Return of the Moon Bus

From 2001 as a model:
http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a Space 1999 Eagle.

Pat

On May 16, 1:05*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
*From 2001 as a model:http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a *Space 1999 Eagle.

Hey, you get George to prototype it for you, why not let him?

/dps

On 5/16/2010 10:50 AM, snidely wrote:
On May 16, 1:05 am, Pat wrote:
From 2001 as a model:http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a Space 1999 Eagle.

Hey, you get George to prototype it for you, why not let him?

The ones in the original Aurora kit were a lot more aesthetically
appealing that the corrected ones.
Back when the movie came out, Aurora was thinking of doing other model
kits of spacecraft from it, including one of the Space Pod, which would
have been interesting to see in detail.
Here's some photos of the actual Moon Bus model used in the filming of
the movie:
http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/Galler...es/Film.html#0
http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/Galler...es/Film.html#6
http://www.mastermodels.co.uk/Galler...es/Film.html#8
....showing that unlike a lot of other models used in the movie, its
exterior was none-too-detailed.
There is a super-detailing set available for the kit also:
http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/shop/...duct_ID=17 67
Although it may have been done to keep the Russians from finding out its
destination by flying low to avoid their radar, the way the Moon Bus is
shown flying in the film doesn't make a lot of sense; you would use a
lot less fuel if you put it on a ballistic trajectory from the lift-off
point to the destination right after taking off from Clavius, and then
let it coast in free-fall till you braked it right before
landing...rather than flying parallel to the surface like a helicopter.
I checked on Google Earth's Moon section, and the distance they had to
fly was around 300 miles (depending on the exact position of the Clavius
base and TMA-1 where the Monolith was).


Pat

On 16/05/2010 6:05 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
From 2001 as a model:
http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a Space 1999 Eagle.

Pat

"aerodynamic windscreen"

Just what you need when you're operating in a vacuum.

Sylvia.

On 23/05/2010 8:08 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 5/22/2010 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/05/2010 6:05 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
From 2001 as a model:
http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a Space 1999 Eagle.

Pat

"aerodynamic windscreen"

Just what you need when you're operating in a vacuum.

If they were interested in realism, they wouldn't have had the crew of
the Aries Moonship staring straight up at the sky while they were trying
to land it; the cockpit should have been on the side, not the top.


And if it comes to that, it wouldn't have had a retractable landing gear.

Sylvia.

On 5/22/2010 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/05/2010 6:05 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
From 2001 as a model:
http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=MW02001
I didn't know that about the movie miniature's cockpit windows...the
revision makes it more like a Space 1999 Eagle.

Pat

"aerodynamic windscreen"

Just what you need when you're operating in a vacuum.

If they were interested in realism, they wouldn't have had the crew of
the Aries Moonship staring straight up at the sky while they were trying
to land it; the cockpit should have been on the side, not the top.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:39:00 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

On 5/23/2010 12:22 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
If they were interested in realism, they wouldn't have had the crew of
the Aries Moonship staring straight up at the sky while they were
trying to land it; the cockpit should have been on the side, not the
top.


And if it comes to that, it wouldn't have had a retractable landing
gear.

You could possibly explain that by saying it was so the engine exhaust
wouldn't impinge on it, which would have generated drag as it
accelerated on the way to or back from the Moon. How exactly it
connected to the space station would have been interesting to see.

The only purpose of the retractable gear on the 2001 Aries that makes
sense other than "It looks cool" (It's a movie, that's all the justification you
need) is to control the moment of inertia. Y;know, like a skater pulling her
arms in to increase the rate of spin.

The really odd one is Discovery; the layout of the ship, with the
communications array halfway along the spine, would have been perfect
for letting it generate artificial gravity by having the whole ship
rotate in the yaw axis once the engines had gotten it up to speed, with
the communications antennas counter-rotating to keep them aimed at
Earth. Of course if you did that then you would have to stop the
rotation for the space pods to deploy and work on the exterior of the
ship. But putting the communications array electronics in a place where
the astronauts couldn't get to them without doing a EVA was a bit
strange also. About the only things that should have been back there
with the antennas were the motors to elevate and traverse them, while
all the rest of the electronics should have been up in the command
sphere with the astronauts.

Uhm, it you listen to the dialog, that's pretty much what it was.
The part being replaced was a controller for the antenna positioning
system.

Oh, and the Moon Bus - No air on the moon. VTOL up to an altitude that
clears any terrain in the way and accelerate to the appropriate speed to either
orbit past the destination, or fly a ballistic curve to the destination.

Can't speak for the windshield, though.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

On 5/23/2010 12:22 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
If they were interested in realism, they wouldn't have had the crew of
the Aries Moonship staring straight up at the sky while they were trying
to land it; the cockpit should have been on the side, not the top.


And if it comes to that, it wouldn't have had a retractable landing gear.

You could possibly explain that by saying it was so the engine exhaust
wouldn't impinge on it, which would have generated drag as it
accelerated on the way to or back from the Moon.
How exactly it connected to the space station would have been
interesting to see.
The really odd one is Discovery; the layout of the ship, with the
communications array halfway along the spine, would have been perfect
for letting it generate artificial gravity by having the whole ship
rotate in the yaw axis once the engines had gotten it up to speed, with
the communications antennas counter-rotating to keep them aimed at Earth.
Of course if you did that then you would have to stop the rotation for
the space pods to deploy and work on the exterior of the ship. But
putting the communications array electronics in a place where the
astronauts couldn't get to them without doing a EVA was a bit strange
also. About the only things that should have been back there with the
antennas were the motors to elevate and traverse them, while all the
rest of the electronics should have been up in the command sphere with
the astronauts.

Pat

On 5/23/2010 11:05 AM, Peter Stickney wrote:
About the only things that should have been back there
with the antennas were the motors to elevate and traverse them, while
all the rest of the electronics should have been up in the command
sphere with the astronauts.

Uhm, it you listen to the dialog, that's pretty much what it was.
The part being replaced was a controller for the antenna positioning
system.

Yeah, but there's no reason that needs be back there, rather than up
front, where it can control the motors that actually move the antenna
around via running wiring back to them, to avoid needing to do a EVA in
case it malfunctions.

Oh, and the Moon Bus - No air on the moon. VTOL up to an altitude that
clears any terrain in the way and accelerate to the appropriate speed to either
orbit past the destination, or fly a ballistic curve to the destination.

I thought of that one also way back at the beginning of this thread, but
there is a possible explanation for it. If they wanted to keep the
Russians in the dark about where the Moon Bus was going from Clavius
Base they might have purposely flown it at low altitude to avoid being
detected on radar.
Another problem is that any sort of excavations near Tycho are going to
be visible from either lunar orbit or large Earth-orbiting telescopes,
so sticking all those floodlights around the TMA-1 pit during the lunar
night wasn't the best way of keeping things hidden. And why didn't the
Russians notice the magnetic anomaly there also?
Till they found the monolith there was no reason not to report the
magnetic anomaly in the worldwide scientific press.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 5/23/2010 11:05 AM, Peter Stickney wrote:
About the only things that should have been back there
with the antennas were the motors to elevate and traverse them,
while all the rest of the electronics should have been up in the
command sphere with the astronauts.

Uhm, it you listen to the dialog, that's pretty much what it was.
The part being replaced was a controller for the antenna positioning
system.

Yeah, but there's no reason that needs be back there, rather than up
front, where it can control the motors that actually move the antenna
around via running wiring back to them, to avoid needing to do a EVA
in case it malfunctions.

Eh, consider perhaps they decided it easier to have a single wire from the
cabin back there to the controller and then separate wires from the
controller to the motors. Your plan would require multiple wires from the
controller all the way back.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.