Real-Space Modelling

[Weaver]

Found a group of sites selling real-space related kit and accessories recently, so thought I'd put them in one place in case anyone's feeling inspired by the current Apollo 50th stuff.

Real Space Models: http://www.realspacemodels.com/

New Ware: https://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/

Martin's Models: http://martins-models.co.uk
Ebay page: https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/martins-models/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=



Some of the most useful things that these manufacturers produce are accurizing parts for mainstream space kits, many of which are inaccurate in various significant ways. It may seem odd that something so high-profile as the Apollo programme would be hard to model accurately, but there are four principle reasons for this:


1. Straight-up mistakes by the kit company.

Example: original versions of the Airfix Saturn 1B and Saturn V had CSMs that were too small in diameter (Airfix subsequently fixed this for the 'red box' releases).


2. Lack of ANY precise information.
This particularly applied to Soviet designs during the Cold War.

Example: Airfix's Soyuz rocket is wrong in basic dimensions and proportions.


3. Misleading information.
The Apollo program proceeded at breakneck speed and getting info to kit makers was very low on the list of priorities. Parts of the spacecraft changed appearance between the factory (where the kit companies got to see them) and the launch pad. Furthermore, the hardware continued to evolve thoughout the programme, so drawings issued to kit companies would go out of date while the kits were being tooled. Indeed, just about EVERY Apollo launch was different in detail from the preceeding one, the differences ranging from externally visible hardware to simple things like what colour certain parts were painted.

Example: Airfix and Revell both produced their Saturn V rockets with crisply-detailed F1 engines as seen in the factory and on the surviving engines today. However on the real things that actually flew, those engines were covered in thick silver insulation called 'batting' betwixt factory and launch pad, making them look (ironically) like blobby, badly-moulded copies.


4. Lack of surviving flight hardware and documentation.
It's in the nature of the rocketry business that little of the hardware that actually flies survives: most of it ends up at the bottom of the ocean or literally lost in space. What you see in museums is therefore often either unflown leftovers in an incomplete state, or 'boilerplate' mockups that were never intended to fly and are not perfectly representative of flight hardware. Also, the breakneck speed of the Apollo programme meant that archiving of documentation was less than perfect, and papers are still coming to light, via retired engineers and the like, even today. This compounds the research problem for kit manufacturers trying to make accurate kits 50 years later.

[Weaver]

Here's an important thing to note: Airfix corrected some parts in their 2010 'red box' re-pop of the Saturn V and Saturn Skylab, namely the undersized and wrongly detailed CSM and the fairing shroud below it.

a) these parts are backwards compatible with the older 'white box' Saturn V issue, and

b) you get all the Apollo bits surplus to requirements in the 'red box' Skylab boxing

This means that you can use the later Skylab kit to BOTH build a Saturn Skylab AND update an older Saturn V to be more accurate. Which is a good thing!

[rickshaw]

Martin's Models: http://martins-models.co.uk - Martin used to post here about five years ago.  Interesting person.

[PR19_Kit]

Martin's Models: http://martins-models.co.uk - Martin used to post here about five years ago.  Interesting person.

He's done some superb Whiffs as well! 

Check the 'What if' Model gallery on the left side of his home page!

[Weaver]

Martin's Models: http://martins-models.co.uk - Martin used to post here about five years ago.  Interesting person.

Indeed, which is why I put him in the initial post...