# Jupiter 2 Discussion thread



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

I thought it would be nice to have a thread on the Jupiter 2 out of the Moebius forum. With the excitement of the forthcoming Jupiter 2 model from Moebius theres much discussion on the J2. Here people can disucss the subject matter, which is the J2. All aspects of it if they wish. The different J2 props used on the show, the inconsistancy of the ship itself etc. Also their ideas for modifications they may make on the Moebius model, future releases they would like to see etc. Anything is game in this thread. No need to worry about offending anyone.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I would love to talk more about the Jupiter 2...but the moderators responses on the other thread has really taken the wind out of my sails! I'm really dumbfounded..I mean really, ANY discussion on the Jupiter two regardless, will generate interest in the Moebius J2...32,000 hits of interested people in one kit and all the different ways it could be built.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I too misunderstood the offense of discussing the subject, as I said in the other thread my comments were insensitive and I apologise. I understand the Moebius point of view, we are presented with a dream kit within cost limitations, and our sometimes over enthusiastic demands for certain features can come across as whining and bitching. I'm just happy to get a large scale quality kit. Any modifications I would prefer, I'll use my skills to include them by scratch building or aftermarket products...it's all good.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I can't imagine why Dave didn't want the discussion to go one, either. I was just sitting back and watching all the amazing amounts of knowledge on the subject being bandied about. It seems like there's more intense, detailed knowledge about the J2 than there is about the original Enterprise!


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I looked back, and I don't see any demands being made...only a discussion of the different miniatures and how the new J2 kit could be modified By the BUILDER to resemble those different appearances! If any thing it would sell more J2's, even Gary the designer was involved in the discussion! There is a always going to be information flowing that doesn't "directly" pertain to the model in any thread...more so when the model doesn't exist yet except in prototype. Oh well...just insert the phrase " the Moebius J2" in every other paragraph of your posts from now on and things should be fine! lol


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

m jamieson said:


> I looked back, and I don't see any demands being made...only a discussion of the different miniatures and how the new J2 kit could be modified By the BUILDER to resemble those different appearances! If any thing it would sell more J2's, even Gary the designer was involved in the discussion! There is a always going to be information flowing that doesn't "directly" pertain to the model in any thread...more so when the model doesn't exist yet except in prototype. Oh well...just insert the phrase " the Moebius J2" in every other paragraph of your posts from now on and things should be fine! lol



Thats why I created this thread. Theres just to much sensitivity at the other thread. I really dont know why. But I do think its just best to discuss anything about the J2 that doesnt directly involve the Moebius, right here. That way there is no misunderstandings. Though I dont expect everyone to heed that and Im sure everyone will continue to post at the other thread.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I have to laugh! Just reading the the thread now, it's back to being as far off topic as it ever was...Dave must have just been feeling grumpy last night.


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

Its a little silly really. How the heck can you avoid talking about the prop J2 when the Moebius is based on many of them. That thread would be dead weeks ago if there was to be no correlation discussions of the two. If the thread title is to be taken verbatim "Details of the Moebius Jupiter 2 model" the only thing to be discussed are the details of the moebius model itself, which was fully described in the first few pages. So by that analysis the thread should have ended long ago. I thought it was a good thread to show our happiness and thanks to the folks at Moebius for the model and in that repsect celebrate by discussing the Jupiter 2 in all its glory. Maybe it just needs a title change.

I really am excited about the model though. Cant say that enough and I am truely happy that theres creative people out there that share that excitment as well and are producing a great model.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Yes, you have my sentiments exactly!


----------



## JPhil123 (Jan 1, 1970)

Dar said:


> I thought it would be nice to have a thread on the Jupiter 2 out of the Moebius forum. With the excitement of the forthcoming Jupiter 2 model from Moebius theres much discussion on the J2. Here people can disucss the subject matter, which is the J2. All aspects of it if they wish. The different J2 props used on the show, the inconsistancy of the ship itself etc. Also their ideas for modifications they may make on the Moebius model, future releases they would like to see etc. Anything is game in this thread. No need to worry about offending anyone.


Hello!
Terrific thread idea. I'm curious if anyone plans to do some kind of a major modification to the new Moebius Jupiter 2 as I do, beyond what would be standard for construction and lighting (whatever exactly that will entail). 

I am good for 2 Moebius kits (have other Polar Lights Jupiter 2 kits). I plan to build the first one as a Gemini XII (its my favorite, I've posted on it before), and plan to do the other as the standard Jupiter 2 (with a scrim detail associated with the main viewport). Has anyone toyed with this idea, or plan to do Jupiter 2 crashsite?

As far as the variety of props used on the show, all I can say is that I am amazed at the differences/diversity there was. 

Lastly, I'm glad I also have buildups of the Lunar Models Space Pod and Chariot. Purely for display purposes, they will go nice (size-wise) with the MM Jupiter 2.

Regards,
Jim


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

I think there are a few people who are going to build the Moebius J2 with the scrim. I wouldnt be surprised if a scrim is available before or after the relase. I myself want to do a straight build up with some lighting and maybe a few storage areas behind the walls. I would also hope someone will release a photo of the lower level. I wouldnt mind doing a second J2 with the lower window cut out and a picture to represent the lower level. There are so many possiblities with this model.:thumbsup:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

One of the things I did with my Polar Jupiter 2 was to take the Johnny Lightning Pod and Chariot and try to fit those into the hull. The Pod doors set where the upper level access would be- the whole upper level becomes a real lopsided oval. Aside from the permanently-deployed landing legs of the Pod, the Pod opening on the J2 is a perfect fit for the JL Pod!

Still, this oval arrangement allows room for the Pod on one side, and the Chariot even has a spot on the other side, although with the JL Chariot, it has to fit in fully assembled. It does tend to change the scale of the Jupiter a little, though. It was an interesting - if uncompleted - experiment that I ought to get back to someday!

Wasn't there a reference in the series somewhere about the Chariot needing to be "assembled"?? If so, then the Chariot wouldn't need to be put into place ready for a moment's notice for deployment, but I think I kinda like it that way!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

WarpCore Breach said:


> ...Wasn't there a reference in the series somewhere about the Chariot needing to be "assembled"??...


Yes, right after the crash sequence in "Island in the Sky". I realize there were plans for an on-board garage with a ramp, for a fully-assembled chariot. But breaking the thing down is _way_ more sensible. The real moon rover was likewise assembled.


----------



## Robert Hargrave (Dec 4, 2003)

*interior still photos*

For those planning to build a good looking interior for their Jupiter 2 check out www.promisedplanet.com They have a large selection of still photos from the first 5 episodes and I printed several to help me when I did my Polar Lights J-2a couple of years ago these helped out a lot with the small details.


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

Glad you started this thread! I think we've all been overexcited about the emminent release of the Moebius J2! Meanwhile, I'm still as excited with the PLJ2 I'm working on! I'm really enjoying this build! I think we'll see some incredible work with this new kit when it comes out. The aftermarket guys seem to be gearing up for it already too. It's gonna' be a field day! :thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The unexpected crabbiness on the other thread over the excitement and the possibilities of the new kit really threw me. After all the steam in my sails about the new kit deflated, I suddenly realized that I don't need the new kit. It turned out a really good thing to take a step back. After forgetting about and digging my old 24" out of its decade(s?) long storage and feeling all the great build memories come back, I knew that I really wanted to fix its now dented and warped hull. I'm finishing the master for an 18" 1/24 FS that I want to make a fiberglass hull for. I realized that this would be a great opportunity to make a fiberglass hull for my 1/24 J2 as well. Ron Gross and Gary Kerr documented the shape of the bottom hull of that one hero beautifully, from what I can tell, and I could revise the lower hull to match. And at the same time I could do a Gemini 12 and another lower hull that matches the blueprints for the 10'. 

I pulled my old masters out of storage in the garage rafters and found a date on an invoice: July 24, 1986. That's when I took the masters in to Acro Foam and Plastics and had them pull the plastic over them (24" being way too big for my stove). By a great twist, the man who ran the business was my ex-grade 8 shop teacher, who had introduced me to vac forming for the first time, the same year I first saw LIS. Even then I saw the possibilities, though I had to wait a few more years to see them realized.

My master for the upper hull is, amazingly, remarkably close to the RG/GK hull shape. I had taken early screen grabs (photos from the TV screen enlarged with a projector and traced on a large sheet of paper) and it's no more than 1/8" off anywhere. The edges are all in the right places, the curves are a bit off. But that means my existing 1/24 interior will fit into the finally documented shape without worries. So not much work needed to bring the top half up to "accurate". 

The bottom hull is where there are bigger differences. To save materials, I'm starting with the shallowest and working up to the deepest lower hull on the same master. The photo below is the very first step on the G12 lower hull. I removed the existing plaster to the foam core and am using a piece of scrap plywood cut into a template to spin the plaster into shape. This is the first layer of plaster going down. The first layer is just a big glop of plaster. The plywood rotates about a dowel through its center which passes through the center of the big round plywood base (which was going to be the base of my Time Tunnel diorama. Well, one nice thing about being a telescope builder, no shortage of leftover circles routered out of plywood). There are also guides on the bottom outside edges of the template. That keeps everything perfectly symmetrical. Subsequent layers will be thinner layers of increasingly thinned plaster and the top coat will be patched with auto body putty and then primed and painted and glossed, waxed, used to make a mold, then sanded to the plaster, shaped to the shallower J2 hull, molded, sanded and shaped, etc. again to the thicker J2 hull, then possibly sanded, a cylinder added, and then shaped to an Invaders saucer hull (why not? - in for a penny, in for a pound. Just where the heck am I going to put four 2' models???)

In the G12 I plan to put a 1/72 upper and lower deck on the same level, with the main viewports becoming giant STTMP rec lounge-type windows. In one other I can remount my interior, and I still have no idea what I'm going to do in the third. The scrim? 

I figure it will take about a week or two to make each master/mold. So with luck by the end of July I might be pulling some hulls. Fingers crossed. 

No wonder an accurate shape of the Jupiter 2 was so elusive for so many years. There were no less than 4 hull shapes to the J2:
1) the G12/J2 that we saw in all the crash (and some departure) sequences for all three seasons.
2) the J2 landing in the circle that Ron Gross so perfectly plotted and that was reused endlessly in the second and third seasons.
3) the J2 from the 10' blueprint. (Whether or not there is a miniature that matches this blueprint shape or if this was a filming/lens/parallax distortion consistent between different shots, that blueprint shape does almost perfectly match the shape of the J2 on screen in many sequences in all three seasons. (And why would this be a perfectly consistent distortion when Ron Gross's plot similarly from what is seen on screen turned out to be an almost or indeed perfect match to Gary Kerr's measurements? You'd think there would be at least a tiny bit of distortion there, too. But apparently there wasn't.)
4) the 12.5" J2 seen on screen in many planet approach/depart and other sequences in all three seasons and used in most of the publicity photos. This miniature had a combination of a deeper J2 lower hull with a G12 width fusion core.

I won't haunt this thread with my build but I'll start a thread somewhere when I have any actual progress to report. Now, back to mucking about in the mess...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...the 12.5" J2 seen on screen in many planet approach/depart and other sequences in all three seasons and used in most of the publicity photos. This miniature had a combination of a deeper J2 lower hull with a G12 width fusion core.


I don't know which miniature you're referring to here. The deep-hulled model I pointed out clearly has a J2 size fusion core. Furthermore, the hull edge is much sharper than the 10"-13" flying line model.

I'll be interested to see your various new hulls.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I stand corrected. Just overlay the blue with the fly by wire model and it's an almost perfect match of the G12 outline all around. A G12 with lower observation windows!
(Again, another screen grab that matches a blueprint outline almost perfectly. You Can use screen grabs to profile accurately the J2s. The huge stumbling block was believing that there was only one shape. Once you get past that, you're laughing.)


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I suddenly had the thought: nowhere on the blueprint for the 10' miniature does it say anything about the G12. It just marks "existing" and "revised". What if what I've been assuming, the "existing", isn't the G12 at all but a J2? What if the G12 had yet another profile?
There are great edge on shots of the G12 during the meteor storm in No Place to Hide. The sequence isn't in Stowaway. I've only got the pilot on VHS and these are as good screen grabs as I can manage. The second shows the G12 at a bit of an angle, and it's close to its blueprint shape but no cigar. The first is almost perfectly edge on and it's also almost perfectly a match for the blueprint. 
Just that little bit of an angle can distort the shape meaningfully. 
So I guess it's safe to say that the "existing" profile was indeed the profile of the G12. And that a G12 miniature was modified with lower deck windows and upper deck details to become a J2 miniature.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Of course, the blueprints were drawn _before_ the models were built. It appears that the outer part of the lower hull more closely follows the J2 lines- perhaps the J2 lines simply took into account the _actual_ lines of the G12, as built. Also, the drawing lines may not show the core fins.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thought I'd do a quick experiment re: the apparent size of the G12 viewports. I'm simply having a really hard time with the idea that they don't describe an eighth of the circumference. This is extremely crude and wouldn't begin to take into account all the variables during filming, but you can see as the camera moves toward the J2 and the focal length of the lens is changed how much the apparent width of the viewports changes. Between four feet and two feet, the distortion in the shape of the J2 isn't that great, but the window size has a very different appearance. At one foot, there is heavy distortion all around so you know you're looking at a wonky photo. But the others, easy to think that in a couple of them the ship had a more than 1/8 circumference window.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...I'm simply having a really hard time with the idea that (the G12 viewport doesn't) describe an eighth of the circumference.


According to calculations based on my rough measurements, it's only about 5 degrees over 1/8 C. That's not even 1 degree for each support wall, if you tweak them equally. That's if you want the interior to comport with the prop. But like I mentioned before, the G12 was never shown in full frontal view, as was the J2, so I think the idea was that the exterior comported with the 45 degree walls of the interior.

The nice thing is, it's your build, and your call.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I just can't get away from everything I look at telling me that the G12 windows were indeed wider than the J2s. I'm going to see what I can figure out playing with shapes in Autocad. In the meantime, I overlaid the best edge on shots I have of the G12 and J2 and despite what has been said many times, many places about a supposed difference in the shapes of the upper hull, I can find absolutely none. The image I settled with here isn't the clearest, but once the diameters exactly match, the shapes of the upper hulls might have been traced over one another. The upper hulls of the 4's exactly match. 
Every single shot of the 4' G12 lower hull that I've seen makes it look like the 4's hull was even shallower than the 13" G12. ???
Edit: the dreaings above do not show the core fins. The photos do. So taking that into account, they are close close close.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...Every single shot of the 4' G12 lower hull that I've seen makes it look like the 4's hull was even shallower than the 13" G12...


That's interesting. Are you scaling your comparison shots to account for the rounded edge of the small miniature?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Starseeker, I'm sorry that the hand of the Mod soured you, but I'm glad you're still talking about this!

I think this is the time and the place to put this short essay, well, might not be THAT short but I'll try to keep it relevant. The discussion involves the hull shape, as you're trying to wrestle with it.

OK, there's a truism in Hollywood, there is never enough time or money to do things. Due to this, there's a needed mentality: only build what you need, only finish what you see. If the back of a model won't be seen, don't finish it. don't even DESIGN it, just get it done and get that shot in the can. 

So, we come to the Gemini XII, designed under the concept of 'Space Family Robionson'. In this concept I think the G12 was meant to be a one-way design, once it was crashed on the planet it would never rise again, and the Robinsons would have used it as a base, for parts, for material as they struggled against the unknown. As such, I believe it was designed with just that in mind, for shots showing them getting to the planet and then crashing. No landing gear needed, no lower quarters, nothing. 

Now, as to what was *intended*, if they had undergone a flawless flight to Alpha C, that should be a seperate discussion and I won't go into that here. 

So then, the G12 is built. We see it launch, we see it fly, it gets shifted off course (I can see an opening intro akin to Gilligan's Island' with Dick Tufeld intoning the events), we would see it crash (that outtake footage not used) and that's all that would be needed.

But between filming the pilot and going to series, changes were made into the Lost in Space we all know, and one of them was that it was clearly felt that the (now called) Jupiter 2 would make a marketable toy or model (HA! oh the pain) and so, rather then be a wreck on a distant stellar shore they left the option to actually fix the ship, leave the planet, etc. Logic dictated that even 1960's viewers wouldn't buy the family (and a Robot and a Bloop and Dr. Smith!) somehow living on the flight deck, so the (in)famous living quarters were added. 

Now, note again, Hollywood, don't build what you don't need, there's not enough money to make huge changes, use what you got.

Side trip: The guys working on the effects were just that, workmen. While they had pride in their craft and TONS of skill, they weren't 'into' this stuff, not like today (citing the likes of Sternbach, Probert, Mojo et al). The art director drew something, IA approved and made suggestions, the model shop took the plans and built it and the effects guys shot it. There wasn't any real concern about 'reality' or 'consistant design elements' (altho some do creep in, due to the same people working on things), so IA decided that the J2 now had two decks, you just cut a viewport on the lower hull and call it good. This matches up to the set, where the actors can look out in horror at whatever is happening and close the shutters.

But now a new problem. If the J2 is to land and take off, they can't just keep grounding the thing in a crash every time, it needs landing gear.

And THIS is where I think the different lower hull shapes come into play. I think the change has nothing to do with the living quarters deck, the viewport cutout handles that as much as it matters, but I think the physical devices, the mechanisms to lower the gear dictated the contour change.

No landing gear? no need to pull a new lower hull mold.

I would assume different size fusion cores would be due to limitations on both the machinery and how well it showed up on film.

How does this sound? logical?


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

Good points. Who knew if the show would even make it past the pilot?! Of course it did, and the rest is history! And, 40 something years later it leaves us here pondering all the what-ifs of the show. Wouldn't it be great, if they did the series all over again, using up-to-date technology? I'd watch it, and I don't even hardly watch TV at all!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> How does this sound? logical?


I do agree mostly. When Creber designed the G12, it was as a one deck spaceship. When Kinoshita was brought in to revise the design into the J2, he added a second level and modified the design partly with having to change the existing miniature as little as possible while revising the lower hull to make a second level seem possible. Even in Forbidden Planet, Kinoshita wasn't concerned with making the interior fit into the exterior. The interior of the C57 is a different scale from the exterior, just like the J2. 
I do think they started the G12 to work with an interior that fit inside the exterior, the J2 they got away from that somewhat even with the upper deck, and the differences between miniatures, as you say, were built around the physical demands of engineering the working parts and filming the special effects. No doubt they built only the bare minimum they needed to build, and it was still a stunningly expensive pilot.

This is the G12 that has thrown me for a loop. The 12' in the meteor storm matches the contours for the "existing" profile on the blueprint for the 4'/10' just perfectly. But this G12...
This is the 4' and of all the shots of all the miniatures, this has to be the most perfectly edge on that I've seen. The upper hull matches the upper hull on the blueprint beautifully. The lower hull...
This is also the 4' that I tried to buy back in 1980. The clowns running the auction didn't do international sales. Blockheads. They had a $500 minimum bid on it and nobody bid that much on it. Sigh. Not even a week's pay. I would give an entire week's pay now just to get my hands on the thing and trace its contour. The crash scene also always seemed to me to show a remarkably flat bottomed J2. This is a terrible screen grab (perhaps someone could capture a better one?).
The first attachment is the G12 for sale. It has no bottom light ring. 
The second is that edge on picture. The upper hull show little or no signs of distortion.
The third is the edge on picture with the 4'/10' blueprint overlaid. The meteor storm G12 is an almost perfect match for the inner dashed existing profile. This... this is not. Even with camera distortion - that much distortion?
And the 4th is the horrible screen grab with the blue overlaid again. The bottom light ring is really dark at least, and it gives the impression that the shape of the G12 on screen comes close to matching the shape of the 4' miniature in the photo. 
I have to look at the launch cradle photos more closely. The launch cradle was built to hold the 4' G12. The gap is when it's holding the pod dropper, which has the lower hull profile about 1/2 way between the G12 blueprint and 4' landing gear version, also seems to suggest that the miniature it was build to cradle had that very, very shallow profile. 
So: two G12 lower hull profiles??? 
Need better screen grabs of the crash. Need more photos of the 4' G12. And if there are two profiles, need to decide which to model. Now that I've finished shaping the master for the thicker meteor storm version...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> But between filming the pilot and going to series, changes were made into the Lost in Space we all know, and one of them was that it was clearly felt that the (now called) Jupiter 2 would make a marketable toy or model (HA! oh the pain) and so, rather then be a wreck on a distant stellar shore they left the option to actually fix the ship, leave the planet, etc.


Searching through the wreckage last night for anything G12 related, I came across an interview with Shimon Wincleberg in an old Starlog magazine. His earliest concept for the show's direction was that the J2 would land and take off and explore different worlds and civilizations every week. That was scuttled, as you say, by budgetary concerns. He was quite upset by how his dialogue had been rewritten so blandly and was concerned at how bland the characters had become, and how boring they would be stuck together on the same planet. That's why he suggested Dr. Smith and had his name removed from the show.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

man, so much to chew on, and I'm not versed enough in the math to really see some of this, but keep on going, there's bound to be answers!

I do wonder, again, going back to the pilot film, if they just had 'purpose built' G12s, as in the liftoff G12 was built ONLY for that, no other considerations, and the meteor storm ship was built ONLY for that (with different mounting points to manipulate the craft), but even as I type that doesn't really make much sense, given my earlier 'time/money' limitation statement.

Does the 'screaming thru the sky' one fit into this profile issue? I *assume* it's the G12 contour as it must have been shot for the pilot.

As to a comment from other threads, I agree there's something funky with the viewport, it DOES look larger, and curved, in some shots and I just don't know if it's distortion or if there's a real difference, but I've seen it, I remember it.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

As a G-XII affcianado, the info that is coming forth here is truly fascinating. I keyed onto the differences between the J2/G-XII the first time I saw "The Reluctant Stowaway" as a kid, then became more engrossed when I scored a copy of "Nowhere To Hide" on VHS in the mid 80's a ran it over and over again to see the G-XII footage, especially the two different angles shot of it on the cradle. I think what appealed to me most _was_ the larger , almost flush viewport panels (as opposed the the recessed panels on the J2), and combined with a more svelt underbelly and larger fusion core ring, I felt they gave the entire ship a sleeker, more futuristic look than the J2 I had become accustomed to seeing on 2nd/2rd season reruns.

I never consdiered that there were not only differences between the J2 and G-XII, but differences between the various scaled versions of the G-XII. ToyRoy, et al, have shown, with a definate scope of clarity, that this is the case. Hats off to all of you for your attention to detail and efforts to show us comparative photos and data. My preference, when it comes to the Moebius J2 build, will be to come as close to the shallow-bottomed G-XII beauty I fell in love with all those years ago. It will mean a scratchbuilt or aftermarket lower hull and fusion core ring. 

Like others here, over the years I've tried to garner as much reference material as possible on the G-XII (and as mentioned, it_ is _ scant in quantity!). I was excited when I received the Hagerty/Rogers volume _The Saucer Fleet _ as it contained a beautiful rendition of the G-XII as I envsioned it looking (albiet with the addition of a more "practical" version with landing legs and an airlock - and a fusion core bottom that was more detailed than the actual studio model was - IIRC the bottom of the studio model core did not have open panels cut into it like the later J2). 

Rogers had intimated in his notes as to the difference between blueprint and actual model in hull profile, and his drawing reflected this. His sources were listed as studio miniature and set drawings, and post-production photos. To my amateur eye, it _looks_ (without his "practical" additions) spot-on to the "launch" G-XII model and some of the photo-comparisons posted above. 

He did provide dimensions for the front viewport (14.5 feet wide at the top, 18.5 feet wide at the bottom with a four inch lip between the top of the viewport and the upper hull and a 13 inch lip between the bottom of the viewport and the "beltline" of the hull), but oddly enough, there were no corresponding main viewport measurements for the "popular" J2 drawing that followed. Having only briefly glimpsed pictures of the Fox blueprints in another LIS book (the name escapes me now) published years ago, I couldn't remember if those G-XII viewport measurements were reflected on the prints, so I wonder how accurate the G-XII dimensions are and how they compare to the J2's viewports. Can anyone shed some more light?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm actually starting to collate all my notes into individual versions. There was at least one more 48" Jupiter 2. ? I'm calling it Old Flat Top. The roof of its upper hull seems to be at least almost as high as the regular J2 roof, but the center 1/2 diameter or so of the roof was flat. In what look like pictures of an unrestored version, the NGS hatches and porthole and airlock hatch seem to be no more than scribed. None are recessed. No idea if that is some of the owner's own layout marking. 
Then there are photos of another flat top but it looks in pristine condition. The hatches are recessed but you can tell that they are sealed with paint, that they don't open. This might be the same miniature after restoration, or it could be a copy. Indeed, Old Flat Top itself might be a copy.
You know, Jim Key would know all of this stuff...


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

starseeker said:


> I'm actually starting to collate all my notes into individual versions. There was at least one more 48" Jupiter 2. ? I'm calling it Old Flat Top. The roof of its upper hull seems to be at least almost as high as the regular J2 roof, but the center 1/2 diameter or so of the roof was flat. In what look like pictures of an unrestored version, the NGS hatches and porthole and airlock hatch seem to be no more than scribed. None are recessed. No idea if that is some of the owner's own layout marking.
> Then there are photos of another flat top but it looks in pristine condition. The hatches are recessed but you can tell that they are sealed with paint, that they don't open. This might be the same miniature after restoration, or it could be a copy. Indeed, Old Flat Top itself might be a copy.
> You know, Jim Key would know all of this stuff...



You're *absolutely * right! Jim built my Lunar Models based G-XII twenty years ago. We spent many hours corresponding via phone on the build. I had intimated my desire for a G-XII version, and at the time, Jim was less familiar with that design but *VERY* much in tune with the popular J2 design via his association with Lunar. 

He began researching the G-XII intimately, reviewing available material, screen grabs, etc. on his end, and provided me with my first true "factual" insight (and not just my "eyeball" assessments) into the multiple differences including lower hull profile, lack of NGS ports, portholes, scribed hull detail, etc. of the "launch" G-XII vs. the popular J2 (many of which were difficult to discern on the copy of the unaired pilot I had due to copy quality - but are very much in evidence on today's crystal-clear digital DVD versions). The build he did for me was as close as one could get using the standard-profile lower hull. Ironically, like Rogers' drawings in _The Saucer Fleet_, but twenty years preceeding them, we decided to incorporate those same "additions" and a few more (practical airlock and hatch w/controls, functioning landing gear, scribed access hatches in the lower hull for cargo bays, atomic motor, disassembled Chariot storage, etc.). The interior was faithful to the G-XII with a few exceptions - we retained the elevator, reasoning that it could be lowered through the bottom to provide access outside the ship when standing on it's landing legs, giving two options of access/egress, and I opted for two pilots chairs and fully instrumented "cockpit" (couldn't pass up all those "greeblies" to look at!).

Jim is a true artist. Twenty years later, the build quality, detail and lighting functions (including magna-panels, overhead lights, wall beam lights and fusion core chase lights) still stand up to the best studio-made prop out there. One of these days I'll break her out of the storage crate and take some pics and try to upload them for the group.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

This is one thing that's been vexing me, because I don't have the DVDs and only saw the pilot on, yes, a multi-gen VHS tape back in the day.

Was there a pan of the interior of the G XII? What's there in place of the elevator and ladder? Is there an airlock or just a door, the outside hatch ("do not open until landed")?

Because it's not like they left areas blank, right? Or did they, like how some sets in 'the Cage' (ST Pilot) were made to be shot only from one angle. (a flaw Jeffries corrected when the show went to series)

any screen grabs?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> I'm actually starting to collate all my notes into individual versions. There was at least one more 48" Jupiter 2. ? I'm calling it Old Flat Top. The roof of its upper hull seems to be at least almost as high as the regular J2 roof, but the center 1/2 diameter or so of the roof was flat...


Are you speaking of the pod dropper at the Sci Fi museum?


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

Steve H said:


> This is one thing that's been vexing me, because I don't have the DVDs and only saw the pilot on, yes, a multi-gen VHS tape back in the day.
> 
> Was there a pan of the interior of the G XII? What's there in place of the elevator and ladder? Is there an airlock or just a door, the outside hatch ("do not open until landed")?
> 
> ...


You saw the interior from the cryo area moving from left to right around the forward console all the way to the "vital circuitry" area where the "bobbing red land mine" and atomic clock were located. While I do not recall a "pan" as such, those areas were seen in several of the in-flight scenes. Where the elevator and ladder were on the J2 flight deck was pretty much taken up by the food processing equipment and storage bins (that held nuts and candy for cast and crew to eat) that were relocated to the lower level on the J2. You never really saw that though in the pilot. There was no airlock. As the floor level was below the "beltline" of the hull, the floor ramped up to where the door (with no visible controls) was located. The perimeter of the flight deck was raised a few inches above the central portion where the astrogator was (except in the very rear of the set adjacent to the food processing area where the raised platform did not extend so that the cameras would have a level surface to move around on with no drop while filming. The J2 eliminated the raised platform, as the robot would not be able to move freely around the flight deck.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

oshkosh619 said:


> You saw the interior from the cryo area moving from left to right around the forward console all the way to the "vital circuitry" area where the "bobbing red land mine" and atomic clock were located. While I do not recall a "pan" as such, those areas were seen in several of the in-flight scenes. Where the elevator and ladder were on the J2 flight deck was pretty much taken up by the food processing equipment and storage bins (that held nuts and candy for cast and crew to eat) that were relocated to the lower level on the J2. You never really saw that though in the pilot. There was no airlock. As the floor level was below the "beltline" of the hull, the floor ramped up to where the door (with no visible controls) was located. The perimeter of the flight deck was raised a few inches above the central portion where the astrogator was (except in the very rear of the set adjacent to the food processing area where the raised platform did not extend so that the cameras would have a level surface to move around on with no drop while filming. The J2 eliminated the raised platform, as the robot would not be able to move freely around the flight deck.


Excellent! Exactly the kind of detail I was looking for, with context! 

So, it does appear that the crew was 'sealed in' to the GXII, and they would need to blow the hatch to exit the ship, or at least open it and not be able to re-seal it to space tight.

I recall some overhead shot of the crashsite where the door does look like just an opening in the hull and not a working hatch, and the dirt ramp.

Thanks for the input!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

This was the area you wanted to know about. You see how the walls were angles at the top? That was how they fit the Gemini 12 interior into the Gemini 12 full sized exterior set. Or would have, if the exterior set went all around. And that was also how you could get say a 1/24 interior into a reasonably close to 1/24 scale exterior resembling the miniature. But the walls behind the elevator and ladder are straight to the ceiling, so you have to start fiddling with scales and making compromises involving window sill depth and airlock depth.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

So I did some rough drawings, trying to sort out some of the shape differences of the Gemini and Jupiter miniatures. 
Now these are really rough and while I tried to get the overall shapes as close to accurate as I could, the smaller details are there just to show what smaller details were on the miniatures. 
Ron Gross, Gary Kerr, Jim Key, anyone else who knows anything about the miniatures - help! This is I hope just the beginning of trying to sort these out. 

The 12 1/2" Gemini 12 miniature: from screen grabs and overlays that I've done, it seems to perfectly match the "existing" shape on the blueprint for the 4' and 10' Jupiter 2. The miniature had no small details and a clear empty top dome apparently open to the interior. This miniature possibly had no lights in the light ring. If this is the miniature leaving Earth as seen too briefly in No Place to Hide, then it's lights seem to match the 12" Jupiter 2 below. Scene: the meteor storm in the pilot.

The 12 1/2" Jupiter 2 miniature: was identical to the Gemini 12 miniature including the wide light ring but with the addition of recessed lower deck viewports which seem to have been internally lit and (painted on) NGS and navigation blister and viewport (which I forgot to add to the drawing) hatches. The dome was clear and empty.
Its light ring seems in freeze frame to consist of about 10 groups of evenly spaced lights slightly illuminating adjacent lights as they spin. The lit lights are represented by dark shading. This miniature may have been a rebuilt version of the G12 miniature. The outer edges of its hull are very round. In the first season it appears to be white. After, it appears silver and a prominent seam has appeared around its hull. It was used all planet approach and depart sequences, bobbed about above the fireball in Blast Off into Space, etc.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The 48" Gemini 12 has me most confused. Its upper hull shape seems to conform closely to the 4'/10' blueprint. But it seems to have had a radically shallow lower hull than any of the other miniatures. The miniature had no external details and photos of the surviving miniature indicate that the original top dome was frosted and surrounded by a ring that stood slightly proud of the top hull. Lights flashing insdie a frosted dome can be seen just before the President's speech in No Place to Hide. It's ring lights appear to have been six spinning stalks that were either slightly unevenly spaced or were shaded so as to each illuminate a different number of lights. The light ring also appears not to have been level as the brightness level varies greatly at 180 degrees. The light lights are represented by dark shading below. There are approximately 2, 4, 6 and then 0 spaces between the lights.
This is the Jupiter 2 that was used in the crash sequences seen in all seasons. 

There is another oddball shape of 48" Jupiter 2. I've only seen pictures of the top of the hull of this version and they show what appears to be a more prominent or flatter rise from the edges of the upper hull and then a flattening of the top of the upper hull for about 1/2 the diameter of the upper hull. I do not know if this is an original J2 miniature or a copy or someones home made experiment. I have not seen this shape on any Jupiter 2 on screen.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

The light reactor on the bottom of the Gemini XII also had no detail or indentations on the flat bottom.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

In a Fantasy and SF Modeling article, Jim Key referred to an "articulated" J2, so that's what I'll call it, too. The articulated J2 was the ship we saw landing in the yellow circle all the time. It was fully loaded: working landing gear (which overlapped or stood proud of the lower hull very slightly), all hatches and crash doors opened. It did not have an airlock hatch nor a navigation blister hatch. The lights in the light ring again appear to be six spinning lights in an uneven pattern. I have not yet seen a scene with the "classic" one light on, seven lights off pattern. Can someone point one out to me? The top dome was clear at least by 1967 and revealed a spinning, mirrored lighting mechanism.
From screen grabs and photographs, the upper hull seems to conform to the shape of the 4'/10' blueprint very closely. The lower hull is deeper than the "existing" profile on that blueprint but not as deep as the "new" profile. This is the miniature that the new Moebius kit was mapped from. 
The original light ring had a hatch recessed in the bottom center and 32 small vanes extending radially toward the fins. 

The 48" "unarticulated" Jupiter 2 is one survivor of at least three 48" Jupiter 2s that were radically cut and altered into buildings for City Beneath the Sea (which also utilized the 10' Jupiter 2). From screen grabs and photographs, it appears that this miniature conformed extremely closely to the "new" shape on the 4'/10' blueprint. On screen at least, there is a 48" Jupiter 2 with a deeper lower hull than the yellow circle landing version. It can be seen in the FX shots showing the J2 lifting off from through as well as flying into the warp in Hostile Planet, and many other shots. This miniature had no working hatches or landing gear but the lower viewport shields seem to open and close. 
This may be the miniature that launched the Space Pod (the space pod miniature lights, incidentally, consisted of only 2 bulbs that spun at 180 degrees from each other, each illuminating about 5 lights). It, too, had a clear upper dome with the spinning mirror mechanism, at some point. In photographs, what is said to be it's original dome is frosted. In the pod launch sequence, the light rings seems to be flashing very quickly, one light on and one light off, in an endless sequence. In freeze frame however, the same light pattern as on the other Jupiter 2's appears, with only 6 lights on, though perhaps more evenly spaced than on other miniatures. Possibly because of the pod launch sequence, the miniature was filmed in real time in which the lights are flashing very, very quickly, and shown that way?

So who has corrections, additions, photos, blueprints, more additions, and even more corrections? Who knows what happened to those other 2 chopped up 48"ers and what they were used for before City? Who knows where the 10' is?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

m jamieson said:


> The light reactor on the bottom of the Gemini XII also had no detail or indentations on the flat bottom.


Good point. The bottoms of the light rings are something that needs more exploration. I think ToyRoy pointed out somewhere that the lights on the bottom of the 48" G12 were the same width but radially only half as deep as they were on the J2. Also there appears to be a thin band or ring at the intersection of the light unit to the bottom of the hull on the big G12.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

*"The miniature had no external details and photos of the surviving miniature indicate that the original top dome was frosted and surrounded by a ring that stood slightly proud of the top hull."*

Starseeker, if you're referring to the pics I think you are, I do not believe that was the original dome. IIRC when it went to auction, it was missing both the fusion core ring and the transparent bubble that the astrogator rises into via hydraulic ram to take star sightings. I believe the frosted bubble with the ring at the base you refer to was something stuck on either before the auction or as an afterthought, possibly even by Greg Jien. 

I'll have to double check the DVD copy of the unaired pilot I have. The G-XII is shown from two angles (in the _Reluctant Stowaway_ it was only shown from one angle)... the familiar "cradle shot" below and offset to the left of the launch pad, and a another, showing the front of the G-XII from above (as if taken by a camera suspended over the front of the miniature) seen only for a few seconds that frames the top of the hull and noticably large viewports. I'm _almost_ positive the top bubble is visible and is clear and protrudes up through the opening in the hull like the other versions.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

So the Moebius J2 is not the PL 12 inch being released? Its a totally new kit? Sorry I have'nt read through the whole thread and I just wanted to make sure. 

Thanks


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The domes have me completely stumped. The photo in post #27 above is from the first auction of the G12 in 1980 and it has that frosted dome. The photos in FSFM of an actual J2 saved after being cut up for an underwater building in City Beneath the Sea has an identical stepped dome. But I don't ever remember seeing a frosted dome on screen. ???


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Was there a pan of the interior of the G XII? What's there in place of the elevator and ladder? Is there an airlock or just a door, the outside hatch ("do not open until landed")?
> 
> Because it's not like they left areas blank, right?


They may actually have been planning on leaving that area blank at one time. There is a blueprint of the crash site from a very early stage showing that that exterior portion of the hull would have a 6 or 8' diameter hole blown out of it.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Maritain said:


> So the Moebius J2 is not the PL 12 inch being released?...


No, the Moebius is an all-new 18" diameter model kit. Check out the thread in the Moebius forum.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

Okay. Just finished scrutinizing the DVD copy of "_No Place to Hide"._
The "crane shot" I'm speaking of (which was not direct "head-on" but off to the left slightly) _does_ give a good perspective of the top of the miniature (and a good look at the fusion core with extended fins as well).

Unfortunately, the model is lit as if under bright floods, and it is difficult to determine if the dome is completely clear, as it is reflecting a great deal of the lighting and gets slightly washed out. It does not look frosted, in my opinion. It is definately _not_ opaque, in fact, you can see the astrogator saucer (or what gizmo the props department rigged up to represent that on the scale model) rotating quickly within the dome. There is no visible collar at the base of the dome.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve H said:


> OK, there's a truism in Hollywood, there is never enough time or money to do things. Due to this, there's a needed mentality: only build what you need, only finish what you see. If the back of a model won't be seen, don't finish it. don't even DESIGN it, just get it done and get that shot in the can.


I don't know why I thought of this again, but I did, and I made me think: you can't underestimate just how much work the prop guys actually did put into the IA programs. Far more impressive stuff than they did on Trek. While they didn't build things they didn't need, they did build a 10' Jupiter 2 miniature for some reason, and I still have my suspicions they built two full size Chariots. I have an early Fox blueprint for a Chariot that says it's for a "new, lightweight, aluminum Chariot" to "match existing steel Chariot". It would explain why the spotlights on the roof change styles and interior details change back and forth with no coherent chronological order. Nobody believes my theory and someone on another thread wrote that to "match" something is to "join one part to another". But this says "match existing", not "match TO existing". Splitting hares, I know.
And I have only a tiny Profiles in History thumbnail of a blueprint of the Chariot body, minus chassis, sitting on top of a giant pivot for filming the scenes in The Hungry Sea. Makes sense to me that they could have used the extension cord equipped non-road rated lightweight Chariot on the sound stage and the steel one in the desert and the ski lodge. 
I mean, they made two full size Space Pods for the third season when they had NO budget. I wouldn't be surprised by anything they might have done earlier on.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...Who knows where the 10' is?


It's owned by a private collector who doesn't show it very much, apparently.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Just checked No Place To Hide. In the last shot before the President's speech, the dome does appear to be frosted, with lights flashing inside. I never noticed before that the G12 astrogator had large flashing lights inset into the top of the little Jupiter 2. Those must be what are supposed to be seen flashing inside the top dome. 

Also just noticed that NGS scanner lines up along the same radian as the side viewport on the 12 1/2" J2 (and on the blueprints) but the viewport is set a little forward on the 48" articulated.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

ToyRoy, you were also the first person way back when who pointed out that the fusion core didn't light the way modern chaser circuits work. That is an excellent eye for a subtle detail that I wouldn't have noticed in a thousand years. I'm definitely going to have to go to something else when/if I ever light mine. Even the '67 fx shots on the DVD in slo-mo or freeze frame show what looks like the 6 stalks in the G12 still at work. Except level.
There are pictures out there of the core with the 32 light bulbs. I wonder if at some point they didn't replace a large spinning mechanical with some small spinning device that just touched the wire contacts.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Maritain said:


> So the Moebius J2 is not the PL 12 inch being released? Its a totally new kit? Sorry I have'nt read through the whole thread and I just wanted to make sure.
> 
> Thanks



It is indeed a whole new kit - as a matter of fact, the new kit is 18 inches instead of 12 inches. It's not just better detailed, but larger as well. You should at least read through the thread and take a look at the prototype pics in the early pages of the thread.

Bryan


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

oshkosh619 said:


> ...I never consdiered that there were not only differences between the J2 and G-XII, but differences between the various scaled versions of the G-XII. ToyRoy, et al, have shown, with a definate scope of clarity, that this is the case...


I did post some comparative hull drawings some time ago, but you're probably referring to StarSeeker's more recent posts.


starseeker said:


> ToyRoy, you were also the first person way back when who pointed out that the fusion core didn't light the way modern chaser circuits work. That is an excellent eye for a subtle detail that I wouldn't have noticed in a thousand years...


It was Mark(Y3a) who pointed that out to me, although I may have repeated it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> This was the area you wanted to know about. You see how the walls were angles at the top? That was how they fit the Gemini 12 interior into the Gemini 12 full sized exterior set. Or would have, if the exterior set went all around. And that was also how you could get say a 1/24 interior into a reasonably close to 1/24 scale exterior resembling the miniature. But the walls behind the elevator and ladder are straight to the ceiling, so you have to start fiddling with scales and making compromises involving window sill depth and airlock depth.


You know, that's an amazing shot. And suddenly I think I know what the focus of some of the original storyline would have been.

Given that blueprint illo of the G XII crashed, with the hole/damage...I wonder if the crash was going to cause some explosion in the food storage section, causing the crisis, the need to find local foodstuffs and get the remaining material, set up the hydroponic garden.

Maybe making a mountain out of a molehill, but there's a good number of studio sized fire extinguishers clustered ready to be used right there.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I realized that there is still the unexplained section between that and the freezing tubes. I have nothing and this blueprint still shows an open area marked only "engine area". Photos of the G12 set show an empty bay in that area. Since there seems to be nothing documented for that area, you may want to let your imagination run wild.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Rats, I thought putting the profile for the unarticulated J2 on the profile for the 48" launch cradle and comparing it to photos would tell me something. It doesn't. Too many variables involved. First my profile for the unarticulated 48" would have to be correct. I Think it is. And second, the unarticulated miniature would have to be centered and leveled perfectly in the G12s cradle. Even a little off center would change the gap between the cradle tip and hull. Like this: (attachments should really go here). 
So, no, no confirmation or refutation of anything here. Too many variables. 
Note the 4 or 5 foor Earth Stood Still saucer in the background. Also a round hole in the top of the J2 hull right where the navigation blister would be. Another photo shows a beat up round sitting over top of the hole - the sliding cover?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...there's a good number of studio sized fire extinguishers clustered ready to be used right there.


It looks to me like there's a facemask attached to the tank, as if to supply emergency breathing air.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> Rats, I thought putting the profile for the unarticulated J2 on the profile for the 48" launch cradle and comparing it to photos would tell me something...


If I may ask, where did you get the launch pad info?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

starseeker said:


> I realized that there is still the unexplained section between that and the freezing tubes. I have nothing and this blueprint still shows an open area marked only "engine area". Photos of the G12 set show an empty bay in that area. Since there seems to be nothing documented for that area, you may want to let your imagination run wild.


That's what I did on my build.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> It looks to me like there's a facemask attached to the tank, as if to supply emergency breathing air.


Yeah, and it's surprisingly crude looking too, but those aren't the tanks I'm talking about.

Look at the lower right of that picture, butted up right to the set wall. Very Large fire bottles.

Of course it now strikes me that they might not be there for the usual 'sparks and flames' IA effect (to extinguish the fires), but MAYBE to flood the area in simulated decompression effect.

no real way to tell I guess.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> I don't know why I thought of this again, but I did, and I made me think: you can't underestimate just how much work the prop guys actually did put into the IA programs. Far more impressive stuff than they did on Trek. While they didn't build things they didn't need, they did build a 10' Jupiter 2 miniature for some reason, and I still have my suspicions they built two full size Chariots. I have an early Fox blueprint for a Chariot that says it's for a "new, lightweight, aluminum Chariot" to "match existing steel Chariot". It would explain why the spotlights on the roof change styles and interior details change back and forth with no coherent chronological order. Nobody believes my theory and someone on another thread wrote that to "match" something is to "join one part to another". But this says "match existing", not "match TO existing". Splitting hares, I know.
> And I have only a tiny Profiles in History thumbnail of a blueprint of the Chariot body, minus chassis, sitting on top of a giant pivot for filming the scenes in The Hungry Sea. Makes sense to me that they could have used the extension cord equipped non-road rated lightweight Chariot on the sound stage and the steel one in the desert and the ski lodge.
> I mean, they made two full size Space Pods for the third season when they had NO budget. I wouldn't be surprised by anything they might have done earlier on.


Good point. I didn't go into a long blather about how much visual quality they managed to squeeze out of a tiny budget because I assumed we all knew that. 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had a 'static' Chariot and a 'practical' Chariot, that just makes sense. the static chariot could have the cabin dismounted from the drivetrain for shooting, and I would guess that the walls and roof were 'wild'. The practical Chariot would have all the problems of needing to be maintained-lubed, oiled, tank filled, exhaust vented, battery charged, etc.

and Fox may have wanted to use the base Snowcat for other things. Heck, I think IA 'inherited' it from use on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, didn't he?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...Look at the lower right of that picture, butted up right to the set wall. Very Large fire bottles...


They're not mounted in any way, and appear to simply be stored there. I doubt they're part of the set, at least the way they're seen here.


----------



## starseeker2 (Jun 13, 2008)

Hmmm, wonder where I posted that last message to? Wherever it went, it's not here. To repeat: for the launch cradle I used the angles and dimensions it would have had to be to support the profile in my 48" G12 drawing. If that is an accurate profile. I thought that if the gap between cradle and hull matched the photos, it would give me a hint if I was on the right track for the profile. But too many variables for that to work. Rats. 

In one blueprint, the empty space between the food units and the freezing tube is marked "engine room". In the blueprint below, the elevator has made an appearance and seems to act as a revolving door leading into an airlock complete with a sliding hatch and platform. That's in addition to the existing hatch that didn't have an airlock. I don't think they had a clue as to what to put in that space either. I'd consider a second food and oxygen unit, reversed for symmetry.

One of the pods might have been used for all the interior filming and the other could have been a lighter weight shell for being flown by crane.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> They're not mounted in any way, and appear to simply be stored there. I doubt they're part of the set, at least the way they're seen here.


I apologize, I seem to be using way too much shorthand and making assumptions, I must come across as a very confusing read! 

No, they're not part of the set, I never assumed they were. I assume they're sitting there, staged to be used, waiting for the grips to come up and get into position off-camera and waiting for the cue for "ACTION".

Given how many there are sitting there I'm inclined to believe more and more they're to be used to create the visual effect of 'explosive decompression' and not simply to be used to put out the fires from the usual IA 'sparks and flame' circuit failure stage effect.

Does that make a little more sense?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...they're not part of the set, I never assumed they were. I assume they're sitting there, staged to be used...Given how many there are sitting there I'm inclined to believe more and more they're to be used to create the visual effect of 'explosive decompression' and not simply to be used to put out the fires from the usual IA 'sparks and flame' circuit failure stage effect...


Although I've seen what looks like a storyboard sketch of the ruptured hull, there was no explosive decompression scene in the original pilot. There were flame retardant gases used during the meteor swarm scene. That would be my guess as to where the content of the tanks may have been used.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Is it possible that this area left blank was where the GXII damaged hull section was going to be located? It's the same section where the J2 lift and ladder were located.





starseeker said:


> I realized that there is still the unexplained section between that and the freezing tubes. I have nothing and this blueprint still shows an open area marked only "engine area". Photos of the G12 set show an empty bay in that area. Since there seems to be nothing documented for that area, you may want to let your imagination run wild.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker2 said:


> (trimmed)
> 
> One of the pods might have been used for all the interior filming and the other could have been a lighter weight shell for being flown by crane.


With that picture, you can safely strike 'could' from your statement. 

The one on the left is the interior set, with removable ('wild' in film speak) walls, the one on the right is the exterior set/prop, which was light enough to be 'flyable' via crane. The interior is only finished to the extent of what you can see thru the windows and the hatch.

And for whatever nonsense it's worth, I always thought the Space Pod was something the Robinsons had managed to cobble together, something done between the end of the second season and the third. The simple lines (from the real world need to keep the wood based construction simple) might be due to using some alien hull material, say a fuel tank from a crashed ship, while the 'tacked on' nature of the maneuvering thrusters, tankage, radiators, radar say Earth tech adapted to fit the need. Where they got the reactionless drive ('fusion core') I have no clue. Maybe John was just that darn smart. 

The bay was 'adapted' from cargo storage (LOL! you know, the place where Smith has all the props and costumes he constantly whipped out!), back in the pre-home video days I had thought that the pod bay might be where the Chariot had been stored, and they had left the Chariot behind due to some 'pull up the stakes and GIT' event but of course, later on I saw a number of episodes with both the Chariot and Pod in use, so, nix on that.

Thinking this 'backstory' made more sense to me than assuming they just forgot they had the pod for a couple of years, right? 

(altho, given the TARDIS-seeming interior of the 3rd season, it IS easy to imagine that during a trip to the 3rd deck Will says "hey, I wonder what's behind THIS door?" and lo, the pod was found...)


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Just checked No Place To Hide. In the last shot before the President's speech, the dome does appear to be frosted, with lights flashing inside. I never noticed before that the G12 astrogator had large flashing lights inset into the top of the little Jupiter 2. Those must be what are supposed to be seen flashing inside the top dome.
> 
> Also just noticed that NGS scanner lines up along the same radian as the side viewport on the 12 1/2" J2 (and on the blueprints) but the viewport is set a little forward on the 48" articulated.


Interesting.... 

A quick question though. Was the 48" "launch" G-XII the same 48" miniature that was used in the crash sequences in _No Place to Hide_? If so, it underwent a "dome-ectomy", as the one on the G-XII swooping down over the canyon is definately transparent, and the spinning mechanism inside is clearly visible. I wish we could get a definiative answer on this. I can see how one might think it's frosted in the launch scenes, or conversely just appear that way because of the ambient lighting being thrown on the model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

oshkosh619 said:


> Interesting....
> 
> A quick question though. Was the 48" "launch" G-XII the same 48" miniature that was used in the crash sequences in _No Place to Hide_? If so, it underwent a "dome-ectomy", as the one on the G-XII swooping down over the canyon is definately transparent, and the spinning mechanism inside is clearly visible. I wish we could get a definiative answer on this. I can see how one might think it's frosted in the launch scenes, or conversely just appear that way because of the ambient lighting being thrown on the model.


Don't forget that maybe they dulled the dome a little for the launch shots, due to all the lights and reflections, worried they wouldn't be able to pull a good 'matte' for the glow effect

So it *might* not be a difference, just a variable introduced by the needs of the shot.


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

Steve H said:


> Don't forget that maybe they dulled the dome a little for the launch shots, due to all the lights and reflections, worried they wouldn't be able to pull a good 'matte' for the glow effect
> 
> So it *might* not be a difference, just a variable introduced by the needs of the shot.


Excellent point, Steve! If that was the case, it clears up the mystery for me. It would make sense too, with all that light being thrown, to dull it down so it isn't blinding some camera eye.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Dulling the dome makes sense. But how to explain that both the 48" G12 in its first auction and a 48" J2 rescued from City/Sea and still in its window ventilated state both have the identical frosted domes with bases. All I ever remember seeing (except for the dulled launch dome) on screen are clear domes. Then there's this caption by Jim Key. I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those little mysteries that remains a mystery.
Edit: Then again, who says that has to be an original dome? Well, besides Jim Key? In City/Sea, why couldn't they have put these frosted domes on all of the 4' miniatures? The domes were all glowing as brightly as the hull windows. Maybe they used the G12 in City and didn't cut it up, just lit it. The way they didn't savage the 10' J2, either. That would explain how all the "original" domes were not there originally and how they are there now. It would also explain how they match between G12 and J2 when they were clear in every shot of the J2 and seemed to be with the G12 as well. They're original, but not to Lost in Space.


----------



## Ron Gross (Jan 2, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Dulling the dome makes sense. But how to explain that both the 48" G12 in its first auction and a 48" J2 rescued from City/Sea and still in its window ventilated state both have the identical frosted domes with bases. All I ever remember seeing (except for the dulled launch dome) on screen are clear domes. Then there's this caption by Jim Key. I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those little mysteries that remains a mystery.
> Edit: Then again, who says that has to be an original dome? Well, besides Jim Key? In City/Sea, why couldn't they have put these frosted domes on all of the 4' miniatures? The domes were all glowing as brightly as the hull windows. Maybe they used the G12 in City and didn't cut it up, just lit it. The way they didn't savage the 10' J2, either. That would explain how all the "original" domes were not there originally and how they are there now. It would also explain how they match between G12 and J2 when they were clear in every shot of the J2 and seemed to be with the G12 as well. They're original, but not to Lost in Space.


I agree that this is most likely not the original dome. I have done considerable research on this issue over the years, and I have found that the ratio of the dome diameter to the hull diameter is a constant .09375. This implies a dome diameter of 15/16" for a 10" replica, 1.125" for a 12", 4.5" for a four-footer, and so on. I haven't found any photographic/screen grab evidence to suggest that there is any deviation from this formula for either the original G12 design, or the later, modified J2's. I suspect, as you suggest, that they were all modified in unison for "City," as these domes are all considerably larger, in addition to being frosted. BTW, did you get my PM?


----------



## oshkosh619 (Feb 24, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Dulling the dome makes sense. But how to explain that both the 48" G12 in its first auction and a 48" J2 rescued from City/Sea and still in its window ventilated state both have the identical frosted domes with bases. All I ever remember seeing (except for the dulled launch dome) on screen are clear domes. Then there's this caption by Jim Key. I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those little mysteries that remains a mystery.
> Edit: Then again, who says that has to be an original dome? Well, besides Jim Key? In City/Sea, why couldn't they have put these frosted domes on all of the 4' miniatures? The domes were all glowing as brightly as the hull windows. Maybe they used the G12 in City and didn't cut it up, just lit it. The way they didn't savage the 10' J2, either. That would explain how all the "original" domes were not there originally and how they are there now. It would also explain how they match between G12 and J2 when they were clear in every shot of the J2 and seemed to be with the G12 as well. They're original, but not to Lost in Space.


I think your theory is sound, Starseeker. I am also nearly positive that is a typo on the caption posted, and it should say _*"NOT" *_ the original dome instead of _*"NOTE" *_ the original dome. If eveything else on the model is original, why would you point out just the dome?

Though it was two decades ago, while he was doing the buildup of my Lunar G-XII, I recall Jim sending me a picture of the survivng G-XII and mentioning the dome wasn't the one seen on screen in the pilot.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The 12" G12 seemed to have painted NGS etc hatches. Hard to tell if they're actually recessed. The 12" J2 seemed to have definitely recessed roof hatches, including now a navigation blister hatch. On the blueprint it's called the elevator blister and from its size and name it appears that is was going to be part of the elevator, as X15A2 has mentioned. On the blueprint for the exterior of the full sized G12, it's too far over to be placed over either elevator or ladder. On the bp for the full scale J2 mockup, it is situated exactly over the ladder position. Couple of scans from the J2 Tech Manual that show the blister and the Chariot ramp:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

One thing I really like is how this thread can be a little more free-wheeling.

OK, on the top dome. Let's go back to 'first cause', the fact that ANYTHING that is done is done because it creates a desired effect on film.

Why have the dome? It breaks up the curve of the top hull. Why does it light? because it looks interesting when a shot doesn't show the underside lights, it shows the ship as 'active'.

What are the lights in the dome meant to represent? Unknown, generally assumed to be part of the stellar navigation equipment.

The effect seems to have been created in several ways. I have read a spinning reflector was used (akin to the old style Police 'bubblegum' flashing light), I have read that it was a 'sprig' of small lights spinning around- similar to what's in the Robot, and I'm sure that in the smaller ships it was probably just a flashing bulb.

What do you put in the dome to simulate...whatever? Here is the key question. It could be a radar dish looking thing (spinning reflector effect), it could be something looking like the 'manual navigation sextant' (sprig of lights effect), you COULD leave it empty because it was seemed to be implied that the central 'astrogation/manual flight controls' station was lifted up into the dome in automated flight mode.

As to frosted domes, I'm sure they were used in City Beneath the Sea to help with the illusion of being underwater (I think most of it was shot 'dry for wet') and there wasn't any REASON to have a complicated mechanical gimmick inside.

And I just don't know that they actually butchered up all the J2s laying about. If the model shop still had the 'buck' for the 4 foot hulls they could have just pulled new hulls, cut them out and stuck them on the buildings. But maybe the 'buck' was long gone and broken up. I dunno. 

There, that's alot to chew on.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

An observation I have made with my 24" LM Jupiter II and the "spinning" dome lights. The chase lights from the fusion core reflected up into the dome ( I did just the filming miniature cockpit so the middle area was hollow) and gave the exact "reverse" spin and look to the FX miniature in the show. I removed the interior from my PL J II, as well as the dome light kit, and what do you know, the same back spin on the fusion core lights. Just a fun observation and how I believe the effect was achieved during the first season.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

"Not" instead of "Note" makes all kinds of sense. Jim Key would be a wonderful resource to tap but he does this sort of thing as a profession now, so I guess I shouldn't be asking him for free advice and one of his business partners has just died unexpectedly (at 48!), so even if I was brazen and shameless, this would definitely not be the time.
So I've done all I can think of in trying to nail down the design for the time being. Took a chisel to my ready to be finished G12/J2 bottom hull and knocked a good 1/2" off, made a new template matching the 48" G12 bottom above, and put down the base coat of plaster. At first that super shallow profile really startled me but now that I see it in lumpy 3D or put the two templates together I really like it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> "Not" instead of "Note" makes all kinds of sense. Jim Key would be a wonderful resource to tap but he does this sort of thing as a profession now, so I guess I shouldn't be asking him for free advice and one of his business partners has just died unexpectedly (at 48!), so even if I was brazen and shameless, this would definitely not be the time.
> So I've done all I can think of in trying to nail down the design for the time being. Took a chisel to my ready to be finished G12/J2 bottom hull and knocked a good 1/2" off, made a new template matching the 48" G12 bottom above, and put down the base coat of plaster. At first that super shallow profile really startled me but now that I see it in lumpy 3D or put the two templates together I really like it.


OK, you know all the physical angles, you know the measurements, the contours, you're working this out. so I have a question that maybe you can't know but might want to think on.

I *assume* (and I know the risks of assuming  ) that the hullls were made by creating a contour, a hull in clay or plaster, getting the shape right, then using it as a 'buck' to either lay up fiberglas or pull a heavy thermoplastic over it. Does this fit what you know?

Obviously you would then trim the excess to get the edge.

is it POSSIBLE that the different contour of the lower hull is from simply trimming to finish the lower hull differently? If you shave off a fraction of amount at the join line does it suddenly become the G XII? And again that gives more room for the landing gear mechanics.


Thoughts? Opinions?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...is it POSSIBLE that the different contour of the lower hull is from simply trimming to finish the lower hull differently?...


Gary K. addressed this. Yes, if the screeding tool is off a bit, the resulting pattern's geometry will be also.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The template not being exactly level and centered (if that was how they turned the master) is one way to introduce an "error" into the shape of the J2. That would make a master that was slightly different in shape than the blueprint. 
The blueprint for the 4'/10' J2 says "Make 6". They would have pulled the hulls from a mold of some kind, probably female, and that should have resulted in identical hulls from each mold. One the molds are pulled, what you're left with is essentially a vac form kit that has to be trimmed to fit together. If you've built a vac form kit, you know how important it is to trim the pieces exactly right to get them to fit properly. And how easy it is to trim or sand too much away. If you're making a J2, say, and you trim away too much evenly all around the join, you end up with a slighly under-diameter model. If you trim too much away from one side and match the other piece to fit, you end up with an elliptical model when viewed from above, with one vertical section symmetrical and a vertical section 90 degrees away out of symmetry. That's how you could get variations between miniatures pulled from the same mold. 
Also like vac forms, if you pull them from the molds prematurely, the hulls could warp or twist a little. Or a lot. If flat top is an actual miniature, I suspect either that's what happened to it or it was stored poorly. 
But there is nothing that could have happened during manufacture that explains the difference in join angles between the lower hull sections of the various J2s. Either they were pulled from different molds or modified during construction. 
Trying to sort all this out, particularly the 48" G12, has put me at least a week behind where I wanted to be. Instead of a finished lower hull master and a rough upper hull master, both are at their first layers of plaster stage. Again. Sigh. However, they are much smoother and closer to the proper shape than they appear in this photo. Still another 3 or 4 layers to go, another week. I propped a cutout of a picture of the edge on G12 on a piece of wood roughly the size of the light ring. Amazing how much bigger things are in 3D than they look on paper. I have totally fallen for the shape of the 48" G12, if in fact that is the correct shape. It looks sleek and dangerous, the way I think it does cutting across the sky in that first crash sequence.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

What material are you using on your hull patterns? Some variety of Hydrocal?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The masters are a combination of wood, high density foam, anything I have around the garage that takes up space and doesn't cost anything, covered with several layers of drywall jointing compound, eventually covered with a 2 part auto body filler (Feather-Rite, which is cheap, great, sands and feathers beautifully, and now makes up about 83% of my Moebius Seaview). The molds will be Ultra Cal 30, which is cheap, great, etc...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> The masters are a combination of wood, high density foam, anything I have around the garage that takes up space and doesn't cost anything, covered with several layers of drywall jointing compound, eventually covered with a 2 part auto body filler (Feather-Rite, which is cheap, great, sands and feathers beautifully, and now makes up about 83% of my Moebius Seaview). The molds will be Ultra Cal 30, which is cheap, great, etc...


Thanks, for that info. How do you actually _get_ your final hull form- screed it, turn it, or what? And, at that point, are you working the drywall compound, or the body filler?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

RSN, that's a beautiful Jupiter 2!
Roy, these are my last turnings with the template to generate the curves. The upper hull has three layers of drywall compound now, and the lower hull has two with most of the second removed and a new second with the very shallow G12 shape applied. The drywall compound hardens really hard and, if in proper thin layers, really quickly. (My initial layers are always way too thick and shrink and crack when when they dry and take forever to harden but all that disappears under the next layers.) This last thin layer should be ready to work tonight. Next up I'll knock off any high bits and then use a very wide bladed tool to put down a thin smooth topcoat by hand. I won't use the wooden templates any more on these. I'll carefully cut a new template out of stiff cardboard and use that just to check the shape as I go. But the wooden template should have left a plaster surface that has apretty accurate shape, just all grooved and scored. Leveling all the valleys to match all the peaks should be pretty much all I need to do. And then all the finishing and sanding (and scribing?) that I would do on a regular model before painting.
The masters only have to survive as long as it takes to get the molds made. But the original 24" J2 masters that I built these on top of had survived temperatures in the garage rafters from +40 to -40 since 1986 with minimal damage. That drywall compound is tough stuff.
Just before I did this last layer, I had penciled in the main viewports occupying a 45 degree station. From 4' away on a 2' Gemini, the viewports had exactly the same huge apparent size as in the Jim Key photo. So if he had been anywhere around 8 feet away from the 4' miniature and had used a standard 55mm lens, 45 degree viewports would have looked exactly as in that photo. 
In the background there: I'm so torn. Do I want the studio scale model that I've always wanted but that will be so huge that I won't even have a place to store it or do I want a less desirable 1/24 scale model that will be in constant scale with my FS and J2s and that might fit somewhere in this house???


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...In the background there: I'm so torn...


Interesting. Will the plywood skeleton be a master for a fiberglass lay-up, or the model itself? Again, thanks for all the valuable info.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Master. Again, foam or wood between the bulkheads and then a layer of plaster and then auto body filler. The rear section is easy enough to split into an upper and lower half for two molds. The front section is going to be more difficult. Need to figure out how I'm going to do that. And which scale to go with. The 1/24 would need four reasonably small molds for a 16 x 24 model, the 1/16 would need not much bigger molds but the model would be 24 x 36, 40 with the tail. That's stupid big. Maybe I'd just better focus on the FS and J2s and think on this for a while longer...


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Brent Gair's big model:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=135625&highlight=Spindrift


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You know, Starseeker, you are SO close to being able to offer a GXII lower hull as an aftermarket option for the Moebi J2 kit, did you consider that?

assuming you were to turn the buck into something you could mass product vac-form pulls from.

Hmm, have to devise bracing and supports to mount the interior, have to have someone make up the correct wall parts to mod the interior, there's the debate over the size of the 'fusion core', and if there was meant to be landing gear or not...

Still, it could be fun


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Give it a shot, Steve. I darn near tried to make one for the PL kit.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve: Wrong size, tho. And having made a 24" vac form J2 already is the reason I want to try fiberglass. The J2s lower hulls are big shallow saucer shapes so they don't have much strength. And the styrene that I can find from local plastics suppliers isn't as stiff as I'd like to use for large shapes, either. I just wouldn't recommend vac form for the J2, unless a) you used a different kind of plastic from what I've found or b) you have a well thought out system of internal bracing that can't print through the hull over time. Love to know what ILM vac formed the Excelsior out of. That would be the stuff to use!
Roy, thanks, yes I followed Brent's build with much interest. What a beautiful finish!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> Give it a shot, Steve. I darn near tried to make one for the PL kit.


Aw, man, I didn't mean ME, I can barely trim parts off the sprue anymore! 

(seriously, something's happened to my skills. My stepdad gave me an old Monogram P-38 Lightning kit to build for him and I can't even manage to paint a simple interior)

So plastering up my own lower hull and pulling a thermoplastic copy off it is right out!

But I suspect SOMEONE will do it, there's been enough discussion here and over at the Moebius board that some clever person with some decent skills will make a new lower hull part, and probably the needed flight deck wall parts. Dunno what you do about the forward viewport because even tho I agree with Starseeker that there's SOMETHING different and larger about it (for the GXII), I can also buy the argument that there's no change at all, it's all quirks of perspective and maybe hand-made introduced fractional differences between different models.

Think it's safe to say that sometime in late '10 we'll see a smaller J2, based off this new kit, ala what's going on with the Seaview? It's only logical.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Found a great shot old Flat Top in flight. Disk 9 of Land of the Giants finally came in the mail and the Giants Presentation package is all artwork of a Spindrift that is a Jupiter 2 with a new interior and fx shots of the J2 miniatures, one of which is Flat Top seen from above. Not only is its steep to flat roof line very visible, there is a large uneven shallow on the stbd rear roof quarter. NGS and navigation dome hatches are clearly recessed and the folded circle spinning in the clear dome is spinning quite slowly and clearly visible. 
Also a good shot of the real Spindrift's engine lighting effect. That could be easily replicated by an irregular "chaser" at high speed. Cool.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

It is very easy to make a cone out of a sheet of plastic. Say you wanted to make the lower hull of the Gemini 12 based on my drawing of the thing posted somewhere above. Say you wanted to make it 18" in diameter. 
The lower hull is nothing more than 2 truncated cones. Find your dimensions, the overall radius, the radius to the smaller top of the cone, and from the apex of the cone both the total length of one side and the total length of the truncated portion. 
Those numbers let you lay out a drawing as below (L, l, R, and r). You'd want to use those numbers to cut a doughnut out of 030 or040 styrene. But you don't want a whole doughnut. That would still be flat. You want to cut out a portion so that when the ends come together they give you a cone with the right angle. That portion is determined by R divided by L and that number multiplied by 360 to give you degrees. 
The numbers I used were based on the G12 diagram above and an 18" Moebius kit. Lay the patterns out on a couple sheets of paper or poster board and see if this looks right. Or adjust it however you want. Once it's to your liking, cut it out of 030 or 040 styrene. Tape the ends together and glue from behind. Then cut a very slightly smaller ring and cement it behind the first, making sure the butt joint is 120 or 180 degrees away from the first. And do it a third time if you need even more stiffness. Don't use CA or a hot liquid cement like Tenax as they really soften the plastic. Use a less hot liquid cement like regular Testors. There is something that stuff is good for. 
Play with it on paper first in case I've screwed up the #s. Or if you want different angles. 
But honest, it would be so easy (if you can build the Moebius kit, you can easily do this) to make your own lower hull and light ring, too. A whole lot cheaper than paying more for the model for someone's idea of what it should look like, and which might not match your idea at all.
PS I am now firmly of the opinion that the G12 view ports occupy a 45 section of the hull, no more.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Found a great shot old Flat Top in flight. Disk 9 of Land of the Giants finally came in the mail and the Giants Presentation package is all artwork of a Spindrift that is a Jupiter 2 with a new interior and fx shots of the J2 miniatures, one of which is Flat Top seen from above. Not only is its steep to flat roof line very visible, there is a large uneven shallow on the stbd rear roof quarter. NGS and navigation dome hatches are clearly recessed and the folded circle spinning in the clear dome is spinning quite slowly and clearly visible.
> Also a good shot of the real Spindrift's engine lighting effect. That could be easily replicated by an irregular "chaser" at high speed. Cool.


pardon my french but holy crap!

Screencaps, if you can? 

Man, now I really want to get the LOTG DVD set (I'm an 'owner', not a renter  ) and all of LIS and the season 3 and 4 of VTTBOTS....*sigh*


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

To quote somebody: Holy Crap! - to get a screen grab using XP... As far as I know it can't be done with Medial Player 11. But with Nero, you have to go to Control Panel, Display, Properties, Advanced, Troubleshooting, and turn off hardware acceleration for your computer so that the DVD video isn't displayed on an overlay, which turns out to be just a black layer when you try to capture. And then you have to go back and turn hardware acceleration back on to get your computer to run again. I love Windoze.
I'd never publicly advocate such a heinous practice, but look into AnyDVD or 1ClickDVD. They're just worng. 
Flat Top with it's recessed hatched and even showing its wire attachment points, and a couple of the Jupiter/Spindrift artwork:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> It is very easy to make a cone out of a sheet...


Good way to make a crashsite set, or mock-up version, too. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> To quote somebody: Holy Crap! - to get a screen grab using XP... As far as I know it can't be done with Medial Player 11. But with Nero, you have to go to Control Panel, Display, Properties, Advanced, Troubleshooting, and turn off hardware acceleration for your computer so that the DVD video isn't displayed on an overlay, which turns out to be just a black layer when you try to capture. And then you have to go back and turn hardware acceleration back on to get your computer to run again. I love Windoze.
> I'd never publicly advocate such a heinous practice, but look into AnyDVD or 1ClickDVD. They're just worng.
> Flat Top with it's recessed hatched and even showing its wire attachment points, and a couple of the Jupiter/Spindrift artwork:


I apologize for putting you thru all that but man, man, I'm just giddy, trying to figure out if IA really intended to go forward with using the J2 as the passenger craft. OTOH it would have been cool to see, OTO it would have been even more way crazy then the Spindrift, so much SIZE and SPACE for so few passengers! Altho if you figure maybe it's a private line flying something akin to a Gulfstream G5, maybe it makes sense. Maybe.

LOL! there's a different paint and option for the new J2 kit, paint it up as a passenger ship, totally mod the interior akin to the Spindrift...wow, it would blow people's minds...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I really don't know if he thought about using the J2 or just figured that this would be the cheapest presentation ever. The presentation reel begins with clips from such classic episodes as Voyage's Werewolf and Space's West of Mars. 
But I had exactly the same thought: do a Jupiter Spindrift. These are the only other paintings:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Wow, interesting find on the LOTG disc.

Just when you thought Irwin Allen couldn't get any cheaper, lol.

Who knows; the only thing preventing the J-2 from appearing as the Spindrift may have been City Beneath the Sea.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> I really don't know if he thought about using the J2 or just figured that this would be the cheapest presentation ever. The presentation reel begins with clips from such classic episodes as Voyage's Werewolf and Space's West of Mars.
> But I had exactly the same thought: do a Jupiter Spindrift. These are the only other paintings:


Aw, man, that is just INSANE! My mind is blown!

LOOK at that painting of the passenger cabin! what is going ON in there? What is that thingie which seems to be at the geometric center of the ship? It can't be the ENGINE, you don't hang something like that out in the open in the middle of the passenger space! And are they all looking out windows or just staring at wall mounted viewscreens?

ALL THAT WASTED SPACE!!! holy cats.

It would be a true challenge to mock that up. You'd have to go thru the entire art director's mentality, what does the set need, what existing parts laying about in the Fox warehouse can be re-used from Voyage and Time Tunnel (and Fantastic Voyage and In Like Flint and...). You can 'crib' from the Spindrift we all know and love to some extent but you still have to get around to that big, round, empty space.

I would assume, for example, they would retain the airlock, and build an entryway to separate the cockpit from the passenger cabin.

OK, it's a specialty craft, a sub-orbital high Mach number transport. It's decent but not high luxury. Maybe the passenger cabin is designed to be modified, so people one trip, cargo the next. That would sort of imply a small firm, maybe even a private company. Heck the 'spaceline' could be just the three crew members! Kinda like how anybody with a war surplus DC-3 could become an airline after WW II.

I dunno, I'm thinking way too much here suddenly.


----------



## john_trek (Apr 13, 2000)

I had never heard of the "Jupiter Spindrift" before now, but it doesn't really surprise me. I doubt that Irwin Allen ever seriously considered re-using the Jupiter II design, rather it was a quick way to make a presentation to the network in an attempt to sell the concept for the show. 

On one of the first season DVD for Voyage there is a network promo tape that I think was intended for distribution to the various local broadcasters. On the tape the narrator is excitedly telling the audience that the Seaview crew will go all over the world and have all sorts of exciting guest stars. They then show Red Buttons, and identify him as such, in scenes lifted from Five Weeks in a Balloon. The implication is that this episode has been filmed already, and will appear the coming fall on the show. 

In spite of Irwin's copious use of stock footage, I don't remember Red Buttons appearing on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, nor do I recall the crew engaged in a fun filled, laugh riot inside ancient cities in deepest Africa.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

What version of Nero are you using with XP? I have had no problems getting screencaps with both Nero 6 and Nero 7 on XP, and I have not had to do anything except use Nero's capture command, although I do pause the picture on the exact frame I want to capture. On movies I have recorded myself and then edited in Nero, I have had to edit some of the screencaps because it squeezed them into tall, thin pictures depending at which recording speed I originally recorded them. That's the only problem I have had, and for me it has been a very minor one.

I have Nero 8 loaded on a couple of family member's computers, both XP and Vista, but have not as yet tried a screencap from them. I guess I will give it a try. I hope it doesn't give me any problems!


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

john_trek said:


> I had never heard of the "Jupiter Spindrift" before now, but it doesn't really surprise me. I doubt that Irwin Allen ever seriously considered re-using the Jupiter II design, rather it was a quick way to make a presentation to the network in an attempt to sell the concept for the show.
> 
> On one of the first season DVD for Voyage there is a network promo tape that I think was intended for distribution to the various local broadcasters. On the tape the narrator is excitedly telling the audience that the Seaview crew will go all over the world and have all sorts of exciting guest stars. They then show Red Buttons, and identify him as such, in scenes lifted from Five Weeks in a Balloon. The implication is that this episode has been filmed already, and will appear the coming fall on the show.
> 
> In spite of Irwin's copious use of stock footage, I don't remember Red Buttons appearing on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, nor do I recall the crew engaged in a fun filled, laugh riot inside ancient cities in deepest Africa.


 Oh.. I think he would have used it! Probably part of his pitch was that the miniatures were already built..the kids won't care so the studio will save a bundle! His extreme cheapness is well documented along with his "the audience won't care" attitude. City Beneath the Sea is a great example, and his whole pitch to fox on the 'Time Tunnel' was that they got to save bucks by reusing the studio's stock footage library from historical films


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

john_trek said:


> I had never heard of the "Jupiter Spindrift" before now, but it doesn't really surprise me. I doubt that Irwin Allen ever seriously considered re-using the Jupiter II design, rather it was a quick way to make a presentation to the network in an attempt to sell the concept for the show.
> 
> On one of the first season DVD for Voyage there is a network promo tape that I think was intended for distribution to the various local broadcasters. On the tape the narrator is excitedly telling the audience that the Seaview crew will go all over the world and have all sorts of exciting guest stars. They then show Red Buttons, and identify him as such, in scenes lifted from Five Weeks in a Balloon. The implication is that this episode has been filmed already, and will appear the coming fall on the show.
> 
> In spite of Irwin's copious use of stock footage, I don't remember Red Buttons appearing on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, nor do I recall the crew engaged in a fun filled, laugh riot inside ancient cities in deepest Africa.


Yeah, IA was all about the hype and the ballyhoo, but there's something about those image boards that has the look of 'practical' going on. Note the cast mix had been already set, and there's some fairly specific design elements such as the controls of the flight deck (I somehow love the idea of a Jupiter2 with a throttle lever cluster between control stations, that's goofy! "Hey, Irwin, I found this throttle lever cluster section from filming 12 O'Clock High..wanna use it?" "SURE! paint it orange and put it between the chairs!"  )

What I see in those images is a cheap and fast test film that could be shot over a couple of days- redress the Jupiter 2 with a quick and dirty wall behind the control area, the passenger cabin can be on another stage, get some greenery around the exterior for the 'Jupdrift' to show their crashsite...but clearly just this was enough to get ABC to greenlight the show.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Bruce, thanks for that. You piqued my interest and I did a Google search on Nero 7 screen capture and discovered that if you get the remote control like control panel on top, and hit the button that opens it up, there is a screen capture button that works perfectly. It was easy and obvious to do in my old version of Nero 7 but this year's massive 7 update that I downloaded changed Everything. Absolutely Everything. Glad to have this back. Thanks again. 
Here's my first easy screen capture in six or eight months. It's of the Spindrift crashing on the alien planet. This is the best edge on I've seen of this particular spacecraft. Again, that bottom hull looks like it could be as shallow as the drawing for the 48" G12 above. As it emerges from the other side of the rock, the guide wires are clearly visible. The device in the top dome is again rotating quite slowly, maybe 60 rpm.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

nw=evermind


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> Bruce, thanks for that. You piqued my interest and I did a Google search on Nero 7 screen capture and discovered that if you get the remote control like control panel on top, and hit the button that opens it up, there is a screen capture button that works perfectly. It was easy and obvious to do in my old version of Nero 7 but this year's massive 7 update that I downloaded changed Everything. Absolutely Everything. Glad to have this back. Thanks again.
> Here's my first easy screen capture in six or eight months. It's of the Spindrift crashing on the alien planet. This is the best edge on I've seen of this particular spacecraft. Again, that bottom hull looks like it could be as shallow as the drawing for the 48" G12 above. As it emerges from the other side of the rock, the guide wires are clearly visible. The device in the top dome is again rotating quite slowly, maybe 60 rpm.


YAY! new tools is good!

But a word of caution, you CANNOT take what you see in an effects shot as some sort of proof of...well, in this case, rotational speed.

Keep in mind that depending on the needs of the shot the camera might be 'undercranked' (making things faster, speeding up lights, useful when you want to convey speed but there's a limitation of safety) or 'overcranked' (creating slow motion, useful for making models seem larger, give them visual weight). I'm sure many of the effects shots were at 24 frames per second but many more were likely shot overcranked, probably 48 fps, to even out slight 'bobbles' in the wire work.

just putting that out there.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The were probably filmed at 96 FPS and played back at 24. If you watch ALL of the crash sequence, you will notice that they just slid the J2 down once and filmed it from 4 locations.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Y3a said:


> The were probably filmed at 96 FPS and played back at 24. If you watch ALL of the crash sequence, you will notice that they just slid the J2 down once and filmed it from 4 locations.


You're probably right, I just recall a camera I had long ago that could do 'double speed', the stuff they had at Fox was a lot more able I'm sure. 

Of course I'm crazy, I'd love to watch every foot of effects footage shot raw, at either 'filmed' speed or 'normal', see how many takes it was to get something...

It's probably in a vault SOMEWHERE, lost to time....or maybe lost in the big Kodak vault fire of the '70s.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

You're welcome starseeker.

As long as you are doing the screencaps from Nero ShowTime, you should also be able to just right-click on the movie window and one of the options shown in the pop-up list is 'Capture frame C' and you can click on that option to get the picture. 

It means you can use a shortcut command of cntl-C to get a picture, and this method lets you specify where the picture is to be saved. I just click on the button or use the list option, because I don't ever bother to remember all the commands for various programs.


----------



## JPhil123 (Jan 1, 1970)

Carson Dyle said:


> Wow, interesting find on the LOTG disc.
> 
> Just when you thought Irwin Allen couldn't get any cheaper, lol.
> 
> Who knows; the only thing preventing the J-2 from appearing as the Spindrift may have been City Beneath the Sea.


Hello...
I read that the "Land of the Giants" pilot film was shot in 1967. If that is the case, it was probably before "City Beneath..." Whatever the case, it would be nice to know the real story. I've always been curious as to why they would have seriously considered a Jupiter 2 style craft? Jupiter 2 looks all too powerful and all too advanced to be merely a suborbital passenger ship - unless the details of the show were in flux, in the beginning, and the space travelers marooned on LOTG were at one point going to be true space explorers, and not merely passengers on a commercial craft. 

I'm glad the Spindrift was designed differently than the Jupiter 2. The Spindrift a cool (but under-used) craft. Even though it was different, it was still based on anther craft, the Flying Sub.

Jim


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

JPhil123 said:


> Hello...
> I read that the "Land of the Giants" pilot film was shot in 1967. If that is the case, it was probably before "City Beneath..." Whatever the case, it would be nice to know the real story. I've always been curious as to why they would have seriously considered a Jupiter 2 style craft? Jupiter 2 looks all too powerful and all too advanced to be merely a suborbital passenger ship - unless the details of the show were in flux, in the beginning, and the space travelers marooned on LOTG were at one point going to be true space explorers, and not merely passengers on a commercial craft.
> 
> I'm glad the Spindrift was designed differently than the Jupiter 2. The Spindrift a cool (but under-used) craft. Even though it was different, it was still based on anther craft, the Flying Sub.
> ...


Well, keep in mind that in Allen's mind, it WOULDN'T BE the Jupiter 2 any longer. There's not a question of it being 'more advanced than needed' for the role it would play. I think the concept was fairly well nailed down, just by looking at the passengers and crew. You might be a little taken aback by the use of the LIS spacesuits for the pilot and co-pilot.

Think like IA. Budget is going to be heavy on optical effects due to the Giants, so you gotta keep costs down. You've got the J2 set, the external shell over the 'flats', you've got a good effects library you can pull from, and the core is the same as 'Space Family Robinsons' i.e. the ship is really only needed to establish they came from one place and crashed on this new place. If a script comes up that calls for the ship to fly, well, you've got the models still, if stock footage won't do the trick.

Hey, could have been worse, he could have used the Flying Sub and just cut the wings off halfway or something.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

When it comes to the LOTG proposal piece that featured the Jupiter 2 and the LiS silver spacsuit costumes, you need to remember that it was just a proposal to sell the series to CBS. They're not going to build custom props and make new costumes just for a short clip fest to push the concept to the execs. Allen was using footage, clips, costume designs, etc. that were at hand and were easily accessible. I thought that the proposal was interesting to look at myself - it might have been a bunch of clips and production art, but I enjoyed it much more than the City Beneath the Sea proposal scenes - those bored me to tears compared to the final product.

Bryan


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...Hey, could have been worse, he could have used the Flying Sub and just cut the wings off halfway or something.


...With a couple red flashers stuck on the side? It's bad enough that Allen recycled the J2 for _Some Bozo from the 25th Century_, and _Sh!##y Beneath the Sea_. And used the space pod, flying backwards, in some _Giants_ episodes. I didn't need the J2 as the Spindrift, too.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Gemini1999 said:


> When it comes to the LOTG proposal piece that featured the Jupiter 2 and the LiS silver spacsuit costumes, you need to remember that it was just a proposal to sell the series to CBS...


Indeed. Just as Allen recycled Fox movie music for the LiS pilot. Did the unaired LotG pilot actually feature the J2 as the Spindrift?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

hey hey hey, I just thought of something....

OK, thought is there was different sizes of 'fusion core' on the G XII and J2, check? 

Is it POSSIBLE that's an optical illusion caused by a lower resolution image and one of the few examples of the 'fins' being extended?

I'm not even sure WHY that feature was designed except as maybe some form of 'visual business' to make the drive look more complicated, if it was done today I'd think it would show the 'stardrive' operating or something, 'star cruise' mode or the like (because you have to retract the fins to lower the landing gear, see?).

So, throwing that out there for debate.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

On the 10' blues, the cores were very different sizes. Even fins extended on the small wouldn't be the same size as fins retracted on the large. Also, I don't think the fins actually retracted on any of the miniatures. On the few shots we have of the 4' G12, they are always extended, and on the surviving 4' J2 core, they seem built extended, as some are missing, some are bent, but none seem to have any provision for retracting. The J2's without fins I suspect were built that way and that would be another indicator of which miniature we were looking at. Also, the fins are reasonably visible on most J2s, so you can take them into account. The core sizes on captures/in photos do match the blues very closely. 
Got a start on my 1/24 light units. One of each of the three styles: the G12, the J2 blueprint/full size with the raised ring around the hatch, and the surviving 48" miniature with the angled hatch recess. Might as well show as much variation between the three models as I can. The size difference is really noticeable as is the difference in the size of the bottom lights. Lots of .100 (for the blueprint version) and .080 (I think it would look more like the miniature version) half round for the raised detail on the two J2s, that I'd like to get done today. Then I'll start cutting pockets for the fins on the J2s (the G12 will stay permanently extended, I think, esp if I'm going to use 5 lights on spinning stalks?). Have a couple ideas for a different extension mechanism than I used on my existing 1/24. At least the hard part (cutting all the holes) is done now. All the rest will be just adding a layer of clear and then zillions of little strips and pieces of Evergreen and Plastruct for the angled sides and a honeycomb of styrene for the internal structure. Not just for the extending fins but these have to be strong enough to support the weight of the models when the landing gear is retracted.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...I don't think the fins actually retracted on any of the miniatures...on the surviving 4' J2 core, they seem built extended, as some are missing, some are bent, but none seem to have any provision for retracting. The J2's without fins I suspect were built that way and that would be another indicator of which miniature we were looking at...


The one photo I have of the existing four-foot J2 core(easily available on the internet) shows each fin with a ninety degree extension, which is riveted in two places to the core proper. I'd like to know where this idea(that the fins were retractable) came from. As shown in "The Derelict", the fins do not interfere with the landing gear at all.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

They were supposed to retract on at least the full scale mockup. The idea must have top-downed from there. I have no idea if this feature was actually built into the mockup, either. The caption reads: "Fins in out position shown this section only. Pract. all around." The front view also shows one side in and one out.
There was a 4' on the IDIC page, possibly on display at Planet Hollywood, that did not have fins. I have a strong suspicion that that wasn't an original core, tho. As I think about it, I can't ever recall the full size showing the fins, and with the possible exception of the non-articulated lifting off through explosions??, I can't recall ever seeing a shot of a miniature w/o the fins.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

my only thing is, how would you operate those on anything smaller than the 10 foot model? That core gets pretty darn cramped, what with the spinning light do-gimmie. 

Unless they intended for the lights to be 'chaser' and not the spinner thing, then I think there's room for mechanicals. I don't know, it's all confusing sometimes!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> They were supposed to retract on at least the full scale mockup. The idea must have top-downed from there. I have no idea if this feature was actually built into the mockup, either...


From the drawing, it appears the fins were required to retract, in order for the flaps to actuate. But you know that the movable flaps and fins were not used on the hero, which was the only J2 to actually show the gear deploying. 


starseeker said:


> ...There was a 4' on the IDIC page, possibly on display at Planet Hollywood, that did not have fins...


The entire Planet Hollywood J2 was a post-restoration recast.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The mechanical spinning bulbs don't have to be that close to the fusion core 'windows' to give the effect intended. I built several fusion core lighting systems on my Looner Moddles 2 footer and tried each until I settled on the 6 lights on the ends of brass wire with soldered on threaded sockets.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Much nicer over here on this forum...I don't think Sci-fi models are Dave's 'thing' cause he sure gets ornery bought it! lol


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

A lot LESS TRAFFIC though.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

yupp..but I don't know why since everyone can nitpick to their hearts content about the J2 with out the occasional moderator outbursts about how stupid the show is. Then comes all the apologies and groveling because they are afraid that Moebius will take the model away. Not likely!! When people start with the "we are not worthy and Yes Dave!..you are sooo right... we are so sorry we are wasting your time!" ..it really makes me feel embarassed. We have nothing to apologize for.. other than a thread that demonstrates the huge interest in a kit that we hope will be hugely successful and make them some profit.


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

m jamieson said:


> yupp..but I don't know why since everyone can nitpick to their hearts content about the J2 with out the occasional moderator outbursts about how stupid the show is. Then comes all the apologies and groveling because they are afraid that Moebius will take the model away. Not likely!! When people start with the "we are not worthy and Yes Dave!..you are sooo right... we are so sorry we are wasting your time!" ..it really makes me feel embarassed. We have nothing to apologize for.. other than a thread that demonstrates the huge interest in a kit that we hope will be hugely successful and make them some profit.


Agreed its kinda weird actually.:freak: Im surprised that many dont find it strange and continue to grovel as you say. If the thread brings so much heartbreak why not just close it. Why the constant insulting reprimands??? 
I can understand moderating a forum and the threads in it and try to keep it on topic. But I post at other Forums and so many have threads that may not be completely on topic but it is related to the overall subject. 

The Trekbbs has a thread thats been running for over a year in the movie section. A poster started one about "Blue Warp Nacelles in the film. The thread turned into a hysterical one about a suped up Enterprise with Somberos.:lol: It got much attention at other Trek Websites. The moderators allowed it to stay opened because of the fun it brought to the forum members. It has over 4000 posts and is very off topic. http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=55523 
The Moebius J2 thread is more on topic than that.


By the way this thread has been very interesting so far guys. I have been reading but my knowledge in some areas that you guys are taking it is limited. But again much fun to read.:thumbsup:


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm surprised too, because even Gary K and Ron Gross seem to be in the spirit of the fun exchanges ...then Scrooge shows up with the "Baa Humbug!" stuff.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I tend to agree with some of the recent comments in this version of the thread. If the other thread was for comments only based on what updates have been given and for those updates alone, then maybe they should transfer all of the "waste of time" comments sans the dramatic elements so people can discuss the Jupiter 2 to their hearts content. Truth be told, I didn't see anything that someone should go off on other people about. Everyone has their personal perspective and experiences with the J2 and it is a much loved bit of SciFi gadgetry. Sure, some folks have blueprints and have actually had their hands on the actual filming models at some point, but that doesn't rule out speculatory commentary by everyone else. It's all about modeling, imagination and the dream of making it all seem real. If that wasn't part of the equation, then there wouldn't be a market for models like the J2 to begin with. I for one, will stick with this thread although the other thread has more traffic and comments, but I can do without the histrionics. I come here for fun and interaction with other modelers, not for the drama that stems from tightly wound personalities with fragile sensiblities.

I'm looking forward to the model in whatever final form it takes, but until then....let's just have fun.

Bryan


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Well I'm sure I didn't win many fans with my posts but somebody had to say it. A lot of what he said was totally correct and I agree that it can be almost laughable that people argue over the details that were never shown or explained on an imaginary craft...but so what!! Its certainly not hurting the the upcoming sales or being critical of their (Moebius) efforts. If you want people to respect what you have to say one has to stand their ground, especially in a situation like this where nobody did anything wrong in the first place! I'm certainly not going to 'praise' him for that or involve myself in the self flagellation that was beginning to start after the scolding! It was like nobody even heard all the very thinly disguised insults that emerged from that tantrum!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I keep waiting for the ban hammer to fall on me, I get the impression I come across as an 'instigator' or something. 

Impression I get is that Dave has invested a LOT of time and effort and energy and brainsweat into both J2 kits, and as I said in my 'there outta be a book' post there's the seeds of a 'fan feud' right there. He knows better than anyone because of the work he did and if you don't STFU he's just gonna walk. He's the king of the hill because not only does he do this stuff, he's paid and 'inside' and we all are just stupid fanboys blah blah blah.

Seen it over and over and over. Trek fandom, Star Wars fandom, Anime fandom, over and over in an endless....*he* moebius strip... of tender egos, excessive expectations, privilege and all that stuff.

Kinda like how a friend of mine got smacked down by a major Hollywood studio for trying to publish a book, when he thought he had the blessing of the actual author.

Was Dave WRONG for saying his stuff? Of course not. We don't know all the outside pressures and issues going on there. I can well imagine that dealing with producing a kit, ANY kit over in China must be ulcer inducing at the minimum. I think what happens is he SKIMS all the posts, and doesn't really read, and it all comes across as needy and whiny and bitchy and then we talk about Texaco fireman hats...so, he lets off some steam.

My skin is tough enough, so he's not chasing me away.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Yeah I agree, I mean 'what' he was saying, I totally agree with! But it's the 'Why' he was doing it I had a problem with. If people had been directly complaining about the kit, then by all means... blow off some steam because you have pride in your creation, and rightly so! But the slam came for really no reason other than the usual blurring of the reality/fantasy lines that happens about every three or four posts. Then everyone starts with the "We are SO SORRY for whatever..your company is the greatest in the WORLD!! Please..please don't take offense to our rambling and take our beloved J2 away!" "Or the brown-nosing "Hey Dave, I'm not like these losers who can't appreciate your sheer genius...you are a God and I will go forth and break some model building knuckles if only you would ask this unworthy one!" 
Ok..I'm stretching it a bit, but that's kind of the scene that gets played out over and over. I guess being relatively new to the whole forum thing..and especially this forum I'm not yet used to the idiosyncrasies of individuals like some of the moderators or the style they employ. But I always thought they were supposed to STOP people from insulting each other not vent their frustrations by hurling them. Seriously, there are a great many posts that make me want to write "Are you completely self delusional or just plain nuts!" but of course that would not be a good thing cause the truth is, we all must be a little nuts to still be hanging on to a TV show this way. Anyway..That type of response., A blunt put down while building yourself up with the "I model REAL things" remarks has no excuse in a forum and especially when it comes from a moderator who is supposed to setting the standards, not lowering them when it was totally uncalled for!


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Seems like this has become more of a complain about Dave Metzner thread than a Jupiter 2 thread. 

Steve


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Seems like this has become more of a complain about Dave Metzner thread than a Jupiter 2 thread.
> 
> Steve


Meh. I started this thread because of the mood in the other J2 thread. People can discuss what they wish for the J2 here. If they want to blow off some steam because of their disappointment in the other J2 thread thats ok. But for the most part this thread has stayed on topic. An all encompassing J2 thread. 

Dave himself has derailed the other J2 thread as well, complaining about people discussing of all things the J2. Moderating a thread and staying on topic is fine but to what extreme? Read my last post over there as well as the one above to see what Im driving at.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Maybe Steve..but this is the second time I've seen that he kind of blew up for no reason that I can see. If someone was slamming the model he helped create..I'd understand it, in fact I'd be right in there with him! But that wasn't the case was it! So we discussed it a bit to get it out of our systems...which as far as I'm concerned is as far as it needs to go.
I'm just very disappointed and expected more from him as a moderator to set a good example.


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

Well, I'm just getting to know Dave, but he seems like a perfectly level-headed kinda' guy to me. I didn't know too much about him, but after a little research, he's obviously had his hands in a lot of what we all aprreciate these days. His involvement with Polar Lights alone is large scale, and that is not only in reference to his own self, but to the kits he helped produce! Most of the stuff, like the big Refit you guys talk endlessly about, have his name written all over them. Most of the "business" end guys I have talked to seem to hold him in high regard, and it seems for good reason. I'm not an ass-kisser by any means, I'm a pretty good judge of character though.

As far as some of these threads go, and it happens on every website I frequent, there are times when it gets like a kindergarten class, and somebodys gotta' get slapped! That's just people mixing with other people, it happens. So, if Dave steps in and says "stay on topic" or closes the thread, big deal. Moebius DOE'S sponsor that particular part of the site, remember? Rules are rules, and they seem to be fairly flexible to a point around here. I don't have a ton of room to talk, I'm kinda' new around here in that respect, but I'm not new to the modeling world. I've been in it for the long haul like many of you. 

I was always taught to respect my elders. I'm almost 50, and I still do. Treat others as you wish to be treated. A little kindness goes a long way. Nothing new for words of wisdom, just plain old common sense. :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

Staying on topic is fine. So that thread should have been closed after the first pics of the model and some discussion that wouldnt have gone far on those details, right??? The thread was allowed ot remain open and discussion of the J2 to proceed. Again there is going to be discussion of the actual model in all its glory, thats what the fricking Moebius model is based on.I dont want to type all of this again so read my last couple posts over at the moebius thread as well as the last two here to see what I mean.:lol: I really dont see any disrespect there. Just bewilderment.:lol:


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Tim Nolan said:


> Well, I'm just getting to know Dave, but he seems like a perfectly level-headed kinda' guy to me. I didn't know too much about him, but after a little research, he's obviously had his hands in a lot of what we all aprreciate these days. His involvement with Polar Lights alone is large scale, and that is not only in reference to his own self, but to the kits he helped produce! Most of the stuff, like the big Refit you guys talk endlessly about, have his name written all over them. Most of the "business" end guys I have talked to seem to hold him in high regard, and it seems for good reason. I'm not an ass-kisser by any means, I'm a pretty good judge of character though.
> 
> As far as some of these threads go, and it happens on every website I frequent, there are times when it gets like a kindergarten class, and somebodys gotta' get slapped! That's just people mixing with other people, it happens. So, if Dave steps in and says "stay on topic" or closes the thread, big deal. Moebius DOE'S sponsor that particular part of the site, remember? Rules are rules, and they seem to be fairly flexible to a point around here. I don't have a ton of room to talk, I'm kinda' new around here in that respect, but I'm not new to the modeling world. I've been in it for the long haul like many of you.
> 
> I was always taught to respect my elders. I'm almost 50, and I still do. Treat others as you wish to be treated. A little kindness goes a long way. Nothing new for words of wisdom, just plain old common sense. :beatdeadhorse:


I'd have been fine with the 'stay on topic or I'll close the thread'..in fact I wasn't even involved with the so called "space pod corridor" discussion or the "what I got for x-mas in 1968" discussion(which really was off topic) I just thought what he said and the way he said it was being disrespectful to sci-fi modelers in general and being a pilot believe me, I understood his analogy to real things working in the real world..it was just done in a very negative way then finished off with the I'm through "wasting my time". I'm 52 so I'm not worried about the elder thing..but I try be respectful to everyone here because after reading this whole thread from the beginning, I see quit a few people that are a little off the deep end on Irwin Allen...but it's not my place to call them on it cause it's their world and their life and their childhood dreams they are trying to recreate for reasons known only to them.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I asked this over on the other thread but I will ask here too.. has anyone built both a chaser light and a spinning light core and if they have, is there a noticeable difference to the look that makes it worth the trouble? I know it looks more first season...but it it enough to make it worth the effort?


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

OK, this is a double post...but after posting elsewhere, I (belatedly) back-read and found reference to this thread being a more appropriate location...so...

Examination of the Jupiter II set plans from the Lost in Space Technical Manual turns up the following interesting(?) tidbits of data:

1)The single-deck “Gemini 12” set plan includes a bold outer circle, presumably representing the outer wall of the exterior spaceship shell, whose diameter is some 50 feet.

2)Comparison of the Jupiter II upper and lower deck sets show marked differences in the position of the elevator. Viewed from above, the lift shaft is to the left of the ship’s centerline on deck 1, to the right on deck 2. It also moves inward by about half its own diameter in traveling downward. 

3)The upper deck set plan lacks a pod bay entrance hatch, therefore predating the third season. Thus, the addition of the pod would move the lift shaft into a roughly corresponding rotational (though not necessarily diametric) position. 

Building upon point 3, it seems the pod bay entrance hatch would lie more or less directly above the (first of 3) power core access hatches. Being as how both hatches opened onto “foyers,” one might presume the back (outermost) power core foyer wall to lie below, and slightly within, the position of the pod’s own hatchway. Thus, the pod can in fact descend without impinging upon any part of deck 2.

By no means do I imply existence of the power core (“deck 3”) as depicted is possible. However, superimposition of the aforementioned deck plans upon the Jupiter II exterior plans from Jack Hagerty’s The Saucer Fleet does render a consistently scaled 2-deck 3rd season Jupiter II buildable from the Polar Lights kit.

Setting the provided interior parts aside, and treating the spacecraft shell as being 1/72 in scale puts the floorline of deck 1 level with the ship’s waist. From here to the top of the power core is a (1/72) scale distance of 7 feet…perhaps a bit tighter than deck 2 as seen on air, but not much. Mind you, only the central area of deck 2 boasts this height; all rooms would be a step up, with slightly lower ceilings. Indeed, the elevator falls outside the diameter of the power core…but if located as shown in the deck 2 set plans, it still has a height of 6.37 feet – low, but usable (I think…how tall was Guy Williams?). 

One-seventy-two-ing the PL kit does of course entail significant alterations to the interior in the regions of the airlock and upper and lower control rooms. Deck 1’s 3 “blinky” computer panels would move outward some 8 feet in order to maintain their positions relative to the viewport. But this seems to me a fair trade for to allow space for the space pod, chariot (perhaps even its ramp), landing leg bays(well…almost), and whatever lay behind the mysterious corridors whose entranceways are seen on both decks during the series. 

As a way of visualizing the upscaling, the PL kit’s “lid” scales to some 50 feet at 1/72…i.e., the overall diameter of the soundstage deck 1 exterior shell. 

The Johnny Lightning pod scales to very close to 1/72, and would pass easily through the PL pod bay hatch. Said hatch, however – though true to its position on the show’s “pod dropper” miniature—does not line up with the deck 1 set’s pod access door. Per the latter, the pod should have emerged on the opposite side of the adjacent landing leg. 

Apropos of nothing at all, a 17.8 inch shell would scale very close to 1/48 if taken as representing a 72-foot diameter ship.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I will take the hit for if not starting, then surely fueling the 'what I got for Christmas '68 (or thereabouts) sidetracking, because I was commenting on how odd it was that the crappy, way off-model two-piece Styrofoam Jupiter 2 that came with the deluxe Lost in Space Switch 'n Go set actually seemed to have the 'chariot bay' correct, in all it's impossible glory. The pics posted from the 'man from the 25th Century' pilot only make the case stronger. As WRONG as that thing was, and I KNEW it was wrong when I was a child because no way that the Chariot could fit fully assembled within the Jupiter 2, as wrong as that was it seems Mattel had access to SOMETHING-plans, photos, something- that showed how IA and the effects folks were intending to deal with the issue.

Which is damned odd given the Mattel license for LIS happened during the last year of the show...


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

JPhil123 said:


> Hello!
> Terrific thread idea. I'm curious if anyone plans to do some kind of a major modification to the new Moebius Jupiter 2 as I do, beyond what would be standard for construction and lighting (whatever exactly that will entail).
> 
> I am good for 2 Moebius kits (have other Polar Lights Jupiter 2 kits). I plan to build the first one as a Gemini XII (its my favorite, I've posted on it before), and plan to do the other as the standard Jupiter 2 (with a scrim detail associated with the main viewport). Has anyone toyed with this idea, or plan to do Jupiter 2 crashsite?
> ...


Yep. Thinking of doing a Gemini VII version, a sort of predecessor to the XII. Of course that would require a reconfigured lower hull and a larger fusion core. Hopefully someone, possibly even Moebius will provide the necessary alternate parts. Also think it would make for a very cool diorama to display the J 2 as having landed in North Flatbush Falls or wherever that was in their return to 40's Earth. Add in some vintage model cars and buildings, add some stacks of lumber, some trees, kinda break the fourth wall. Still thinking on the possibilities. Jeff


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

starseeker said:


> Thought I'd do a quick experiment re: the apparent size of the G12 viewports. I'm simply having a really hard time with the idea that they don't describe an eighth of the circumference. This is extremely crude and wouldn't begin to take into account all the variables during filming, but you can see as the camera moves toward the J2 and the focal length of the lens is changed how much the apparent width of the viewports changes. Between four feet and two feet, the distortion in the shape of the J2 isn't that great, but the window size has a very different appearance. At one foot, there is heavy distortion all around so you know you're looking at a wonky photo. But the others, easy to think that in a couple of them the ship had a more than 1/8 circumference window.


Not sure if this will have any meaningful bearing on your thoughts but, quite a while back I was noticing the width differences in the viewports. I stumbled across some original drawings by Creber I believe, for the internal construction of one of the ships-don't remember the scale or size, sorry. Anyway, there was a HEXogonal framework in the center with 6 ( not 8 ) support beams radiating out to the outer circumference of the ship. Again, this was practical construction and never meant to represent the jupiters on-screen design or construction. So what six as opposed to eight support beams gets you is greater space between the beams, and room for the much wider viewports seen ( from the exterior only ) on the Gemini XII as she sits on her gantry awaiting liftoff.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Steve H said:


> I will take the hit for if not starting, then surely fueling the 'what I got for Christmas '68 (or thereabouts) sidetracking, because I was commenting on how odd it was that the crappy, way off-model two-piece Styrofoam Jupiter 2 that came with the deluxe Lost in Space Switch 'n Go set actually seemed to have the 'chariot bay' correct, in all it's impossible glory. The pics posted from the 'man from the 25th Century' pilot only make the case stronger. As WRONG as that thing was, and I KNEW it was wrong when I was a child because no way that the Chariot could fit fully assembled within the Jupiter 2, as wrong as that was it seems Mattel had access to SOMETHING-plans, photos, something- that showed how IA and the effects folks were intending to deal with the issue.
> 
> Which is damned odd given the Mattel license for LIS happened during the last year of the show...


Steve -

Just for old time's sake (and for those that either never saw it):










I remember my mom asking me if I wouldn't want one of those for Christmas that year. Even at such an early age, I said "the ship doesn't look right", which would have been the only reason I would have wanted it anyway.

Okay - that's my one "Christmas" story and we'll leave it at that and focus on the J2, right?

Bryan


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

oh, it looked better than THAT in real life! It was all white, I don't recall those stickers, and my set didn't have that backdrop. There's an interior to the foam J2, surrounding the Chariot bay in like a 'horseshoe', with 'flight seats' and such lined up to the 'front'. The Top shell of the J2 was meant to be rotated 180 degrees so the top of the 'hatch opening' became the flight deck viewport.

I recall it being a bit more wide and squat than that illo.

I could never get the whole air powered 'switch N go' action to work right, I didn't understand then that it was a momentary air pulse that had to be timed just right to *puff* FLIP the switch that would trigger something. I thought it was more like an electrical circuit where you push the pump and hold it and it should keep the switch 'active' for the cart to roll over. Ah, youth, and my lack of understanding of general pneumatic principles!


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

It doesn't bother me if the topic wanders, it's all fun nostalgia! but then I'm not sponsoring the site either. lol


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I think Mattel was thinking that if you have a big enough imagination for Irwin Allen then you you can easily believe that this Styrofoam switch and go set looks exactly like the props on the TV show!


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

I like the idea of re-scaling the J2 kits to include both decks etc.What about costs aside.Putting the 1/35 scale Moebius interior into a 2 foot Sci-Fi Metropolis or Lunar kit and scratch build the lower deck.That makes the J2 about 72 ft diametre.You have a ready upper deck,a 1/35 Chariot and Pod ready to put inside or out, guys what do you all think.
Imagine having a large scale kit of the J2 lit up and looking through the viewports and seeing both decks.


----------



## Ron Gross (Jan 2, 2009)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Seems like this has become more of a complain about Dave Metzner thread than a Jupiter 2 thread.
> 
> Steve


Could that be because a nerve was hit to the extent that this thread was started in the first place? Anyway, I still see quite a lot of meaningful J2 content here, although I do hope that the conversation steers away from any one individual.

Here's my take on this situation, for whatever it's worth. Yes, it's true that both Gary and I have participated in peripheral discussions (as pointed out in post #128), but I will only speak for myself. I think what you have to remember is that the products offered by Moebius inherently include a highly emotional component. The mere fact that we are tapping into elements of our childhood makes this situation unavoidable. As such, a certain amount enthusiasm that would inevitably lead to more general "shop talk" should be expected, especially since there is little additional info available on the model itself at this point. I believe that this is actually a good thing for sales in the long run, and I do have some business experience.

Does this mean that I think it should be a free-for-all? Certainly not. At some point, intervention becomes necessary. Everyone will have their own opinion on whether or not the points involved in this case qualify.

And now, back to the J2...


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

I totally agree..time to let it go
I was thinking that for those people who don't want to research the changes but would like to build a first season or Gemini XII version a couple page guide could be put together at 1/35 scale to aid in scratch building


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

>Putting the 1/35 scale Moebius interior into a 2 foot Sci-Fi Metropolis or Lunar kit and scratch build the lower deck.That makes the J2 about 72 ft diametre

So to summarize...

An unmodified PL has 2 decks but no room for pod or landing gear wells, and takes well-known (but masterful) liberties with both decks.

An unmodified Moebius is a perfect representation of a Gemini 12.

A 2-deck PL rebuild (all interior parts discarded) scales to 1/72 (matching the C-57D, happyhappyjoyjoy), and can make use of the Johnny Lightning pod (though not the chariot, which is I think a bit underscale to 1/72).

A 2-deck Moebius rebuild (interior parts discarded) is very nearly 1/48.

A 2-deck Lunar or (gasp!) Sci-Fi Metropolis rebuild can incorporate the Moebius interior with minor modifications, and make use of the same-scale Lunar Models pod and chariot. 

3-deck heretics could apply the pod-dropper's half-scale hatch to rescale the PL kit to 1/96 (suffering the additional burden of a minute scratchbuilding of the pod). 

Finally -- since 96 feet is 19.2 inches at 1/60 -- the PL could be rebuilt as a 1-deck Gemini 12, and put alongside a (nearly) 1/60 Moebius 2-deck rebuild for a pilot/series comparison. 

I'm tempted to cross-post this to the Moebius J-2 details thread, as it adds up to justification for each and every LiS fanatic to buy not one, not two, but four Moebius J-2 kits...surely something to bring solace to the heart of Dave. But I think I'll leave well enough alone.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Wait...3, not four kits, given differential use of interior and exterior. Still a nice tidy sum for Moebius, if multiplied by...how many of us are there, anyway?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

I credit the HobbyTalk moderators for improving their act.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Anyone know what's become of Chris Krieg, one-time webmaster of the now-defunct "Jupiter 2 Technical Site," www.jupitertwo.com? I've spent much of the day filing innumerable model-related printouts, and happened across blueprint pages of his. Side and top exteriors are familiar...but he scaled the ship to 96 feet in diameter, producing a side cross section, both decks AND the power core! His pod slides clockwise (as seen from above) to match the pod-dropper's exit hatch, the chariot being stored fully assembled and horizontally, level with deck 2. Below is the transcription of his power core page text:

>And now finally, after all these years, the power core of the Jupiter 2. Fans may recall that the power core was accessed through a door marked "Danger, Radiation" from the third season episode, "The Space Creature." In putting these workable plans together changes had to be made that would make sense. For instance, the same door that was used to access the core was also used in the third season's "Target Earth" to enter and exit the ship via the landing gear.


----------



## Ron Gross (Jan 2, 2009)

I got an e-mail from him a few months ago, so I guess all is well.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm surprised Irwin Allen didn't reuse the Jupiter 2 mock up and miniatures.I mean you could of had another family after the Robinsons fly a Jupiter 2 and land on the Giants planet.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

trekkist said:


> >Putting the 1/35 scale Moebius interior into a 2 foot Sci-Fi Metropolis or Lunar kit and scratch build the lower deck.That makes the J2 about 72 ft diametre
> 
> So to summarize...
> 
> An unmodified PL has 2 decks but no room for pod or landing gear wells, and takes well-known (but masterful) liberties with both decks.


TRUE



trekkist said:


> An unmodified Moebius is a perfect representation of a Gemini 12.


WRONG!!! the lower deck wasn't there, and the exterior details and dimensions are different...like no gear, veiwport, different fusion core.



trekkist said:


> A 2-deck PL rebuild (all interior parts discarded) scales to 1/72 (matching the C-57D, happyhappyjoyjoy), and can make use of the Johnny Lightning pod (though not the chariot, which is I think a bit underscale to 1/72).


true



trekkist said:


> A 2-deck Moebius rebuild (interior parts discarded) is very nearly 1/48


maybe



trekkist said:


> A 2-deck Lunar or (gasp!) Sci-Fi Metropolis rebuild can incorporate the Moebius interior with minor modifications, and make use of the same-scale Lunar Models pod and chariot.


OK...but eeuww!



trekkist said:


> 3-deck heretics could apply the pod-dropper's half-scale hatch to rescale the PL kit to 1/96 (suffering the additional burden of a minute scratchbuilding of the pod).


EEEUUUWWW!!! 



trekkist said:


> Finally -- since 96 feet is 19.2 inches at 1/60 -- the PL could be rebuilt as a 1-deck Gemini 12, and put alongside a (nearly) 1/60 Moebius 2-deck rebuild for a pilot/series comparison.


Not Zakly..



trekkist said:


> I'm tempted to cross-post this to the Moebius J-2 details thread, as it adds up to justification for each and every LiS fanatic to buy not one, not two, but four Moebius J-2 kits...surely something to bring solace to the heart of Dave. But I think I'll leave well enough alone.


THREE is enough.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Y3a said:


> TRUE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pithy.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

Well at least there will be a nice variety of builds at any model competition the J2 is entered in.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

trekkist said:


> ...happyhappyjoyjoy...


Now you're sounding like a _Lost in Space_man, trekkist! 


trekkist said:


> ...how many of us are there, anyway?


According to Moebius: enough.


----------



## DaDragon (May 18, 2008)

*Where?*



trekkist said:


> Anyone know what's become of Chris Krieg, one-time webmaster of the now-defunct "Jupiter 2 Technical Site," www.jupitertwo.com? I've spent much of the day filing innumerable model-related printouts, and happened across blueprint pages of his. Side and top exteriors are familiar...but he scaled the ship to 96 feet in diameter, producing a side cross section, both decks AND the power core! His pod slides clockwise (as seen from above) to match the pod-dropper's exit hatch, the chariot being stored fully assembled and horizontally, level with deck 2. . . .


Any chance of an i-address, or two for these plans?

Also, see my posts:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2827847&postcount=521
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2827862&postcount=522​
Great thread, zero restrictions = sweet!

Graham.


----------



## Ron Gross (Jan 2, 2009)

These plans first appeared in Flint Mitchel's LISFAN #2, published in 1983.


----------



## DaDragon (May 18, 2008)

*At last!*



Ron Gross said:


> These plans first appeared in Flint Mitchel's LISFAN #2, published in 1983.


Thanks Ron :thumbsup: ; I've been trying to find out who constructed the plans since I first posted them. The original posts tell how I found them, but the context was lost years ago.

It also proves the fans' were not happy with the size of the J2 way back in the day!

Cheers,

Graham.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

>WRONG!!! the lower deck wasn't there, and the exterior details and dimensions are different...like no gear, veiwport, different fusion core.

Sorry; should have said upcoming Moebius near-perfect representation of Gemini 12 interior; I'm quite aware the lower half differed quite a bit. 

Personally, I loathe the Gemini 12...but I have broken down and preordered the Moebius. Next in line for my credits' dimunition, half-price Fine Molds S'Wars kits from Amazon; a 1/350 Seaview preorder; and down the pike aways there's the moon suit and Gorgo from Monarch, not to mention the Galaxy Quest from -- who's doing that?

Oh, the pain, the pain...


----------



## Ron Gross (Jan 2, 2009)

DaDragon said:


> Thanks Ron :thumbsup: ; I've been trying to find out who constructed the plans since I first posted them. The original posts tell how I found them, but the context was lost years ago.
> 
> It also proves the fans' were not happy with the size of the J2 way back in the day!
> 
> ...


I'm afraid there's still somewhat of a mystery, as Flint only printed them, along with various other blueprints, citing "various artists." If I find out any more, I post the info.


----------



## Sonett (Jul 21, 2003)

The LISFAN plans were drawn by Kraig Rogers. He made these especially for LISFAN #3 as Ron Stated.

Phil


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

From reading all of the threads about the forth coming J2, here are my thoughts (FWIW) on the Chariot and the "garage".

Unless I am mistaken, it was mention a couple of times that the chariot needed to be assembled. If this is correct, here is my theory about the ability of two men to assemble the craft and how it is stored:

The windows and side panels are actually snapped in. The roof, one the panels are taken off, is lowed just like the campers that are towed, you know which ones? They have the collapsable roofs. The chairs in the chariot are removable and stored inside with the roof lowered as are the bulky instruments. Does this make sense?

As for the garage, the door is lowered straight down on four postings like an elevator, the chariot is moved into place (with the roof lowered and everything stowed inside) and the chariot is then lifted into the J2.

At least that is my theory!


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

I agree, I've been thinking about that too. Literally, and elevator suspended on all four corners that works vertically. The entire lower area of the Chariot stays in one piece, being the chassis/tracks/power source/lower interior with all components. Seats could actually just fold down flat or be removed. The Canopy could break down into seperate panels, which are fastened to a framework much like a tent structure when assembled. They could stack fairly flat for storage inside the interior if the seats were removed. All of the stuff like roof rack, antenna's, scanner dish, etc could be held on with quick-release pins for easy removal. I'm almost considering building another Chariot and making it a "portable" model just to see if it can be done!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Tim,
that's an excellent topic for a diorama! Especially if you have a spare kit after a canopy malfunction. (crack or glue hazing spot) cut away the defective part and use some sheet stock to simulate the flat panels...

Could be fun.


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

Well looks like the other thread is closed. So I hope I still get to read some great posts here. Guess it was just to much of a heartache for certian people there. Sad that the mods didnt get the heart and soul of the thread. 


I like the idea of a broken down Chariot. Hopefully we will see some in scale vehicles for the Moebius J2. 

What other mods do people want to do. Looks like there will be enough room for storage rooms. I was thinking maybe a room that was similar to the second level storage room, smith and will ran through in the third season. Would have to scratch build a ton of survial gear boxes though.:lol:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well...how about this? Conjectural model of how the Robinsons would have used the hulk of the Gemini XII at the crash site? I realize that they *probably* had tents of some kind of temporary shelter packed (see the curious solar reflector lean-to in the first season), but it's logical to assume that a vessel designed to travel many light-years and withstand all the stresses thereof, that's a pretty safe place to bunk down until more solid shelter can be built.

So what would they do? Take out the freeze tubes? erect privacy walls and hang hammocks? I'm thinking of the fascinating way 19th century sailing ships could be re-configured depending on need, and maybe the G XII was made with that in mind.

Or not. Maybe we assume it was made to land at a prepared 'fort' or frontier post on Alpha C and the crash landing is WAY beyond what they're prepared for.

(it does appear that there's an infrastructure in place, given in the series the 'light houses' and fuel stations and scouts, yes? Keep in mind that for serious discussions I tend to ignore much of the show past the first 7 or so episodes  )


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Good questions! 

I seem to remember(Remember that Senility is transparent to the user however...) The 1st season tents as well. 

I always wondered why the Robinson's took the Chariot 'tour' of Pryplanus in the Chariot instead of freezing themselves for a few cold days. Funny that it NEVER happened for the rest of that 1st year. perhaps that planet had a wildly eccentric orbit and was a few decades from falling into their sun? I think the entire Jupiter 2 hull was cast from Unobtanium, and therefore the multiple pounding the ship took was planned for, and the hull survived for that reason. I also think the Chariot was a kit stored in the lower level, next to the pod parts. I wonder if they had Rice-a-Roni for dinner sometimes? I wondered if their toilet paper was recyclable back in the day...4th graders...Who knew! 

If things had gone as planned, the Robinsons would have had many new families to help colonize Alpha Proximas 2 planets (Alpha Centauri has no planets as we know today). 

Things would have gone well until the first lawyers and politicians arrived...LOL!


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

To answer your first question, in the context of the show, they probably never used the freezing tubes again because Maureen almost died from being frozen in the first episode. 

To answer in the real world, the freezing tubes were part of the original design of the Gemini 12, and they were necessary for that ship as seen in the LIS pilot. They also were needed in the "Reluctant Stowaway" so the new stuff with Smith and the Robot would match the pilot footage. And I guess they were left because it might even have strained the credulity of the Irwin Allen universe to have them disappear without some sort of explanation.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

NTRPRZ said:


> To answer your first question, in the context of the show, they probably never used the freezing tubes again because Maureen almost died from being frozen in the first episode.
> 
> To answer in the real world, the freezing tubes were part of the original design of the Gemini 12, and they were necessary for that ship as seen in the LIS pilot. They also were needed in the "Reluctant Stowaway" so the new stuff with Smith and the Robot would match the pilot footage. And I guess they were left because it might even have strained the credulity of the Irwin Allen universe to have them disappear without some sort of explanation.


And the sudden appearance of the Pod DIDN'T? 

No, I know the reasons they kept the tubes in place was to match footage from the pilot, no problem there at all. There's no real reason why they didn't tear them down for the second season except it probably just looked cool to Allen, and taking the tubes out would leave large, empty space to try and use.

Altho..long time since I watched, maybe there was second unit footage of stuff blowing up and sparking near the tubes that got used and re-used and they didn't want to have to re-shoot that stuff?

Do wonder where the 'sliding out of various cupboards' acceleration couches went.

What's so fun about the current DVD world, if you look, you can SEE the det cord and squibs on various walls and panels, waiting to be fired off. It's really noticeable in the second season of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

Steve H said:


> And the sudden appearance of the Pod DIDN'T?
> 
> No, I know the reasons they kept the tubes in place was to match footage from the pilot, no problem there at all. There's no real reason why they didn't tear them down for the second season except it probably just looked cool to Allen, and taking the tubes out would leave large, empty space to try and use.
> 
> ...



Yeah I actually noticed that in some episodes. The second season of Voyage as you say are very detectable. I forgot what episdoe but the one with the shoot out on the bridge is very noticeable. I love finding stuff like that.:thumbsup:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

NTRPRZ said:


> To answer your first question, in the context of the show, they probably never used the freezing tubes again because Maureen almost died from being frozen in the first episode.
> 
> To answer in the real world, the freezing tubes were part of the original design of the Gemini 12, and they were necessary for that ship as seen in the LIS pilot. They also were needed in the "Reluctant Stowaway" so the new stuff with Smith and the Robot would match the pilot footage. And I guess they were left because it might even have strained the credulity of the Irwin Allen universe to have them disappear without some sort of explanation.


You have to wonder if Maureen's condition was real or trumped up by Dr. Smith. Certainly she had a fainting spell, but we only had Smith's word for the severity.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Maureen's fainting was only in the second pilot. In the first, there was all sorts of fire damage around the freezing tubes. There's no mention of how the tubes worked following the crash, although there _was_ mention of the ship's self-repair and regeneration capacity. 

The G12 must've also been more intelligent than the J2, as it found a habitable planet much closer than Alpha Centauri. That is, if the clock readings are to be accepted. Otherwise, perhaps they actually crashed _on_ Alpha Centauri.

As for sleeping accomodations, all that is seen in the G12's central control room area are boxes and chairs. The astrogator works are up in the dome, and its base is apparently being used as a table. But, there should be plenty of room outside the ring of the control room walls for small staterooms.


----------



## B-9 (Jun 8, 2009)

toyroy said:


> As for sleeping accomodations, all that is seen in the G12's central control room area are boxes and chairs. The astrogator works are up in the dome, and its base is apparently being used as a table. But, there should be plenty of room outside the ring of the control room walls for small staterooms.


I hope someone makes a G-12 out of a J-2 with said accommodations (and a bathroom) and takes photos! It could be cool.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It is my understanding that there is no interior hatch detail inside the hull, or 'cut here' guides. Opening up hatches will be a problem. Due to the size of the hull halves internal stifners were necessary to maintain shape makeing cuts difficult.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Not a problem. If there are internal stiffeners in the area of the hatch, or anything else you want to open up, use a pair of sprue cutters to remove them from the back of the part. The, with fresh #11 blades as needed, LIGHTLY score the hatch area from the outside. If you break the tip of the blade, you're getting tired and using too much pressure. You can tape into place edge guides or even a template to help keep the lines straight. Or curved. (You could use a dremel with a cut off disk but you'd melt the plastic and use too much of it to the saw cut.) After many, many repeated light strokes, you should be pretty much through the plastic. Keep going with the light strokes and fresh blades until you are through or hold the hull up to the weak Christmas sunlight and score through lightly from the back and snap the part out through the remaining very thin leftover. If you don't score from the back when you press the part out, you'll tear the plastic and may have some extra filling to do. 

So you should have a nice hatch opening and a nice undersized hatch. Get a package of .040 plain Evergreen styrene sheet and make a cardboard template that fits the inside of the hull. Use that template to cut the styrene to make a new airlock (if one is needed) or new stiffeners (if needed). Use Evergreen 040 x 060 and cement strips around the perimeter of the removed hatch. Use liquid cement first and when it has dried, use CA to fill any gaps on the surface. Now the hatch is bigger than the hatch opening and you can use the rest of the leftover Evergreen to make slots for the hatch to slide in and a pocket (and light trap, if you're illuminating) for it to slide into and to trim out the hatch details. Depending on how thick the Moebius hull is, you may have to thin the hull behind the opening hatches so the doors aren't too deeply recessed. Dremel again or sandpaper. 

The only tricky part is figuring out how to close the hatch from the outside. On my old 1/24, I left a very small tab inside than I can hook my fingertip onto and drag the hatch partway. No doubt Teslabe will adapt the servos he used to make the Seaview's radar antenna spin into a brilliant motorized hatch mechanism. Hey, I bought a bunch of those servos... 

It'll be a fun scratch build and doing it yourself is almost always easier than trying to install some resin aftermarket part that usually doesn't fit all that well anyway.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

being a little under the weather today and bored out of my mind I threw in the pilot and froze the frames where we first see the Gemini 12, it has fins on the core but only 7. im betting they didnt put them all the way around just on the side towards the camera.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

5 mintes later in the epiosde its shows the saucer behind the bald news guy and you can clearly see the rotating V Mirror in the upper dome rotating.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

later on first scene of the G12 getting hit buy tin foil meteors whows bot the fusion core lights and V mirror spining fast, second scene in the shower show no fusion core activity and the V mirror has stoped spinning too, you can see core fins tho and to me it looks like the view port is almost flush with the hull.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*panning the upper deck*

when they pan the upper deck they never show the air lock missing or thearea of the elevator.






oshkosh619 said:


> You saw the interior from the cryo area moving from left to right around the forward console all the way to the "vital circuitry" area where the "bobbing red land mine" and atomic clock were located. While I do not recall a "pan" as such, those areas were seen in several of the in-flight scenes. Where the elevator and ladder were on the J2 flight deck was pretty much taken up by the food processing equipment and storage bins (that held nuts and candy for cast and crew to eat) that were relocated to the lower level on the J2. You never really saw that though in the pilot. There was no airlock. As the floor level was below the "beltline" of the hull, the floor ramped up to where the door (with no visible controls) was located. The perimeter of the flight deck was raised a few inches above the central portion where the astrogator was (except in the very rear of the set adjacent to the food processing area where the raised platform did not extend so that the cameras would have a level surface to move around on with no drop while filming. The J2 eliminated the raised platform, as the robot would not be able to move freely around the flight deck.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

not sure what miniture they used but after the rain of tin foil is over and the fuison core lights are out theres a nice shot of the saucer top, no rim around the upper dome, its flush just like the PL kit.





starseeker said:


> The 48" Gemini 12 has me most confused. Its upper hull shape seems to conform closely to the 4'/10' blueprint. But it seems to have had a radically shallow lower hull than any of the other miniatures. The miniature had no external details and photos of the surviving miniature indicate that the original top dome was frosted and surrounded by a ring that stood slightly proud of the top hull. Lights flashing insdie a frosted dome can be seen just before the President's speech in No Place to Hide. It's ring lights appear to have been six spinning stalks that were either slightly unevenly spaced or were shaded so as to each illuminate a different number of lights. The light ring also appears not to have been level as the brightness level varies greatly at 180 degrees. The light lights are represented by dark shading below. There are approximately 2, 4, 6 and then 0 spaces between the lights.
> This is the Jupiter 2 that was used in the crash sequences seen in all seasons.
> 
> There is another oddball shape of 48" Jupiter 2. I've only seen pictures of the top of the hull of this version and they show what appears to be a more prominent or flatter rise from the edges of the upper hull and then a flattening of the top of the upper hull for about 1/2 the diameter of the upper hull. I do not know if this is an original J2 miniature or a copy or someones home made experiment. I have not seen this shape on any Jupiter 2 on screen.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

i als noticed when the chariot is leaving woth out john and penny the entry ramp is gone, hatch is closed but theres ahole where the ramp sshould be in the trailer skirted lower hull.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*best you cood get in the mid 60's*

i got one of those old S & G sets for X MAS , back then it was a good as it was going to get, when summer came i used a 49 Ford baby moon hubcap, wraped it tightly with some grey duck tape, added a chicken pop pie tin foil pan and used plastic army men for my diarama play set.






Gemini1999 said:


> Steve -
> 
> Just for old time's sake (and for those that either never saw it):
> 
> ...


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

you wood think some body at the prop shop wood have taken polaroids of progress to send over the production offices so IA cood see how thing were going?


----------



## DaDragon (May 18, 2008)

*And the winner is . . .*

And woof359 now holds the record for the highest number of consecutive posts (8)!!!  :lol:

Graham.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

woof359 said:


> i got one of those old S & G sets for X MAS , back then it was a good as it was going to get, when summer came i used a 49 Ford baby moon hubcap, wraped it tightly with some grey duck tape, added a chicken pop pie tin foil pan and used plastic army men for my diarama play set.


Check out the Seaview.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> later on first scene of the G12 getting hit buy tin foil meteors whows bot the fusion core lights and V mirror spining fast, second scene in the shower show no fusion core activity and the V mirror has stoped spinning too, you can see core fins tho and to me it looks like the view port is almost flush with the hull.





woof359 said:


> i als noticed when the chariot is leaving woth out john and penny the entry ramp is gone, hatch is closed but theres ahole where the ramp sshould be in the trailer skirted lower hull.


Good observations! Also, when Maureen goes out to do laundry, you can see a notch around the hatch opening.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> Check out the Seaview.



I got one of those for Christmas back in 1968. Didn't like the yellow color though.

Bryan


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

i had one of the subs, I was to dumb to cut off the crank and paint it grey tho.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

I remember those Seaviews well. Never liked 'em, cause of the single tailfin. What I did want were the subs you put the pills in. Made by the same people who put out the scuba divers you put the pills in.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

toyroy said:


> What I did want were the subs you put the pills in. Made by the same people who put out the scuba divers you put the pills in.


It never fails. You bring up the nineteen sixties, and somebody, just has to drag drugs into the discussion. 

I had the Seaview set, the packaging was a display box, an open face box covered by clear wrap. The Seaview suspended at the top, the minisub in the middle, and the sea crawler with divers and accessories at the bottom. The Seaview kind of bugged me, but I had no idea where the minisub, and sea crawler came form. Plus the sea crawler wouldn't stay at the bottom of the bathtub!

David.

David.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Ah, the sixties...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

woof359 said:


> you wood think some body at the prop shop wood have taken polaroids of progress to send over the production offices so IA cood see how thing were going?


Polaroid was just getting the instant picture thing going, and it wouldn't have been cost effective to use that. Early Polaroid was a two-part (actually, three part) system, 8 pictures to a pack and B&W only. You took the picture, pulled the 'safety' tab, then pulled the film/developer sheet out, and let it sit for a minute or so. Then you peeled the photo away from the developer sheet, let the photo dry (this is where the 'shaking a Polaroid picture' came from) then take your 'fixer' squeegee out of its plastic tube and wipe it over the photo to 'seal' it.

The SX-70 instant camera and film didn't come out until the mid-ish '70s. I know I got mine in 1977.

What they would have done at Fox's model shop would have had a studio photographer come over with a 35mm camera and shoot several rolls, then have a 'contact sheet' made up for IA to examine. 

Which does make me wonder if there IS a batch of contact sheets sitting in a box at the UCLA archives or buried in the Fox vaults.

But as the Studio would have charged Space Productions an arm and a leg for that service, I suspect this wasn't done, and it was just the model shop calling IA when they had something to show.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

i heard irwin had a shed behind his home full of differant things, and Space production's and kevin Burns has accsess to a lot of things.

at one time they were going to add to the DVD's, probly just another rumor.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> ...B&W only...


Not true. By the sixties, Polaroid color film was widely available. I do remember "The Swinger" from the late sixties. It was a kind of Polaroid Volkswagen, and it only used B&W film.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

woof359 said:


> ... at one time they were going to add to the DVD's...


What new stuff?


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Why is the landing gear not symmetrical with the main window on the JII? Their a little off center. Seems rather strange to me, is this in theory to accommodate the Pod or the Chariot? 

http://www.scifimetropolis.com/j2inst.html


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Maritain said:


> Why is the landing gear not symmetrical with the main window on the JII? Their a little off center. Seems rather strange to me, is this in theory to accommodate the Pod or the Chariot?
> 
> http://www.scifimetropolis.com/j2inst.html


Just as a guess, it was an attempt to have SOME logic in the ship, as canting the gear would line it up with the airlock hatch and that just doesn't work if you have to have that big support post/cylinder coming out. If they had been able to have it support JUST on the hinge point you could get away with it.

Another factor might be the need to 'cheat' to the camera to show that there's three legs when you're shooting from the front. I recall people discussing (way back in the day, pre-DVD) the C-57-D from Forbidden Planet and the constant fight if there were two or three ramps.

(and keep in mind that it should be obvious that IA likely pointed to the Cruiser and said "I like that and that feature, make it like that" )


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Maritain said:


> Why is the landing gear not symmetrical with the main window on the JII? Their a little off center. Seems rather strange to me, is this in theory to accommodate the Pod or the Chariot?


Most certainly not the pod, as it didn't appear until the third season. The chariot ramp was to have been between the gear legs farthest from the viewport. It _may_ have had a bearing on the location of the gear legs. However, I am totally ignorant of the interior design during the period they planned for the ramp, so I can't address the question.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Ah, the sixties...


I had one too. Looks like the toy was based on this kit:

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/voyage-dioramas/00052.html

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/voyage-dioramas/00053.html


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> I had one too. Looks like the toy was based on this kit:
> 
> http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/voyage-dioramas/00052.html


My guess is it's the other way around. 

Cool pix, though. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Maritain said:


> Why is the landing gear not symmetrical with the main window on the JII? Their a little off center. Seems rather strange to me, is this in theory to accommodate the Pod or the Chariot?
> 
> http://www.scifimetropolis.com/j2inst.html


That is one of my favorite design elements- it makes the ship look like a machine with internal structures and rquirements, not a symmetrical decoration.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> My guess is it's the other way around.
> 
> Cool pix, though. Thanks for the link.


I didn't think the toy was released until '66.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

I wouldn't be surprised if those Remco Seaviews were made here in the states. Not that fin other-abled Seaviews do much for American manufacturing prestige.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

woof359 said:


> you wood think some body at the prop shop wood have taken polaroids of progress to send over the production offices so IA cood see how thing were going?


W o w


----------



## B-9 (Jun 8, 2009)

Not much going on in the J-2 world I guess!


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

...after a few weeks/months of frantic conversation and debate following the announcment of the Moebius J2... I think folks have settled down into patiently waiting mode, with only the occasional spasm of what ifs. 

I know the Moebius guys are busy working on her... I am busy finishing up the masters of a couple of sets of figures for her and I'm sure some others are working on their after market parts... waiting for test shots to arrive and such... so there's a lot going on behind the scenes, I think.

Drew


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Y3A, I thinks that's a devilishly ingenious system of rigging working landing gear that you tried to start a thread on over there at the other place. Somehow they missed the point entirely that not everyone is going to build a Jupiter 2 kit straight from box with the full interior and that there might be people out there that aren't that interested in re-inventing the wheel when it comes to alternatives. Your method might seem very complicated but you're dealing with a very complicated combination of motions that also had to be precisely synchronized. So I think that's about as simple and elegant a solution as anyone is ever going to see. Great rectro-engineering! Thanks for posting it!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Starseeker,
I sent you a PM.


----------



## starseeker2 (Jun 13, 2008)

Toyroy: this is tiny and terrible but maybe it could be of some use. If anyone has a better copy, love to see it!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

starseeker said:


> Y3A, I thinks that's a devilishly ingenious system of rigging working landing gear that you tried to start a thread on over there at the other place. Somehow they missed the point entirely that not everyone is going to build a Jupiter 2 kit straight from box with the full interior and that there might be people out there that aren't that interested in re-inventing the wheel when it comes to alternatives. Your method might seem very complicated but you're dealing with a very complicated combination of motions that also had to be precisely synchronized. So I think that's about as simple and elegant a solution as anyone is ever going to see. Great rectro-engineering! Thanks for posting it!


Thanks Star!!!

I will give you some Idea as to where I was headed on that thread. 

=========

The gear on the model CAN BE worked all from underneath by using the ram to push the legs down, but still controlled by cables. 

The gear on the "REAL" jupiter 2 has the ram pointed up, with the pressure cylinder at the bottom of the leg, which suggests a hose would be snaked down the gear leg under the steps(?) to connect it. 

So HOW HEAVY IS the Jupiter 2??? I think it should be compared to an Apollo capsule or SR71 blackbird as far as density. Probably over a million pounds. 

So if the engines don't cushion as an effect of flight control, the legs would need to push back at about 3 times the weight of the ship to stop it’s motion. 

It HAS to work like it does to keep from snagging itself and if using a jackshaft system, which exerts a load of torque and can break everything! (but it's light weight, and easy to rig up!) 
The footpads can NOT swivel but MUST stay aligned to the leg. 
It can pivot but the alignment can't change(no spinning of the footpad at the end of the ram.) 

Anyway, I figure a metal rod with that bigger tube on the bottom can be used to push the legs down and all run by a small jackshaft and 6 thin cables.
The main cable has a delay spring with it so the footpad door slides open first, before a spring takes up the slack after the doors get to full open. 
The main cable pulls the top end of the rod towards the "A" frame above the gearwell. It will have a short tube in it and a pully wheel. the rod uses that as the top guide. 
the jackshaft will run on a pair of 1.5v batteries. 
The footpads may need to be fitted with metal bottoms so the footpads can better spread the weight. 
the gear will stay in whatever position you leave it in. 
The system does require tuning of course. The solution also allows for a mechanical spinner and core. Both connected with a clear lucite rod 
I can run it right down through the Astrogator. Put a figure in front of it and you might not notice. Using 6 low power LED’s you can ‘ride’ a few tiny batteries right ON the back/top of the fusion core light array. 
6 similar LED’s right under the bubble with a thin frosted plastic baffle to diffuse the light into the cabin will complete the combined illusion of both a live set interior and the light effects of the Hero. 
The gear is operated via the 3 thin steel wires that would support the model. RC is too heavy for this model.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*J Ii*

Wow, you guys are really getting into the landing gear! I built retractable gear into my 1991 Lunar Models JII, I think of it more as a prototype now. I'd like to do a refined version for my Sci-Fi Metro 24" one of these days.

Basically I used a centrally located bellcrank with a pushrod for each leg. This works extremely well and sits below the center line. I've tried a few different things for the hatch covers, most recently a cable system using wound guitar strings, although I could've used a thicker gauge!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Well, your solution is EXCELLENT! This would work for anyone with an LED circuit in the fusion core. I look for that 'old school' look to the effects for the Jupiter 2. I really think it was the last of the great classic spacecrafts. The Enterprise is the first of the new age ships. 2001 followed that look, and a few other craft did too. (Star Destroyer?) 

I wanted a "Set version of the jupiter 2, with the skirt around the bottom, the straight sides, and the ramp. The skirt would be a 'weather strip' because the Jupiter 2 always was parked on a laser-cut circle into the surface of the planet. the¥ would make the 'basement' and hover the Jupiter 2 into it in between TV shows.... They would be able to go down the gear steps to the basement where the¥*stored all stuff for winter....or something... This might be a reason for all that. ANYWAY! The set version could be both floors, on different bases. This would allow correct lighting, and look when photographed. Perhaps a set of panels and walls as the show 'progressed'...?


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Jii*

Thanks! There'll be a lot more room in a bigger model and most R/C parts are pretty small, servos, receivers etc;

I always wondered about the 'skirt', watching the show as a kid but never gave it too much thought. The idea of the laser cut circle makes sense, except that they were always crashing!

Long ago I had the idea of a 'space docked' JII where the lower level was encased by some kind of outer structure but the viewport would be open. I think there was some LISFAN art along those lines...


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Since I plan to represent a LOT of Jupiter 2 with just 3 models, I decided to do one with...if I can find it, a wind-up slower spinning mechanism and do a reflective mirror thing on a home made larger flatter fusion core, and use it under the "no Gear, but "Hero Quality" interior" version. I's gonna be a string puppet model, kinda like the Gemini 12/Jupiter 2 model thats about a foot across. I wonder if it might be displayed sitting on THE FUEL BARGE!!!

One will be an imitation of the Hero as far as outward appearance and operation, but some improvements - taking advantage of past mistakes.

One left is planned to be a model of the Hero as seen in "The Jupiter 2 Autopsy" DVD.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Y3a said:


> I wonder if it might be displayed sitting on THE FUEL BARGE!!!


Speaking of fuel barges, I don't know if you've seen this. I came across it by accident the other day:
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Model...wardsHauntedLighthouse/tabid/508/Default.aspx


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Speaking of fuel barges, I don't know if you've seen this. I came across it by accident the other day:
> http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Model...wardsHauntedLighthouse/tabid/508/Default.aspx


Is that a recreation or the actual filming miniature?

.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Fuel Barge*

Wow, that's actually mine! Seems like a long time ago, I think one of the first things I ever submitted to Steve...

Chuck


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

Y3a said:


> Since I plan to represent a LOT of Jupiter 2 with just 3 models, I decided to do one with...if I can find it, a wind-up slower spinning mechanism and do a reflective mirror thing on a home made larger flatter fusion core, and use it under the "no Gear, but "Hero Quality" interior" version. I's gonna be a string puppet model, kinda like the Gemini 12/Jupiter 2 model thats about a foot across. I wonder if it might be displayed sitting on THE FUEL BARGE!!!
> 
> One will be an imitation of the Hero as far as outward appearance and operation, but some improvements - taking advantage of past mistakes.
> 
> One left is planned to be a model of the Hero as seen in "The Jupiter 2 Autopsy" DVD.


My 16.5" is an 'in flight' only w/ the hero interior, ultimately I'd like to do the 24" as the fully articulated hero version. So many Jupiter IIs - so little time!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

That is simply a stunning piece of model making!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Richard Baker said:


> Is that a recreation or the actual filming miniature?


It's not a receation of the filming miniature, but it's actually better. The footage used in "The Haunted Lighthouse" in Season 3, re-used footage of a fuel barge that was built for the Season 2 episode "Wild Adventure". The original model was just 3 cylinders with a central platform where the J2 could land.

Chuck's model is much more elaborate and more fitting for what should've been represented for the Lightship and the layout that was shown in that episode. I love it!

Bryan


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think his take on the design- a good Irwin Allen Sixties look. Well done!

.


----------



## j2man (Jun 18, 1999)

Wow Chuck....All I have to say.......Wow. It's so relaxed over here.......Don't feel like I'm going to get my hand smacked or anything. Your topic is an excellent one. I hope to see the conversation grow and grow to about 4, 067 pages. It doesn't matter to me. I can search for whatever I'm looking for in a post.....


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Chuck Eds said:


> ...I used a centrally located bellcrank with a pushrod for each leg. This works extremely well and sits below the center line. I've tried a few different things for the hatch covers, most recently a cable system using wound guitar strings...


Would you elaborate on the strut motion constraints, please?


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Jii*

Thanks for all the kind words guys! It's too bad the 3rd year of LIS relied so heavily on stock footage, but then again I guess it's better than having been stuck on a planet for another whole year.

I guess they made the best with the time & budget they had, but it would have been nice if they could've done more original stuff too. How many times did they re-use the yellow circle landing??!!


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Jii*



toyroy said:


> Would you elaborate on the strut motion constraints, please?


Not entirely sure what you mean. The pushrod length determines the starting & stopping points...

Chuck


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

starseeker said:


> I just can't get away from everything I look at telling me that the G12 windows were indeed wider than the J2s. I'm going to see what I can figure out playing with shapes in Autocad. In the meantime, I overlaid the best edge on shots I have of the G12 and J2 and despite what has been said many times, many places about a supposed difference in the shapes of the upper hull, I can find absolutely none. The image I settled with here isn't the clearest, but once the diameters exactly match, the shapes of the upper hulls might have been traced over one another. The upper hulls of the 4's exactly match.
> Every single shot of the 4' G12 lower hull that I've seen makes it look like the 4's hull was even shallower than the 13" G12. ???
> Edit: the dreaings above do not show the core fins. The photos do. So taking that into account, they are close close close.


I know that I'm coming very late to this discussion (I'm chronically tardy), but awhile back I was looking through some very old Lost In Space material I have, booklets mags etc. I don't remember which publication it was in, but I found some reprints of Creber's original practical drawings. These were NOT of the Jupiter miniature as it was supposed to appear on film, but the design of the interior construction for practical purposes. Anyway, there was a framework around the center (upper dome or lower, not sure), from which the support columns radiated. That support framework was hexagonal, with six support beams radiating out to the outer walls. That means there would have been 60 degrees between the support columns, not 45, making for wider viewports. I imagine there was never meant to be any reconciliation with the interior sets. Granted, these were only drawings from along time ago, but may be worth looking into. Hope this makes some since and is helpful.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Chuck Eds said:


> Not entirely sure what you mean. The pushrod length determines the starting & stopping points.


Is there a track atop the gear well, that the strut end of the pushrod runs in?


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

OK, now for something different. We all love the Gemini 12/Jupiter 2 so let me ask this question. What is your favorite effects sequence from LIS? Hands down mine is the beautifully shot Red Rock Canyon crash. The large ship gliding down those guide wires still leaves me in awe! The sound of the Atomic Motors straining to maintain flight, exquisite! It still amazes me what the Lydeckers could do with the simplest methods at their disposal! No CGI nothing. Just inginuety! In many ways the miniature effects were quite advanced for there time yet the methods that were used to achieve them quite simple!

I plan on building 2 of the new Moebius Jupiter 2s. One landing gear down and one Gemini 12 if someone indeed does a lower hull.


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

HabuHunter32 said:


> OK, now for something different. We all love the Gemini 12/Jupiter 2 so let me ask this question. What is your favorite effects sequence from LIS? Hands down mine is the beautifully shot Red Rock Canyon crash. The large ship gliding down those guide wires still leaves me in awe! The sound of the Atomic Motors straining to maintain flight, exquisite! It still amazes me what the Lydeckers could do with the simplest methods at their disposal! No CGI nothing. Just inginuety! In many ways the miniature effects were quite advanced for there time yet the methods that were used to achieve them quite simple!
> 
> I plan on building 2 of the new Moebius Jupiter 2s. One landing gear down and one Gemini 12 if someone indeed does a lower hull.


Absolutely, that is, for me the defining image, the one that has stuck with me all these years, and the reason for my affection for the show. It would have been an incredible series had they stayed with that sort of story telling, not to mention special effects. I believe it would not only have run much longer, but held up much better historically as entertainment. So much potential, squandered and lost. The other definitive sequence, for me, was the landing inside the derelict scene. The pitch if the engines (changing), and the close-up shot of the landing gear unfolding beneath the Jupiter just solidified in my ten year old mind the absolute reality of the ship. Ah, memories.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

JAT said:


> Absolutely, that is, for me the defining image, the one that has stuck with me all these years, and the reason for my affection for the show. It would have been an incredible series had they stayed with that sort of story telling, not to mention special effects. I believe it would not only have run much longer, but held up much better historically as entertainment. So much potential, squandered and lost. The other definitive sequence, for me, was the landing inside the derelict scene. The pitch if the engines (changing), and the close-up shot of the landing gear unfolding beneath the Jupiter just solidified in my ten year old mind the absolute reality of the ship. Ah, memories.


Both those scenes made the ship real to me- and still do. Despite the weird internal TARDIS interior and other fudges, those two examples are what I remeber most.

.


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

The first freezing tubes glow sequence and the whole original liftoff with the glowing Jupiter/Gemini 12 was pretty spectacular!


----------



## j2man (Jun 18, 1999)

I have to agree with Jat. My favorites scene was the Jupiter almost coliding with the large rock formation. Sun shining into the camera, but you could still slighly see the fusion core rotating..........The Jupiter landing and taking off in the Derelict. Alltough the freezing sequence was my third time all favorite shots. I can't believe so many of us have the same likes about this show.........


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

My fav scene was the lift off from Blast off into Space , the explosions of fire and air cannons blowing up sand and rocks still looks great because it was done all practically.Then John and Don pressing their heads against the Headrest of their flight chairs from the G-Force and shockwaves of the Planet blowing up.The the climax where John at the controls turns his to Smith,Don and Will yelling she's going to blow and theres this massive explosion seen through the front viewports.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

JAT said:


> That support framework was hexagonal, with six support beams radiating out to the outer walls. That means there would have been 60 degrees between the support columns, not 45, making for wider viewports. I imagine there was never meant to be any reconciliation with the interior sets. Granted, these were only drawings from along time ago, but may be worth looking into. Hope this makes some since and is helpful.


That is hugely interesting. I will try to find out more. Thanks!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

reticulan5 said:


> My fav scene was the lift off from Blast off into Space , the explosions of fire and air cannons blowing up sand and rocks still looks great because it was done all practically.Then John and Don pressing their heads against the Headrest of their flight chairs from the G-Force and shockwaves of the Planet blowing up.The the climax where John at the controls turns his to Smith,Don and Will yelling she's going to blow and theres this massive explosion seen through the front viewports.


I'd have to agree with that one. It's the only real good part of that particular epsiode, but it was a very spectacular episode to get the Robinsons back into space for a bit.

I have a framed photo that a friend gave me as a present of the J2 lifing off from the planet surface with fire and gas jets all around. I love that photo as it reminds me of those scenes.

Bryan


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

starseeker said:


> That is hugely interesting. I will try to find out more. Thanks!


Welcome. Went and looked up the publication, it is the Lost In Space Technical Manual (vol. 1). Lots of great behind-the-scenes pics and drawings, really a great little publication. The drawing I was referring to is on page 23. along with a practical cut-away profile of the ship. The hexagonal framework serves to locate the landing wells, but doesn't really address the main viewports, other than to give them more room for greater width. Hope this is of further use. Jeff


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

JAT said:


> Absolutely, that is, for me the defining image, the one that has stuck with me all these years, and the reason for my affection for the show. It would have been an incredible series had they stayed with that sort of story telling, not to mention special effects. I believe it would not only have run much longer, but held up much better historically as entertainment. So much potential, squandered and lost. The other definitive sequence, for me, was the landing inside the derelict scene. The pitch if the engines (changing), and the close-up shot of the landing gear unfolding beneath the Jupiter just solidified in my ten year old mind the absolute reality of the ship. Ah, memories.


I agree. The landing inside the derelict was spectacular as well! I remember the Red Rock Canyon crash being lifted and used in a commercial for a cheap UFO exploitation film in the seventies! If memorie serves me it was the same people who made the legend of boggy creek! Now theres a gem!


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

the sounds they added to the saucer landing and lifting off added a lot too IMHO


----------



## Mark Dorais (May 25, 2006)

I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Mark Dorais said:


> I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


A great idea- it would be great to have it part of the fusion core lighting kits. Just the engine sounds though- I hate the character voices everyone seems to want to stuff into soundchips.

.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Mark Dorais said:


> I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


I have! I have! I have! Me, me, me, me, me!!! 

These days, I think that one could squeeze in a decent-sounding audio system.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> A great idea- it would be great to have it part of the fusion core lighting kits. Just the engine sounds though- I hate the character voices everyone seems to want to stuff into soundchips.
> 
> .


I agree, and I have no clue as to why this has become a fad, unless it's a throwback to other talking toys from the '60s, but THEN it was dolls.

Talking dolls make sense. I can even, if I grit my teeth, understand having a Star Trek communicator have a selection of actor voices. But having voices emit from the Enterprise makes no sense to me.

Now, what I would REALLY like, and I don't see this as something the aftermarket folks could do, is adapt the old 'Starbird' sound technology to a Jupiter 2 soundchip.

For the youngsters out there, back in the late '70s the Milton Bradley company got involved in electronic toys, and one of them was a beautiful, sleek starship called 'Starbird'. The sound gimmick was interesting, you had a motor sound, if you tilted the ship up it would 'speed up', if you tilted it down it would 'slow down'...it was really cool, a very pleasing interactive feature.

Picture THAT in a Jupiter 2. And if a new J2 toy happened to be made, the chip could have different sounds for when you pop the landing gear. Heck, with today's electronics, you could put I/R emitter and sensor LEDs on the bottom of the fusion core and it would use the reflection return to moderate the landing 'spool up and wind down' sound...

But we'd probably get voices. bleah.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The Diamond Select Enterprise D they just released has a cool feature. The Saucer section is held on by magnets- when you pull them apart you get the TNG docking latches sound (with echo like a big thig is happening)

I like the Soundbird effect you described- that sounds ahead of it's time.

(I also like running around the room going zoom zoom too)


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

Richard Baker said:


> The Diamond Select Enterprise D they just released has a cool feature. The Saucer section is held on by magnets- when you pull them apart you get the TNG docking latches sound (with echo like a big thig is happening)
> 
> I like the Soundbird effect you described- that sounds ahead of it's time.
> 
> (I also like running around the room going zoom zoom too)


With a model, or just, like, wearing a cape?


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*Jii*



toyroy said:


> Is there a track atop the gear well, that the strut end of the pushrod runs in?


Gotcha, yeah there's a track along the top of the housing. I wanted to preserve the details of the sidewalls that get lost with the checkmark shaped slots on each side.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

HabuHunter32 said:


> OK, now for something different. We all love the Gemini 12/Jupiter 2 so let me ask this question. What is your favorite effects sequence from LIS? QUOTE]
> 
> Blastoff Into Space really blew me away, as a young kid watching LIS weekdays after school in the early 70's. Not sure if we saw the b/w episodes for a while, but the Derelict sequences (the fly-around & the interior shots) were impressively done. (all those wires!!)
> 
> ...


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I think Dewey Howard offered a sound chip base way back when, been a long time so it might have been some one else.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

JAT said:


> With a model, or just, like, wearing a cape?


The Model.

I save the cape for special occasions...

.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Steve H said:


> Polaroid was just getting the instant picture thing going, and it wouldn't have been cost effective to use that. Early Polaroid was a two-part (actually, three part) system, 8 pictures to a pack and B&W only. You took the picture, pulled the 'safety' tab, then pulled the film/developer sheet out, and let it sit for a minute or so. Then you peeled the photo away from the developer sheet, let the photo dry (this is where the 'shaking a Polaroid picture' came from) then take your 'fixer' squeegee out of its plastic tube and wipe it over the photo to 'seal' it.
> 
> The SX-70 instant camera and film didn't come out until the mid-ish '70s. I know I got mine in 1977.
> 
> ...


The studio photographers shot with medium format either 645,6x6 or 6x7.
60mm wide film about 4x the neg area of 35mm.35mm then was considered an amateur format.All original copy negs of I A poductions on Ebay etc are med format.In 40 years film res has improved about 300 %
So alot of shows today are shot in Super 16 which has more res than 35mm back then.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Hey everyone if you all were impressed with Chuck Es Haunted Lighthouse miniature.You should have seen his special effects remake of the episode Kidnapped in Space he and a friend reshot the old derelict footage including the rear projection of the Robinsons seeing a new Xenian Probe with a new miniature that looks like it was commissioned from Fox.Lets all ask Chuck nicely if he can knock up a link.It was on Youtube but Chuck had to take it off for Copy right reasons.


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

reticulan5 said:


> Hey everyone if you all were impressed with Chuck Es Haunted Lighthouse miniature.You should have seen his special effects remake of the episode Kidnapped in Space he and a friend reshot the old derelict footage including the rear projection of the Robinsons seeing a new Xenian Probe with a new miniature that looks like it was commissioned from Fox.Lets all ask Chuck nicely if he can knock up a link.It was on Youtube but Chuck had to take it off for Copy right reasons.


I'm in. Absolutely, would love to see that.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

*Reply to sound effects...*



Mark Dorais said:


> I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


I believe VooDoo FX does custom sound design for modellers. Can anyone confirm?
Hope it's OK to paste this page. I love VD FX. They have super products!


http://www.voodoofx.com/sound.htm
:wave:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mark Dorais said:


> I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


There is a really good sound clip of the J2's engines available on CD. There was a bonus CD for Lost In Space that was part of _The Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen _soundtrack set. I tracked it down on eBay and was able to get the disk separately (I had all the others).

Anyways, the sound clip has the engine sound from the beginning of the subtle pulsing sound of the engines powering up for liftoff, then to full power. After that, the engine sound goes into "descent" mode as though the J2 is setting down for a landing. There's even the landing gear sound that was used from "The Derelict" when the gear opens up as part of the sound clip.

The clip is pretty good, but it does sound "pieced" together - mostly because of the engine "whine" that was heard during some of the early flight scenes for "The Derelict". As a matter of fact, all of the engine sound is probably drawn from the episode from the way it sounds.

If someone could transcribe it onto a sound chip (or however it's done), then you'd just have to find a way to modulate the sound like the Starbird toy from the late 70's (my much younger brother had one and I loved that toy, although I was 19 at the time).

Bryan


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Mark Dorais said:


> I don't believe any body has mentioned this..... But wouldn't it be great to somehow incorporate a sound chip of the Jupiter 2's engine sounds into the kit?


I had a friend of mine take the takeoff and landing sequence and filter out, splice and lengthen all of it. What I have on cd is several lenghts of sound bits. 
There are the engine coming on-line and ramping up for liftoff and sustand flight, then coming in for landing, touch down and end slowing down to a nice rumble. All matching the sounds we've grown to love. They are all in mp3 format and I can send all of ya copies. If ya listen to all of them, it will make you go insane.

Jim C.


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Gemini1999 said:


> There is a really good sound clip of the J2's engines available on CD. There was a bonus CD for Lost In Space that was part of _The Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen _soundtrack set. I tracked it down on eBay and was able to get the disk separately (I had all the others).
> 
> Anyways, the sound clip has the engine sound from the beginning of the subtle pulsing sound of the engines powering up for liftoff, then to full power. After that, the engine sound goes into "descent" mode as though the J2 is setting down for a landing. There's even the landing gear sound that was used from "The Derelict" when the gear opens up as part of the sound clip.
> 
> ...


My clips were taken from the Derelict and some from a real short sound clip I got off the net. My Bud did a great job with them.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

JAT said:


> I'm in. Absolutely, would love to see that.


Thanks again! We're going to re-cut it and try posting it again. Apparently there is software that looks for the background music and that's how they track down copywritten material. I don't know why they singled us out with all the other stuff on there!

That was the Polar Lights JII by the way...


----------



## DaDragon (May 18, 2008)

*Sound.*



kdaracal said:


> I believe VooDoo FX does custom sound design for modellers. Can anyone confirm?
> Hope it's OK to paste this page. I love VD FX. They have super products!
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry if this is a little off topic. 

This looks great for _several _projects I have including *Randy Cooper's Martian War Machine* from the 2005 movie. 

See http://randycoopermodels.com/2006/03/28/ordering-a-wotw-tripod-martian-war-machine/​
Description says the unit takes mini-SD cards with sound files on. If this is a stand-alone device, then its worth every penny/cent. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I too would be grateful for any further information. 

Graham.


----------



## DaDragon (May 18, 2008)

*More Sound.*

Just dropped VoodooFX a line to clarify a couple of points, but it looks like the MP3 player will be required in addition to the SFXU-1. Even with the player, the cost is well under US$100 and the player could be rigged to work with several models, requiring only a speaker for each. 

Graham.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

*J2/Pod Engines*



DaDragon said:


> Just dropped VoodooFX a line to clarify a couple of points, but it looks like the MP3 player will be required in addition to the SFXU-1. Even with the player, the cost is well under US$100 and the player could be rigged to work with several models, requiring only a speaker for each.
> 
> Graham.


Cool! So you can use it for the Pod, as well. Doesn't it have the identical engine sounds? Thanks for making the call, Graham.:wave:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

oh, and Moebius J2-duh....


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Jim C said:


> I had a friend of mine take the takeoff and landing sequence and filter out, splice and lengthen all of it. What I have on cd is several lenghts of sound bits.
> There are the engine coming on-line and ramping up for liftoff and sustand flight, then coming in for landing, touch down and end slowing down to a nice rumble. All matching the sounds we've grown to love. They are all in mp3 format and I can send all of ya copies. If ya listen to all of them, it will make you go insane.
> 
> Jim C.


Jim
I sent a PM to you.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

I also love the engine sound produced by the Jupiter 2.Whenever I heard it as a kid(Hell even now I admit it) you can sense that it is a believable sound coming from atomic engines from a Starship.I mean when Don was asked for full power to outrun a missile.The sound effects getting louder made you believe there was a massive increase of thrust and speed.I know it's exciting to record it of DVDs etc and putting it into a sound chip or whatever.But I'd give a weeks pay to know how the original sound guys did it.So I could generate it in todays Hi FI digital quality.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

reticulan5 said:


> I also love the engine sound produced by the Jupiter 2.Whenever I heard it as a kid(Hell even now I admit it) you can sense that it is a believable sound coming from atomic engines from a Starship.I mean when Don was asked for full power to outrun a missile.The sound effects getting louder made you believe there was a massive increase of thrust and speed.I know it's exciting to record it of DVDs etc and putting it into a sound chip or whatever.But *I'd give a weeks pay to know how the original sound guys did it.*So I could generate it in todays Hi FI digital quality.


There used to be a website called Jup2.com that where someone had actually written the folks at Fox to find out how the orignal engine sound was made. The letter was sent back could only theorize as it had been so long since it was made. Once they had a recording of the sound, it wasn't necessary to produce it again and again. The site has changed hands as well as the content, so the letter isn't visible anymore.

I talked to someone at the Star Trek Phase II forum that worked on the sound for that web production because they use the engine sound for the shuttlecraft sound effect in their episodes. The guy told me that he used various tones on an organ (he didn't say if it was electronic or not) and that he used a synthesizer to modulate the sounds. Truth be told, with the engine sound available on a CD that it commercially sold, he could be using the clip in pieces as needed, but I didn't want to accuse the guy of making stuff up.

It's still a mystery on how that sound was made. I've done web searches and the only reference that was available was when the Jup2.com site was up.

Bryan


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Gemini1999 said:


> There used to be a website called Jup2.com that where someone had actually written the folks at Fox to find out how the orignal engine sound was made. The letter was sent back could only theorize as it had been so long since it was made. Once they had a recording of the sound, it wasn't necessary to produce it again and again. The site has changed hands as well as the content, so the letter isn't visible anymore.
> 
> I talked to someone at the Star Trek Phase II forum that worked on the sound for that web production because they use the engine sound for the shuttlecraft sound effect in their episodes. The guy told me that he used various tones on an organ (he didn't say if it was electronic or not) and that he used a synthesizer to modulate the sounds. Truth be told, with the engine sound available on a CD that it commercially sold, he could be using the clip in pieces as needed, but I didn't want to accuse the guy of making stuff up.
> 
> ...


I was wondering the same thing. Sounds can come from unusual places. The original blaster sounds from Star Wars came from someone tapping on a support cable of a power or telephone pole, according to an extras portion of one of the DVD reissues.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It might be in here somewhere- I have not had much time to look:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://Jup2.com

.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Mike's J2 site is a web page for some babe that was in the failed LIS TV pilot, no LIS stuff there any more, he does answer e mail tho.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Fernando: sent you a PM.


----------



## jeffking45 (Aug 31, 2008)

hello fellow j2 fans is there any one out there that would be interested in doing a lower deck that would compliment the upper deck of the up and coming jupiter? This stand alone kit could be displayed in two ways. One,as a kit that could stacked under the upper.Two,sitting on a display base. If anyone has any ideas please get with me .


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

jeffking45 said:


> hello fellow j2 fans is there any one out there that would be interested in doing a lower deck that would compliment the upper deck of the up and coming jupiter? This stand alone kit could be displayed in two ways. One,as a kit that could stacked under the upper.Two,sitting on a display base. If anyone has any ideas please get with me .


IIRC somebody posted earlier about a way to have the lower deck displayed- the top half of the ship would be a crash scene diorama and the second deck would be below the planet's surface. He had done a diagram of ho wit would work, but these threads have grown very long and I am not sure who had done this work.

.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*lower deck*

I had an idea years ago of doing the Jupiter in a spacedock, where the lower half would be enclosed in some kind of structure with only the viewport area being exposed. Possibly the top half could be removable.

So many ideas, so little time!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

*lower deck*

This is what I`m planning to do (besides the J2 in landing position), with a help of Starseeker LD sketches (I hope). Same scale of the Moebius J2, UD and LD fitting each other, and no concern about the lower hull contour.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fernando Mureb said:


> This is what I`m planning to do (besides the J2 in landing position), with a help of Starseeker LD sketches (I hope). Same scale of the Moebius J2, UD and LD fitting each other, and no concern about the lower hull contour.


Hey, my Jupiter II drawing looks good in your diagram!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Thanks RSN and beg your pardon for not have given the credit, but I sincerily didn`t know who was the author.
I had put this image before in another thread and then I mentioned that fact, but nobody required the authorship.
Anyway, congratulations for the great job.
Fernando


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Thanks RSN and beg your pardon for not have given the credit, but I sincerily didn`t know who was the author.
> I had put this image before in another thread and then I mentioned that fact, but nobody required the authorship.
> Anyway, congratulations for the great job.
> Fernando


Not a problem, I was just surprised to see it. I just can't wait to build the model!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Fernando Mureb said:


> This is what I`m planning to do (besides the J2 in landing position), with a help of Starseeker LD sketches (I hope). Same scale of the Moebius J2, UD and LD fitting each other, and no concern about the lower hull contour.


Fernando, at its widest points (the cabin closet and the observatory window), the lower deck is very much wider than the upper. But it all should fit inside the skirt that the Robinsons fitted around the lower deck while they made repairs to the hull. (I also figure that repairing the damage to the lower deck is why they moved the laundry machine outside and why Smith was showering outside. You know how those basement bathroom renovations are).


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Starseeker
The "points" that must match between both decks are the elevator, ladder and auxiliary control window (if there was no concern about the dimensions of the hulls as is the case). Do you think that would be possible to match these 3 points without distorsions on the rest of the LD?
Thanks


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Yes, they were designed to match. They even tried to get the landing gear with stairs to match the inside lower hatch and came really close in the first version of the lower deck, missed by about half of the landing gear for the final version.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Yes, they were designed to match. They even tried to get the landing gear with stairs to match the inside lower hatch and came really close in the first version of the lower deck, missed by about half of the landing gear for the final version.


So, if I put both of yours upper and lower decks overlays sketches superimposed, having the elevator as the initial reference, the auxiliary control window will be just below the flight deck? Note that I`m just curious, because I`ll scracth the LD in the same scale of the Moebius J2, no matter the eternal conciliation issues. Maybe I'm gonna have to make part of the diorama "terrain" surrounding the upper deck removable, to let all the LD compartiments visibles.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

How's this?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Thanks again.
You should charge me to do that.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

I think all of us here came out of the same mold or had the same programming.I also want to build a stand alone interior set.As I mentioned in another post(the moebius j2 one).One can easily build a scratch built lower deck and place the 1/35 Moebius upper on top.Hell if theres no external shell to worry about,then you could also build the season 3 engine room. From the episode where Will pushes the Monster into the reactor and the storage areas.At 1/35th for the Moebius kit one can fit it out with Lunar Models 1/35 Robinsons,Chariot, & Space Pod for the ultimate Jupiter 2 display area.
Or if you want maybe place the completed interior inside a 24 inch J2 either from Lunar Models or Sci-Fi Metropolis.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Fernando, thought of this this afternoon: my blueprints are largely traced from the Fox blueprints. So they match nicely. Seems to me that the Moebius kit is using a smaller scale interior and has stretched out the upper deck's diameter. While everything should line up along angles, I don't know if anything will line up according to radii. If you're planning on mounting the Moebius J2 on top of a scratch built lower deck, I'd PM Gary Kerr and see if he can give you some dimensions for the distance of the ladder and elevator from the center of the floor.


----------



## jeffking45 (Aug 31, 2008)

thanks for that info. i was thinking of getting a group of interested parties together to take on this project . are you interested?


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

starseeker said:


> How's this?


It would be clearer if one deck was a different color.

But COOL!!!

Mark Dean


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Fernando, thought of this this afternoon: my blueprints are largely traced from the Fox blueprints. So they match nicely. Seems to me that the Moebius kit is using a smaller scale interior and has stretched out the upper deck's diameter. While everything should line up along angles, I don't know if anything will line up according to radii. If you're planning on mounting the Moebius J2 on top of a scratch built lower deck, I'd PM Gary Kerr and see if he can give you some dimensions for the distance of the ladder and elevator from the center of the floor.


Of course, please.
I'm totally interested.
Once more, thank you.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

mrdean said:


> It would be clearer if one deck was a different color.
> 
> But COOL!!!
> 
> Mark Dean


Okay then, how's this? It's kind of fuzzy but okay at 200%. But this is about as big as I can post. What I'm absolutely amazed by is that these drawings are 23 years old and fit together so well. I have absolutely no memory of drafting them, it's been so long, and I've forgotten so many of the details of the J2, especially the lower deck, that I'm constantly surprised by the details I see here. The upper deck I'm a little more familiar with, as I first posted the drawings here a year or so ago, and incorporated some changes from blueprints I found on-line in the intervening decades. The lower deck is just as it was. I have a couple of sheets I haven't posted that I still need to detail with new stuff that I've found - a fuzzy bp of Smith's observatory Lazy Boy and some dimensions for the robot. I'm just glad they are seeing the light of day somewhere. Finally.


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

*Way Cool!!*



starseeker said:


> Okay then, how's this? It's kind of fuzzy but okay at 200%. But this is about as big as I can post. What I'm absolutely amazed by is that these drawings are 23 years old and fit together so well. I have absolutely no memory of drafting them, it's been so long, and I've forgotten so many of the details of the J2, especially the lower deck, that I'm constantly surprised by the details I see here. The upper deck I'm a little more familiar with, as I first posted the drawings here a year or so ago, and incorporated some changes from blueprints I found on-line in the intervening decades. The lower deck is just as it was. I have a couple of sheets I haven't posted that I still need to detail with new stuff that I've found - a fuzzy bp of Smith's observatory Lazy Boy and some dimensions for the robot. I'm just glad they are seeing the light of day somewhere. Finally.


Jay,

I think it looks GREAT! Most of the lower deck looks good enough for me.

Betweeen the PL Jupiter 2, the resource that Ducktapeforever is compiling and these drawings - I have all I need to do a crash site that will incorporate all I was hoping I would someday build starting back when Lost in Space was new! 

Thanks for dusting these off for us!

Mark Dean


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

At first sight the LD drawings seem perfect (as the UP ones). Jay, are you an architect or engineer?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

after checking the lastest diagram I had no idea the lower deck was so much larger in diameter than the upper deck. Great work, many thanks


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Does anyone have a 24 inch Jupiter2 kit from Sci-Fi Metropolis that they want to sell or know of one for sale.I have been after one for years.But I have never had a response from there and their site hasn't been updated in over 3 years.I would settle for a fibreglass copy aswell.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, I had an odd idea, and I know there are folks here who can do something with this.

We all know that the Jupiter 2 has scale problems. Can't fit both decks in, where do you put the Chariot, how did the Space Pod manage to get tucked in..

So here's my crazy thought. Let's play with measurements from a different take.

Third season, we see the Space Pod. It clearly fits completely inside the hull of the J2, right? I mean we see it...we see the door open, we see the Pod drift...

So, OK. Take that as a given. We know how big the Pod is, based on the full size exterior prop/set. We have actors standing around it, coming out of it, it's something 'real'. So, what happens if you scale the J2 from that reality?

Now, obviously, problems, because SOMETHING has to give.

So what are the 'real' points of reference on the J2? that wedge from the edge of the front window to the edge of the airlock door. MAYBE the astrogator in the center, with the GXII concept of rising up to the dome (and if there are gyros involved it would make sense that the Astrogator be at the very center of mass of the ship), BUT since that was ignored for the J2, it might just raise up to get out of the way...

So, scale the J2 to the Space Pod, what happens? How crazy do the measurments get?


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Yeah that's what I call the Season 3 to scale with Pod version.I did some overhead transparencies of jupiter 2 Blueprints and projected it on to a wall then overlaid Pod projections.I came to the conclusions of 80-84 feet diameter.
I worked out that the floor between would be slightly higher above the rim .That matches the interior of the lower deck as you can see the Aux viewports and that there is considerable height above it.

You would only need to make the main hatch smaller.At 80 ft in diameterYou could build a 1/20 scale interior for a 4 footer or 1/40 with a 24 incher.I found both decks fit.Remember if the Fox set builders matched the 4 footer to full scale ,thats how big it would be.Thats why they cheated it and had more vertical Hull walls so as not taking so much floor space.Remember when they first crash on the hill in Island in the Sky they use the Full scale Mock Up from the Derelict with legs tucked in.Which has a different design again.You can se it best when the Robot is doing his soil sampling.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

I think that making the interior of both decks and storage area's and all with the 4 foot shape surrounding it all. Is the truest representation of what we perceived as kids watching it.Of course each deck was seperate and not on top of each other.But the illusion says it was.Also the ship had 5 bedrooms.I know they made only 3 but set dressing with personals makes 5.The same with the Enterprise who'd make staterooms for 430 people.I have looked at all the DVDs and have noticed they never show all staterooms from the outside in a Pan or long shot to make sure viewers never see that there is only 3 staterooms built.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I think people are over thinking the scale issue. The full size set and the full size mock-up were only meant to represent the miniature. It is up to our imagination (dirty word?) to see that they represent something much bigger. As a model builder, an artist and draftsman, I can honestly say the fit issue has never bothered me. The same was done with the C57D in "Forbidden Planet". The studio set, impressive as it was, is still smaller than the filming miniature would indicate.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

reticulan5 said:


> Yeah that's what I call the Season 3 to scale with Pod version.I did some overhead transparencies of jupiter 2 Blueprints and projected it on to a wall then overlaid Pod projections.I came to the conclusions of 80-84 feet diameter.
> I worked out that the floor between would be slightly higher above the rim .That matches the interior of the lower deck as you can see the Aux viewports and that there is considerable height above it.



If the original pilot & the GXII design hadn't come first I think the JII would have looked considerably different, that's where some imagination comes in (not a dirty word RSN!) That's how I try to look at it anyway.

That being said I think almost anyone would have to admit that the "power core" level was really pushing it though!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> I think people are over thinking the scale issue. The full size set and the full size mock-up were only meant to represent the miniature. It is up to our imagination (dirty word?) to see that they represent something much bigger. As a model builder, an artist and draftsman, I can honestly say the fit issue has never bothered me. The same was done with the C57D in "Forbidden Planet". The studio set, impressive as it was, is still smaller than the filming miniature would indicate.



Of course you're correct. I mean, from a real world perspective, they built 'full size' only what was needed and nothing more. The main stage, the 'size' of the J2 is nothing more than cladding placed around the outside of the interior shooting set, roughly shaped to look somewhat like the model. The 'legs down' prop is, I think, something like 8/10 scale to the stage exterior, I don't think they measure 1/1. I recall long ago someone being very strident that the 'landing gear' prop WAS the main filming set, with all the interior dressing. I tried to explain how that just wasn't possible but, emotion was more powerful than logic. 

(aside: I'm surprised they never moved the 'legs down' prop onto the main stage to do a 'Robinsons meet the Robinsons' story, but time loops weren't as in fashion then  )

The Jupiter 2 worked as it was because look, see? there it is, and it does this and that and this other thing, so,it worked. 

(and yes, 3rd deck didn't happen. It was a drug induced illusion as was that whole episode.  )


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

In the J2 Technical Site you can observe just one between various examples of drawings you can catch on the web, showing that some guys already tryed to reconcyle the full size set with the J2 miniatures, including the space pod and chariot. 

I`ve already seen other solutions and there always be concessions to be made.


----------



## jeffking45 (Aug 31, 2008)

hello people . hey where are those great blue prints of the jupiter2 interior that was on here yesterday. cna who ever had them can you put them back up. thanks


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Yeah it's not just the Jupiter 2, every film or TV show has made a prop thats much larger than the full size mock up.That goes for things like the Galileo Shuttle,and I remember arguing with a friend who who was a Gerry Anderson fan that Irwin Allen shows had these terrible in accuracies that we are now discussing.We watched Thunderbird 2 and I showed him the size of the craft taking huge Trucks and machinery then the tiny cockpit and smallwindows.He then turned his attention to the Eagle from 1999.Behold when we scaled her up.The exterior was about 25-30 % to small to house the interior set.
the 44 inch miniature at 1/24th scale =88ft.To fit the interior it needed to bearound the 105-108 ft length.
I think the only person who went over board literaly, was James Cameron with the Titanic film.Getting factories who made the original Titanic liners to recreate the sets with mahogany and teak, and clocks and instruments from Brass and Copper and the same fabric and design carpets,The porcellin pottery.I mean it could of been made from the cheapest plastic and cardboard .On film it still would have looked the same.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I'll get you for this Fernando! Another project I'm doomed not to complete. But here is a 24" and a 22" circle routered out of 1/4" white plexi, with 1/24 floorplans set on top. Next rounds of 040 styrene could get glued up over the tops, and then... walls? Is this the beginning of a long winter in the workshop? I'm all excited, so it could be.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey, it's an innovative way to start a scratch built of the ship's interior. I'd never think to start this way, but now I'd better think again.:thumbsup:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...Next rounds of 040 styrene could get glued up over the tops...


Huh?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...If you were clever with screen placement inside the front windows, you may even be able to include footage from the series with a character or two visible inside.


I like that!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. I meant that next I think I'll glue a 24" and a 22" circle of 040 to the surface of the 24" and 22" plexi rounds. For the smaller parts, the walls, the ribs, etc, I think it would be easier to bond styrene to styrene. And probably result in a stronger bond. Altho the white plexi has a mirror like surface that sure would take paint well. Kind of hate to cover it up. Then I'll do the soffits, the ribs, and then start on the walls. 'Course, without any new hulls to put these into (or under) there isn't going to be much point, so I better get busy!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I didn't understand that. You are not pretending to place both decks in the same ship, are you? Because, you know, this is "mission impossible".


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...I'm really indebted to teslabe to showing me that bit of modern tech and its capabilities...
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out what sort of clip may be edited and used and how and where the little screen could be put.


What "little screen" in particular?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

_DOH !!!_ _Of course-_ the screen on the MP-4 player! 

...Um...what MP-4 player was that, again?


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

It would be interesting if you took this project and built it simply as the Jupiter II's interior set on the 20th Century Fox soundstage. Then include only the outer part of the hull we saw on camera, plus assocated cameras, lights, technicians, etc.

BTW, are there any photos showing the back of the upper deck set? I don't recall ever seeing anything from the series (not including the pilot) that shows the entire soundstage with the upper deck.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)




----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

woof359 said:


>


Very Nice! 
Any other views?- that is really a fine pice of work...

.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x243/woof359/LIS stage/


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

this scratched made diarama was made by Bill Hedges not me, the man has imagintaion.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Started in roughing out the soffits of the lower deck, in 1/24 scale. Using primarily my lower deck drawings posted elsewhere. The Fox bp is hugely useful, but even the single large original sheet has serious distortion in symmetry and angles. So it's great for a rough guide, but re-drawing it with a greater degree of precision is essential in making sure everything fits together squarely and aligned properly. I've left the 1/2" "walls" of the soffits extra long where I can to help keep the rest of the ceiling as flat as it can be. All 040 sheet and Evergreen strips.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> ...Um...what MP-4 player was that, again?


http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...0000003142050&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=10993371


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

woof359 said:


> http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x243/woof359/LIS stage/


I love the way the filming crew moments were captured- the techs working on the Robot suit, the stage hands milling around- that is an inspired piece!

.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

starseeker said:


> Started in roughing out the soffits of the lower deck, in 1/24 scale. Using primarily my lower deck drawings posted elsewhere. The Fox bp is hugely useful, but even the single large original sheet has serious distortion in symmetry and angles. So it's great for a rough guide, but re-drawing it with a greater degree of precision is essential in making sure everything fits together squarely and aligned properly. I've left the 1/2" "walls" of the soffits extra long where I can to help keep the rest of the ceiling as flat as it can be. All 040 sheet and Evergreen strips.


Starseeker
What kind of base do you pretend to use to suport the LD? I mean, will it have something with a lower hull shape like, or just a cylindrical form? In the last case, I suppose that the auxiliary control window would have the same inclination angle of the filming set.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I have no idera how I'm going to surround the lower deck yet. I was thinking of a large diameter cylinder of styrene that would replicate the skirt under the upper deck but now I'm toying with the idea of making this a stand alone model. The views of the inside will be pretty restricted from just the top or through the observatory windows so I'm going to make the galley and cabin one "wild". 
Got the soffit assembled and am starting on the more basic walls. So far it's all been pretty simple.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*lower deck*

Looks awesome so far! That sheet styrene is the best, isn't it? You can do just about anything with it...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Jay, that looks amazing. Stunning absolutely stunning!


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...0000003142050&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=10993371


I forget, where was the screen going to go and are you sure 1.5" is the right size?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Starseeker

Forgive my curiosity, but which is the level of detail are you pretending to reach? Example 1: the console at the left of the auxiliary control will have the same complex shape of the real one? Example 2: the beds will be built in close position or at least one will set up oppened, showing that recess in the stateroom wall necessary to fit the bed when closed?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Starseeker
> What kind of base do you *pretend* to use to suport the LD?





Fernando Mureb said:


> ...but which is the level of detail are you *pretending* to reach?


Not meaning to be a PITA, but I think the word you're looking for is "propose"/"proposing". "Pretend"/"pretending" is something kids do on the playground when they play at being Superman.


----------



## JAT (Jan 15, 2008)

Paulbo said:


> Not meaning to be a PITA, but I think the word you're looking for is "propose"/"proposing". "Pretend"/"pretending" is something kids do on the playground when they play at being Superman.


I was interpreting the question as "intend", but I believe we all understand well enough to get the gist of what he's asking.


----------



## jeffking45 (Aug 31, 2008)

hey starseeker i have a idea about the Ld. have the galley back wall and one of the state rooms walls removable so you can take picks from those points of view. now here is a thought about the skirt idea use a clear tub to suround the whole Ld. so from any angle one can view it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

teslabe said:


> I forget, where was the screen going to go and are you sure 1.5" is the right size?


Oh, that was just "for example." I imagine that the bigger, the better.

I'm visualizing the screen setup behind the astrogator or to one side--the front windows are too big to try to fill in part of it with the screen without being super obvious. It could be footage of Smith pushing buttons on the robot. One might even have footage of someone moving in the spacepod bay. 

The footage could be edited to make it just the upper half of someone if they're behind the astrogator. 

Not saying I'm going to attempt this--just that it would be interesting to see. They've done similar things with older technology in some of the movies, IIRC.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> Not meaning to be a PITA, but I think the word you're looking for is "propose"/"proposing". "Pretend"/"pretending" is something kids do on the playground when they play at being Superman.


Thanks Paulbo. As a brazilian guy, to learn english will always be a work in progress for me.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Thanks Paulbo. As a brazilian guy, to learn english will always be a work in progress for me.


People tend to forget these boards are world-wide and unless we are told otherwise we mistakenly assume English is the primary language.
.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Right now I'm just spending a spare early hour playing with this, creating a rough structure. As soon as that's done, I'll probably set it aside until winter, when I'll have some time for actual modeling again. As far as detail goes, I'd like the beds and desks to fold open and closed. I'm thinking about making retractable, folding acceleration couches (even though Smith emerged from under the counter on a fully extended couch, if they didn't fold, then none of the cupboards under the counters would be useable). I was wondering about etched instrument panels but unlike the upper deck, there's little down here that etching would make easier. You still have to add all the switches and dials anyway. My biggest unknown is how to find an easy and quick way to make all the beams. I want them to light up, which complicates things. Lighting the instruments and beams is what's going to make this come to life. 
Managed to get most of the laundry/bath roughed in. Starting on the cabins. The more I play with this, the more I respect the intricacy of the design. Everything fits just so. 
Edit: Oh, and that is the correct cabin wall for the middle cabin. The starboard (?) wall for the middle cabin has a bookshelf only about 1/4 as long as the bed, as far as I know. And each port wall is different, also. ?? Going to have to check my notes and try to figure out which walls had the desks. My drawings aren't clear on that. Unless someone here can help me. 
The key to doing something like this quickly, I find, is to use a 4" machinists square to guide all your cuts. The metal edges are hard on Xacto blades but all your cuts are guaranteed to be straight and square every time. 
I like the clear back idea. Something to think about, for sure.
Fernando, if I spoke Portugese (or any other language, or even English [sigh]) as well as you speak English, I'd be proud indeed.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Thanks Paulbo. As a brazilian guy, to learn english will always be a work in progress for me.


We'll try to help you along here and there so that your proficiency improves some. I've studied French and German in high school and in college so I know what you have to deal with and the way similar words will fool you in a foreign tongue. (I also thought you meant "intend" which would have made perfect sense.)

That being said, your English is really good and I don't see your needing that much help--just a little finessing here and there. I spend a lot of time on dictionary.com myself due to English having about 500,000 words vs. the more efficient languages with 50,000 or so. 

Combine one of the most grammatically irregular languages in the world with the largest number of words and you wind up with most of the people who grow up speaking English having a hard time. 

Anyways, models speak volumes without words so go for it!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Richard Baker said:


> People tend to forget these boards are world-wide and unless we are told otherwise we mistakenly assume English is the primary language.





starseeker said:


> Fernando, if I spoke Portugese (or any other language, or even English [sigh]) as well as you speak English, I'd be proud indeed.





PerfesserCoffee said:


> We'll try to help you along here and there so that your proficiency improves some. I've studied French and German in high school and in college so I know what you have to deal with and the way similar words will fool you in a foreign tongue. (I also thought you meant "intend" which would have made perfect sense.)


Thank you guys. Anyway, I don't think Paulbo has intended  to embarrass me. And, yes, every help will be welcome. Thanks.:wave:


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Starseeker
Would you say that scratch built a kit with 040 styrene is almost similar to the use of cardboard? I wonder if the overall structure wil have the desirable rigidity.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I use primarily 040 for all my scratch builds. Using Tenax or Tamiya liquid cement to weld the joints, they are very strong, as strong as styrene kits. As long as there aren't large (more than 6 or 8 inches) areas of just plain styrene with nothing at right angles or joined along the edges... but I use styrene that I get in 4' x 8' sheets and it's somewhat softer than kit styrene. Evergreen sells packages of 3 sheets of 040 about 8" x 14" that is as stiff as injection model kit plastic. I do also use that Evergreen, even though two packages of that cost as much as a 4 x 8 sheet.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

You can do just about anything with .040" styrene! I just finished up a 4x8 footer, it's perfect for vacu-forming too. 

All the textured Evergreen stuff too, as well as I beams and all the other shapes. I've got boxes full of it!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Before assuming a lot check the 'hardness' of the styrene. We use it for silkscreen signs here- we buy it in bother 4'x8' & 18"x24" sheets. Lately the restocks seem to be a softer grade of palstic- it needs more support to maintain shape and has a tendency to curl a bit when glued on one side. I use the drop to build with and have had a couple of problems recently.

.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't have any of the beams in place, I don't have any benches or back walls, just the side walls of the cabins and the bays, and most aren't even cemented in yet. That's 20 pounds (9kg) on top, and I'm pretty sure it will hold at least another 10 or so. Just wouldn't want to drop them. 
Nothing like cardboard at all, except the ease of cutting. Definitely want to shop around between various sellers and try to get the hardest you can. 
And another shot, showing the 3 different starboard (?) cabin walls.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Richard Baker said:


> Before assuming a lot check the 'hardness' of the styrene... Lately the restocks seem to be a softer grade of palstic...


Are you specifying high-impact styrene?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

whats the diameter of the disc the deck is setting on?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

toyroy said:


> Are you specifying high-impact styrene?


No. This is just regular styrene we buy in bulk. That and Corex are what we silscreen signs with and the styrene is also used for large format stencils.
Either they are making it cheaper or there is a spec number I am unfamilair with but I get the end result. It just seems to be only 3/4 as strong as what we used to get.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

That's a 24" diameter disk on the bottom, and a 22" diameter disk for the upper deck that the weights are sitting on. They are both 1/4" white plexi.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

starseeker said:


> I don't have any of the beams in place, I don't have any benches or back walls, just the side walls of the cabins and the bays, and most aren't even cemented in yet. That's 20 pounds (9kg) on top, and I'm pretty sure it will hold at least another 10 or so. Just wouldn't want to drop them.
> Nothing like cardboard at all, except the ease of cutting. Definitely want to shop around between various sellers and try to get the hardest you can.
> And another shot, showing the 3 different starboard (?) cabin walls.


After these attachments all my doubts appeared to vanish. I think, this is the easier way and the best material to scratch the LD, specially due to the cabins details (benches, shelves, etc).


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

if Staseeker builds both decks in scale with each other I will be interested to finaly see how both decks look one on top of the other. how many hours do you think you have in just the lower deck as is? it looks fantastic.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Thanks Paulbo. As a brazilian guy, to learn english will always be a work in progress for me.


Not to worry. I wasn't trying to be a hard-a$$ and assumed you weren't great with English which is why I gave a concrete example.

Other than that one mis-use, your English has been fantastic in all your posts.

As was mentioned earlier, it's important to realize that the board is world wide and I thought it would be a good thing to let other non-English speakers know that the word was used incorrectly so that they would get a better understanding of what Fernando was trying to say.

Back to the main topic ...

The lower deck's looking great!


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Fernando, Ductape, Shopper:
I just sent you guys an email with J2 sound clips. I hope they work. I know Itunes will open them and thought that I could convert them to mp3. I still think I can, just have to talk to my friend and find out how. Hope ya like them, and if so I'll get more of the same but different lengths.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Fernando, Ductape, Shopper:
> I just sent you guys an email with J2 sound clips. I hope they work. I know Itunes will open them and thought that I could convert them to mp3. I still think I can, just have to talk to my friend and find out how. Hope ya like them, and if so I'll get more of the same but different lengths.


Thanks Jim
I received the files but couldn't manage to open them. They have only 1 K. Is that possible?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> Not to worry. I wasn't trying to be a hard-a$$ and assumed you weren't great with English which is why I gave a concrete example.
> 
> Other than that one mis-use, your English has been fantastic in all your posts.



:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## blitzkrieg68 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Jupiter 2 blueprints*

Hi, my name is Chris, the webmaster of the Jupiter 2 technical site. I wish I could post our execellent bluerprints on Geoff hardy's take of the Jupiter 2. I tried the other day without much luck. My good buddy Chuck Edwards is going to try and post them soon. i hope you all like them. i think they solve a lot of the design flaws of the Jupiter 2. Im working on putting together a new book featuring those aforementioned blueprints. Hopefully it will get published soon. I really believe there is a market out there for a book on hte Jupiter 2, one of the coolest spaceships ever seen. 

sINCERELY,

cHRISTOPHER KRIEG


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I've visited your site many times. It's very cool.
And based on what I've seen there, you can count on me to buy your book.
I'm looking forward to see those blueprints here.
Thanks


----------



## blitzkrieg68 (Oct 4, 2005)

YES, IM STILL HERE! iVE BEEN IN THE NAVY, BOTH ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVES, AND SO MY LIFE IS BUSY ON AND OFF. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OUR BLURPRINTS OF THE JUPITER TWO, SIMPLY EMAIL ME AT [email protected]. i'M ALSO WORKING ON A BOOK SMILLAR TO THE JON ROGERS THE SAUCER FLEET BUT WILL FOCUS ON OUR BLUEPRINTS, OR RATHER GEOFF HARDY'S BLUEPRINTS OF THE JUPITER 2.WHICH MAKE SENSE. BUT FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME AT [email protected]. Also our website is now at www.geocities.com/jupitertwo97/ but not for much longer Im afraid.


----------



## blitzkrieg68 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Geoff's Jupiter 2 Blueprints*

Hi All, these are Geoff's Jupiter 2 blueprints....that includes everything, the upper and lower decks, plus the power core, space pod bay and chariot storage..Geoff enlarged the outer hull because it was often suggested that the Jupiter 2 was much larger than it seemed on the outside. To be fair, the original Gemini12 set was used in the production of the series to save costs...its unfortunte that they didn't set off from the begining to include all these things from the outset... I don't believe that it was because of Irwin Allen's frugality is the reason why the sets were not resized when the lower deck was added...Lost IN space was the most expensive series pilot shot, up to half a million dollars back then, and that was a lot of money to spend on any tv series at the time. Star Trek's pilot which was filmed in color was a little bit more, and there are major design flaws in the Bridge set as well. No tv series is perfect. they all have flaws. LIS just had a little bit more flaws. But these blueprints attempt to make sense out of nonsense....what can one say.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey Christopher
Your new site is different from the old one. I couldn't find the blueprints there.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

blitzkrieg68 said:


> Hi, my name is Chris, the webmaster of the Jupiter 2 technical site. I wish I could post our execellent bluerprints on Geoff hardy's take of the Jupiter 2. I tried the other day without much luck. My good buddy Chuck Edwards is going to try and post them soon. i hope you all like them. i think they solve a lot of the design flaws of the Jupiter 2. Im working on putting together a new book featuring those aforementioned blueprints. Hopefully it will get published soon. I really believe there is a market out there for a book on hte Jupiter 2, one of the coolest spaceships ever seen.
> 
> sINCERELY,
> 
> cHRISTOPHER KRIEG


Chris, your blueprints are already in the photo album section, I guess the JII technical site webmaster isn't as technically challenged as he thought!

Chuck


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Cut a bit of plastic for the upper deck this weekend. Nothing much yet, just very rough shapes. 
And I finally got the lower deck soffit around the elevator figured out, tho I forgot to take a picture of it. If I was building a lower deck again, I still would start with the circular soffit. It is the same width all around, something that confused me a couple of times. This time, from the same piece of plactic, I'd also cut out the roof sections for above the instrument panels and bedroom walls, so as not to have to cut these pieces out later. My preferred the single soffit piece would look oddly spoked. 
I just roughly placed the upper deck on top of the lower deck to give some idea how the levels would stack. 
This is going to be a fun project. I'm looking forward to spending some time working on it some day. Building the walls, etc s is pretty simple. As for all the small details, if the Moebius kit's details aren't any sharper than their Seaviews (which looked brilliant in the master photos but turned out disappointingly soft in kit form), they aren't going to be any different than detailing the Moebius kit from scratch or with etch.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The shot from behind the freezing tubes looks remarkably like Stonehenge!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

But from Spinal Tap.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I've done an exercise of imagination trying to see a pair of hulls involving both decks. I guess I'll have to try again and again ...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Fernando Mureb said:


> I've done an exercise of imagination trying to see a pair of hulls involving both decks. I guess I'll have to try again and again ...


Fernando, they will stack. I'm constrained to a 24" diameter Jupiter 2, which means to get the whole lower deck inside the perimeter of the crash site skirt under the upper deck I'll have to chop off (or leave out) the closets and tilt the observatory windows (as you said) at the angle of the full size set, not the miniature. 
But if you're planning something with the Moebius kit, remember that the kit has its own scaling. I superimposed the studio upper deck cross section blueprint (red) over one of Ron Grosses' drawings to put some dimensions into place. At 18" in diameter, the Moebius Jupiter 2 scales something like 1/33.8825 scale, for a full size J2 of about 54' in diameter. That will give you lots of room for stacking two (or three) layers in a diorama. Including the closets. See? Look at all that extra overhang you'll have to work with. 
I think I've done about as much as I'm going to for now on the upper and lower decks. It's already dropped below freezing here at night so if I don't shift gears in a hurry, I'm not going to have any 24" hulls to be constrained by.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

WARNING! WARNING!








Has detected an OT shot of the Pod on wires.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Starseeker
Thanks again.
As you may have got it, I was just joking with the evidence (made clear by your buit) of the physical impossibility to have the studios set in scale inside something the shape of the miniatures without major distortions (as we all know).
But, yes, I guess it would be possible to have a LD interior (in the same scale of the Moebius J2) below the UD hull perimiter in a diorama (please, no third level).
Fernando
PS: here in Rio the temperature is 30º Celcius:wave:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Fernando Mureb said:


> PS: here in Rio the temperature is 30º Celcius:wave:


AARUGH!!!
Edit: I suppose I should say something else. 
Yerars ago I tried to figure out what Creber-like Jupiter 2shape could contain both levels and still be as small as possible. This is one that I came up with. I still prefer the idea of a 150' diameter J2 shaped like the one on the show (so there is some room for engines and storage and silly thing like that), but this design has the added advantage of being a really easy scratch build.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey, beware the purists with such heresies!!!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

No fat Jupiter 2's. :devil:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

the movie "Jupiter One" seemed to be about the right size for what we wanted inside the saucer.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

That Creiber sure knew how to design a beautiful and majestic ship.These were real Craftsmen and Artists.With everything moving off to India and China.We will never see the likes again, then theres all this CGI garbage
nowadays.


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

It would be nice to get back to basics with live action miniature photography, and use the cgi technology only to enhance. Computers are great for fixing things, like removing those pesky wires.

Irwin Allen's shows represent some of the best SFX on tv or in movies and much of it holds up to this day.

We now return you to the Jupiter II discussion thread...


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Ducktape, Fernando, Shopper

I hope the sound clips got to ya this time. If not, just email me and I'll do somthing else.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Ducktape, Fernando, Shopper
> 
> I hope the sound clips got to ya this time. If not, just email me and I'll do somthing else.


Jim, I didn't receive the e-mail. Would it be due the clips total size? Gmail doesn't allow attachments that sum up 10MB or more.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

No sound here either Jim!


----------



## Chuck Eds (Jul 20, 2009)

*LIS video*

Hey everyone, check this out:






That's a Polar Lights JII & a scratch-built "Xenian Probe" in action thanks to my buddy Pete & his video editing software. All live-action photography & everything was put together in the computer.

We had this posted late last year but it got yanked a few months ago due to to copyright issues. We just re-cut it so we'll see how long the new shorter version stays up.

Enjoy!


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

Anybody,
I need an acurate edge of the hull. I've been experimenting with a 3d program and need an edge on drawing of the j2, Moebius if possible. I'm trying to a couple of looks that might help some of us get a handle on what we accually can do or think we can do with a visual of the modle. Where is the floor going to be, ie. on center of ream or lower. I've got a lot of drawings from you guys from this thread but need to have one I can use that is the most correct. any help will get the ball rolling.

Jim


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

See post #40 on
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=255048&page=3
That's probably as accurate as we're going to get until the model omes out and someone cuts the hulls in half and draws a profile. (Don't mock. I did that with the 1/350 refit.)


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Jim your best bet is to wait for the Moebius Kit.I'm just a cameraman but I also dabble in models(Plastic not computer CGI ones).Nearly everyone tells me the best way to do a 3D model in computers is to scan a real object.I don't know if you have the necessary plug ins or software.But the kit is only only 2 months away.
Maybe someone can lend you their 24 inch Sci-Fi Metrpolis kit,I don't have one but alot of owners of this kit tell me it's also accurate.


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

starseeker said:


> See post #40 on
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=255048&page=3
> That's probably as accurate as we're going to get until the model omes out and someone cuts the hulls in half and draws a profile. (Don't mock. I did that with the 1/350 refit.)


Thanks Starseeker.

jim


----------



## Jim C (May 3, 2006)

reticulan5 said:


> Jim your best bet is to wait for the Moebius Kit.I'm just a cameraman but I also dabble in models(Plastic not computer CGI ones).Nearly everyone tells me the best way to do a 3D model in computers is to scan a real object.I don't know if you have the necessary plug ins or software.But the kit is only only 2 months away.
> Maybe someone can lend you their 24 inch Sci-Fi Metrpolis kit,I don't have one but alot of owners of this kit tell me it's also accurate.


I'm just trying out a couple of things with a cad program, nothing as complicated as CGI. Just needed a hull profile of an acurate crossection and needed to know if the floor was level with the beem of the ship.

jim


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

In repley to the floor between decks it's not really consistant.If you take the full sized set the floor is below the widestest point.But if you were doing a 2 deck version with a believable scale and size then you'd have to have the floor above the widest point.So it's upto you what you like they are all correct as they appear differently between sets,models etc.
If you look at the episode of Wild adventure.You will see that the Auxillary cockpit has a ceiling way above the Viewports.This is the way I like to think it was like.Check out Chuck Caskells blueprint of the Jupiter 2


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

It would be really nice if this kit came out in time to be opened AT Christmas.
I won't hold my breath though. 

I want it for Christmas! I want it for Christmas! I want it for Christmas!  

Did I say I'd like for Christmas? I would..ya know.


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

What I like about Moebius is that they cover old shows that I am a fan of such as Irwin Allen series.The kits are well made, fit together easy, are accurate,and affordable.While alot of Garage kit companies promise so much but seldom deliver, Moebius deliver.
I bet will all love their Jupiter 2 kit.It will be a collectors item andremembered many years to come.The Polar Lights version was great as it actually passes for something Aurora might have produced.But the Moebius kit is like
something we as adults with salaries would buy and not kids with some pocket money bought 40 years ago.
Just look at the amount of studio scale stuff in demand.Who among us would say no to a 4 foot Jupiter 2,a 44 inch Eagle, or an 11 foot Enterprise etc ,etc.


----------



## Punchcard76 (Jun 30, 2008)

I want to build a landing pad base for the new 18" Jupiter 2.
Does anyone know the dimentions of the Yellow Circle that the J2 lands on ?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

IIRC, it was just a bit bigger than the circumference of the landing gear, not the size of the ship itself. I'd guess at 16" based on the 18" ship


----------



## geminibuildups (Apr 22, 2005)

According to the original Fox blueprint of the landing site from the episode "Ghost Planet", the painted circle was the same diameter as the 48" Jupiter 2 miniature. The 3 "dots" behind the circle are the numbers "115".

Geminibuildups
www.geminibuildupstudios.com


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Jim C said:


> I'm just trying out a couple of things with a cad program, nothing as complicated as CGI. Just needed a hull profile of an acurate crossection and needed to know if the floor was level with the beem of the ship.
> 
> jim


The annotated blueprint below shows how the walls & floor of the Jupiter 2 set compared to those of the Gemini 12. The floor of the Gemini 12 was 21" below the outer rim of the ship, while the floor of the Jupiter 2 was within 1/3" of the ships's waist (which is close enough, in my opinion, to say the floor & waist of the ship were at the same level.

Gary


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gary K said:


> The annotated blueprint below shows how the walls & floor of the Jupiter 2 set compared to those of the Gemini 12 . . .


Thanks, Gary! GREAT info!:thumbsup:


----------



## Punchcard76 (Jun 30, 2008)

Thanks, :thumbsup:

How about the width of the yellow stripe ?

Say about 2 to 3 feet on full scale ?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I've always preferred the 1st season Jupiter 2, with the steep airlock floor incline (based on the G12). I can't remember offhand if that incline stayed the same the second season but it had definitely changed in year 3 to almost flat. 
Still extraordinarily rough but my 1/24 is coming along, albeit slowly. It's still mostly just taped together and unfilled and unsanded and a mess to look at. I've modeled the steep incline. 
It's a blast to go back and do another one of these. The circuitry panel was a real time consumer, having to cut dozens of little bits of 010 x 020 and 030 for the frames. I'm making everything that moved or opened on this one open or move, too, tho going a tiny bit farther than last time. Some of the circuitry panels rotate, just to break up the flatness. On the show a couple were not quite closed flat sometimes. I liked that look. 
And since I was making the elevator out of brass tubes this time (last time I used plastic coated wire and just cemented the pieces together), and since the brass tubes fitted into each other, I figured why not make the elevator cage open and close. That was the most fun (seriously) I've had modeling in a long time. Soldering is not one of my strengths but it's a learning experience (which for me is what modeling is all about). Took a while to get my sloppiness all sanded smooth but once it's painted no one will ever know what a clutz I am. 
Now how much work is it going to be to get that robot to look like the Robot?
(Cat fur? What cat fur?)


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

pretty darn amazing!!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Starseeker
I've had following your job, picture by picture.
Please keep posting.
Some day, maybe 10 years from now, I'll be capable to do something a little close to this.
Just a question: How do you make those raised designs of the doors? I have a guess: you draw the door with those forms on a thin styren sheet conform your sketches, cut the depressed parts off and then glue the cutted sheet on another one cutted just with the door shape. Am I right?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Absolutely correct, Fernando. Using double sided tape, made a sandwich of layers of 020 styrene, enough for both sides of the airlock and the three upper and one lower deck hatches. I used a circle template to determine the diameters and mark the positions of all the holes I needed to make and then drilled the holes through all the layers of plastic. That gave me correct radius round corners where (most of the time) they were supposed to be. Then I separated the layers and marked out a center line and square patterns and trimmed out the straight edges, and touched up the positions of the corners where it was needed. 
If I was thinking, I could have done all these out of photo etch when I did my last batch. But who thinks ahead?
The interior doors are simple sandwiches over 040 or 060. The airlock hatch was a core of multiple layers of white and a layer of clear styrene so I could have a sliding viewport cover. Still haven't figured out how to make the cover slide. Ah ha! Just did. Now I have to re-do the hatch. Rats. 
I will do a build thread on this just as soon as it looks just a little less rough.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thought of it last night: another huge change since I built the first one 1/24 J2 in the '80s is the range of plastic cements now available. Back then Testors liquid was standard and cryano-acetate (sp??) "super-glues" were the newest thing. Now we know that Testors liquid is awful and that that CAs don't bond well to styrene (now I only use super glues as a crack filler where strength doesn't matter or a drop or two of it as clamp to hold parts in place while a "real" glue bonds. Even photoetch is much better served using epoxy). One thing I do like about super glues is how easily the stuff can be removed from styrene. On older builds, it fairly peels away. 
So far on this build, I've used Ambrose Pro Weld almost exclusively. The stuff is great. Very hot so that it melts the styrene quickly and not too fast drying so that the final bond seems welded as strong as a single piece. It is fairly thick, tho, and I wouldn't use it on fine parts. It's great for this crude assembly work like this but for the small details like control panels I'll go back to Tenax. Tenax is also a very hot cement but it dries almost instantly, so that if you make any mistakes, they evaporate before you do much, or any damage. It's still my favorite for any detail or fine work.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Thank you Sir.
I'm taking carefull notes of everything.:thumbsup:
Hope the new thread doesn't last.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

starseeker said:


> ...since I was making the elevator out of brass tubes this time...and since the brass tubes fitted into each other, I figured why not make the elevator cage open and close. That was the most fun (seriously) I've had modeling in a long time. Soldering is not one of my strengths but it's a learning experience (which for me is what modeling is all about). Took a while to get my sloppiness all sanded smooth but once it's painted no one will ever know...


[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=96401&d=1260377237[/IMG-LEFT]










































That's superlative! Did you use K&S thin-wall tubing? And, did you roll the inner extending "gate" at the same time as the outer cage?

.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks. The cage is KS 1/16 x 014 tubing. The gate is Special Shapes 1/32 x 006 tubing. And the very thin vertical frame half way along the sides (not attached yet) will be a Special Shapes brass wire that looks to be about 006 in diameter. 
I bent the cage with the gate wire inside it around a C battery. Just wrapped it right around. It didn't crack or flatten, sprang back to almost the perfect size. I removed the gate tube and used a cutting wheel on a dremel to get slightly overlong pieces. The 5 gate pieces need to be about 1/2" (in 1/24) longer than the side pieces and have to retract into the back wall.
I made a super simple jig with just four holes spaced precisely apart and a couple pieces of brass to keep the front spacing right and soldered one layer at a time. I used a piece of styrene as a spacer to make sure all layers were exactly (~) the same spacing. 
As you can see, I'm a lousy solderer. But small files and some sandpaper cleaned away most of the excess. The side of the gate has small holes drilled to accept the gate rungs. The top hole is a thru hole as the top layer has a small conical shape that fits into the frame of the elevator, I guess to keep everything aligned. It sure does that on the model version. I thought drilling the holes to match the spacing of the side rungs would be impossible, but the holes can be a little elongated vertically and the solder fills them nicely. 
Sanded the back ends to make all the back overhangs the same length.
It's surprisingly robust. At least I haven't broken it yet, and I've dropped it a couple to times. Sigh.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Your elevator cage is so beyond awesome that I can't come up with a word to express how impressed I am. :thumbsup:


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

starseeker said:


> Thanks. The cage is KS 1/16 x 014 tubing. The gate is Special Shapes 1/32 x 006 tubing. And the very thin vertical frame half way along the sides (not attached yet) will be a Special Shapes brass wire that looks to be about 006 in diameter.
> I bent the cage with the gate wire inside it around a C battery. Just wrapped it right around. It didn't crack or flatten, sprang back to almost the perfect size. I removed the gate tube and used a cutting wheel on a dremel to get slightly overlong pieces. The 5 gate pieces need to be about 1/2" (in 1/24) longer than the side pieces and have to retract into the back wall.
> I made a super simple jig with just four holes spaced precisely apart and a couple pieces of brass to keep the front spacing right and soldered one layer at a time. I used a piece of styrene as a spacer to make sure all layers were exactly (~) the same spacing.
> As you can see, I'm a lousy solderer. But small files and some sandpaper cleaned away most of the excess. The side of the gate has small holes drilled to accept the gate rungs. The top hole is a thru hole as the top layer has a small conical shape that fits into the frame of the elevator, I guess to keep everything aligned. It sure does that on the model version. I thought drilling the holes to match the spacing of the side rungs would be impossible, but the holes can be a little elongated vertically and the solder fills them nicely.
> ...


Fantastic work, what is this going into?????


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Fantastic job! :thumbsup:
I made an elevator cage with metal rings to my PLJ2. It was a big, endless nightmare and there wasn`t even an open/close door.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

teslabe said:


> what is this going into?????


It's going into a 1/24 upper deck. I still have to make a 24" upper hull for it to fit into, but that might have to wait until spring.
Just realized that I have to make another cage for the lower deck. I think my plan is to bury the lower deck in my old crash site diorama and just set the upper deck on top of it and then an upper hull over top of that. I can make the entire lower deck just fit into a 23" diameter circle, which would allow it to fit inside the vertical skirt we always saw underneath the upper hull. Don't know if I can get all the lights and fiber optics to fit into a small enough space under the upper deck, tho. All my lights and motors might have to be contained above floor level? Ah, I'll worry about that when/if the time comes.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

starseeker said:


> It's going into a 1/24 upper deck. I still have to make a 24" upper hull for it to fit into, but that might have to wait until spring.
> Just realized that I have to make another cage for the lower deck. I think my plan is to bury the lower deck in my old crash site diorama and just set the upper deck on top of it and then an upper hull over top of that. I can make the entire lower deck just fit into a 23" diameter circle, which would allow it to fit inside the vertical skirt we always saw underneath the upper hull. Don't know if I can get all the lights and fiber optics to fit into a small enough space under the upper deck, tho. All my lights and motors might have to be contained above floor level? Ah, I'll worry about that when/if the time comes.


I think I chipped a tooth when my jaw hit the table...... That is some fine work......:thumbsup:


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Great job starseeker, I luv the ingenuity of you scratch-builders.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

starseeker said:


> It's going into a 1/24 upper deck. I still have to make a 24" upper hull for it to fit into, but that might have to wait until spring.
> Just realized that I have to make another cage for the lower deck. I think my plan is to bury the lower deck in my old crash site diorama and just set the upper deck on top of it and then an upper hull over top of that. I can make the entire lower deck just fit into a 23" diameter circle, which would allow it to fit inside the vertical skirt we always saw underneath the upper hull. Don't know if I can get all the lights and fiber optics to fit into a small enough space under the upper deck, tho. All my lights and motors might have to be contained above floor level? Ah, I'll worry about that when/if the time comes.


I don't know how your old crash site diorama is but, maybe one option would be make two ways to acess the lower deck, being one only removing the upper hull/deck (together? ) to have a look of the LD interior and the other way a totaly removable "ground" of the diorama to acess the "engineering area".  

Anyway, the work looks fantastic so far and promises to be better and better. It's always interesting to realize how small were both decks interiors compared to what we saw on tv.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

starseeker, are you using sheet plastic for the walls, if so how thick? I just bought a Silhouette-SD-Digital Cutter and hope it can cut more that just paper. I just took a look and the price has gone up on it in the last week, I got mine for $174.99 with free shipping, what price grab.......:freak: 


http://www.overstock.com/Crafts-Sew...Gift-Card/4400810/product.html?cid=95138&fp=f


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

*Starseeker*. Excellent work.:thumbsup::thumbsup: Havent posted in awhile and the amount of work you have finished in 6 months time is astounding.You have really kept this thread alive. I eagerly await the finished product.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks! I'm beginning to wonder if it ever will be finished. So much to do, and just a bit of time here and there to try to squeeze everything in. I did manage to roughly finish the sliding closet doors. I vaguely remember some episode where Will is hiding from somebody and he hoists himself up onto the closet shelf and lifts his feet out of sight, presumably on the stage roof. Made sure to leave enough space for a scale Will to get up there. I guess someday I'm going to have to figure out what to hang in the closets. At least 1/24 scale clothes don't have to thicker than something I can run through the printer and crinkle and fold a couple of times. 

Structurally it's all 030 and 040 styrene, and pretty soft styrene at that, somewhat softer than Evergreen sheet. The finer details (like the door starbursts and control panels) are/will be mostly 010 and 020. Really interested in seeing what your machine will do. It'll be great for creating friskets and masks for painting, that's for sure.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

teslabe said:


> starseeker, are you using sheet plastic for the walls, if so how thick? I just bought a Silhouette-SD-Digital Cutter and hope it can cut more that just paper. I just took a look and the price has gone up on it in the last week, I got mine for $174.99 with free shipping, what price grab.......:freak:
> 
> 
> http://www.overstock.com/Crafts-Sew...Gift-Card/4400810/product.html?cid=95138&fp=f


If this machine could cut 030 and 040 styrene a LOT of time-consumer work would be saved. It's too good to be true.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

Fernando Mureb said:


> If this machine could cut 030 and 040 styrene a LOT of time-consumer work would be saved. It's too good to be true.


I'll let everyone know how it works after I get back, I'm in Niagara Falls, NY til Dec 30th, so I can't do anything with it right now. Even if it can't cut plastic as thick as .030" or .040", I'd be happy
with it just scribing the plastic, I can cut it from there. I couldn't draw a straght line if my life depended on it.....


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Roughed up the last part of the lower deck: the galley. One thing about the Fox blueprints: even though I have a 3' square copy of the lower deck blueprint, when it came time to both make my drawings and to start roughing up this model, I discovered that the blueprints themselves aren't square. None of them. Both the upper and lower deck are very slightly asymmetrical and the girders that divide the decks into 8ths are not all 45 degrees. So I'm trying really hard to correct for all of that while I'm assembling these. 
I know this isn't a My Build Thread but I can't help but throw a couple more pictures out there. This is the galley being slid into place. The huge question on my mind was: this is the last eighth. And it's all compound angles, too, which is why I left it till last. Will it fit? How far off is it going to be?
Didn't fit at all. What the?... Why not? I had a small triangle brace of plastic maintaining the angle of the step in of the ladder wall that was in the way, plus I left the top of the galley toe in quite long, to give the parts additional strength. Snipped off two bits and slid it together again and the galley walls lined up perfectly with the ladder wall and escape hatch wall. I still can't believe it. 
Man, the Jupiter 2 was designed beautifully. The whole lower deck fits together like a jig saw puzzle. Not a bit of wasted space. And that they also made the whole thing in "wild" sections. Amazing design and construction. 
And this pretty much completes the rough work on the lower deck. Now I have to start cleaning everything up and start in on the detail stuff - the girders and control panels and (first up) the galley table.
What fun!! And so far, both levels, it's been a couple bottles of cement and about $40 worth of styrene and Evergreen strip.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I'm here, man. Go ahead, go ahead!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Starseeker,
Do the Fox lower level drawings allow for the landing gear at all?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Toyroy, the Fox lower deck blue doesn't mention the landing gear at all. The escape hatch is barely 1/2 over where the landing gear would be positioned. The Fox blue for an early (and possibly my preferred) design of the lower deck does show the landing gear. I nuked a few attachments so I can post these. Sorry about the quality but the original isn't really much more readable than this. The cabins stayed the same except for the shower unit added to the master cabin. The lab and observatory were completely different. As was the galley and elevator area. Right between the words "Galley" and "Algae Trays" is "Exit [unreadable] @ Landing Gear". There is also the outline of the landing gear marked and a "Rail" around the exit area. So at least initially they were planning on matching the interior to the exterior. And they still came reasonably close with the later version. 
Hmmm, this would be a cool model...


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

It is admirable the concern that the builders of the filming set had with the details and also to give a "real" meaning or sense of utility to everything, until the last button.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

With it being holidays and partying and all, not a lot of time for modeling, but I am managing to get a few bits and pieces added to my 1/24 lower deck. Spent a lot of time struggling in the laboratory, even had the control panels and wall lights roughed in, but I was having to do too much trimming and adjusting of angles to make it all fit. That's when I went back to the blueprint and noticed that the lab is asymmetrical. I had plotted the lab's back wall out on plastic to the centered, but in fact the plans show the wall to one side of the 4'wide test bench to be 5"4" +/- and on the other side to be 5' 10" +/-. Even the Fox designers didn't have exact figures. Once I pulled everything out and off centered the "center", everything started to fit perfectly. 
The observatory is a bit of a challenge. Again, compound angles, this time just the "walls" on either side of the windows. As with compund angles in tight spaces, the easiest way to shape them is to add any square sides first and let them dry and then cut thin cardboard or thick paper into a template that finally fits into the space that you want to fill. Only when the paper template fits perfectly do you cut plastic. 
Various Fox blueprints exist of all or portions of the lower deck. For the area behind the engine room door and elevator ladder area, I've only seen lines for a couple walls behind the glide tube and notations that say "engine room" and "storage". Since the rest of the lower deck is tightly constrained to a certain radius, I figured that the engine room and storage area would have been as well. One of the structural girders runs that direction so it probably should be represented there as well, possibly marking the dividing line between the two areas. Since we're talking mid-60s designs here and Gemini and Apollo were key set inspirations, I'll deck out the storage room with LM type shelves and cabinets. I think I'll steal from the other big design inspiration and use some Krell instruments for the unseen parts of the engine room. No Time Tunnel. In any event, it sure fills out the empty space and looks better with the two hypothetical areas roughed in. 
It's still mostly taped or dry fitted together except within certain bays where I've started to cement walls or benches now. The black pieces are where I've run out of white 020 sheet and have used black. (The black girder side on the side of the observatory to cabin bulkhead was definitely raised in the first season. You can even see its shadow. In Wild Adventure, it has become flush with the rest of the wall. ??) Almost to the point with the upper and lower decks that I feel I could start a build thread that would show at least some progress. 
Happy New Year!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It's looking great!
I like your approach with a Krell Style Engine Room- Forbidden Planet had a lot of influence in other SciFi designs in the Sixties.

.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Fantastic! That's the LD I hope Moebius will do some day as a diorama kit to be used together with the 18" J2 UD above it.


----------

