-
#2080 by mike robel on 19 Jul, 2021 11:54
-
Manfred.
I amazed at your problem solving and crafting skills as much as your modeling acumen. It's awesome! (And I think the word is overused, so I purposely try not to use it very much). The devices you use to enable parts fabrication are extremely creative. I myself frequently just succumb to Brute Force and Ignorance (BFI) in a bid to just power through.
That said, where are you in terms of the overall approach to the project? I think the shuttle model is still incomplete as well as the MLP. Is there an 'in progress" display showing the big picture?
Kind regards
Mike -
#2081 by roma847 on 19 Jul, 2021 22:42
-
Thanks Mike for your nice compliments,
the tinkering with problem solutions and suitable techniques, als well as coming up with special jigs and tools is based on my researcher DNA,
paired with boundless ambition not to give up until I am completely convinced of the result ... 
Your BFI approach, on the other hand, has the advantage that you will probably be finished with your projects sooner than I am.
A kind of an 'in progress' display of my complex Long-term Project would be a nice indicator which is why the big picture is existing just in my mind's eye ...
Over the years I have gained an overview of what is feasible in all sub-areas, I have started building all the main components from the Launch pad to the Diorama and have almost completed some main parts and can now gradually put together all the puzzle pieces, which is a great challenge.
-
#2082 by EG on 20 Jul, 2021 01:36
-
I agree with Mike ...
Manfred... Great skills, great intelligence and the patience of a resolute researcher....
All I want to know, is are you going to patent the micro turbo pumps you going to need to launch this thing when done.... {chuckle}
Your friend, EG
You keep astounding me brother.... -
#2083 by roma847 on 20 Jul, 2021 23:25
-
Thanks my friend for your nice words,
I can understand if all of you want to see still more spectacular things and action and I do my best, but that would be a bit too much of modeling overkill!!!
I hope, you get your money's worth already this way ...
-
#2084 by roma847 on 21 Jul, 2021 23:18
-
Hello everybody,
the next step was filing down the lampshades, which had been cut off but still sitting on the toothpicks, to a length of approx. 1,8 mm, as well as the subsequent deburring.
Since the small beads for protection and better guidance of the LED wires were glued in with Pattex-CA, I have put a Teflon foil underneath as adhesive protection again in the tried and tested way.
The lampshades could only be held in a scissors tweezer to glue them in,
and in this position could be carefully dabbed with CA on the inner edge with a acupuncture needle,
and then to put it over the upright standing beads, what had to work at the first go,
which, with a few exceptions, also succeeded. 
Then the shades were turned upside down and pressed onto the top with the end of the cutter holder in order to level out any minimal overhang of the beads.
With that the preparation for the upcoming airbrushing was almost finished.
After I had found my well-stowed needle ledge from the first paint job, only the paint residue on the tips had to be removed, otherwise the needles would not have fit through the beads. And in a small box of course I've kept the ferrules with plastic collars, 
which were now threaded onto the needles as spacers to prevent the shades from sticking to the Balsa ledge.
Since it was already foreseeable at that time that I would have to paint further lampshade series, I had already marked further slots in wise foresight.
And since I've prepared twice the number of umbrellas this time, I only needed to expand the needle ledge accordingly and found and used both the pins and ferrules that were used at the time.
Now only the shades had to be threaded onto the needles.
In order to avoid a later light emission upwards, I brushed the shades with black paint again as I did back then.
Although the autofocus of my digicam already had its problems with this macro shot,
I didn't want to withhold it from you, especially since you can see a bit more like that, at least I imagine it.
-
#2085 by SteveGoodey on 22 Jul, 2021 07:31
-
Quote
to a length of approx. 1,8 mm
Amazing.
-
#2086 by roma847 on 22 Jul, 2021 20:56
-
Thanks Steve and EG for your interest.
-
#2087 by roma847 on 26 Jul, 2021 22:20
-
Hello everybody,
given the occasion, now still once more a swivel back to the Crawler, because the 3D printing of the Gear housings & Propel motors enters the decisive phase.
In the meantime, my ARC friend Joe (crackerjazz) has thought about what he should hollow out on the gear case to save material and what small details he should fill out. Since filling out would take a lot of work, he agreed to my suggestion just to upload the model with the hollowed-out case and see if/what Shapeways would undertake with it.
In this context he asked me which side of the gear case he should leave open, the rear side or the underside, as one can see in this image, wherewith he pleasantly surprised me, since he's apparently intending to upload and let print the entire unit of housing & motor. 
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
Thereupon I looked again at the corresponding Crawler videos by Jürgen Ziegler (FADDA),
Source: Jürgen Ziegler (FADDA) - YouTube
Source: Jürgen Ziegler (FADDA) - YouTube
and have proposed him to leave the Rear wall open, as the case would be glued directly onto the truck's Center structure, as one can see in the two screenshots.
He agreed to this suggestion and has uploaded his 3D model file to Shapeways.
Unfortunately, the link shows the worst possible view of the model, namely from the bottom, which unfortunately almost completely covers the motor.
But in the 3D view one can turn in any view you want, which I once did here.
In the best print quality Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic one unit costs € 10.01, and I've ordered one right away so that Shapeways' procedure of Processing and testing etc. can go started, which could lead to complaints about the printability of too small details, what we don't want to hope.
BTW, I was shocked by the high Shipping costs, which are just as high as the production costs.
Now we can just wait and keep our fingers crossed.
-
#2088 by roma847 on 28 Jul, 2021 21:39
-
Hello everybody,
as a result of an initial review (Processing) by Shapeways (SW) the model was initially put on hold by production because of design issues.
SW wrote to me this:
This marketplace model is not printable in this material per our design guidelines. The designer has been contacted and has 7 days to correct the model, or it will be removed from this order.
SW has contacted the designer, my ARC friend Joe (crackerjazz), so he could decide what action to take on this model, they say.
I hope that SW has given some tips on necessary changes/adjustments and have asked Joe to forward the SW answer to me, so that we can think together how we should deal with it.
Perhaps the combination gearbox/motor is too complicated for 3D print.
If that were the case, one could have both parts printed separately.
So let's wait ...
-
#2089 by roma847 on 30 Jul, 2021 21:28
-
Hello everybody,
Shapeways has complained about the wall thickness of some thin struts, which are 0.240 mm and therefore would not correspond to the Design Guidelines.
Source: Shapeways Customer Service Team
My friend Joe could counter this rejection by increasing the wall thickness of this and other thin walls to 0.3 mm, which would then, in my opinion, comply with the SW Guidelines.
It says in it:
A supported wall is connected at least on two sides of the wall, while an unsupported wall is connected only on one side of the wall. Walls that do not meet the minimum requirements may not survive printing and cleaning processes. Additionally, models may still be rejected based on the wall geometry of the model. Please consider the size of your model and reinforce the walls or add support structures as needed as minimum guidelines will not always be adequate for large models.
And, as I understand it, this criterion should apply to most, if not for all, of the thin walls of the model.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
So let's wait and see if SW sees it that way too, or what comes next ...
-
#2090 by roma847 on 02 Aug, 2021 15:13
-
Hello friends,
my request at Shapeways whether the reinforcement of the wall thickness of the critical areas to 0.3 mm would be sufficient to eliminate the printing problems has been confirmed by SW as this would meet the minimum requirement for supported walls made of Fine Detail Plastic. There we go!
That's right, changing the thickness to 0.3 mm should fix the issue on this design, this is the minimum requirement for supported wall thickness on Fine Detail plastic.
Consequently my friend Joe (crackerjazz) should be able to modify his 3D model, which initially calms me down.
-
#2091 by roma847 on 07 Aug, 2021 23:17
-
Hello everybody,
unfortunately, my friend Joe from Toronto is very busy professionally, so that he has apparently not yet got around to making the changes to his 3D model, which is why Shapeways has canceled my order, as advertised, after 7 days of possible changes and has initiated a refund, which allegedly is on its way ...
So first of all, patience is required and a second attempt is necessary ...
Before I forget, I have therefore turned to the manufacture of the 3 lamps without a shade on the Side-1, which are corresponding to the shape and size of the Caution lights (Beacons) that I still need too.
Source: retrospaceimages.com (STS-6)
Their dimensions I've determined from this photo, which shows such a warning light with bracket in the White Room of the Orbiter Access Arm (OAA), on its walls many folks have immortalized themself, as one can see. 
Source: NASA
As you can see on it, the dimensions of these lamps without a screen are a lot smaller than those of the other lamps with a screen, which is why I've also used the smallest ferrules (0,25 mm2) that come closest to the original.
Only a Mini-LED (0401) fits into this mini ferrule, which is glued in with UV glue after the sleeve has been cut to length.
It's good that I can regulate the current of each lamp circuit using the Multi-current bank of my friend (McPhönix), since the LED with 8,5 mA lights up much too strongly,
which looks already better with 1,5 mA and can even be regulated down to 0,5 mA.
A first separation test with a ferrule impaled on a toothpick (as before with the larger ferrules) unfortunately went bad, 
because the 3 mm long wooden tip sticking in the sleeve simply does not offer a stable hold, which is why I had to think of another, more stable technique. 
As a possible solution, I've thought of a steel wire with a suitable diameter (Øi 0,6 mm) onto which the sleeve (Øi 0,7 mm) is attached, which in turn is held in a stable device and carefully pushed against the cutting disc.
For this I've used a Mini hand drill chuck, which was clamped with the clamped wire in my small vice.
When cutting, I've held the sleeve at the end with the pliers and pushed it together with the vice against the cutting disc, whereby this time the sparks sprayed.
The separation went without any problems, so that the shade could easily be removed from the wire stub.
For deburring, the shade was again impaled on a toothpick and filed all around.
Here one can see again the size difference between the lampshades,
which can now be manufactured in the required piece number.
-
#2092 by roma847 on 23 Aug, 2021 12:25
-
Hello everybody,
recently my ARC friend Joe (crackerjazz) got in touch and reported that he had started to make the necessary changes to the 3D model of the Motor/Gearcase unit.
To do this, he wanted to reinforce the too thin walls, ribs, brake disc holders etc. to 0,3 mm and hollow out some areas, as well as fill in undercuts that could possibly break off during printing.
Here is the comparison of the Tension lock over the cover of the Service opening of the motor in the previous filigree design,
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
as well as here in the modified and 'filled-out version', which is still optically acceptable, especially since these tiny details should hardly be recognizable later on the Crawler anyway.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
So let's see how it goes on.
-
#2093 by roma847 on 23 Aug, 2021 12:57
-
Hello everybody,
my ARC friend Joe (crackerjazz) has pleasantly surprised me with the fact that he has modified his 3D model so quickly in accordance with Shapeways' guidelines, I'm totally thrilled, the wait was worth it.
Here one can see the comparison of the previous version with the too thin walls complained about by Shapeways (0,24 mm),
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
and here the modified model with the wall thicknesses increased to 0,3 mm.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
Doing this he had a fatal mishap in the hustle and bustle because he had lost the original file with the hollowed-out gearcase, which has not been saved due to a computer crash.
Therefore, for better or worse, he had to start all over again and manually hollow out the model section by section,
what one can see in this interesting series of images. 
Sources: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
And from this Motor-Gearbox-Combi which has meanwhile been uploaded to Shapeways,
Source: shapeways.com
I've initially ordered a copy in the quality Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic as well as in Smooth Fine Detail Plastic in order to be able to assess the print quality of the parts.
Hopefully this 3D model will now pass the Shapeways' aptitude test, which is why it is time to keep all fingers crossed.
And as I've just seen at SW, this time the model has survived the first two stages Processing and Pre-Production
and is now In Production, which is why I'm very curious about the results.
-
#2094 by roma847 on 24 Aug, 2021 15:44
-
Hello everybody, News of the day: My Shapeways order is now on its way!
The tension is rising ...
My prototype is ready for comparison.
-
#2095 by roma847 on 27 Aug, 2021 22:49
-
Hello everybody,
today the time had come, and when the parcel messenger rang, it was clear to me that it could only be Shapeways' 3D prints.
I had let printed both versions, both the finer and more expensive quality Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic (XSFDP, € 10.01) and the cheaper Smooth Fine Detail Plastic (SFDP, 7.51 €), in order to be able to assess the print quality of the parts.
First of all, here is the comparison of the XSFDP quality with my scratched Motor-Gearbox-Combi, which of course looks much better at first glance, right?
Joking aside, but this is mainly due to the transparent look of the SW plastic, on which the details, edges, etc. only become clearly visible after the priming/painting, but is also strongly related to the lighting conditions.
On closer inspection under the magnifying glass, however, I noticed a few things, which cannot convince me yet, which I have marked in the following image.
First there are these small circled icicles that have no place there, why I've cut off them.
Furthermore, I don't like the red marked rough surface, and that with the finest quality!!!
In my opinion, this can be related to the printing direction, an effect that I noticed already in earlier prints, because the side marked in green, which is perpendicular to it, is slick. But these are precisely the two sides that are barely or not at all visible after installation in the trucks. In contrast, the surface of the Combi should be as smooth as possible, I think.
But my friend Joe (crackerjazz) would be able to take this into account before uploading and change the arrangement for accordingly, which I want to discuss with him again.
I suspect that the part was lying on its side when it was printed and that is why these steps were created, what still astonishes me.
On this photo at backlight one can see the details of the finer XSFDP quality much better, but which are really very small.
In the following two images, the SFDP quality (left in the picture) can now also be seen, in which the previously observed roughness is, as expected, more pronounced and the details less well developed.
There is one thing I definitely have to discuss with Joe, because so far that's only half the battle, namely the Motor-Gearbox-Combi-L in the left version (right in the NASA image!), of which 8 units are required. The right version, Motor-Gearbox-Combi-R, of which I also need 8 units, my Joe now also has to upload Shapeways so I can let them be printed. And this L and R designation he has to take into account in Shapeways' item title so that one knows what to order.
Source: Library of Congress (HAER FL-8-11-C-14)
I hope for doing that he just has to mirror his previous Model L in his CAD Program to get Model R, as I've done in my PaintShop Pro, what then looks like this.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
But I'm sure, that Joe will still manage this too.
-
#2096 by roma847 on 31 Aug, 2021 16:34
-
Hello everybody,
regarding the mirroring of the left version of the Motor-Gearbox-Combi (Model L) suggested by me, my friend Joe (crackerjazz) brought the objection that we shouldn't mirror the Disc brake shoes due to their different shape.
For the right Combi version (Model R) he only wanted to shift the Cable Box to the other side of the motor, but which is a fallacy, since the Motor-Gearbox geometry is not symmetrical,
as one can see in this image. 
Source: MicroArtwork (cyana)
In contrast this is the correct arrangement of the two Combis L & R between the trucks, with both motors and the inner sides of the gearboxes sitting next to each other.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
Therefore, the mirroring of the Model L suggested by me is the simplest and the correct solution for Model R, but with the small restriction that the disc brake shoes of one motor are not arranged correctly. But I can live with that, especially since they are so small that one can hardly perceive these details.
Source: ARC Forums (crackerjazz)
I've informed him of this incorrect set of facts regarding the Motor-Gearbox geometry, because he has to distinguish between the two Model versions L & R when uploading the 3D models to Shapeways, so that I can then order them correctly.
Now I'm waiting for him to change that.
-
#2097 by roma847 on 01 Sep, 2021 21:58
-
Hello everybody,
and with that back to the problem of the sporadically rough surfaces of the SW prints, which don't please me, what is related to the print orientation and the associated position of the supporting wax required for SW's printing, because for Frosted Detail Plastic is known that where the wax touches the plastic, the surface becomes rougher.
Therefore I've asked my friend Joe about the print orientation, chosen by him before uploading, but what would have been better if we had talked about it beforehand, because when printing the Crawler Track shoes we had similar problems with such rough surfaces.
First I wanted to know in which arrangement the Motor-gearbox Combi L was printed by Shapeways, as upright as can be seen in SW's offer, or different?
Unfortunately Joe wasn't sure anymore. He thought that he put the model for Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic (XSFDP) vertically, but meant now that it looks like, than it would have been this orientation standing on its side.
Sources: Shapeways.com
The support wax in this print orientation is arranged as follows:
The Smooth Fine Detail Plastic (SFDP) was supposedly printed in this vertical arrangement, but whereby I don't understand why the model is not printed in the same orientation if only the print quality changes, strange ...
For this orientation, however, the support wax covers almost the entire surface area, which in my opinion is the most unfavorable print orientation.
Last but not least, my friend comes to the wise conclusion that the following arrangement would probably have been the best print orientation that he should have chosen right away.
In this orientation, the top of the Combi hardly comes into contact with the wax.
And then his surprising conclusion is coming, which sounds a lot like surrender by saying that I could build the 16 Combis by hand and end up with 16 fantastic looking housings/motors, which would be better than saving time by let printing them and would then try, not to look at them.
Excuse me? What?
What should I think of it now, is he afraid of his own courage or is he no longer interested?
That is why I've assented him that the last shown orientation should be the best print orientation. And since I don't give up so quickly, I suggested to save this orientation for both Models R & L before uploading and let me know so that I can order them.
I think or hope that this surface quality should then be sufficiently good and that the printed parts should look attractive.
I still have to clean the prints of the wax residues anyway, especially since SW did not clean the prints thoroughly enough, what one can see in the following images, what I hadn't even noticed before.
As one can see, the areas circled in green between the brake disc and the brake shoe holders of the SFDP variant are relatively clean,
while with the XSFDP variant they are still clogged with resin on one side, whereby the wax residues in the hollowed-out gear housing do not bother me any further.
Therefore I would like to compare these images with the parts printed with the best orientation in order to be able to form a final judgment.
So far, however, my friend has not commented on this, so I am groping in the dark and have to wait.
-
#2098 by EG on 02 Sep, 2021 05:33
-
Hey brother, glad to see the progress on this it is looking like it's coming together....
But I can imagine the frustration of dealing with shapeways and their methods of manufacture.... It's rough on you and gotta be even rougher on him... By the time you get something fitting to use you have spent enough money to afford a resin printer and print it yourself...
He does beautiful work, same as you, real artistry... But dealing with shapeways is a real drag on the pocketbook....
What I'm seeing here and other places has convinced me to invest in 3D modeling, but I'm going to do it myself rather than pay the shapeways premium...
Thank you for the education master...
EG -
#2099 by roma847 on 02 Sep, 2021 22:46
-
As you know, I never give up til I have seen SW's prints with the best print orientation, which will hopefully come out of better quality.
Meanwhile I was thinking about how I can help Joe and me, which is why I've contacted a nice guy in ARC Forums (bubble) and asked him whether he could help us by making a test print on his printer Anycubic Photon Mono SE if Joe would agree to make his STL files available to him.
And Joe has agreed!!!
It would be great and very interesting to have such a comparison regarding SW's wax problems. As far as I know, his Anycubic doesn't need any support wax.
Have you bought a good printer meanwhile?
