Space Shuttle Launch Pad 39A with Challenger STS-6 (1:144)

#1460 by roma847 on 09 Apr, 2018 12:50
Hello everybody,

today with a short update from the Shapeways Team.

I just could not stand for this contradiction regarding the FUD tolerances and I asked the friendly Shapeways lady, who initially wanted to give me only a lapidary, meaningless answer , to explain this dilemma to me.

Thereupon was it confirmed by a production colleague that the maximum accuracy that SW can achieve at FUD is actually 0,4 mm, and that the SW guidelines should be adapted, to what one would now work on.

Well at least something for which my effort has been worthwhile, although still to this day one finds the unchanged previous precision specification of ± 0,1 - 0,2 mm for every 100 mm ...

Meanwhile, the third IT is on its way to me, and I'm curious what it will look like.

In the meantime, I've looked around a bit on the SW pages and now I can better imagine the matter with the Support wax, whereto I have found this nice image at the end of the FUD website with the following explanation.

Source: www.shapeways.com/materials/frosted-detail-plastic

And remnants of this stuff one has still to remove off afterwards from the printed parts, although the cleaning at SW actually belongs to the standard procedure, but what is apparently not quite enough.

On this site you will also find an interesting Video in which the individual steps of the multi-stage production process are clearly presented by a SW production engineer.

After printing, the models are placed in a freezer to help detaching the parts, and then into an oven, where the wax base melts. Then they are placed first in an ultrasonic oil bath and subsequently in an ultrasonic water bath to remove residual wax and oil residues, and finally, after thorough water rinsing, they are dried and finally tested.

Here is an image of the second IT, which looked a bit cleaner than the first one.

The traces of grease on the paper show, that remnants of the wax/oil remains for the customer unfortunately,

here during the sunbath of the two ITs for the allegedly necessary complete curing of uncured microscopic resin areas under UV light, which was proposed by a shapeways designer named Model Monkey, who is presenting some useful tips (FAQs) on how to use Shapeways prints.
#1461 by roma847 on 10 Apr, 2018 17:00
Hey everyone,

meanwhile, I have received the third IT, which makes a much better figure than the first two,

and fits also better between the two ET parts, as one can see here.

And here the LOX Feedline from the Revell Stack was laid down experimentally.

As my remeasurement has shown, but no shrinkage seems to have occurred, so one would probably get along without the 0.8% addition.

Then I started with the tests for ultrasonic cleaning of the IT, for what I used the 2nd IT. To grope me step by step to the required cleaning time, I have each set the longest interval (600 sec.), which was repeated several times in succession.

First, I put the IT on the rear end and cleaned it in from this side a total of 30 minutes, with about 80% were immersed.

After this first cycle, the water looked rather cloudy,

and was therefore renewed for the cleaning of the other side, which then also took 30 min..
After that the IT looked like this, whereby one could see at a closer look but still wax residues in the grooves, which is why half an hour apparently was not enough.

Therefore, I helped along with the electric toothbrush under running water, because the fine grooves between the stringers are obviously the purest wax catchers, which I had already feared.

But since even after this action still small wax remains were to be seen, then I grabbed the cutter and went on carefully further cleaning out the interspaces, which is also quite effective, as can be seen at the stripped off residues on my thumb,

as well as at the cutter tip.

This stuff seems to sit so firmly in the grooves, so one will need much longer cleaning times in the ultrasonic bath, as initially suspected.

Therefore, I've added another pass of 30 min., which now gives a total cleaning time of 1 h, after which the water is always still cloudy.

But as one can see at these photos, there are still areas with more or less wax residue.

That immediately reminded me again of the 3-4 h cleaning time in the BANDELIN-Video during cleaning a FUD chain ...

So I will either extend the cleaning time still significantly, or sometimes have to try Aceton, or are there any ideas of the Shapeways experts here in the forum?
#1462 by roma847 on 12 Apr, 2018 14:10
Hello everybody,

following a hint in our German Raumcon Forum, I looked in my Dremel accessories and also found a Nylon Rotor Brush and a Nylon Brush, which I have immediately tested at medium speed.

In addition to the disadvantage of the many fine grooves, the Intertank has the advantage that it has no protruding small details that can easily break off when brushing, and also it is quite robust.

That's why I was able to ride across the grooves relatively easily and smoothly with the rotor brush, whereby it was already visible to the naked eye how the white wax residues gradually disappeared and the grooves slowly became clean, which pleasantly surprised me.

While cleaning in the area of the Stringer Panel is relatively easy due to the continuous grooves,

one has to do one's best in the subdivided areas of the Thrust Panel.

Under the big magnifying glass, one can see more clearly the differences between areas with wax residue and already cleaned areas.

And furthermore one can still see that in the two outer areas of the Thrust Panel on the right edge with the little "pockets" still sits a lot of wax, because they are worse reachable with the Rotor brush, which is why I there will try the Nylon brush that will probably get in better there.

To be able to see such differences in detail even better, I always apply the following trick.

To do this, I paste the photo into a Word document, then I increase the magnification, as shown here e.g. up to 300%, and take a screenshot, which I then upload.

This closeness can no longer be captured by the autofocus of my digicam.

This is the maximum possible closeness, if the image is still to become halfway sharp.

And here I've tested the Nylon brush, and I have to say that does not look too bad.

The cleaned area stands out clearly from the rest of the area, whereby one must consider that this IT was already 1 h in the ultrasonic bath.
#1463 by roma847 on 14 Apr, 2018 23:06
Hey everyone,

an interesting suggestion came from another modeler, after what I should put the IT completely in warm water with a few drops of detergent overnight, about 8 to 10 h. This time should be sufficient for the detergent to soften the bond between the wax and the FUD. Thereafter, the IT should be put into the ultrasonic cleaner to finally detach the residual wax.

This "Long pre-soak" Method is known to be used in industry for quite a number of cleaning processes.

This Intertank with its many fine grooves seems to be a prime example of a "wax catcher" and therefore obviously needs a combined special cleaning treatment.
But I will not let up until I have found a way out, rely on it.

Therefore I'm going to try the Pre-soak method (maybe a day or two) with my 1st IT, whereby it actually seems logical that soaked "dirt" can be removed better, as in grandmother's time ...

And maybe the brushing out of the grooves with the Dremel brush can also be done under water.
#1464 by roma847 on 23 Apr, 2018 16:03
Hello everybody,

the more one deals with the problem of cleaning of FUD-prints, the more partially contradictory opinions can be found, especially regarding the use of Acetone.

While this substance is recommended by Shapeways itself, how has been previously shown,

other users advise against it categorically, or warn of danger, such as Model Monkey,

It is all the more astonishing that at Shapeways no more precise information on the application (time, temperature, etc.) let found, wherewith they oversimplify the matter themself, because quite so easy, as one writes, it is not.

That's why I did a test with Acetone.

Without thinking of something bad, I have put the 2nd IT into the ultrasonic bath, poured in my bottle of Acetone (250 ml) and turned on the timer, followed by a rather violent reaction, and the bubbling acetone became quickly milky-cloudy, which rather surprised me.

When lifting the IT in the bath, I noticed a slight sticking to the floor, but which could be solved. But since the reaction has unsettled me a bit, I switched off the timer after about 3 minutes and put the IT in a water bath.

While the FUD surface seems to be slightly roughened,

at the sight of the basket, I was somewhat startled, who had suffered quite a bit, as one can easily see.

I should have preferred to remove it before, but afterwards one is always getting smarter.

Now still a current message, meanwhile Michael Key also has uploaded an IT-Version in White Strong & Flexible (WSF) without shrinkage allowance, which with € 36,22 is much cheaper.

So far for today.
#1465 by roma847 on 24 Apr, 2018 14:36
Hello everybody,

once more to the using of Acetone and its effect on FUD prints.

There are also opposite opinions as in this impressive contribution Investigating the use of acetone to clean models printed in Frosted Ultra Detail Material by Dave Yale, which I found in the Shapeways Thread Best way to clean frosted ultra detail model for painting?, who has soaked these FUD tables in each case 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 minutes and longer in Acetone and then examined,

after which one FUD table only got soft "knees" after 2 h!!!

And here another strange effect is described by Steve Larsen (Model Monkey) et al. in Powder Appearing On Fud After Storage, what one can see on this ship model of one of his customers.

He had used Tamiya acrylic paint which was diluted with Methylethylketone (MEK), what seems to have been the cause of the observed incompatibility with the FUD parts and led to these unpleasant phenomena.

Therefore, when cleaning my final Intertank, I will keep my hands off this Acetone and use only the gentler method of detergent/soapy solution, which I could see up close in action last week in the dental lab of my dentist, including post-treatment on more professional equipment, but more about that next time.
#1466 by nacnud on 24 Apr, 2018 14:41
How about hot water, detergent (washing up liquid) and a very fine stiff brush like this, lapis brush or sublime brush.
#1467 by roma847 on 24 Apr, 2018 23:45
I've already tried that at about 50°C, even with an electric toothbrush and a rotor nylon brush.

According to Shapeways, FUD should be heat resistant up to 80°C.
Over the weekend I took advantage of the bomb weather and bathed the final Intertank in the sun for half a day.

Thereby not completely 'exposed' FUD/FXD should cure, which makes it easier to remove the wax.
#1468 by roma847 on 25 Apr, 2018 12:13
Hello everybody,

here's my report on my flying visit to the Dental lab last week.

At my penultimate dentist appointment, I came up with the idea to confront my doctor with my Intertank cleaning problem and to ask if I could not even consult his colleagues in the neighboring dental laboratory. And friendly as he is, he agreed immediately and said that I should just bring along the tank at the next appointment.

Said done, before my appointment last week, I was in the lab next door and I just happened to get to the nice manager, whom I showed me the original tank on a shuttle photo of the STS-6 and pressed him the Intertank in the hand, together with a short briefing to my previous chin-ups in the ultrasonic cleaning and the necessary parameters, i.e. mild medium (no Acetone!) and about 50°C.

After the impression for an inlay I went back in the lab to the dental technicians 'with bite', as the name ChiliDent suggests already.

This is the manager, Benjamin Geyer, and next to him on the wall stands a Sonorex high performance ultrasonic bath (Bandelin) with integrated heating.

In this bath, he cleaned the IT in soapy water at approx. 50-60°C for approx. 15 minutes, whereby he carried out several visual inspections in between and brushed off the detached wax particles.

Individual areas with remaining wax residues can then be removed in this Reitel Blast cabin, whereby finest glass beads (50 μm) are used.

And then the IT can still be thoroughly rinsed with a high-pressure water jet.

That's how I imagine the cleaning of the final IT for which I have already made a date. These are, of course, exclusive opportunities that I do not have at home and therefore thankfully like to use.

One simply just must have a bit luck!
#1469 by roma847 on 26 Apr, 2018 23:27
Hello friends,

this cleaning affair is turning out to a real challenge because of the fine grooves, which don't want let go this damn wax residuals.

But when you look closely, you can see that there are still areas with wax residuals left behind, which shows that the first cleaning was not intense enough, which is why I at home have thrusted them out of the grooves with the steel ruler.

Completely without local mechanical post-processing of these fine grooves, it does not seem to work, or one has to invest more time and care in the ultrasonic cleaning before.

I'll definitely take that into account when cleaning up the final IT in the dental lab and will also look closer into the grooves.

Therfore keep on fingers crossing til the end!
#1470 by roma847 on 29 Apr, 2018 15:39
Hello everyone,

as you can see on my outfit, I wanted to try sharper things today to finally cope with those annoying wax residuals.

In the already mentioned PDF of Volkmar Meier for the cleaning of FUD/FXD-Prints he had i.a. even presented Stove cleaning spray as an effective remedy and seemingly successfully applied, which has made me curious.

In order to test this initially rather unusual method on an IT, I contacted him by e-mail in France, to find out more about his procedure, to which he has surprisingly answered in German, which I almost suspected according to his name.

The spray in his image is the DecapFour from Henkel available in France in the blue box containing caustic soda lye, and therefore is to be used with caution, which is why one absolutely should wear rubber gloves!

He sprayed the models outdoors on a baking sheet from all sides with the oven spray and waited until the foam has dissipated, about 30-60 minutes. Then followed by one, two lukewarm water baths, where he scrubbed the models with an old toothbrush.

In Germany there is a comparable spray under the name Sidol, which I got in the supermarket,

and had to test it immediately in the garden, let's go!

First of all, the IT in the box was vigorously foamed from all sides until it was no longer visible.

And then I waited eagerly for the foam to finally dissolve ...

But when nothing had happened after an hour,

I got the tank out of the box and scrubbed it in the water bath around with the toothbrush for a few minutes.

And because it was just so beautiful, I almost continued with myself, but I was just now able to hold myself back!!!

Fun aside, because after the tank was dried, the disillusionment came promptly.
As you can clearly see, there are in addition to clean areas still with wax residuals, both between the stringers, as well as in the fine grooves of the Thrust Panel, and especially under raised details such as the Access Door and the two Fairings.

Furthermore, it is noticeable that the stringer grooves of the rear half of the tank are clean, whereas those in the front half still contain wax, which I can not explain.

That's why I grabbed the steel ruler to remove the residuals, which is possible, but very tedious and therefore not the yellow of the egg.

But maybe someone of you has an explanation for that.
#1471 by mike robel on 29 Apr, 2018 18:12
Perhaps uneven foam coverage on the part because gravity sucks the foam to the bottom. One could try again, inverting the part from the first trial, and/or putting it in lengthwise.

In any event, unless you submerge the thing in the foam, I suspect the problem will rotate around as you alter the lay of the part in the bath.
#1472 by Ronpur50 on 30 Apr, 2018 01:48
That wax is tough!! And great to see the real you!!
#1473 by roma847 on 01 May, 2018 00:11
Thanks Mike and Ron for looking in on me.

Hello everybody,

yep, it's starting to get scary and spoil all the fun with tiny details, but maybe that's the curse of the many grooves.

On the one hand the cleaning of this Intertank with its many fine grooves obviously is an extremely hard nut and very difficult to handle.

But on the other hand it also seems to be a problem of the post-treatment and cleaning of prints by Shapeways itself, because the third IT seems have been treated more thoroughly and consequently to be cleaner than this first IT. Other guys have also noticed and complained about this different quality of the post-treatment, as I've read in several forums.
Maybe Shapeways would have to let him in the oven for longer to melt out the residual wax completely.

In this context, I remember a passage in Shapeways Magazine (1. Model Prep) with the following interesting tip, which could be a broad hint for all users.

**TIP** If you notice an excess amount of residual support material or details are distorted, this may call for a reprint. Please send an image and order number to [email protected].

And then the following thing does not go out of my mind.

This is the BANDELIN video about the ultrasonic cleaning of a chain I posted in Reply #1447, where one had cleaned for about 4 h at 70°C until all the wax was dissolved.

This longer time we will take into consideration when cleaning the final IT in the Dental Lab next week.
#1474 by roma847 on 02 May, 2018 22:10
Hello friends,

meanwhile, I also got the WSF-Intertank, which gives me a comparison between these two materials.

And I have to confess that I'm quite surprised, especially since the details come out well despite the slightly grainy surface.

And since there is no shrinkage in the WSF material during printing, the IT fits exactly between the two ET parts.

Of course, the roughness looks blatant on these macro shots,

but already with some distance from the normal viewing perspective, it looks much friendlier.

And if the IT will be painted, he should also fit optically well to the other two ET parts, which additionally shall get their insulating foam look.

Since WSF printing uses powdered plastic and no support wax, the parts have only a slight powdery residue that can be removed by slight rinsing off in dish water, as my ARC friend Bill (niart17) has reported for his 1/72 WSF-Intertank.

Because WSF is porous and sucks up a lot of moisture, one should let the parts dry for several days, before one applies a primer.
But all in all it means, that cleaning of WSF parts should be less expensive than of FUD parts.
#1475 by roma847 on 04 May, 2018 13:46
Hello everybody,

before I go into detail about with the final FUD-IT, here are both IT variants one more time in comparison.

In preparation for the cleaning campaign in the Dental Lab I have again scrutinized the FUD-IT under my new magnifying glass and taken macro shots all-around, in order to be able to better control the critical points on site, whether or how far the wax residuals have been removed.

As I have already described, the last of the three FUD-ITs has the fewest wax residuals, once more confirming the different quality of the Shapeways aftertreatment.

In the circled areas one can see clusters of wax residuals in the grooves,

which are visible more or less well due to the low FUD contrast.

And after a full circumnavigation of the IT, I'm back at the starting point at the two Fairings,

wherewith I want to let it go at that for today.
#1476 by roma847 on 04 May, 2018 23:53
Hi guys,
hard to believe, but now there are also in NSF more than 500.000 views!!!
Thank you for your continued interest in my STS-6 project and stay tuned.
#1477 by roma847 on 12 May, 2018 20:59
Hello everybody,

in preparation for the decisive cleaning of the last FUD-IT in the Dental laboratory, I have dealt more intensively with the matter and looked around further.

In the already shown BANDELIN Video of the ultrasonic cleaning of the chain the intensive cleaner TICKOPUR R 60 (10%) was used for approx. 2 - 3 h at 70 °C.

In a corresponding product information of the DR. H. STAMM GmbH I found this information, which made me unsure referring to the cleaning time, as they are much shorter.

Application with ultrasound
Dosage: 2 - 20 %
Cleaning time: 1 - 10 min.
Temperature: 20 - 80 °C

Application without ultrasound
Dosage: 10 - 30 %
Cleaning time: up to 12 h
Temperature: 20 - 80 °C

Therefore I have contacted BANDELIN and received the following answer from the DR. H. STAMM GmbH (Plant Manager Stephan Herzberg), what amazed me at first.

The cleaning time in removing the support material is a special application, which deviates considerably from the usual vleaning times, which are recommended in the product information, but have been determined by tests and have already been used successfully by several customers.

A soapy water will probably not bring the desired cleaning result even with prolonged time, which you can of course test.

We recommend the use of TICKOPUR R 60 with the application parameters given in the video.

Thereupon I contacted the manager and first learned that the DR. H. STAMM GmbH historically belongs to the corporate group BANDELIN and cleaning and disinfection preparations for SONOREX Ultrasound Technology developed and produced.

Then he willingly gave me information to my questions about the application parameters given in the video , as well as special advice for cleaning my Intertank.

Since the strongest ultrasound effect in the trough occurs from below, the IT should not be upright during the cleaning because of the grooves, but lying longitudinally in a glass insert, and by stepwise rotation about the longitudinal axis after about 15 minutes in TICKOPUR Bath at 70 °C cleaned and checked in between.

For the best cavitation performance, the glass insert should have a distance from the bottom of the tank of approx. 2 - 3 cm and, because of the connection itself, also be surrounded by water + cleaning agent, otherwise losses would occur.

Considering the filigree grooves of the Intertanks he thinks that longer cleaning times of about 2 - 3 h might be necessary, which is why checks after shorter intervals would make sense.
Now all I have to do is wait for the ordered TICKOPUR, and then I will go back to the Dental lab for the Final Countdown.
#1478 by roma847 on 20 May, 2018 11:18
Hello friends,

due to some short vacation in the Dental lab the Ultrasonic cleaning of the FUD-Intertank will take some time, I've thought again about the further building process and came to the following decision.

Since I've been working intensively on the External Tank/Intertank lately, it actually makes sense to keep going and completing it as the basic building block for the Shuttle Stack, i.e. including the related details such as LO₂ Feedline, GO₂/GH₂Press. Lines, the Ice/Frost Ramps and PAL Ramps, as well as the Orbiter Attachments.

This includes then also the imitation of the Instafoam insulation structure of the front and rear ET parts by the special "Flour technique" as well as the final priming and paintwork.

Then it will continue with the SRBs and the Orbiter, which finally complete the Shuttle stack.

Only then will I proceed to the construction of the Launch Tower (FSS/RSS), whereby the complete stack MLP will be available for control, in particular when it will depend on every millimeter for increasing the tower to the needed height.

Furthermore I decided for not to let be modeled the Ice/Frost Ramps as a 3D set, but rather to use the filigree ramps from the already presented Newware Kit (NW131), which one can not do better actually, which is why I have now bought myself this kit, which I would like to introduce here again briefly in some images.

These are predominantly resin parts,

as well as a PE sheet with finest details for the ET and the SRBs as well as for the orbiter, incl. some Decals.

Although the kit is designed specifically for the Revell Shuttle Stack (1/144), some parts can also be used for the Airfix Stack, so such as here among others the fine structured SRB Forward Frustum & Nose Cone, if I measured correctly.

Below are some of the tiny Ice/Frost Ramps and one of the filigree SSME engine nozzles.

Here is the PE sheet once again.

For the engine nozzles, I actually wanted to use the kit from RealSpace Models, which I had set aside already long time ago and now could compare to the Newware nozzles.

It immediately stands out that the RealSpace SSMEs look more squat and seem to be slightly larger than those of Newware.

And once we're comparing already, I also added the nozzles of Revell (left) and those of Airfix (grey), from which you can now choose what you like better ...

For my taste, then the SSMEs of Revell and Airfix quickly discards, whereby this begs immediately the question of the dimensions in comparison to the original.

I have only found these SSME dimensions by Pratt & Whitney:

Lenght: 168 in. = 4,30 m = 29,9 mm (1/144)
Diameter: 96 in. = Ø 2,40 m = Ø 16,7 mm (1/144)

Unfortunately this is only the total length of the SSME, but not the length of the engine nozzle.

Maybe someone can help.
#1479 by jgoldader on 20 May, 2018 16:38
Manfred, on p. 412 of Jenkins' big Space Shuttle book, the one covering the first 100 missions, there's a dimensioned drawing that gives the diameter of the nozzle as 7.8 feet and total length of the engine as 13.9 feet. Using scaling, the nozzle length would be 58% of that, or 8.0 feet.