# Pegasus "1/350" Moonlander spacecraft



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

This has been one of those grail spaceships I thought I would have to scratchbuild. 
I got it from the Starship Modeler store: https://starshipmodeler.biz/shop/index.cfm/product/8333/1350-moonlander-spacecraft.html

First, the good stuff:
This is beautiful, nicely designed and detailed kit and it comes with parts to make both the passenger and cargo versions of the spaceship. It's a complex and fiddly design and by the parts breakdown, it looks like Pegasus did a great job at making assembly not too difficult.

The bad - The Pegasus random scaler strikes again! The kit is listed at 1/350, but based on the design specs (no need to measure drawings and guess; Von Braun gave exact dimensions!) the kit is closer to 1/250. I measured the crew cabin at 41mm in diameter; in the "Spaceship Handbook", it's listed as being 396" (1006 cm or 10058mm) in dia., which makes the scale around 1/245 - a good 43% larger than 1/350. 
In 1/350, the ship would be around 7.2" tall. In 1/245 (or 1/250) it would be around 10.25" tall, which is what it looks like in the box.

If Pegasus can't figure out basic scale math (they screwed up the "When Worlds Collide" ship scale as well), they should just not list the kit's scale!

Paulbo - Is ParaGrafix coming out with a PE set for this kit? Pegasus did a good job at molding some of the more delicate parts, but a few sections could use PE.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I noticed that, too, on the stated scale vs. dimensions. However, it certainly does not detract one iota from my enjoyment of this kit. 

I would consider this to be the modern-day version of the Aurora Sealab III kit. Lots of tanks, spheres and miscellaneous hardware for scratchbuilding and kitbashing purposes. It's too bad that most film models are now computer generated, as I'm sure that these parts would end up on many a spaceship miniature.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> I noticed that, too, on the stated scale vs. dimensions. However, it certainly does not detract one iota from my enjoyment of this kit.
> 
> I would consider this to be the modern-day version of the Aurora Sealab III kit. Lots of tanks, spheres and miscellaneous hardware for scratchbuilding and kitbashing purposes. It's too bad that most film models are now computer generated, as I'm sure that these parts would end up on many a spaceship miniature.


Well, would it? I mean, all things considered, this is NOT a 'cheap, disposable' item cranked out in the tens of thousands and only costing a few bucks, easily available at any store. It's an expensive (comparatively speaking. I mean, around $50 isn't bad but you have to admit it's a far cry from $2.98  ) boutique specialty kit manufactured in the hundreds to maybe a few thousand that lives in a world of "If you don't know you'd never know it existed" world. 

What I could see happen today, if miniatures were actually being built like they were in the '60s and '70s, an effects shop might buy a couple of kits and run off some RTV molds of the parts to use. 

Still, massive kudos for them to make this. Yeesh, how do you even train to land what is in effect a 5 story building?


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

This is a LOVELY kit. So many great parts in an amazing design.

Good info on the scale of the kit. Will take that in mind as I find tiny figures to use with it.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

lunadude said:


> This is a LOVELY kit. So many great parts in an amazing design.
> 
> Good info on the scale of the kit. Will take that in mind as I find tiny figures to use with it.


One thing I can't see is the airlock hatch on the "promenade deck" under the crew sphere. Maybe if ParaGrafix makes a set for this kit, they can include a 1/250 and a 1/350 hatch and railing for this part.
I'm going with a 1/350 "supersized" lander. 40% bigger because American astronauts are "big boned".


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

Fifty dollars IS cheap for this kit--I was honestly expecting it to run for about $70. I certainly plan to buy one or two more for the parts. Here's my build for those that will tolerate Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/jeffc.bond/posts/10210433802254846?pnref=story

You might consider replacing the four plastic rods that support the main frames of the ship with brass rod; it would make assembly a bit less frustrating. But it does build up very nicely. Photo etch would be a great addition.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Frank2056 said:


> Paulbo - Is ParaGrafix coming out with a PE set for this kit? Pegasus did a good job at molding some of the more delicate parts, but a few sections could use PE.


Yes, I'll be doing a set for it. Pegasus was nice enough to send me a copy of the kit shortly after it started shipping.



Frank2056 said:


> One thing I can't see is the airlock hatch on the "promenade deck" under the crew sphere. Maybe if ParaGrafix makes a set for this kit, they can include a 1/250 and a 1/350 hatch and railing for this part.
> I'm going with a 1/350 "supersized" lander. 40% bigger because American astronauts are "big boned".


I've got a few ideas for items like an open framework dish antenna if my concept of how to make it work, well, works. Also, window frames to give them a bit of detail as well as vaned pieces to replace the decals for the pressure vents (I think that's what my references call them) on the fuel tanks.

I like the idea of mixing the people sizes like I did with the 1/350 Enterprise kits - the interiors included with the TOS and TMP kits were scaled down to fit within the kits. IIRC, the bridge and shuttle bay of the TOS and cargo bay of the TMP are something around 1/420 scale.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't have the old Collier's book by Von Braun et al on the moon landing so I may be missing obvious things, but how were the crew meant to egress and get to the lunar surface from 5 stories up? Crane, Winch and harness or cage? A really long rope ladder? 

Also, would this design carry any of the 'bottle suits' for repair work en route or was that concept discontinued in favor of space suits and thruster guns? 

One thing I really liked about all the concepts in the Collier's books was the idea of modular everything. Hauling stuff to orbit and re-purposing it rather than letting it burn up on re-entry. Seems to me, for example, Pegasus is like 75% on the way to having a Mars Expedition vehicle kit.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Steve:
AIAA Houston published the Colliers "Man will conquer space soon!" series. These are high resolution PDF scans of all the pages, which are scattered through their 2012-2013 issues: Horizons Newsletter | AIAA Houston Section

#8 November/December 2013
#7 July/August 2013
#6 May/June 2013
#5 March/April 2013
#4 January/February 2013
#3 November/December 2012
#2 September/October 2012
#1 July/August 2012

Paul: Looking forwards to the PE set! 

Jeff: Great job on the kit!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Frank2056 said:


> Steve:
> AIAA Houston published the Colliers "Man will conquer space soon!" series. These are high resolution PDF scans of all the pages, which are scattered through their 2012-2013 issues: Horizons Newsletter | AIAA Houston Section
> 
> #8 November/December 2013
> ...



Frank, that's a tremendous resource and I plan to check it out. Thank you.

By any chance did they reprint the Oct. '57 issue on WW III, I think it was titled "the war we don't want to fight" or something. I've long wished that had been collected into hardback like the Colliers Space writings (I have the 'Space' and Mars' books, planned on picking up a copy of the 'Moon' book when the money went away. bah. ). 

It depresses me to know that there's nothing like the work that Colliers and Life used to do, all the broad reaching investigation and research and all that stuff. But what would a modern magazine like that do, anyway? Endless reprinting of "We're going back to the Moon!" (lather, rinse and repeat every 8 years since 1975) and "We're going to Mars in 20 years!" (repeat every 10 to 15 years since 1968).


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Steve H said:


> It depresses me to know that there's nothing like the work that Colliers and Life used to do, all the broad reaching investigation and research and all that stuff. But what would a modern magazine like that do, anyway? Endless reprinting of "We're going back to the Moon!" (lather, rinse and repeat every 8 years since 1975) and "We're going to Mars in 20 years!" (repeat every 10 to 15 years since 1968).


Steve - I checked with my Illuminati/Gray/Lizard people friends and we'll we're scheduled to go back to the Moon and Mars in the same week that nuclear fusion becomes cheap and plentiful.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Nice job! I'll be getting this too and it'll look nice next to the Glencoe lander and the other retro ships.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

this looks like a cool kit. That said, I've always wondered how the crew would debark from ships like that....


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

Picked this kit up over the weekend. Wow - lots of parts for the engines and tanks!

Looking forward to seeing what Paul/ParaGrafix has in mind for the PE set!


Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Dr. Brad said:


> this looks like a cool kit. That said, I've always wondered how the crew would debark from ships like that....


Tradition usually has it they would use either a rope ladder or a knotted rope and climb up and down, because 1/6 gee and "they only weight 50 lbs. in their suits!" stuff. Plan B would be ladder rungs down the outside of the central column and a detachable ladder clipped to the base. 

Plan C would be a swing out crane arm and either a loop or an actual bucket to ride down. Why this isn't FIRST choice I have no idea. 

Myself, I would favor the crane/bucket above all, with ladder rungs all over the place for emergencies and as an aid to doing things to the ship in space. 

They would need a crane anyway, as one of the common ideas would be to detach empty tanks and leave them on the Moon to be used to build shelters and the start of an actual base. OTOH if they have fuel enough that makes the entire lander reusable to return to the Wheel for refitting and the next trip.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

All I see is one small ringed porch under the top hab module. The integrated crane arm was probably 'elevator' to the surface.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Some crane action on the surface...


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

I think there is a little man in the crane's bucket.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I see him! It also seems there's some form of 'lift' running up and down to the cargo (?) modules. Or are those just attachable work platforms. 

I see I did recall correctly about using empty fuel tanks for rude habitats. 

It appears that the crane arms doubled as supports for the tanks? Wow, that thing is build like a 19th century frigate, where most everything had several purposes depending on the needs of the moment. (see how the 'Surprise' alters in the movie 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World')


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I love this whole retro design- very practical and well thought out.

Can anybody take some photos of the actual kit pieces and what has been assembled so far?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

lunadude said:


> This is a LOVELY kit. So many great parts in an amazing design.


Thanks to some of the posts here, yesterday I took a look at some of these Pegasus kits for the first time. IMHO,(along with the Zvezda star destroyer) they look like the best engineered Sci-Fi kits I have ever seen. I have been amazed at how poor Sci-Fi kits are compared to ship/tank/airplane kits. Put, for example, the PL 350 Refit next to a 1990's vintage Tamiya ship and you can see the how poor (read: inept) the level of engineering is. Fine Scale Modeler this/last month has a section on Star Trek builds and the quality of the kits is strikingly horrible. The Ship/Tank/Plane folks must laugh when they see this.

Kit's like these from Pegasus truly are something to celebrate.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Pegasus does do some amazing engineering. My only issue, and it is a small one, is that most of the SciFi kits are cast in ABS plastic, not styrene. This results in a stronger, more flexible kit, but you need to seek out special glues to assemble.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Just use the Tamiya Extra Thin cement (as suggested in the instructions), which is available in nearly every hobby shop, and you won't have any problems. Since ABS is stronger and more robust than standard polystyrene, the extremely thin, delicate portions of the model will withstand more handling and the rigors of assembly far better without snapping (not that you shouldn't still be careful), and result in a far more durable assembly.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Thanks for the posts on how the crew were to leave the ship everyone. Very interesting!


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Steve H said:


> ...It appears that the crane arms doubled as supports for the tanks? Wow, that thing is build like a 19th century frigate, where most everything had several purposes depending on the needs of the moment...


Yep, reuse any and everything. weight costs fuel.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Interesting to see how they get out of there and the pics too. 

Does the command module (or whatever it's called) come with little clear plastic windows?


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

SUNGOD1 said:


> Interesting to see how they get out of there and the pics too.
> 
> Does the command module (or whatever it's called) come with little clear plastic windows?



Yes it does.

BTW - there's 30 rocket motors to build! :surprise:


Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

veedubb67 said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> BTW - there's 30 rocket motors to build! :surprise:
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, not so much 'more power', more like using lots of little rockets, right? 

Again, that whole modular thing Von Braun et al tried to push. The motors for the Moon Lander were to come from the 3rd stage (or 'sustainer booster') of the stereotypical winged spacecraft (we would call it a shuttle. The returning vehicle with its de-orbit motor were considered the 4th stage) as well as the motors salvaged from supply rockets.

I can't recall. The traditional Von Braun 'stack', I know the first stage was supposed to be recovered and either re-used or recycled, and I laid out the plans for the 3rd stage, was the 2ed stage able to be left in low orbit to be gathered for recycling, or was that doomed to burn up?

I'm pretty sure if we had gone with that method the hardware wouldn't have been quite as fanciable as the Disney/Colliers (Von Braun et al) designs, but we may have managed to maintain an active presence in space as well as continued exploration of the moon. 

*heh* I wouldn't be surprised if the space craft from 'Men Into Space' would have been the actuality.


----------



## Rainfollower (Oct 6, 2006)

2nd Stage -

From the March 22, 1952 Collier's "Man Will Conquer Space Soon" article:

...After the first stage lands in the water, it is collected and brought back to the launching site.

The same procedure is repeated 124 seconds later. The second stage (middle section) is dropped into the ocean...

There is also an illustration of the launch showing the same parachute system on the 2nd stage as is used on the 1st.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Rainfollower said:


> 2nd Stage -
> 
> From the March 22, 1952 Collier's "Man Will Conquer Space Soon" article:
> 
> ...



Thank you, that's jarring the memory bank. 

I recall they actually did some studies to see if they could do this with the Saturn V stack but it was decided not to. I can't recall if there was a weight penalty with changes needed to make the boosters recoverable (that made it impossible for the Saturn V to do its job that is. Hard to picture that beast being 'on the edge' in terms of performance but I'm *hah* not a rocket scientist  ), or if they just plain said "Naw, we don't care".


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

There were three designs for the Moon ships. An orbiter, with no provisions for landing. A cargo lander where the central tube is a large cargo hold, and the outboard tanks have just enough fuel for a one-way trip. A passenger lander which carries enough fuel for a return trip.

David.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

veedubb67 said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> BTW - there's 30 rocket motors to build! :surprise:
> 
> ...




Great.:smile2: Pegasus seem to be good at doing separate windows and lights on their sci fi kits.

That's a lot of motors.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Krel said:


> There were three designs for the Moon ships. An orbiter, with no provisions for landing. A cargo lander where the central tube is a large cargo hold, and the outboard tanks have just enough fuel for a one-way trip. A passenger lander which carries enough fuel for a return trip.
> 
> David.


OK, so, logically, the one-way cargo lander is the one with dis-mountable fuel tanks to be made into shelters and eventually a base. 

I'm sure there must have been some thought on using another form of cargo rocket to bring fuel to recover the various parts, unless the thought was to dis-mount all those engines in order to build lunar survey hoppers or sub-orbital rockets.

MAN the more I think about this stuff the more potential I see, and bemoan the lost future that might have been


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Steve H said:


> Thank you, that's jarring the memory bank.
> 
> I recall they actually did some studies to see if they could do this with the Saturn V stack but it was decided not to.


It was a mildly insane proposal with two nutty options; giant parachutes or giant parachutes and an enormous helicopter to catch the stage in mid air.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Frank2056 said:


> It was a mildly insane proposal with two nutty options; giant parachutes or giant parachutes and an enormous helicopter to catch the stage in mid air.


......

I....

:willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

I mean my GOSH what a truly amazing proposal! I am actually boggled. 

Because with that kind of lift capability just imagine what else could be done with that 'copter. Just think of it as a forest fire water drop ship! Flying in a hospital module like a super Skycrane to impoverished disaster areas. If something like that existed you know darn well jobs would appear. 

It's very Gerry Anderson in a way.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Could somebody *PLEASE* post some pictures of this kit instead of just saying how great it is?
All I know about it is the cover picture- no idea what the differences are between the Cargo and Crewed versions, I cannot even find a picture of a parts tree on line.

I may not be able to buy one yet, but I would like to know more about this kit


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Richard Baker said:


> Could somebody *PLEASE* post some pictures of this kit instead of just saying how great it is?
> All I know about it is the cover picture- no idea what the differences are between the Cargo and Crewed versions, I cannot even find a picture of a parts tree on line.
> 
> I may not be able to buy one yet, but I would like to know more about this kit


Here's an unboxing review of the kit.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

THANKS!

I have to watch this when I get home


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

I also was going to post that link - I'm just too slow! 

Brad does a nice video review (about 5 minutes worth) of the kit, and covers the instruction booklet, and also shows the different sprues, and you can he's fairly enthused about the kit.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Steve H said:


> OK, so, logically, the one-way cargo lander is the one with dis-mountable fuel tanks to be made into shelters and eventually a base.
> 
> I'm sure there must have been some thought on using another form of cargo rocket to bring fuel to recover the various parts, unless the thought was to dis-mount all those engines in order to build lunar survey hoppers or sub-orbital rockets.
> 
> MAN the more I think about this stuff the more potential I see, and bemoan the lost future that might have been


The large outside tanks are removable on both the passenger and cargo rocket. This cuts down on the weight for the return trip with the passenger rocket, and allows better access to the cargo hold on the cargo rocket. The passenger rocket has the inner fuel tanks for the return trip, which the cargo rocket does not have. I imagine that they can dissemble and reuse most of the cargo rocket, but what do they do with all those engines?

David.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Um.......veedub. I watched the video above (without sound as my pc's playing up) but there only looks like 2 clear plastic pieces. One for the top and another piece which I don't know where it goes. Anyway the small windows on the command module appear to be just indentations with no clear plastic pieces provided to represent windows?


----------



## Rainfollower (Oct 6, 2006)

Yes, looks like only two clear windows. At 1:42 in, see parts GP1 and GP2 on the upper left of the right page. The smaller windows do appear to be molded in and are not clear. But that can easily be addressed.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Rainfollower said:


> Yes, looks like only two clear windows. At 1:42 in, see parts GP1 and GP2 on the upper left of the right page. The smaller windows do appear to be molded in and are not clear. But that can easily be addressed.





I 'm surprised at that considering it's Pegasus. They're usually good with windows etc. Rocketship XM has little clear windows (from what I can see anyway).


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

I just noticed that the box top has the correct 1:1 ship length (49m) listed on the side. So how did they screw this one up?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

While Pegasus has often been "scale challenged" on some kit releases, the quality and detail of the kits leaves little to be desired. They are true works of art. I am just so happy to see so many iconic, classic spacecraft finally released in kit form, that any minor annoyance of the accepted scale being off, is of little consequence. 

Onward with the _Conquest of Space_ kits, please!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Trek Ace said:


> While Pegasus has often been "scale challenged" on some kit releases, the quality and detail of the kits leaves little to be desired. They are true works of art. I am just so happy to see so many iconic, classic spacecraft finally released in kit form, that any minor annoyance of the accepted scale being off, is of little consequence.
> 
> Onward with the _Conquest of Space_ kits, please!




Yes fair play to them they've done some nice kits that many other manufacturers won't touch. 

And agree about COS kits (especially the space station) plus I wish they'd do Flash Gordon rocketships.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

There were rumours a while back they were doing COS space stuff but since then nothing?


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Anyone heard any more talk of COS space kits by Pegasus?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'll ask them next time I'm there.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Trek Ace said:


> I'll ask them next time I'm there.



Great idea. Thanks!


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

I was going to make a version of the "Round the Moon" ship (in real 1/350) as a companion to this ship. Luckily, Alternate Visions on Shapeways had one in 1/400 and they resized it to 1/350:

1/350 VON BRAUN ROUND THE MOON SHIP

The mercury reflector broke off in transit, but it will be easy to reattach. Looks pretty good:



















On the "Spaceship Handbook" page:










I have to expose the print to some UV to make sure it's fully cured, then clean, prime and paint.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Made my own version of the round the moon ship using the Glencoe kit as the starting point.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

That is a cool use of the Lindberg/Glencoe (now Round 2) kit. The Lindberg kit didn't have hatches or stairs, so you had to wonder how the crew got in or out.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't recall Glenco having the Lindberg space kits, only the Strombecker ones. 

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, I just never saw it. I do love me those Strombecker space kits. 

I do seem to recall Testors had the Hawk kits and the old 'flying saucer' kit now currently from Lindberg via R2.

Man, in the future someone is going to have to write a pretty big article unraveling all these creator/owner company changes.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Steve H said:


> I don't recall Glenco having the Lindberg space kits, only the Strombecker ones.
> 
> If I'm wrong I'm wrong, I just never saw it. I do love me those Strombecker space kits.
> 
> ...


All of those kits were issued by Glencoe in the early or mid 1990's:










They also did the the Retriever Rocket, originally the Disney Lunar Orbiter, the Nuclear Powered Space Station and the Von Braun version of the Three Stage Rocket. All of those kits were originally Strombeker kits and are from the Disney Man In Space series. The one marketed as the lander is just a version of the Von Braun "round the moon" spaceship with landing legs tacked on. From what I remembered reading about the reasoning behind that change is that they wanted to make a lander but thought the Von Braun lander design was just too complicated and expensive to produce. Now, thanks to Pegasus, we have a model of that design.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Frank2056 said:


> That is a cool use of the Lindberg/Glencoe (now Round 2) kit. The Lindberg kit didn't have hatches or stairs, so you had to wonder how the crew got in or out.


From what I remember reading long ago about the Lindberg lander model, they originally wanted to do the Von Braun Lander but it would be too expensive to produce and sell. They simply took the Von Braun "round the moon" spaceship and tacked legs on it to make a sellable lander. obviously no thought was given as to how the crew would exit the craft after it landed.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

That Shapeways Round the Moon Ship is nicely detailed esp. for it's size. Don't know if I could pay out that much money for it though!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

krlee said:


> All of those kits were issued by Glencoe in the early or mid 1990's:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you! So huh. I don't recall ever seeing that. Learned new again. 

Don't forget that Glenco also put out some of the Convair space designs, the 'orbital station' and the 'nuclear rocket', both of which need re-pressing, all of the space stuff should always be available because I said so.


----------

