Register here

Author Topic: Any other images of this model of the Von Braun 1952 Round-The-Moon ship?  (Read 1559 times)

Offline Paul Lloyd

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
I'm trying to make a CGI model of the Von Braun 1952 round-the-moon ship. I'm wondering if anyone has any other photographs of this model from a JSC NASA exhibition. (The third photo seems to be a different model.)






Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2960
The third model got landing gear !!!


on moment could Von Braun consider the craft also as lunar lander ?!
I love Strange Technology

Offline Grif

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 52
If you go here:
http://www.rogersrocketships.com/page_view.cfm?id=36
you can order a scale drawing!
Grif

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2960
here copy of Original drawing by Von braun


second picture show the version with landing gear
I love Strange Technology

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 751
    • OMBlog
...This page over at Sven Knudson's site might be of some help:

http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/von%20Braun%20Lunar%20Spacecraft/


:OM:

Offline Paul Lloyd

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
Thanks - I borrowed some details from the Glencoe lunar lander, and some from the Bonestell paintings of the lunar expedition. And some I made up. I can't figure out how the passive thermal control slats are supposed to look, though.

Here's what I made. I should probably revisit the personnel sphere and model the windows more accurately. The engines too. Ah well.

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 416
Thanks - I borrowed some details from the Glencoe lunar lander, and some from the Bonestell paintings of the lunar expedition. And some I made up. I can't figure out how the passive thermal control slats are supposed to look, though.

One thing to note about the "changes" from the original concept is that the propellant and personnel sphere's went from "hanging" in the framework (they were inflatable structures) to being load-bearing. You can see this in the orginal drawing and here:
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/von%20Braun%20Lunar%20Spacecraft/vb%20lunar%2001.jpg
 
But the illustrations show much less detail and emphisis on this feature, (supports are only shown as "bands" around them in the following) so that the original "inflated" portions had to become "solid" structures shown later.
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/von%20Braun%20Lunar%20Spacecraft/vb%20lunar%2002.jpg
 
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/von%20Braun%20Lunar%20Spacecraft/vb%20lunar%2003.jpg
 
As to how the "passive thermal control slats" are supposed to look they would look like individual "slats" that would be hard to see when they are all deployed, (black square) but when retracted there would be alternate black and white-or-silver segments with the black slats slightly raised above the white/silver ones. (The alternate black slats retract behind the primary slats to expose the white/silver ones) IIRC. Since the propellants were non-cryogenic liquids (Nitric Acid and Hydrazine) the main aim was to keep them liquid in space.
 
Hope that helps.
 
Randy

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 751
    • OMBlog
ere's what I made. I should probably revisit the personnel sphere and model the windows more accurately. The engines too. Ah well.


...Not shabby at all for what you have so far. The scale looks about right, as IIRC both Glencoe and Lindbergh claimed this was 1/96 kit. Never would have believed it myself, but apparently the reissues of this kit are getting about as scarce as the original Lindbergh run. The molds the last I heard (2002?) were on their last legs, and whoever's running Glencoe these days may have already scrapped them by now.


...Put any thought about slapping a NASA Meatball on one of those spheres just for giggles?  Would be interesting to see it next to an Apollo CSM/LM docked stack just for comparison purposes. Or at least one of those "WTF?" encounter "What if?"s  ;D B) :o


:OM:

Offline Paul Lloyd

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
The NASA meatball seems like the wrong era. (I know that's illogical, given that it would take years to even build the space station that the round-the-moon ship is launched from). I've tried the USAF roundel, though. It's hard to decide how far to go in making details up.

The Bonestell painting has the comms dish and solar power mirror adhecent to each other, rather than  opposite each other, and that looks better although it would unbalance the ships center of mass. I might move them on my model.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 751
    • OMBlog
The NASA meatball seems like the wrong era. (I know that's illogical, given that it would take years to even build the space station that the round-the-moon ship is launched from). I've tried the USAF roundel, though. It's hard to decide how far to go in making details up.


...The Roundel I didn't even consider, most likely for the possible reason you state in the fact that even with proper funding it would have most likely taken WVB and his fellow "Paperclippers" well into the late 60s if not the early to mid-70s to have pulled off a lander such as this. Whether the N.A.C.A. would have evolved into NASA or not is a good point of debate, but the Air Farce logo is probably a safer bet. I'd almost be tempted to add on an N.A.C.A. logo underneath or on the lower sphere, but as has been pointed out numerous times over the decades, that level of involvement was not "the Langley Way".


...One thing that's come to mind, tho: in OTL, we named our landers. Any thought about what to name this particular lander?