Jump to content

Space Shuttle Launch Pad 39A with Challenger STS-6


Recommended Posts

Hello everybody,

 

after my friend Joe had uploaded the upright-standing Sprocket, to see how the Support wax is distributed at this printing orientation, I have ordered both variants (FUD and FXD). cool.gif

 

710x528_25289846_13758355_1540035088.jpg
Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz)

 

And this is the distribution of the Support Material which shows that the wheel is quite bizarre wrapped in wax, analintruder.gif

 

45446294601_d7756cd944_b.jpg
Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz)

 

which is why I think that the flat printing orientation might even be more favourable. top.gif

 

Zmzz8k.jpg
Source: shapeways.com (Crackerjazz)

 

Since at least the top side does not come in contact with the wax, it would remain smooth, and the rougher underside of the wheels would hardly be visible between the truck chains from the outside anyway. smiley215.gif

 

And then I tried the same trick from the Track shoe story again and ordered the sprocket once again in a flat printing orientation come hell or high water, in the hope that this time it might just as well come through the control like the criticized Track Shoe Set in those days, whereby this flat lying sprocket now, strangely enough, is only still offered in FXD. hmmm.gif

 

Now I'm curious how the story ends this time, so keep your fingers crossed! JC_doubleup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kirk said:

I think those "why don't you print it?" messages are automatic, Manfred. I uploaded a drawing a couple of weeks ago and received quite a few.

 

Incidentally, had you thought of using anyone other than Shapeways? There's a company based in Germany who I think are cheaper than them and similar quality. I'll dig out a link if this is relevant.

 

Kirk

Hi Kirk,

 

sorry that I overlooked you. :worthy:

 

Do you mean the guys from BUZZ Medialabs:hmmm:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

but I have at least achieved a partial success, because the upright standing Sprocket variant, which I ordered in FUD and FXD, went through Processing and is meanwhile In Productionyahoo.gif

 

xtnI2K.jpg
Source: shapeways.com

 

The again ordered flat lying variant, however, is still under review (Processing), smiley215.gif but still not rejected at least. huh.gif

 

No matter how, at least that would prove that the Sprocket is printable, so I have an argument in hand to demand the printing of the flat version as well. 

 

So far there is also still no explanation why this variant could not be printed at the first attempt. So SW is somehow in a tight spot, let's see how it goes out ...  up040577.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

 

this is the reason for SW's rejection what my friend Joe will check now. :hmmm:

 

rejection?orderId=2671214&fileName=ol551
Source: shapeways.com (Mitchell Jetten)

 

That's strange, because that is the same model as used for the upright standing sprocket, which is in production. Why can this be produced and the flat lying sprocket not?  smiley215.gif

That is a contradiction, which SW should explain, whereupon I am curious. up040577.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you have stated previously, "the left hand dose not know what the right hand is doing".  It all look really good though.  Hang in there my man, you'll get it sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich, :worthy: this is the sad message. :analintruder:

 

But now watch out, my friends. 

 

Here is the answer of "my" SW-Service Team employee Mitchell Jetten:

 

It looks like these 2 orders are checked by 2 different people.
One of them didn't mind the 0,21 mm thickness while the other engineer did catch it and rejected the model for this reason: 

?name=inline-935794967.png
Source: shapeways.com (Mitchell Jetten)

 

So right now the order 2672981 is being produced! These are the two standing variants (FUD & FXD).

 

As all models are subject by manual checking, if a part does't meet the minimum required the 0,3 mm thickness, there are chances it gets rejected :(
Would you be able to ask the designer to increase the thickness to 0,3 mm to make sure these are not being rejected again?

 

There you look!!! This is the same nonsense as at the Track shoes dispute. smiley_worship.gif

 

I just wanted to answer him that this change would mean quite an effort for the designer, and that it would be easier if SW internally would enforce that this flat variant is to be printed since it is based on the same 3D model as the current upright standing variant which is just in production. rolleyes.gif

 

Only well, that for the umpteenth time I've checked the processing status of the newly ordered (previously rejected) flat version, because lo and behold, suddenly this sprocket is now also In Production ... 00000016.gif

 

zviKRa.jpg
Source: shapeways.com

 

What does that tell us? One has to go only long enough on the SW-species' nerves to the motto Steady drops hollow the stone, then it works already ... speak_cool.gif
Now I can sit back and wait until both variants are there to inspect the wax residuals ...  smiley271.gif
And then we can decide from which variant my friend Joe should upload a Set of 16. up040577.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mark,

yep, one can almost get that impression the longer one deals with this matter. :hmmm:

At first, I also did not think so, and therefore one has to gain some own experience first and sometimes learn the hard way too. rolleyes.gif&key=49124488e0487edf07b3db6

And apparently one needs still a little bit luck too ... up040577.gif&key=327a20a361d18ad6d35cabf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody

 

today, the Main Sprockets have arrived, which should not be printable at first and were rejected by Shapeways because of too small wall thicknesses (< 0,3 mm) were.  cool.gif

 

When looking at the photos, one has to take into account that FUD/FXD prints do not provide much contrast when unpainted, which makes it difficult to see details. rolleyes.gif

 

In the following pictures I have to differentiate between the upright and the flat print orientation, which I wanted to test with regard to the supporting wax problem.

 

Here one can see the sprockets in FUD (left) and FXD (right), printed in upright standing orientation, whereby one can see the clearer details of the FXD Sprocket. top.gif

 

NuTFXA.jpg

 

hVhl4r.jpg

 

And now still the FXD Sprocket (left) in flat print orientation comes in addition, in the middle the FUD Sprocket (upright print orientation).

 

iVcJjD.jpg

 

In this picture below the two FXD Sprockets lay side by side, on the left the flat and on the right the upright print orientation. But I have to say, I can not see any differences in the surface roughness between the two variants, which could have been due to the different support wax arrangement. huh.gif

 

E53JM2.jpg

 

And here once again the FXD Sprocket (upright orientation) in mounting position,

 

HQNu2k.jpg

 

as well as on four Track shoes that go well together, which I had hoped for.

 

iXlJN0.jpg

 

WH15qu.jpg

 

XhNIxt.jpg

 

As matters stand I will probably decide for a Set of 16 (FXD) with flat print orientation, which my friend Joe could have to model now. top.gif

 

From close up, it looks pretty big and clear on those macro shots. But with a little more distance (about 30 cm), the chain is clearly shrinking already,  cant-believe-my-eyes-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

A1RAYV.jpg

 

so that I could probably live well with FUD Sprockets.  up040577.gif 
Therefore, we first wait for the Set of 16 model and then continue. Maybe in the end SW will throw again their arms in the air ... smiley_worship.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great looking Drive Wheels Manfred!  It's all very small, but looks like it will work great for your project.  Are you going to use David's crawler or Mischa's?  Either way,  you're going to have a heck of a construction project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich for your nice comment, :worthy:

 

yep it's all 1:160 which is very small indeed. cant-believe-my-eyes-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

Yes, I'm going to use David Maier's Paper Kit, which I had let downscale, and a lot of other materials of course ... up040577.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody

 

today, the Main Sprockets have arrived, which should not be printable at first and were rejected by Shapeways because of too small wall thicknesses (< 0,3 mm) were.  cool.gif

 

When looking at the photos, one has to take into account that FUD/FXD prints do not provide much contrast when unpainted, which makes it difficult to see details. rolleyes.gif

 

In the following pictures I have to differentiate between the upright and the flat print orientation, which I wanted to test with regard to the supporting wax problem.

 

Here one can see the sprockets in FUD (left) and FXD (right), printed in upright standing orientation, whereby one can see the clearer details of the FXD Sprocket. top.gif

 

NuTFXA.jpg

 

hVhl4r.jpg

 

And now still the FXD Sprocket (left) in flat print orientation comes in addition, in the middle the FUD Sprocket (upright print orientation).

 

iVcJjD.jpg

 

In this picture below the two FXD Sprockets lay side by side, on the left the flat and on the right the upright print orientation. But I have to say, I can not see any differences in the surface roughness between the two variants, which could have been due to the different support wax arrangement. huh.gif

 

E53JM2.jpg

 

And here once again the FXD Sprocket (upright orientation) in mounting position,

 

HQNu2k.jpg

 

as well as on four Track shoes that go well together, which I had hoped for.

 

iXlJN0.jpg

 

WH15qu.jpg

 

XhNIxt.jpg

 

As matters stand I will probably decide for a Set of 16 (FXD) with flat print orientation, which my friend Joe could have to model now. top.gif

From close up, it looks pretty big and clear on those macro shots. But with a little more distance (about 30 cm), the chain is clearly shrinking already,  cant-believe-my-eyes-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

A1RAYV.jpg

 

so that I could probably live well with FUD Sprockets.  up040577.gif 

Therefore, we first wait for the Set of 16 model and then continue. Maybe in the end SW will throw again their arms in the air ... smiley_worship.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello friends,

 

in the forum NASASpaceflight.com a friend has remarked critically that the chains have to go around the sprocket about 110°, which one would not be judged by the sprocket I've shown so far with only four shoes, wherewith he is certainly right first.  up047089.gif

 

At first, my only concern was to check that the Sprocket wreath (1,75 mm) would fit into the Pin Lug gap (W1 > W2). 

 

Here's an original photo, where one can see that the Pin Lugs of six Track shoes are in direct both-sided contact with the Sprocket, which corresponds to an angle of about 150°. up045518.gif

 

7CwKoi.jpg
Source: NASA

 

I checked it out and connected eight shoes and put them around the drive wheel. cool.gif

 

Xinlk0.jpg

 

And as one can see, these eight shoes are in direct contact with the sprocket, which normally does not happen, as the first photo shows.

 

oJ6DzK.jpg

 

Therefore, this criterion of the accuracy of fit of the chain is also fulfilled. up040577.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing quality of engineering Manfred. People always joke about models being so life-like that they could actually work, but it seems to be more and more possible. Not sure you'd manage a hydraulic motor at this scale (just a guess of how the real thing is powered - Rich probably explained it in his build but my memory is overflowing), but it seems entirely feasible that it could roll at least.

 

Can't wait to see the crawler start to come together.

 

Kirk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kirk, :worthy:

 

nothing is impossible, but I will be satisfied if everything is illuminated, which will be difficult enough. top.gif

 

BTW, one should not forget that 1:160 is a damn small scale for scratch building, and that my Crawler will be based on David Maier's Paper Kit ... up040577.gif&key=327a20a361d18ad6d35cabf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, roma847 said:

...one should not forget that 1:160 is a damn small scale...

 

I've probably asked this before but remind me again why you're not scaling everything to a consistent 1:144??

There's so much work involved in all the fitting you have done that I'd assume that consistency would outweigh the possible disadvantages.

What am I missing?

 

Kirk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kirk,

 

this is related to the scale problems of the old Revell Launch Tower Kit (4911), whereupon I've pointed this out at the beginning of my project. top.gif

 

On the kit box is written indeed 1:144, only what is in it, is not everything 1:144, but a wild mix. smiley_worship.gif

 

OGT3bo.jpg

 

Only the Shuttle stack and the RSS-PCR are 1:144, but the main problem is the Micky Mouse MLP, which is only 1:200!!! eek.gif

 

That's why I decided to compromise on building the MLP and Crawler in 1:160hmmm.gif

 

If I would start once again, I would scratch build everything in 1:144, but that's illusory ... up040577.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reminder diagram. Revell's fault. I see.

 

In UK, we have a law known as "The Trades Descriptions Act", which would entitle you to your money back if the goods were misleading in their description. You might have difficulty getting compensation for the thousands of hours you've spent at 1:160 though.

 

If you're going to start again, then it should be 1:72 - so much easier on the eyes. 

 

(I'm joking, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How fascinating!!   WIll have to put some time aside to really read through more thoroughly. 

Incidentally I witnessed a Shuttle launch in September 2000. It was Atlantis. An experiencenot to forget!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul J said:

How fascinating!!   WIll have to put some time aside to really read through more thoroughly. 

Incidentally I witnessed a Shuttle launch in September 2000. It was Atlantis. An experiencenot to forget!

 

Thanks Paul for your great interest. bow.gif

But take your time, meanwhile it has become a very long way ... lesen1.gif

And if you want to read my report from the beginning, then you will find the first 16 pages in the  NASASpaceflight Forums, then it goes on with the LED lighting ...  gut.gif

So dress warmly and keep ready enough provisions ... popcorn.gifx_prost_glenni.gifpopcorn.gif ...

And then stay tuned! up040577.gif&key=327a20a361d18ad6d35cabf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

 

and now back to the Main Sprockets, for which my friend Joe has meanwhile also modeled two variants of a Set of 16. cool.gif

 

Here is the set with the flat arrangement of the wheels, although the set is upright in the picture, rolleyes.gif

 

44981905244_697b8319d4_b.jpg
Source: arcforums.com (crackerjazz)

 

45706702361_ac1d984cf2_b.jpg

 

and here the set with upright standing wheels.

 

31836562208_9e26e89b40_b.jpg

 

30768129567_6c36530d87_b.jpg

 

I mean, he should upload the Flat arrangement, but whereby he has to be careful to select also the Flat print orientation! schlaumeier.gif 

 

Hopefully there is no Déjà vu experience with Shapeways ... up040577.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...