Hobbyist Forums banner

The "2001" Moonbus Thread

307K views 1K replies 95 participants last post by  SteveR 
#1 · (Edited)
Yesterday I began looking at the geometry of the Moonbus with a eye towards doing some model building plans of it and I wanted to share some initial results and observations with everyone.

Reference Material & the Web

As many of you probably already know, there is precious little information about the either the interior or exterior of the Moonbus. It only appears in a few scenes in the movie and even then from only a few angles, so even screen cap images are of limited use. The rear wall of the main cabin for example is never seen at all. This lack of information means that we are forced to guess about many things, there just is no way to be exact. As a result, each attempt to define the details of this ship will vary with each effort, no one can say that theirs is "the ultimate" (me included).

I have 8X10 copies of most of the main shots seen in the film and I made frame grabs from the DVD. I even eliminated the actors from the one main shot of the passenger cabin by combining the open areas of different frames as the actors move around (the camera in that scene is locked down). This is about the best one can do for reference material without having the studio blueprints or additional shots of the filming miniatures (there were at least two). This material in hand, I began by trying to establish the outline of the crossection. After studying the available images I decided that the low-angle nose view was my best hope for this because it is close to a true front view, shows the side wall angles and both the left and right outer edges of the side mounted RCS clusters which allowed me to find the center of the ship and thus the line of symmetry. I then used that above mentioned view of the main cabin to create a crossection of the interior. This is a bit trickier because there is a fair amount of spherical distortion from the lens that was used to film that scene. I made a base assumption that the cabin ceiling height is six feet and scaled accordingly. The resulting full scale dimensions were startling close to the logical dimensions that a designer might use so I was sure that I was very close to correct.

Interiors & Exteriors

Movies never design vehicles where the interior fits inside the exterior and 2001 is no exception. When I tried to combine the interior and exterior crossections I discovered several things. No matter how the two sections are scaled to each other, the interior passenger windows do not match the exterior ones (the windows are the obvious point of alignment between the two sections). The exterior windows as shown are about half-again as large as the interior ones and if you look at the shots in the film, you will see that, when viewed from the outside, the windows suddenly lose the interior portion of the framming. Look at the interior shots and the windows are set back, well inside some tunnels which curiously are not seen from the outside. The cabin could be scaled down to allow the space to add the interior tunnels but then the overall ship becomes obviously too large in comparison to the figures inside. Or you simply change the proportions of the main cabin (this is what most of the models so far have done I think) to get the details to fit but then the cabin doesn't look right. For the moment I have dropped the interior tunnels and gone with the larger exterior style windows because I feel that the exterior look is more important than the interior. This also allows me to keep the overall proportions of the passenger cabin the same and it even allows a reasonable ceiling thickness (4 inches).

Exterior Details & the Aurora Kit

I was suprised to read kit reviews on the web which stated that the "USAA" marking which was included as a decal in the Aurora kit never appeared on the movie miniature. This is funny because that marking is clearly visible (OK, partially visible, "AA" can be seen) in my stills. These same reviews also claim that the Aurora kit is too long, additional length having been added behind the cockpit. This too appears to be incorrect. When I compare my independently arrived at side elevation view (I'm getting to how this was done) to the kit photo from the box art, it matches nearly exactly in general heights and lengths for the entire distance of the constant-section portion of the ship. This tells me that the Aurora kit is indeed useful as a guide. Although some details are demonstrably wrong on this old kit, generally it seems to be correct. This also leads me to conclude that Aurora probably did not have blueprints to work from (because some structural details are actually incorrect, more to follow on this) but probably had a more complete photo survey of one of the models than we have ever seen.

End Part 1
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
Part 2

Structural Details

Something that has been consistently modeled wrong is the exterior rear bulkhead. Several things are obvious when studying the only photo we have of it. First, the upper and two adjoining slopping edges are rounded, not square. This means that symmetrical details seen near the top of the rear bulkhead appear closer to the far edge than the details on the near side do to the near edge because the far edge rolls away from us, thus foreshortening it. Also, the rear bulkhead itself is not flat, it bulges outwards. I haven't quite figured out what shape it really is yet but it obviously bulges because the horizontal lines of the steps in the face which should be parallel, are not. Further, the rear hatch is not centered inside the frame structure. Either it is offset to the port side or the frame also bulges outwards causing the far side of the frame to angle away from us and appear foreshortened too. I'm not sure which yet.

How Long is it?

Photos alone will not answer this question because we have no profile view of the ship and the existing photos have too much perspective distortion to allow for measurements. What to do? I scratched my head over this issue for a while and then I decided to try something that I had done recently to a Star Trek photo. I took my established 2D crossection drawing and brought it into a 3D drawing environment. Next I dropped in the classic side view photo of the ship (the one which shows the starboard side and rear bulkhead) as a backdrop in the environment. Now I took my section view and fiddled with the perspective until it closely matched the visible outline of the rear bulkhead. Once in place, I then checked to see that when it was extruded, it followed the angle and perspective of the main body in the photo. This takes some time to get everything to match up but once done, you can now measure in perspective!! In the software I use (Microstation), as the shape is extruded it automatically echoes the length of the extrusion in a little window and until I click to finalize the extrusion, it can be pulled out or back like a tape measure. Viola! I can now take full scale (based on my estimate of what that scale is) measurements of distances between objects and the rear bulkhead. No matter how far off my estimate of the fullscale size of the ship, these proportions will remain constant at all times. So if I decide it should be longer or shorter, all I need to do is scale accordingly because the proportional relationship of the distances between the various details remains constant. He he!

These are still early days in this project but I was so excited to have found a way to measure the lengths (a vital and heretofore unavailable detail) that I wanted to share my results right away. My measuring technique is obviously rough but when my results were shown to be extremely close to that of the Aurora kit, I knew I was on the right track (and so were they). Our reference material obviously agrees. I now have further ideas about how to measure the aft landing gear and exhaust nozzles in 3D, more to follow...
 
#4 · (Edited)
I'm almost shocked to hear that the Aurora kit's dimensions are, in fact, exceedingly close to those of the filming miniature. For years, we have read in various circles that the Aurora kit was dead wrong as to its length and proportions, even from sources such as Captain Cardboard, but your research seems to disprove that. Bravo!
 
#8 ·
Hi Guys,

I will definitely post this material to my web site, including drawings when they are ready. I didn't use "The Making Of" book only because I couldn't lay my hands on it right away (I fear it may be lost in the dreaded depths of the storage unit...). I don't recall there being much in that book about the Moonbus, that I don't already have in other forms anyway.

Here I am working on plans of something that doesn't even appear on my web site... D'oh! Okay, I really do need to get the 2001 stuff up there. Its on my "list of things to do"...
 
#11 ·
X15-A2, somewhere there's an interview with Andy Yanchus (SP?) about the Aurora 2001 kits. In it he's specifically mentions variations between the wing details on the Space Clipper model and the actual model seen in the film. According to him, the variations exist because Aurora followed the vehicle's blueprints to the letter, while the film's modelmakers didn't! I've often read that effects modellers will depart from blueprints, either on their own or at the behest of a superior, so it does make a certain amount of sense. I've often wondered myself to what degree did Kubrick have say and imput in the limited merchandising done for 2001. The Moonbus has always been such an unusual Aurora item in that it is probably the most involved and complex of the Aurora SF kits. That they were actually planning to include metal rods to keep their Discovery kit's spine straight suggests an unusual degree of dedication to the 2001 kit program on Aurora's part.
 
#12 ·
For whatever reason, the Moonbus appears (so far) to be a reasonably accurate representation of the filming model "as built". This makes me think that Aurora worked from photos of the models rather than blueprints. But who knows?

I qualify my statement with "so far" because my own analysis of the design is far from complete and I know full well that things may change as (if) new information comes to light.
 
#13 · (Edited)
RB said:
That they were actually planning to include metal rods to keep their Discovery kit's spine straight suggests an unusual degree of dedication to the 2001 kit program on Aurora's part.
So Aurora was planning on tooling a model of the Discovery in addition to the Moonbus and Orion? Wow, that would have been something to see. What a shame it never happened.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Here is a comparison of my preliminary drawing with the Aurora kit. As you can see, it compares very well in lengths and reasonably well in heights. You might be tempted to think that I traced the kit photo but that is not the case (except for the profile of the nose). Fore/aft positioning of the nose is only provisional in this version, it has yet to be better defined. Hopefully this link will work...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Aurora_Kit_Comparison3.jpg
 
#17 ·
I no longer have a copy, but I remember that the Criterion 2001 Laserdisc box had a still section that had a couple high quality images in B&W of the 'bus. Not sure if this is the same as the Bizony or not, but if anybody has that box (I dumped mine in favor of the MGM LD box, which had better contrast even though Kubrick didn't approve it), the image might be of help to you.

I've always loved the moonbus, and it slays me to think that the original model company (master models?) delivered what was basically a brick or butterdish - competently made, but lacking entirely in detail. It could be that some of the discrepancies are due to the detail being added changing the the contour, maybe?

Also, I congratulate you on picking up the interior aspect with respect to the lenses. Kubrick used very wide lenses on all of the interiors, so that really makes figuring these spaces out awfully tough (even for the pros; I think the 2010 messed some stuff up pretty badly, either that or Hyams did a disservice by being his own cinematographer on the sequel.)
 
#18 ·
Captain Cardboard
Scott Alexander
Atomic City Models

All the same guy. He's the one who issued the resin 1/144 Aries 1B kit, the 1/12 space pod kit, the 1/12 Dave Bowman, the 11 and 5-foot Discovery models, the 1/35 Discovery antenna model, and is working on a 1/32 Aries and 12" pod. He created the 1/12 MRC Mercury capsule kit, and had plans to do a styrene Moon bus before it aparently fell thru. Though I hear rumors of him doing the bus in resin, I can't seem to find mention of it on his site.

Here's his site:
http://p197.ezboard.com/batomiccity
 
#20 · (Edited)
I e-mailed you some rare reference pictures and a perspective study I posted about in CultTVman's forum a long while back. I also sent another e-mail of an interior drawing I made showing possible adjustments to match the movie set. I hope you got them. BTW, there is a glimpse of the rear cabin wall showing a vent or something there. I included a DVD capture of it in my first e-mail to you.
 
#21 ·
All I can say is: Huzzah, huzzah!

I've been collecting material to do just this sort of thing one of these days, but now that you're on the case there's no need. Given your track record with the TOS Shuttlecraft, you'll probably have complete working plans and an operations manual turned out in a matter of weeks!

For the record, I've been convinced for a while now that Aurora had it right when it comes to basic proportions of the exterior. I'm happy to see your confirmation of this.

Look for an email from me with some rare stuff that's come into my possession which will probably lay the scale question to rest. With the tools you have available in Microstation it should be child's play to scale the studio model with it.

Mark
 
#22 · (Edited)
I typically am off-line sat, sun, and mon so am only just now getting back to see everybodys postings. Thanks for all the support, guys. The Moonbus is a subject that a great many modelers seem to be interested in but has been very neglected when it comes to publishing reference material or in the manufacturing of kits. Scott's kit would be a really welcome addition to the model scene, if he can bring it to market.

It is frustrating but I will have to wait until I get home tonight to see the reference material that everyone has sent me. I BIG THANK YOU to all who sent stuff, every little bit helps!!!

Currently my drawing indicates that the Moonbus is exactly 40 feet long. This means that it will be 7 feet long at "GI Joe scale"... :cool:
 
#24 ·
Back in the day of Aurora, I imagined the moonbus to be more of a moon train. The rear bulkhead looked like it was more for coupling to another section than backing up to an airlock.

Speaking of airlock, how did they get in and out? Evacuate the entire interior's air? For such a large vehicle they'd need something to save time/air.

Any thoughts? (yeah yeah it was just a movie, but most of the systems portrayed had a strong foot in reality (see: Aries toilet instructions).
 
#25 ·
At 40 feet long, it'll fit in my backyard with wallk-around room! Okay, maybe not. Definitely the interior will be snugger than what we see on screen. Thanks for taking this on! It's about time someone tried to nail this one. Scott Alexander seems to have done much research on the Moonbus. If anyone has most of the answers about it, he would.
 
#26 ·
Yeah, first thing I wanted to know was whether or not it would fit in my driveway at full scale. I knew it was pretty small but not small enough, Drat! Been threatening to build something 1-to-1 scale for some time now but the Moonbus is just a little too big.

Good idea about the "train", that thought had never occurred to me but has possibilities. The rear hatch seems to be the only way in or out of the Moonbus. Generally the ships "appear" to be grounded in science but in most cases either cannot work (Aries interior is totally screwed up and too big to boot) or make no sense (Discovery "Pods" being a prime example).

But "that's Hollywood", whatever side of the "pond" you're on. We all love the ships anyway, inspite of their obvious flaws.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top