DrJB Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) ... one of the worst ideas NASA has ever had (check http://en.m.wikipedi...Shuttle_program) ... Very critical ... I guess you never had bad ideas of your own? It only takes a knowledgeable/experienced engineer to 'appreciate' the complications/challenges behind putting such vehicle together. I assure you, besides the pride and joy (and frustrations), that achievement is very 'humbling' to all those who got involved with such project. ;) Edited January 26, 2015 by DrJB Quote
Tomik Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) What a cool alternative model! I like that you've placed satelite inside cargo bay. How many set parts in percent did you use for it? Edited January 26, 2015 by Tomik Quote
JamesJT Posted January 26, 2015 Author Posted January 26, 2015 These are the parts I didn't need. Shuttle 5 by jamesjtillson, on Flickr I spent 2 hour today on the LDD file and It is nearly done. I'm happy to share the file but I don't want to spend any more time time making step by step instructions - all those white parts have left me snow blind. I think this would be very hard for somebody else to build, the landing gear is easy enough but the doors and the arm/satellite need to be set up just right to start and finish in the right place. Quote
PROlego Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Very critical ... I guess you never had bad ideas of your own? It only takes a knowledgeable/experienced engineer to 'appreciate' the complications/challenges behind putting such vehicle together. I assure you, besides the pride and joy (and frustrations), that achievement is very 'humbling' to all those who got involved with such project. ;) I know the shuttle is agreat technological achievement but it was much more expensive to reuse than a expendable rocket to build and launch. Roscosmos' 60 year old technology does the same things for a cheaper price. Quote
Omikron Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 I know the shuttle is agreat technological achievement but it was much more expensive to reuse than a expendable rocket to build and launch. Roscosmos' 60 year old technology does the same things for a cheaper price. It's only half true actually. Shuttle was designed so it's cargo bay could hold nuclear missiles and the vehicle itself was designed to fly once in 1-2 weeks the whole year. In that case space shipping cost is much lesser. Lesser than a convenient rocket. However by the time of completion neither the government nor private companies could not provide such amount of "missions" because there were tremendous cut to the budget and new nuclear ballistic rockets were available. So there was no real need for a shuttle or russian clone. The people overestimated the market, it's one of the reasons that holds space exploration in the lower Earth orbit since the end of 60's. Look at russians - they fly a modification of R-7! It's from 60's!!!!!!! Quote
PROlego Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) It's only half true actually. Shuttle was designed so it's cargo bay could hold nuclear missiles and the vehicle itself was designed to fly once in 1-2 weeks the whole year. In that case space shipping cost is much lesser. Lesser than a convenient rocket. However by the time of completion neither the government nor private companies could not provide such amount of "missions" because there were tremendous cut to the budget and new nuclear ballistic rockets were available. So there was no real need for a shuttle or russian clone. The people overestimated the market, it's one of the reasons that holds space exploration in the lower Earth orbit since the end of 60's. Look at russians - they fly a modification of R-7! It's from 60's!!!!!!! You're right, there was a lack of flights that made it more expensive but the manteinance itself was very costly, I think more expensive than a full Soyuz or Proton. Using upgraded versions of R-7 is not a bad idea. That makes it cheaper. According to Spanish astronaut Pedro Duque Soyuz is also safer than the Shuttle. Using the STS to send satellites to low earth orbit with crew is obvisly a worst idea than sending them in a unmanned russian or european ship. Edited January 26, 2015 by PROlego Quote
Omikron Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Soyuz is safer because it is used for more than 50 years. Every aspect of it's usage was learned, documented, and corrected if needed. Also it's far less complex as a mechanism, it's one-off, and launch is far less complex. As some say - quadratisch, praktisch, GUT! Well not "quadratisch" but definitely praktisch and GUT Quote
Jeroen Ottens Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Great model (like all the others already said, but compliments are always nice ) It is amazing how you were able to convey the illusion of a black and white spaceship with so few black pieces. It must be because you mimiced the shape so well that my mind automatically fills in the black details even if they are not there. Very cunning satelite deploy system, at first I thought that gravity was extending the solar panels, but apparently they are driven too... Very ingenious... Quote
JamesJT Posted January 26, 2015 Author Posted January 26, 2015 Tinted snow goggles ready? The LDD file is finished. It is only 117Kb which feels a bit small for a 722 part model. LDD file doesn't include the stand but I expect most people on here could build it just by looking at a few pictures. PM me your email if you want it. Quote
bonox Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Great model there James - would love to build one and put it next to the old 8480 Quote
Foggy Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Great model there James - would love to build one and put it next to the old 8480 And beside lego 10231 Quote
bonox Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 with this one, i'll have three technic shuttles - i've fairly fond of the 8855 b model as well :) Quote
ComMix Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I really love your shuttle. Specially the little sattelite is so cool. Edited January 28, 2015 by ComMix Quote
Paul Boratko Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 This is just sooo well done... Awesome model...! :thumbup: Quote
ef16 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 i would like to build it can you post ldd to my email adress? its here: efeyakaratlantik@hotmail.com or efe.yakar@hotmail.com thanks Quote
ef16 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Tinted snow goggles ready? The LDD file is finished. It is only 117Kb which feels a bit small for a 722 part model. LDD file doesn't include the stand but I expect most people on here could build it just by looking at a few pictures. PM me your email if you want it. Can you post? efe.yakar@hotmail.com Quote
eye888a Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 i would like to build it can you post ldd to my email adress? its here: eye888a@yahoo.com.tw Quote
michele_mura Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Please send to me the LD file at this address: michelemura@libero.it Thanks and congratulations for such a nice C model!! Quote
JamesJT Posted June 16, 2015 Author Posted June 16, 2015 It is better to send a PM when requesting the LDD file so you don't have to make your email address public. Quote
PeterF Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 It would be even better if you could put this great model on rebrickable ;-) PS: big fan Quote
Bricktrain Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Well done James. I see those posting their emails are new members who cant send PMs, but if you have sent the file they can edit their address from their post. Quote
higgins91 Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 I see those posting their emails are new members who cant send PMs, hello, i'm interesting also to have the LDD file of your great moc, i can't send PMs ;) thanks a lot perauxa @ gmail.com Quote
Garrond Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Your model is reason i bought this set recently. Edited June 27, 2015 by Garrond Quote
Garrond Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 How the hell that thing is supposed to move? Is that model functional? Quote
Blakbird Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 How the hell that thing is supposed to move? Is that model functional? Looks to me like a linear actuator bracket should go there and is probably missing from LDD. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.