Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Spacebucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=149
Page 22 of 33

Author:  Mechace1313 [ January 26th, 2019, 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

just putting this out there
gundam ships

Author:  erik_t [ January 26th, 2019, 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

BB1987 wrote: *
erik_t wrote: *
(pssst: pdf) :)
A very useful file, thanks! Altough I actually meant sources of whole rockets and not single components. From what I see, with the exception of some of the Castors (which I should complete by working on the H-II after Thor-Delta) the other large SRBs are already drawn and found in C.Hoefer's Titan and SLS drawings and DarthPanda's Space Shuttle. I don't think I'll ever tackle the solid stages individually unless I do the whole rocket they are part of.
Some of the older Spacebucket drawings are, regrettably, not to careful scale or of modern quality. I think my RSRM may measure up... I'll have to go check sometime.

Author:  BB1987 [ January 27th, 2019, 1:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

erik_t wrote: *
Some of the older Spacebucket drawings are, regrettably, not to careful scale or of modern quality. I think my RSRM may measure up... I'll have to go check sometime.
Cannot comment that much on that, what has been posted in the past before 2010, between 2014 and 2016 and whatever has been outside this thread is unknown or inaccessible to me. At least on the SLS I can say the rocket appears to be correctly scaled since I had to check a few things related to the Orion capsule (there is something iffy at the top of the rocket with diameter going from odd to even pixels on the capsule itself, but easy to fix. Something I've half-way done already and will finsh doing) in realtion to the Thor-Delta work.

edit: Here are the fixes I was talking about on SLS done:
I also removed some artifacts and adjusted a few more details. overall, the technique used by Hoefer is not 100% SB standard, but this thread is in the non-SB section, so complete aderhence to style is a matter of preference I'd say.
[ img ]

Author:  eswube [ January 28th, 2019, 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

Wow! Wowowow! Awesome!

Author:  erik_t [ January 28th, 2019, 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

Oh, I don't know if I'd seen this set. Those are quite good.

Author:  Hood [ January 29th, 2019, 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

I don't remember seeing these before either. Great work touching up Hoefer's work. Pity he's not around any more, he had a lovely mix of sail and rocketry!

Author:  BB1987 [ January 29th, 2019, 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

Hood wrote: *
Pity he's not around any more, he had a lovely mix of sail and rocketry!
His sailing ships were quite the masterpices indeed!

In the meantime I've completed my Thor-Delta work, but I'm waiting for a PM reply before posting the completed sheet.
So, while waiting, since Erik put a bug in my ear with the "older spacebucket drawings are [...] not to careful scale" thing I decided to dip my nose into the matter. Since I thweaked the SLS and planned (and still planning) on expanding the Titan rocket sheet, I went back and checked two other rockets Hoefer did, the Proton-M and the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. Regrettably, both turned out to be suffering from scaling issues (looks who's talking, I myself messed up the Atlas badly in my first try). And -at this point- I suspect it is possible that the Titans might suffer of the same issue, somethin I'll have to check.
Back at the Proton and Falcon, both were larger that they sould have been. In the first case the reason is a bit obscure, in the second it was immediately obvious to me where the mishap lay.

the Proton-M is either 56,2 or 58,2m tall depending on wether the short or long payload fairing is used. this translates more or less into 369 and 382 pixels in SB scale. Hoefer Proton was 414 (wich rougly translates to 63 meters), leaving me without an explanation for the miscale. Not even the Proton-K that launched the Salyut space station was that tall (it was 61m or 401 pixels in scale). I thus resized it and adjusted the pixels were needed (a much simpler job that it might sound) also adding the shorter payload fairing version. 99,9% of the drawing is still Hoefer's original pixels, so I left the credit lines as they were.
[ img ]

As mentioned before, the reason behind the Falcon 9 upscaling is more easier to understand. The rocket is 70m tall in its standard satellite launch configuration, which translates to 460 pixels. Hoefer's falcon was 498. Yet, he also drew the launcher in two more configurations, the one with the cargo Dragon capsule and the one with the crewed dragon 2. The latter was exactly 460 pixels tall. the scaling was spot on, but not for the correct variant (pretty much the same error I did when I messed up the Atlas). Just as I did with the Proton, I rescaled the drawing and fixed any pixel anomalies, then I went overboard. The original drawing depicted both the Falcon 9 Full-Thrust (blocks 3 and 4) and the Falcon Heavy. I added all other Falcon 9 variants and collected them all in a single sheet, keeping in the "staged" versions as well ("exploded", while technically more accurate, sounds more like a bad pun given the context) and the highest number of little details from Hoefer's original drawings I could (like the small astronaut near one of the rockets). This time I allowed myself to alter the credit lines.
[ img ]

A little addendum about the Falcon 9 v1.0. If browsing for sources, You'll probably stumble upon three different height figures: 47,8 (314 pixels), 53 (348) or 54,9 meters (360 pixels). the 53m one is completely wrong. The 47,8m is the correct one for the launcher as flown and depicted in the sheet. While the 54,9m number corresponds to the height of the rocket fitted with the 5.2m payload fairing (which, for the Falcon 9 v1.0, was somehow taller than that of later flown Falcons according to the offical SpaceX user's guide). The rocket was tested on the pad with said fairing but never flown in that configuration, hence I've chosen to not depict it.

Author:  erik_t [ January 29th, 2019, 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

When I find a very high resolution reference drawing, I always scale based on the diameter for this reason -- it's not always exactly clear how the height/length is specified.

Similarly, I prefer scaling beam when working with ships :)

It does require that your reference is of sufficiently high resolution that you can survive the loss of precision associated with scaling the smaller dimension.

Author:  BB1987 [ January 29th, 2019, 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

erik_t wrote: *
When I find a very high resolution reference drawing, I always scale based on the diameter for this reason -- it's not always exactly clear how the height/length is specified.
When it comes to rockets I think I might have pretty much learned that now, it is not enough to find a fancy source and scale it to the first figure you get, as much as it seems to be reliable. This awareness didn't come in time to prevent me to scale the Atlas-Centaur LV-3C to the height of the SLV-3C and then cascading the error through the entire sheet :roll: :oops: But well, at least that is fixed now :lol:
Payload user's guide from various launch providers will be my primary source in every case (for older, discontinued, rockets this is not possible however), even tough I do see that some are more useful than others. ULA's one for the Atlas V is definitely more rich of dimensions data for the rocket than SpaceX's for the Falcon 9 for example.
Ultimately, I just wish all sources would be like this. I've found such marvelous sheets only for Atlas, Thor-Delta and Titan.

Author:  erik_t [ January 29th, 2019, 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spacebucket

Definitely any time they give me station numbers, I'll take that as gospel!

Page 22 of 33 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/