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

• #800 by roma847 on 04 Aug, 2015 06:22
• Thanks gyus!
  
  Hello everybody,
  
  today I want to give some impressions of a size comparison of the Rainbirds (1/144 vs. 1/160) on the MLP, which has interested me yet.
  
  Since the TSMs (1/144) optically rather dominate the overall picture of the MLP (1/160), initially seemed to me that the relevant details of SSWS (pipes, etc.), and so did the Rainbirds, would better fit if they would also in about 1/144.
  
  But because so far I could not make a final decision, I've glued a set of 1/160 (left) and 1/144 Rainbirds (right) from David Maier's Paper Kit, which I have the lateral angle bars omitted for simplicity. 
  
  
  
  And here are the first 160's birds.
  
  
  
  
  
  And these are the 144's birds which look a bit bulkier, where it still depends on the perspective.
  
  
  
  
  
  And here are for direct comparison, the 160's birds front and the 144er rear.
  
  
  
  First of all I have to say, that the diameters of the Maier-Rainbirds are generally too large compared to the NASA facts, which is why they also appear something to sturdy.
  The diameters of the smaller 160's birds are with 6.3 mm and 7.7 mm larger than the NASA-values of 4.8 mm or 6.7 mm, and the 144's birds are 7.5 mm and 8,6 mm compared to 5.3 mm and 7.4 mm.
  
  The heights H1 of the 166's birds are 24 mm compared to 23 mm (NASA), and the H1 of the 144's is 27 mm compared to 25.7 mm (NASA).
  
  So much for the pure numerical values. I think that an average size of the rainbirds, both with respect in diameter and heights, could be a suitable compromise solution.
  
  And that's why I have taken for the four leaner birds a diameter of 5.6 mm as a reference base for conversions, which is very close to the NASA value of 5.3 mm.
  
  Conclusion: From the overall impression the 160's Rainbirds seem to me a bit too small compared to the TSMs and SSWS pipes, and the 144's on the other hand but when too thick.
  I hope this was not too much numbers now and am curious about your opinion. 
  
  
• #801 by Davp99 on 04 Aug, 2015 19:22
• I liked the 160's, the other larger set just seems TOO Big...how do they look when you fit the stack ?
• #802 by roma847 on 05 Aug, 2015 15:27
• Thanks Dave, yep, you'll see now.
  
  As I said, the 144's birds are to dumpy for me, but that is also because David Maier was starting from too large diameters, namely 1.07 m (42'') for the slim Birds, although according to NASA, this is the diameter of the two thicker central Birds. And in his kit these are 8.6 mm in diameter, which would correspond to 1.24 m, so in fact, far too "fat".
  
  Now I have still brought the FSS parts out of the box, assembled provisionally and placed next to the MLP. These are incidentally the 160's  Rainbirds.
  
  And that the Level 95 and the MLP Deck (Level 0) are at the same height, I have to underlay approx. 1 cm, which would not be problematic.
  
  
  
  And from this perspective looks the tower next to the MLP actually quite impressive. 
  
  
  
  
  
  But already in this picture you can see where the trip with the shuttle stack goes, namely upwards ... And that means that the ET-top actually extends beyond Level 295, what is not correct.
  
  
  
  And in order to illustrate a little bit, I have placed a brass profile above. And these are about 1.5 cm supernatant.
  
  
  
  In reality, however, the ET-top lies at an altitude of Level 275, which means that you actually have to insert a complete level. This would, for example, one way of improvisation which would be feasible in principle.    But there are possibly some other ...   
  So, now I have to think about in calm, then we can continue to juggle ...
  
  
• #803 by DaveS on 05 Aug, 2015 16:29
• One main problem with the FSS height that I spot immediately is that the first level is the equivalent of 20' above the pad surface. In reality it is 27' above the pad surface. The rest are spaced 20' apart.
• #804 by Davp99 on 05 Aug, 2015 17:05
• You are close Manfred, maybe that 7' that DaveS mentions might be the snag.
• #805 by roma847 on 05 Aug, 2015 23:45
• Thanks guys for your both comments.
  
  But this is only one problem of the Revell Launch Tower kit. The other problem areas I have outlined here.
  
  
  
  To cut a long story short, the FSS is 7.5 cm too low and corresponds to only 1:168, and the RSS is also 1:168.
  
  This results from the fact that all FSS levels are too low. The lowest floor corresponds to only a height of 23.6' (1:205) instead of 27', and all other levels correspond to only 18' (1:160) instead of 20'.
  
  The most glaring optical problem however is the MLP, which is only 1:200. Only the Shuttle stack is 1:144.
  
  Due to the height of the stack, there are problems with the GOX Vent Arm which is sitting too high, namely above Level 275. In reality, however, the upper swivel bearing is on a level with the top of the Level 255, as one can see in this photo. 
  
  
  Source: NASA
  These scale problems seem to be a never-ending story ... But I'll have to crack the nut and will bite me through.
  
  
• #806 by Davp99 on 06 Aug, 2015 16:03
• Plenty of head scratching, I'm sure. Just keep your sense of humor, If it was so easy we'd all be building it.
• #807 by Ronpur50 on 06 Aug, 2015 16:34
• I tried to do this years ago.  I ended up adding a level to the bottom to raise the tower and adding to the bottom of the RSS to get every thing to the correct height.  It wasn't detailed, but it was hidden by the MLP, which I build from scratch.  I suppose it would be easier to get a 1/160th scale space shuttle!!
  
  Of course, it was never as detailed as yours!
• #808 by roma847 on 07 Aug, 2015 10:44
• Quote from: Davp99 on 06 Aug, 2015 16:03

  Plenty of head scratching, I'm sure. Just keep your sense of humor, If it was so easy we'd all be building it.
  

  
  Hi Dave,
  
  yep, that's just the exciting challenge of this extraordinary kit.   But I will already come up with a practical solution, you may rely on my best efforts.
  
  
• #809 by roma847 on 07 Aug, 2015 11:14
• Quote from: Ronpur50 on 06 Aug, 2015 16:34

  I tried to do this years ago.  I ended up adding a level to the bottom to raise the tower and adding to the bottom of the RSS to get every thing to the correct height.  It wasn't detailed, but it was hidden by the MLP, which I build from scratch.  I suppose it would be easier to get a 1/160th scale space shuttle!!
  
  Of course, it was never as detailed as yours!
  

  
  Hi Ron,
  
  that's a false conclusion, a 1/160th scale space shuttle won't be a practical solution.
  
  The shuttle stack is 1:144 and consequently the Payload Changeout Room (PCR) of the RSS too. And thereinto the orbiter must match when the RSS is driven over the MLP, that's the crux of the matter, according to which everything else has to be aligned.
  
  BTW, can you show us some pics of your Launch pad, that would be interesting?
  
  
• #810 by Ronpur50 on 07 Aug, 2015 12:58
• It was in the pre-digital age!  I only took a few photos, if I find them, I will scan them.  The models is spare parts now. 
• #811 by roma847 on 26 Aug, 2015 14:07
• Hello everybody,
  
  Now it is time, because before the next heat wave befall us, I want to at least take up the thread again and shortly report, wherewith I have busied myself in the meantime.
  
  How recently indicated already repeatedly, the exasperating scale problems of the Revell kit 4911 have overtaken me again.    And because the problem situation from today's perspective quite a bit more clearly represents as at the beginning, I've unearthed my old drawings again to recap the initial position again.
  
   
  
  After has become clear that the initially envisaged stilts solution (right) is not a suitable problem resolution, I'm going to create a more accurate drawing for the planned increase of the FSS tower by one floor.
  
  But this necessarily means that the RSS-height must be adjusted accordingly, which will not be so easy because of the complexity of the service structure with its many Walkways, stairs and crossings.
  
  So I had to clean up my desk in order to develop myself better with calculator, ruler and pencil, as well as a series of drawings and photos.
  
  
  
  Because unfortunately there are only few drawings with specific dimensions, I asked a friend from the Raumcon forum determine the main dimensions at his model, what he has done.
  
  
  
  And then it could finally start with the new RSS drawing, and that meant again and again taking new measurements, converting the values, drawing, etc. ...
  
  
  
  At the same time I have also used the building instructions from Revell and from LVM Detail Kit Nr. 5 for the RSS, whereat the Revell-drawing (from the calculator right) is unfortunately still on the ancient state, which is incorrect. In addition, the Revell building instructions in particular with regard to the connection of the RSS to the FSS is so spartan that the hat may go up. 
  By contrast, LVM instructions contain a fairly good and detailed drawing of the RSS (left), which seems to be quite to scale, where FSS and RSS should be increased to more closely match each to 6 mm. That helps but only if you are satisfied with the small Revell-MLP (1: 200), but does not come into question.
  
  In case of doubt, I then measured as a precaution every now and then the original component. 
  
  
  
  And so far this drawing gradually arisen,
  
  
  
  and it first times does not depend on the final details.
  
  
  
  And this drawing I will combine with the FSS drawing. Then we will see even better, whether or how FSS will fit with RSS after insertion of an additional FSS floor, whereon I'm very excited.
  
  
• #812 by DaveS on 26 Aug, 2015 16:20
• For maximum realism on the FSS and RSS, my highest recommendation is for you to obtain the LC39B FSS/RSS Demolition Package if you already don't have it. It has the original schematics for the FSS/RSS that includes the dimensions.
• #813 by roma847 on 27 Aug, 2015 22:05
• Thanks Dave for your comment,
  
  in principle, you are right, I know these plans.
  
  But the problem is the necessary adaptation of Revell's FSS/RSS height (1:168) to the greater height of my MLP (1:160) on the pedestals and the wrong position of Revell's GOX Vent Arm.
  
  
• #814 by roma847 on 30 Aug, 2015 22:20
• Hello everybody,
  
  in the meantime, I have taken the new, the Revell model corresponding drawing of RSS to make a few comparisons.
  
  As you can see from this picture, my previous RSS drawing (red) is slightly wider than the underlying new drawing, so away with it. 
  
  
  
  For further alignment of the FSS to the RSS and the envisaged raise of the FSS by one floor, it is now important, to find the right reference plane for the Shuttle stack (1:144) on the MLP (1:160), regardless of whether the MLP is standing on the Crawler (height 20'=6.1 m) or on the Pesdestals (22'=6.70 m).
  
  And this reference plane is the RSS Mainfloor which must coincide with the end of the Payload Bay (PLB) of the orbiter. And both drawings precisely at this level are superimposed.
  
  Marked in red is here the raise of the FSS to be carried out according to the assembly instruction by  LVM, which is important but only when using the small Revell-MLP.
  
  
  
  But it is really interesting, If then the tower comes into play. 
  
  As can be seen immediately, FSS and RSS slip clearly upwards due to the 160's and MLP crawler, whereby Level 95 of the FSS is not on a level with the MLP deck, but slightly higher.  And although in the FSS the additional 13th floor is taken into account already, a height difference has resulted at the bottom of the foot, which has yet to be matched.
  
  
  
  To match this, I have pulled the FSS so far down that Level 95 is now on a level with the MLP deck. And then I also increased the connection structure between FSS and RSS to one raster.
  
  
  
  Accordingly now even the outer support frame of the RSS has to be raised and an additional staircase to be installed in the local stairwell.
  
  These are in my opinion first of all the necessary changes one will probably not get around. On the one hand one has to consider the transitions and walkways between FSS and RSS more closely and hope that there are no unsolvable problems. And then at the other hand the connection of the GOX Vent Arm needs a closer look too.
  But it's a start, at least, and that's why I'm now looking forward to your advice and suggestions and looking out for everything, by consent to slating. 
  
  
• #815 by roma847 on 02 Sep, 2015 13:07
• Hello folks,
  
  ups, you're apparently all speechless.
  
  Today I'll look a little bit closer at the connection of the GOX Vent Arm (OVA) to the FSS.
  
  
  
  After the drawings I know the tip of the ET is on a level with [COLOR="Blue"]Level 275[/COLOR] (227'= 69.2 m).
  
  But from the reality I must inevitably say goodbye in some places like this, finally we live in Revell's crazy world of compromises. And so the ET-tip would lie according to the current state slightly above the "penultimate" level, wherewith I can live, what the heck ... 
  
  In order to remain in the previous model scale and for better comparison, I have assembled temporarily the OVA with the Beanie Cap from the Revell kit.
  
  
  
  And as can be seen easily, Revell's rustic swing arm is miles away from the reality, at least as regards its structure which is why I'm going to probably scratch rather later.
  
  
  Source: NASA
  
  
  
  The underlying identical sketch I have now transferred 1:1 to the overview drawing and set with the Beanie Cap on the ET, which is why the arm hangs back in the air, but what should not disturb us.
  
  More important is the fact that the arm is located approximately at the correct height, whereby the situation is relaxed yet clear. 
  
  
  
  And here you can see the situation a little more clearly. Whether the length of the OVA is sufficient, will still have to show. 
  
  
  
  That's it for today, the next thing I'm going to look at the RSS from the side to see how the FSS raise affects especially on the lateral support frame with the staircase. 
  
  
• #816 by Ronpur50 on 02 Sep, 2015 13:26
• It is such a challenge to make this kit some what accurate, but if any one can do it, it is you!  I can't wait to see it!
• #817 by roma847 on 02 Sep, 2015 22:51
• Thanks Ron for your words of appreciation, I hope so, keep your fingers crossed.
  BTW, some guys have already asked me why I do not want to scratch build completely the whole Launch Pad.
  
  But scratch building the complete Pad is another story and also a tricky matter.   Some other guys have already tried, but to my knowledge, most of them have thrown the towel at some point ...
  But that's not my intention.
  
  I have the Revell Launch Tower kit and all five LC39-Detail kits by LVM Studios, which also will finally produce an impressive Launch pad, even if not everything is to scale.
  
  
• #818 by roma847 on 05 Sep, 2015 16:57
• Hello everybody,
  
  and so now for adaptation of the RSS, from which you can see here is a side view, what she looked like at that time in the STS-6. Since there were e.g. yet not Weather Protection System (WPS), which was retrofitted until much later.
  
  
  Source: NASA
  
  And from this side view I now need also a drawing. The RSS Mainfloor this time is again the reference plane and beneath the MLP stands at the same distance on  Pedestals.
  
  
  
  For this purpose, the lateral support frame with the local staircase must now be made to fit, because by increasing the FSS must both inevitably be increased by the remaining amount. 
  
  
  
  While in the Revell kit there are still no stairs, but only the staircase as a grid frame, in the LVM Detail Kit no. 5 are included for both relevant PE parts, and also two trucks (Resin-parts, see above), the front truck even with cab.
  
  
  
  This is the corresponding LVM assembly guide, but this time everything without explaining text.
  
  
  
  And here are now first two possibilities of adapting of the support frame, wherein the cross struts of the frame should match the floors of staircase.
  
  As one can see, for the necessary raise must be scratch built a new support frame, and an additional 7th stair is needed, but both should be feasible. 
  
  By odd number of floors one can now choose between two versions, either as in this picture, four floors below the middle transverse strut, and three above,
  
  
  
  or three floors below and four above. 
  
  
  
  The distances between the two struts are in both cases now no longer inevitably the same, but it looks in my opinion still better than if one would select same distances. Because then the middle strut would lie in the middle of the middle floor, which would not result a good picture.
  Personally, I'd better like the first proposal.
  
  But maybe there are other suggestions, what do you think?
  
  
• #819 by Davp99 on 06 Sep, 2015 16:50
• They Both look good Herr Doctor, I just keep telling myself, that it's a Historical Setting. This will be like going back in Time. Thank You Manfred for taking us along for the ride..