies.
Paul, have you given any thought to branching out into real space and perhaps doing a PE set for something like the 1/144 ISS? Maybe in stages, for seperate groups of modules at a time. Space modellers have been crying for a set for a decade, at least, and the quality your stuff is absolutely first rate. I can hear what you're thinking: "Right, seven years of research later..."


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

John: The only reason I've been thinking about scale is for what I call "shadow casters" - little people silouettes to mount behind the windows to give a hint that something human is behind them. When I did up some at 1:100 scale they dwarfed the windows 

With the kit glass so thick it really won't be possible to see them clearly, they'll just give the impression of depth. Figuring out the scale was really just a thought exercise - not trying to be dogmatic or anything.

Starseeker: I've thougth about it only in passing and then I'd assumed that that market was already being served. I will definitely be looking into this!

I remember those illustrations from books in my high school library - about 15 years after they were published, thank you very much


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Paulbo said:


> I'm inclined to assume 1:200 scale for the etch set I'm working on. Does anyone have a different opinion?


It's not in the picture, but a 1/200 scale Apollo doesn't fit with the Pilgrim Observer spacecraft or the main ship itself. The ship is almost twice the diameter of a 1/200 scale Saturn V first stage. I didn't include the 1/200 Apollo stuff in the picture because no one was considering that scale at the time. ( I looked at it and had already rejected it).

1/200 scale would make it nice and roomy if it was taken in a vacuum, but if it was to be displayed with any similar spacecraft in the same scale, it would look wrong.



cozmo said:


> First off, I do like your build-up. I will take issue with the scale though.
> 
> Since it was never built, there are no plans that I know of and I have not seen a picture of the NERVA engine mock up next to a person, there is not a lot that can be taken as concrete.
> 
> ...


From this thread:
Killer Pilgrim Observer thread


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

starseeker said:


> ...
> Rather than painting it all, much of the kit would look very up to date (even for the late '60s) with a lot of variously colored foils attached. The horrible little CM needs to be replaced by one of the recent 1/96 Apollo CSMs, suitably modified. I love the pre-STTMP Work Bee!


Heh, I just saw some Easter themed Hershey's Kisses with pastel foil wrappings and thought of this kit.

Mylar blankets are my excuse for getting Hershey's Kisses and Rollo's.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Thanks! That's a great build up Jim Small did.

A well reasoned argument, Cozmo.

As I said - I'm not trying to start a battle over this. I pretty much ignore the descriptions, probably written by somebody who wouldn't know a Saturn V from a Saturn Vue. The sizes listed don't even match the kit - i.e. it's listed as 33' diameter, but at 1:100 scale it's only 26, at 1:144 it's 37, and at 1:200 it'd be 52.

Also, though they state that it's launched on an "augmented" Saturn V, they don't say how it's augmented. Perhaps it's got a dozen strap on boosters and can handle lifting something _really_ huge that sits on top like is done with Atlas Vs. I don't know.

I can only go by what I can measure where there are likely to be easily determined sizes: the diameter of the trunk between the habitation modules and the carousel and the distance between the floors in the habitation modules.

The illustration below clearly shows a two-direction lift that is obviously much larger than 2.5' or 3.5' in diameter (1:100 and 1:144 scale, respectively), as well as the separate floors that are the distance between the windows, complete with a guy standing there right on the edge of the cutout so that his height and the height of the floor can be easily measured.

Again - since nothing I'm doing for the PE set will be in any particular scale, this is purely an academic excersize. :wave:


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

cozmo said:


> Heh, I just saw some Easter themed Hershey's Kisses with pastel foil wrappings and thought of this kit.
> 
> Mylar blankets are my excuse for getting Hershey's Kisses and Rollo's.


Plus, the Kisses look like little Apollo capsules


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paul, I'm horrible with math, so I need you to be nice and do the work, ok? 

You mention that there's a stat that says the Observer is 33 feet, so given the actual diameter of the kit, what does it 'really' scale out to?

(watch, it'll turn out to be 'Seaview' scale.  )


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Paulbo said:


> Thanks! That's a great build up Jim Small did.
> 
> A well reasoned argument, Cozmo.
> 
> ...


And a fun exercise it is. It has me wanting to work on something anyway.

We are coming at this from two different directions though. You are fitting out the inside according to drawings and descriptions, and I'm trying to make the exterior hardware fit. This wouldn't be the first time in Sci-Fi that the interior was bigger than the exterior.

I was thinking more of a Titan III, or IV, or Proton Using Saturn V's and Shuttle SRB's.

Comparing the PO with the 1/144 ISS, the docking points are close and the modules are comparable in size.


Must...play...with...drawings...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve, I posted this on page 2, just before the break so you must have missed it going straight to the end. (Very easy to do considering how many posts were done this afternoon.)


Paulbo said:


> ...As I said - I'm not trying to start a battle over this. I pretty much ignore the descriptions, probably written by somebody who wouldn't know a Saturn V from a Saturn Vue. The sizes listed don't even match the kit - i.e. it's listed as 33' diameter, but at 1:100 scale it's only 26, at 1:144 it's 37, and at 1:200 it'd be 52...


This is only the part of the post directly concerning your question. (I hate to put up the full post as it fills up the thread so quickly.)

I mention a couple of other things in the post as well.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

cozmo said:


> ...This wouldn't be the first time in Sci-Fi that the interior was bigger than the exterior...


When does that ever happen? Aside from ... well, pretty much everything! 

Good point about the two different approaches.

It reminds me of a discussion I was having with (hmmm, who the heck was it?) who was intimately connected with the "full scale" set pieces from Buck Rogers. He related how the mockups were built not at full scale, but rather at 75% scale to save money (both in building the mockup and in the size of the set around them that was needed). So it was impossible to use the size of the set piece as the basis for the scale of the "real thing".

This was also the case in Titanic: the ship was only built at something like 90% scale - in length, but it was full size in height. (I may have the numbers wrong, just doing it from memory.)

I can't wait to see the drawings!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

I understand you're doing PE people for the windows. This is just another kit we all like that is not perfectly in scale with any of the established Real Space scales.

If we all build ours to our own liking then we'll all be happy and have photos to post!!

John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Wait a second! I just realized something ...

We're being way too polite in this discussion! This type of debate is supposed to involve a bunch of name calling, screaming about how the other person spelled "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" without the "x", and completely failing to take the other person's reasoned arguments into account.

We're going to destroy the Internet


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

John Duncan said:


> I understand you're doing PE people for the windows...


I'm also working on new antennae, arms for the work bee (with a bit of a fun in-joke included with them), girders for the top of the habitation modules and a bunch of other little bits and pieces.

I should have something to show in a couple of days.


John Duncan said:


> ...If we all build ours to our own liking then we'll all be happy and have photos to post!!...


Precisely!


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Paulbo said:


> Wait a second! I just realized something ...
> 
> We're being way too polite in this discussion! This type of debate is supposed to involve a bunch of name calling, screaming about how the other person spelled "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" without the "x", and completely failing to take the other person's reasoned arguments into account.
> 
> We're going to destroy the Internet


Um, okay, you misspelled exercise a while back. Now stop with the frivolous posting! Can't you see I have Saturn V, Saturn IB, Space Shuttle, ISS, Pilgrim Observer and Skylab parts scattered all over my desk along with graph paper, pencils and calculators to get these drawings right. Jeeze, the stuff I have to put up with sometimes just to prove to Luddites that a model is absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the scale I say it is. Which in this case is 1/156.328574317.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Steve, I posted this on page 2, just before the break so you must have missed it going straight to the end. (Very easy to do considering how many posts were done this afternoon.)
> 
> This is only the part of the post directly concerning your question. (I hate to put up the full post as it fills up the thread so quickly.)
> 
> I mention a couple of other things in the post as well.


I agree, and I should cut-and-paste quotes more often, but somehow I keep messing up the tags. (I don't have the brain for these things. I barely passed BASIC back in High School!)

IIRC all the text and everything was written by a 'real science' guy who was also a SF author. Arrrgh, I want to say Sheffield but that's not right. Maybe it was G. Harry Stein? So I think if he said it was 33 feet, he probably knew of what he spoke. 

My question was, assume that number is right, measure the Observer and see what that actually scales out to, and again, I put 500 Quatloos it's spitting distance to 'Seaview' scale.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve H said:


> ...My question was, assume that number is right, measure the Observer and see what that actually scales out to, and again, I put 500 Quatloos it's spitting distance to 'Seaview' scale.


I haven't checked the math, but I started the same question over at SSM and Professor Bobo worked out ... 1:128!

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=91613


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I put 500 Quatloos it's spitting distance to 'Seaview' scale.


Uh, which Seaview?

A quick and dirty comparison of the sizes and how I figured it would be launched. It will take a while to figure out how it would look in 1/200 scale.

I changed the position of the modified Apollo. I always thought it was a bad idea to launch the manned part of the vehicle inside the aero-shroud and the stack like it was worked just fine for the rest of the Apollo program.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Holy crud, that would seriously overwhelm the S-V at 1:200 scale!

Even 1:144 is on the "wicked oversized" side, but not too horrible. I am convinced to go with ignoring the interior and the access tubes from the habitation modules. (The Apollo and work bee work out better at that scale, too.)

As an alternative to your far left stack, perhaps the Apollo is launched separately on a S-IB? (Though the way you have it is a nice homage to the S-V moon landing stack.)

Steve is talking about the 1:128 scale Seaview kit from Moebius.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Cozmo: Sorry, I mean 'Big Moebius Seaview' scale, 1/128 which seems to be becoming a new de facto common scale, at least for them. 

Paul: Yeah, like Cozmo, I was always uncomfortable with the idea that the Apollo M was mounted in the shroud for launch. Makes escape a tricky issue I would think, if it suddenly became a really bad day. Also, given that the Apollo M was meant to be a transfer vehicle, the short SM bugs me no end. If you ONLY use it for crew recovery you'd probably be able to use some solid fuel unit on the capsule (in the spirit of the Mercury capsule) to de-orbit, right?

I would assume this ship (class of ship?) would be reusable, and it would be parking near a space station, in which case something better, a space taxi, would make more sense for crew transfer.

Altho I'm thinking the NERVA would get too 'hot' to keep using after a few trips and need to be changed out, so there's going to need to be equipment to deal with that.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Cozmo, forgive me for stealing your diagram but it reminded me of a Saturn 5 vs Nova size comparison diagram. If I scale both Saturn 5s to the same size (and 1/200), then the Pilgrim in your diagram becomes exactly the same diameter as the main stage of an early 1960's 1/200 Nova. Now where can we get eight 1/200 F1s? Edit (my edit function is back!! Hurray! ): Hey, AMTs Man in Space set is 1/200!


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Oh, I really wanted it to work in 1/200 scale. So much so I gave it another try and like the way this one the turned out better than the first time. I picked up several of the "Man In Space" kits when they were on the clearance table just to play with (my favorite kit as a kid). I remember drawings of all kinds of follow-on Apollo projects the the "Man In Space" kit would be good for. Skylab was as far as I got though.

Use two Saturn V's side-by-side and put conformal fillets to give the first two stages a more round cross section and to add enough F-1 engines for enough power to put something that size into orbit. Haven't quite figured out the first stage engine arrangement, but this gives an idea.

Its a little beefier than I wanted and the shroud between the second stage and the PO may need some more work, but at least it looks feasible. Toss out the Apollo that comes with the kit and maybe tweak the work bee then it could fit as 1/200 scale.



Even if the Apollo were to be launched unmanned it looks better at the top of the stack than it does tucked inside. And launch other Apollos on Saturn V's. Use the third stage for modules to attach to the spine, or other docking ports after the PO is in orbit and expanded.

Oh heck, I might as well combine a couple of current projects. Not that I am going to build Michael in either of these scales. I just wanted a better idea of its size.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

I'd still rather go with 1/144, mainly because there are so many space kits and bits that match that scale, from the old Monogram and Airfix Saturns to the RM Mir station (and a similar 1/144 "toy") which has a ton of useful bits, as well as plenty of Soyuz TM and Progress craft. No reason why you can't add in a few Soyuz to the PM.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

With all the cool drawings that Cosmo's done, I've come to the conclusion that there's so much ambiguity with the PO that you could go for anything between 1:125 and 1:200, depending on what you see as its mission or what you want to display it with.

(My personal preferences are 1:144 and 1:200, for what it's worth.)

Thanks for the drawings, Cosmo!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

1/200


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Display it next to the Klingon BOP for a scale-free experience.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

L O L


----------



## tankmodeler (Mar 20, 2011)

Of course, all this could go away if we declared it 1/200 and then popped it on top of a 20 meter Orion. Now _that_ is launching in style!

Paul


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

Frank2056 said:


> I'd still rather go with 1/144, mainly because there are so many space kits and bits that match that scale, from the old Monogram and Airfix Saturns to the RM Mir station (and a similar 1/144 "toy") which has a ton of useful bits, as well as plenty of Soyuz TM and Progress craft. No reason why you can't add in a few Soyuz to the PM.


While I too think 1/144 is the better fit, there is more opportunity with 1/200 and the "Man In Space" kit. There are the extra Apollo CM's and LM's to convert to the Apollo follow on concepts, Saturn IVB parts (there were several space station concepts based on that) and the Gemini for its follow on projects (I'm thinkin' at least a MOL with a BigG). When this kit came out, the cold war was in full swing, I don't think the Salyut or TKS modules from the MIR, or ISS would fit very well.



Paulbo said:


> With the kit glass so thick it really won't be possible to see them clearly, they'll just give the impression of depth. Figuring out the scale was really just a thought exercise - not trying to be dogmatic or anything.


Is the glazing better in the new kit? I cannot see anything through my example.

Back to the original question though, after working on the kit some, good aftermarket options would be, in no particular order:

-solar panels, even with its reactor, solar panels are a good idea
-robotic arm, at least one in place of the ball-joint antennas
-a docking module, gotta' have room to grow
-expand the command section by a deck, or two:devil:

Dang, my old kit is missing some clear parts...more changes


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Not just solar panels, I think some heat radiators would be really smart.

Extra bracing or replacement bracing for the various tanks?

photoetch spine for the NERVA engine?

'plant on' plates to imply extra shielding or re-enforcement of some areas? 

oh! a cover for the big telescope! Closing off the end is way easier than having to always point it away from whatever might damage the optics.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

I have some Preiser 1/144 figures and the original MPC Pilgrim Observer, so I took some pictures:


























It was trivial to resize the figure in the first image to 1/200 (0.5" down to 0.36"):










1/144 looks a little too big, but workable. 1/200 looks tiny. The windows are huge in that scale.

One thing is certain - the kit isn't 1/100.

Frank


----------



## mattjaco35 (Feb 27, 2009)

As far as Mars landers for the Pilgrim Observer are concerned, how about taking the shape of the two halves of the Pilgrim Observer "launch shrouds" as a departure point for two matched "lifting body" landers, mated at the flat "tops" for launch from Earth? Something like this, but mirrored so two would fit at the top of whatever launcher launches the Pilgrim Observer core?
They could even dock for the trip to Mars on the main core areas, where the habitat "arms" are located during launch, and could serve as emergency "lifeboats".

A smaller version of the lifting body lander- perhaps a "crew exchange" or emergency "crew rescue" version of the larger "preliminary Mars base" version- could even fit in the top of the Pilgrim Observer stack, as currently built. There's a lot of empty space up in that nose, and no indication that the Apollo-esque command module has to fit up in there...

A final thought about aftermarket- how about side "launch shrouds" for the ACTUAL launch configuration? Surely that ship doesn't launch with all of those modules just "hanging in the wind"?


----------



## DarthCluin (Apr 10, 2011)

I did a little research online, and I found that the maximum allowable height for Apollo era astronauts was 6', so the Preisser figure represents the tallest astronaut that NASA would have allowed.
I believe the main things that need to be rethought are the side docking port for the Apollo, and the reactor in the centrifuge. I have serious doubts about the Apollo docking ring withstanding lateral thrust, and since the launch cradle disappears when the shrouds are removed, there doesn't seem to be anyplace else for the Apollo to live. That side mount would have to unbalance the Pilgrim under thrust. The reactor should be out back with the NERVA engine, both behind a shield plate large enough in diameter to screen the extended centrifige arms from radiation.
I like the idea of adding a robot arm.
I have wanted this kit for a very long time, and when Round 2 released it, I promptly bought one, and a 1:144 Saturn V to go with it. I guess now I need to get a 1:144 scale Shuttle too.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't think the Apollo would have been docked at the side port under thrust. It seems to me they would have played 'musical docking ports', with the work pod at the side and the Apollo up front. yes, that means the telescope wouldn't be used but you probably wouldn't use that big one under thrust anyway. 

I assume the reactor arm was for ship power so the NERVA reactor would be nothing more than a 'heat pile' engine. Yes, you could easily hook a turbine inline with the exhaust but then your power generation is keyed to movement, right? 

I would guess the reactor itself is fairly small and on the outermost end of the arm module, while the rest of the structure is for cooling, power generating equipment, things of that nature. 

Of course, this is all just talk, it's a ship of imagination! Configure it any way you wish! Scale it any way you wish! 

(I still like 1/144. It just feels right to me)


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

I believe most of the astronauts of the era were well below 6' and pictures from Skylab show the deck floor/ceilings being really thin with no spare headroom.

I don't like the windows anyway, most of them will get covered up in the one I'm working on. Windows were always a sore spot with spaceship designers, mostly because of weight. What are you going to look at anyway? A viewscreen makes much more sense and getting rid of the windows would allow you to still play with the scale of the craft. I found a 1/144 and a 1/200 X-20 (I think I got them from Scott Lawther). Nothing is helping me decide one scale over the other. I think I will use safety tracks like they use on submarines instead of rungs. That will keep the outside cleaner and won't give a sense of scale either.

I don't know how strong the docking rings of the Apollo were, but I don't see that as a problem with this kit.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

According to the instructions, the Apollo was mounted inside the shroud up near the point during launch. Not a terribly great system - I like Cosmo's idea of mounting it externally at the tip of the shroud just like the CSM was mounted on the S-V with the LEM within the shroud.

I think, though, launching the crew separately for a LEO rendezvous makes even more sense. I always thought the EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) system of 2 launches made much more sense than the LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) concept with 1 launch that was ultimately used.


----------



## Andrew Gorman (Jan 24, 2000)

It's obviously 1/125. S start buying up those Heller kits for extra parts. A souyuz would look sharp docked to the front...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> According to the instructions, the Apollo was mounted inside the shroud up near the point during launch. Not a terribly great system - I like Cosmo's idea of mounting it externally at the tip of the shroud just like the CSM was mounted on the S-V with the LEM within the shroud.
> 
> I think, though, launching the crew separately for a LEO rendezvous makes even more sense. I always thought the EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) system of 2 launches made much more sense than the LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) concept with 1 launch that was ultimately used.


Yeah, I think we all agree that Cosmo's redesign works better, especially if you launch the thing 'all up', that is assume that the one launch is IT, so the crew HAS to be in the same stack.

Only reason I can really think of doing that...well maybe a couple. Like super tightwad money management being in place that looks as numbers only and considers a second stack to boost the crew 'wasteful'. Hey, I can see that actually. I mean, we never embarked on the second generation Shuttle nor any heavy lifters post-Saturn V, right? I think for the first time in our history further development and evolution *and production* of a class or kind of vehicle just totally stopped dead in its tracks. I don't count the SST as we just gave up on that and blah blah let the British and French deal with it. 

(digression: I recall all the plans to use Shuttle parts in all manner of different ways, don't you? Strapping on extra SRBs, the unmanned heavy lifter composed of the main engine block and a big ol' shroud, other variations. What the hell happened to all that? argh.)

anyway, the other reason for an 'all up' launch could be there was an urgent, burning, do it NOW need and resources and time were limited. Could one of the Saturn V displays be refurbished into a launchable state? (probably not) Could the pad be modified to handle it? (probably not) Would the contractors remember how to actually build something within an unbreakable deadline and not dick around milking the funding for 10-20 years? (Highly doubtful)

Wow, I think I'm scaring myself.


----------



## talondigital (Apr 4, 2007)

http://www.acreationmodels.com/images/pilgrim_wip.jpg

Been working on artwork for the "modernized" Pilgrim. Take a look at what I have so far and let me know what other things you'd like there. I have a about 1.5 inches x 3.25 inches to fill. The outlines are for bag dimensions. The lower sheet are just the + markings for distance measurement in space (ie, to tell how far you are from something since you dont get any other reference aid), and you see them all over the ISS. I've got all the current big players in the space game on there, so you can make an international program, or all US. You could probably also work it out to be any individual agency since I put large and multiple smaller logos for them all. Just shout out some ideas, whether it's more "warning" type text, or other markings. I'm going with an approx scale of 1/144 since that seems to be what Paragrafix has worked out to be the best scale. That makes those tiny text markings quite large at scale. between 12-18 inches. At 1/144 the small red radiation markings would be 6 inches in diameter. The larger ones would be about 12 inches in diameter.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Looking good, Rob!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Looks great!

Suggestions for a second sheet:

U.S. Air Force

Think of it as being used as an observation post or such

Airline/Spaceline logos and painting suggestions.

'long loop' liner between Earth/Mars or Earth/Venus. Could be really colorful!


----------



## DiceCaller (Jan 27, 2011)

Those decals look great! Nice work.

Has anyone built the Aoshima Apollo kit? I have seen it listed as 1/96 and 1/144. 








By dicecaller at 2011-04-12
It comes with two figures and could make an interesting addition if the scale is close.

Thanks,
Shane


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

cozmo said:


> Um, okay, you misspelled exercise a while back. Now stop with the frivolous posting! Can't you see I have Saturn V, Saturn IB, Space Shuttle, ISS, Pilgrim Observer and Skylab parts scattered all over my desk along with graph paper, pencils and calculators to get these drawings right. Jeeze, the stuff I have to put up with sometimes just to prove to Luddites that a model is absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the scale I say it is. Which in this case is 1/156.328574317.


 
Hahahah!!!


----------



## dlogix (Aug 22, 2005)

*How about adding some NASA meatballs to the sheet as well?*



talondigital said:


> http://www.acreationmodels.com/images/pilgrim_wip.jpg
> 
> Just shout out some ideas, whether it's more "warning" type text, or other markings. I'm going with an approx scale of 1/144 since that seems to be what Paragrafix has worked out to be the best scale.


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

I second the NASA meatball suggestion!

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

Hey Paulbo, how about a couple of those cool round solar panels for the Apollo. It would be a good quick and dirty way to make it resemble an Orion capsule.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Good idea Rattrap - I'm planning on including the high-gain antennae for it as well. Been super-busy over the last week so so progress has been almost non-existent.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Paulbo,

How about:

1. Remote Manipulator system (Canadarm)
2. Radiators for the side of the station (flat ones which could be curved to fit the sides)
3. Heatshield for the reactor
4. Small round airlock doors
5. Port holes (to put ontop of styrene filler for the over sized windows)

-John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## Nyrath (May 3, 2004)

I hate to do thread necromancy, but...
I found the NASA study that the Pilgrim Observer was based on. Studies, actually.
Strictly as an intellectual exercise, people may be interested to know that while the outermost diameter of the rotating arms was 150 feet as per the supplemental pamplet, the deck-to-deck distance for each of the six levels in the arm is 100 inches, the floor-to-ceiling distance for each of the six levels is 84 inches, and each level is a cylinder with a radius of 183 inches. There are two access tubes running down the leading and trailing sides of the level stack, with the diameter of each of the tubes being 5 feet.

More here:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_ht...#id--Pilgrim_Observer--Pilgrim_Observer_Roots


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Want figures?
http://www.peoplescale.com/FIGURES-BY-HEIGHT_c212.htm


----------

