1/72 Big Orion from Moebius

[Analyzer]

I don't want to reply to both (one in my WIP of the 2001 Landing Bay 1:72 scale) and this thread.
So, I'll do it in this convo only.
According to "2001 The Lost Science"; Adam K. Johnson put the length of the Orion III Studio Model at 42".
Schematics (in the same book) shows the full size at 175' X 7'(not including the 2 rear prongs). The 7' measurement is at its largest width.
Here's a few pics showing the Moebius model and various scaled figures.

1: 1:72 figure near the door.
2: 1:76 figure near the door.
3: 1:76 figure + seat near the door. Seats are the same size throughout the model.
It was, basically, the same with the Aries-1B; not a 1:72 scale either in terms of figures/seating.

While the pics showing the 1:76 figure near the door, the cockpit is even smaller in size: very low ceiling and crammed seating.
If said cockpit was in scale with the door, we would've another kit size altogether.

1/76 to 1/87 seems like a nice range. Figure wise there is not too much difference between 1/76 and 1/87 anyway, although 1/87 might offer more figure poses/kit bashed parts for an interior as that is a standard train scale

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

I don't want to reply to both (one in my WIP of the 2001 Landing Bay 1:72 scale) and this thread.
So, I'll do it in this convo only.
According to "2001 The Lost Science"; Adam K. Johnson put the length of the Orion III Studio Model at 42".

Ah, interesting. I'm trying to remember the source I found, but I seem to remember it quoting one of the people who worked on the miniature. I'm curious about that, but I'll yield ot better provenance.

Schematics (in the same book) shows the full size at 175' X 7'(not including the 2 rear prongs). The 7' measurement is at its largest width.

Greatest width being fuselage, I presume. Man, I need to dig that book out. I missed that schematic, then, if it's annotated. Is the 175' with or without the aft spikes?

Here's a few pics showing the Moebius model and various scaled figures.

1: 1:72 figure near the door.
2: 1:76 figure near the door.
3: 1:76 figure + seat near the door. Seats are the same size throughout the model.
It was, basically, the same with the Aries-1B; not a 1:72 scale either in terms of figures/seating.

While the pics showing the 1:76 figure near the door, the cockpit is even smaller in size: very low ceiling and crammed seating.
If said cockpit was in scale with the door, we would've another kit size altogether.

Man, that is just wild. From the figure, it looks like 1:76 would be a good fit, but the seat looks too small, and, from your assessment, the cockpit still wouldn't work. You measured the Airfix one, but what's the OAL (with or without aft spikes, to match the rest of the measurements we're working with). I see "nearly 29" long" on the internet, but mathing a 175' craft at 1:72 results in a bit over 29".

Does "Lost Science" go into the interior sets, at all? Be nice to know how big the passenger compartment and cockpit were to see how that, literally, measures up.

Indeed, the WIP I'm building now (thread: "2001 Landing Bay 1:72 scale) is for the Moebius model. The Aries-1B was never supposed to go into that bay...low ceiling compared to the pics found on the net To cram the Orion + Aries-1B into that same bay would've been impossible.
But, it's a movie...right?

I always figured the Earth shuttles landed and took off from the white-illuminated bay, and the moon shuttles took off from the red-illuminated bay. I'm guessing they're the same size, though.

1/76 to 1/87 seems like a nice range. Figure wise there is not too much difference between 1/76 and 1/87 anyway, although 1/87 might offer more figure poses/kit bashed parts for an interior as that is a standard train scale

That's where I'm scratching my head, and waiting to hear back on the big kit's actual size. To be "nearly 29" long" instead of "over 28" long", I'd surmise more than 28 1/2". A 175' craft at 1:76 would be 27 5/8" long. At 1:87, just over 24". To be more than 28 1/2" and less than 29", it'd have to be 1:73, which isn't a thing.

I'm wondering if we have a Millennium Falcon effect, where the interior, proportional to the sets, can't fit in the exterior, at the scale the quoted "real" length would force them to be. From the pictures and description, it sounds, horrifically, like the exterior might be 1:72, or close to it; the hatch, 1:76; and the interior, HO/1:87. I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.

 

[joberg]

Yes: 175' is without the aft spikes.
Yes: 7' is widest width of the fuselage.
The Moebius model is: 29"1/4 exactly without the aft spikes (with the spikes you'll have to add 1"7/8)

The book has a blueprint of the set interior/measurements: the overall length of the entire physical set has a partial lists of measurements.
The cockpit is of a trapezoidal design: the base has a width of 9', the height of the sides is 4'1". No measurement is available for the widest length at the top and no angle is given, which would facilitate the finding of the overall measurements for the top
The cockpit is a 3 window affair (as you know) the blueprints are giving the width of the big window only: 5' in width.

Yes and yes about the "MF Effect": the scale of the 1:1 scale sets doesn't match the scale of the model (surprise, surprise).
You're right again concerning the various scales (door, cockpit, seats) on that model. Very strange, but overall o.k. in terms of "Looks".
I guess that, at a certain point, decisions have to be made in terms of scale and that, at the end, the question remains: "Does it look like the Studio Model in its overall design?" Yes, no answer at that point

As for the different landing bay on Space Station V; the red one was to warn crew that this side of it wasn't finished yet and was still under construction. No arrival, nor departure from that side of the station.
But (and that's my two cents) the whole thing seems moot since, even at 1:72 scale, the Aries-1B cannot fit into those bays.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Man, that's frustrating. I'm tempted to get it for the interior and details and use it to create a 3D model I can tweak things on to make it fit the interior, even if that means it ends up being a bit longer and wider than the schematics intended. Have to do the same thing with the Enterprise and Excelsior, for similar reasons. Thanks for taking the time to answer all my annoying questions. I definitely need to dig that book back out now...

As for the different landing bay on Space Station V; the red one was to warn crew that this side of it wasn't finished yet and was still under construction. No arrival, nor departure from that side of the station.
But (and that's my two cents) the whole thing seems moot since, even at 1:72 scale, the Aries-1B cannot fit into those bays.

Wait -- is that canon? I thought it was red for the same reason the "hangar" on the moon was illuminated red and the cockpits of the Aries-1B and moon bus were illuminated red -- drawing a subliminal connection between them as "these are the moon ones". All these decades, that's how I interpreted the red bay on the space station...

But yeah... That seems supremely sloppy for noted perfectionist Kubrick.

 

[ajamodels]

Hey all. i normally don't like to chime in on '2001' model stuff, but this time i'll add my data and knowledge to hopefully help!
I own the original blueprints to the Orion III. so, they are 1:1 scale. In the bottom right-hand corner it states 1:1 scale to build the model.
The drawing measures 42.5" without the tail spikes. I built my model (which Scott Alexander owns the masters) exactly to the drawing with only a change to the width of the engine 'hump' - after close observation of the photos. It is debated how big the model was actually made. However, the models (with zero exceptions) were sized exactly to ALL the drawings and/or the scale written in the bottom right-hand corner. So, i assume the Orion III was as well.
Secondly, i have unpublished photos of modelers standing - or sitting- directly in close proximity to the model. in every case, i have concluded the model was indeed built and sized to the drawing (I AM aware this has been debated) . I have not published these photos because i never acquired the rights - sorry!
The dimensions given of the 'actual' size of the spacecraft - if it was real - was determined by Fred Ordway. He did not take into account the cockpit set or passenger area set in great detail. Especially when the cockpit set was reused in the aries1B. So.....that can be debated - forever!!

Finally, i had zero input on the Moebius large '1/72' Orion, so i cannot comment on it.

I'm confident that interiors can be made to fit inside the model AND look very similar to the sets. You can scale the interiors anyway you see fit : )

-Adam K. Johnson

 

[Analyzer]

Great info there!

 

[joberg]

Thanks for the info Adam...one day we'll see more pics, I hope

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Thank you so much for that, Adam. Stanley's tendency to destroy stuff associated with production has hobbled a lot of research into recreating -- or even just understanding -- the artifacts for 2001. I'm guessing the original Airfix kit was just made "box scale", like the garbage scaling of the TOS and TMP Enterprises from AMT back in the day. "1:151.35" isn't a thing. You've given me much food for thought with the information you've had access to, and I always like stuff that challenges my assertions and forces me to defend or abandon them

The dimensions given of the 'actual' size of the spacecraft - if it was real - was determined by Fred Ordway. He did not take into account the cockpit set or passenger area set in great detail. Especially when the cockpit set was reused in the aries1B. So.....that can be debated - forever!!

Dammit, Fred... *sigh* Why didn't he take the set dimensions into account? Like asking Matt Jefferies why he set the original Enterprise at 947', when it needed to be ~15% larger to accommodate the sets he designed, these are questions we can never answer.

I'm confident that interiors can be made to fit inside the model AND look very similar to the sets. You can scale the interiors anyway you see fit : )

I agree... But it looks like those interiors need to be HO scale for humans to fit inside that 1:72 shell and still look like they did in the film. To get things to agree, either interior or exterior has to yield. I have a lot to ponder. Particularly because, if I redetail the windows and exterior to reflect a 1:87 interior, the real craft would be 212' long, longer than the Concorde -- which, admittedly, had its engines under its wings, rather than integrated into the fuselage... As I said, much to ponder. And thank you again, ajamodels -- both for your feedback above and your books (which I really need to pull out of storage now...).

 

[ajamodels]

Your VERY welcome gentlemen. i only provide the facts of what happened before, during and after the production of '2001'. I try not to interject opinion. I've talked with many people who worked on the film, and sadly most of them are dead now. But even their personal accounts had conflicts. So, i always rely on the paper documents and photos to establish fact. Fred Ordway was a very close friend of mine. I was quite upset when he passed away. The things he told me that went on during that 4 year period is worth another book!

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Wait. This just fully registered with me...

Schematics (in the same book) shows the full size at 175' X 7'(not including the 2 rear prongs). The 7' measurement is at its largest width.

Okay, I was so involved in doing the math, I didn't register the implications. All respect to Fred, but that is just wacko. Maybe if it was a single row of seats either side of the central aisle -- maybe -- it could be seven feet across. Here's the interior of the Concorde:

More cramped than the Orion, by a good bit, and the wall of the fuselage is thinner...

...and it's still nine and a half feet wide. This set isn't even fudgably inside a seven-foot fuselage...

She's a bit over five feet and that cabin is more than two of her wide. Further, did Fred look at the concept art?

No way is that ship intended to be as small as he determined it was... That's a good fifteen feet across, from both the sketch and the set. More than twice the official size. Whee, golly, a lot to think about...

 

[joberg]

Your VERY welcome gentlemen. i only provide the facts of what happened before, during and after the production of '2001'. I try not to interject opinion. I've talked with many people who worked on the film, and sadly most of them are dead now. But even their personal accounts had conflicts. So, i always rely on the paper documents and photos to establish fact. Fred Ordway was a very close friend of mine. I was quite upset when he passed away. The things he told me that went on during that 4 year period is worth another book!

I'll be the first to buy it Adam2001 is such a great movie and the behind the scene even better Hours of endless fun and ponderings!

 

[joberg]

Wait. This just fully registered with me...

Okay, I was so involved in doing the math, I didn't register the implications. All respect to Fred, but that is just wacko. Maybe if it was a single row of seats either side of the central aisle -- maybe -- it could be seven feet across. Here's the interior of the Concorde:

View attachment 1691836

More cramped than the Orion, by a good bit, and the wall of the fuselage is thinner...

View attachment 1691837

...and it's still nine and a half feet wide. This set isn't even fudgably inside a seven-foot fuselage...

View attachment 1691838

She's a bit over five feet and that cabin is more than two of her wide. Further, did Fred look at the concept art?

View attachment 1691839

No way is that ship intended to be as small as he determined it was... That's a good fifteen feet across, from both the sketch and the set. More than twice the official size. Whee, golly, a lot to think about...

Yep, not possible to do so and trying to reconcile model-to-set measurements When you look at the 1:1 scale of the set cockpit and take into account the 5' width of the main window (not included the 2 small ones on either side), the 1:76 figure is still too big for the model!

 

[ajamodels]

Remember when i had this kit out?? (the upper part is the original Aurora kit) :

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Remember when i had this kit out?? (the upper part is the original Aurora kit) :

Yup. I think the only person I've ever seen do the Orion I booster/SST. Evokes the feel of the space shuttle piggybacking on a 747 -- except in this case, the lower craft is carrying passengers, too, and continues on to its destination after separation. I love the idea.

I had thought about it. But I was wanting to stay locked into known, common scales, so I can display things together and one gets a sense of relative size. And, as my comments in this thread indicate, I didn't know what scale the Aurora kit was (mainly because no one really did, thanks to debate over the size of the real craft), so I held off. And then missed it. Since then, I've gotten a couple odd, box-scale kits to display on their own -- mostly larger things like the AMT Defiant (ostensibly 1:420, but there's debate over that ship's size, too -- I'm in the 170m camp, so that would make the kit more like 1:600) and Monogram's 1:677 (why is that even a scale?) Voyager and a couple of the old AMT Enterprises (1:650) I'm modifying into a Larson and a Loknar class. And even then, you'll note that they're all in the same-ish scale neighborhood.

Ironically, my rough size estimate of the Orion based on the interiors and the launch facility concept art (and the people therein) would make the Moebius kit right about 1:160, or N scale. So we'd be right back where the old Airfix kit was supposed to be. That would yield a craft about 15'7" wide (which agrees with the interiors)... but a much more substantial 390' long. That's, ah... that's longer than a block 100 747. By a goodly bit. So I'm right back to not knowing what to do.

I'm guessing these are all considerations Fred faced when trying to determine the size of this thing. I'd love to see his process. Going by the lone pilot figure in the model is no good on its own. There's a track record of VFX people putting oversize pilots (or, rather, half of them) in cockpits for visibility (see the notorious A-Wing sizing argument for a lively time). The Concorde was in development at the time. The space shuttle was in the earliest concept stages, and wouldn't get its size set until the '70s, under Nixon's revised vision of US presence in space. It ended up being a delivery truck to LEO. 60' cargo bay as determined by the Air Force's needs for spy satellites, and enough fore and aft of that to house crew and engines. The 747 prototype was also rolled out around the same time, so he'd've known about them, too. (I like the fact that the first one to enter service, in 1970, was with Pan Am.) So he'd've had a sense of what was realistic, never mind the sets.

ajamodels, I'm envious of you knowing him. Right up there with Matt Jefferies, for me. To be able to hang out with those guys... *sigh* I'd have so many questions. I'd love to know how they thought, beyond what can be gleaned from their work.

 

[joberg]

For sure Fred Ordway and other consultants working on the movie would've known about the 747 development project starting in '63.
The regulars were vying for the contract: Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Martin Marietta.
I wish, like many here, I would've had the chance to talk (but mainly listen) to Fred Ordway's stories and others about their experience during the movie development and shooting of principal photography