Rockets of the World Nitpicks Wanted

[PeterAlway]

Recently, I've been converting over my drawing files from "Rockets of the World" and my other books. They are in MacDraw format, the long-obsolete software that I created them with, and I am turning them into 300 dpi GIF files, so that they can be imported into page layout software and the like. I'm pretty fuzzy about what I might do with these drawings, if anything.

While I'm dealing with the drawings, now would be a great time to fix any errors in them. If you know of any mistakes in any of my scale drawings, either in "Rockets of the World," "Retro Rockets," one of the supplements, or one of the missile booklets, now would be a great time to bring it to my attention, so I can fix it. I know I've made mistakes, and in some cases found better data (I just did a lot of revisions on the Pegasus, Terrapin, and R-11A/V-11A based on data I've picked up in the past 10 years), and it would be cool if some day some better drawings saw the light of day.

Peter Alway

 

[5x7]

That is great you are upgrading those. I always took your work as 'the gospel'!

I hope you produce another supplement someday.

 

[kruland]

The color scheme of the R7 Soyuz... Seriously, not the grey vs green thing (though that could be an interesting discussion) but rather the aero brake plates on the capsule. They are displayed with a hash pattern which makes them look like they should be "red", though examination of the photo on p57 shows them as white grids.

Thanks for the great resources and I hope to see another supplement someday.

Kevin

 

[jadebox]

I am turning them into 300 dpi GIF files, so that they can be imported into page layout software and the like.

Isn't there a vector format you can convert them into? A raster format, like GIF, won't scale to other sizes very well.

-- Roger

 

[dixontj93060]

Isn't there a vector format you can convert them into? A raster format, like GIF, won't scale to other sizes very well.

-- Roger

Yes, GIF is a very poor choice.

 

[mbauer]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for all that you do! Your drawings are some of the best. They show stationing and are clear compared to some scans.

GIF is fine, it is a workable solution, but when scaling the bitmap causes issues.

Prefer .dxf as I use AutoCAD for my rockets.

Wondering do you have a link that you might sell all of your drawings on a CD or DVD at?

Your Rocket of the World book is on my "to Buy" list. Keep seeing many references to it here and on other forums I visit.

Mike

 

[mdoering]

Peter,
If you have illustrator, you might try importing the images and doing a "live trace" to make a vector format version that will allow you to save as anything from gif, jpg, png, svg, eps, etc, etc Let me know if you need help, I'd be more than happy to help you out free of charge.

-Mark

 

[Reinhard]

Isn't there a vector format you can convert them into? A raster format, like GIF, won't scale to other sizes very well.

The MacDraw format seem rather exotic, but a couple of programs (none of which if heard previously about) claim to be able to open them:
https://formats.imageconverterplus.com/help-center/about-icp/supported-formats/mac/
https://www.eazydraw.com/importFormats.htm
https://www.purgatorydesign.com/Intaglio/

None of these programs are free, but the aren't that expensive either. If it allows to preserve these graphics in an exchangeable vector format, the money would be well spent - in my opinion.

One note, there appears to be a distinction between a MacDraw and a MacDraw II format. I'd suggest using trying an evaluation version or contacting the support before committing to a purchase.

Reinhard

 

[Ltulissi]

I'm a huge fan of Peter's work and probably have most of his published books. I would be very excited to see updated offerings incorporating new data in the future. I would think that whatever format allows Peter to continue to market his current body of work in a manner that allows him to recoup some of his investment will be a good choice. Just because vector drawings make sence to some potential buyers, it may not make sence to someone who is creating books like Peter has. As nice as it may be to have scaleable vector files, having electronic copies of your work floating around for anyone to copy may not make very good business sense.

Given that most of the dimensional data is provided in the drawings it would be relatively easy for an end user to pick up a simple drawing program, learn to use it and create their own vector drawings. Thats no more that some people are asking Peter to do but on a much larger scale.

LT

 

[jadebox]

Just because vector drawings make sence to some potential buyers, it may not make sence to someone who is creating books like Peter has.

I don't think you understand. It's not a matter of preference. Storing drawings in a raster format means that they can only be printed and displayed at one specific size. Any time they are resized - smaller or larger - they will be distorted. If you enlarge a drawing stored in a raster format, the sharp lines become fat and blurry. If you shrink a drawing stored in a raster format, smaller lines disappear. Vector formats allow drawings to be resized without losing detail.

Here's an example. The picture below is based on a line drawing that Chris Michielssen created for his Odd'l Rockets' Blast product. It is a montage showing parts of the drawing (as a raster image) at actual size, enlarged, and reduced. The actual size drawing is nice and sharp. The enlarged picture is blurry. The reduced picture is missing some of the lines. If you, however, started with Chris's original vector image file, you could easily resize it without distorting the drawing.

​

If Peter were to convert all of his drawings to raster formats (and lose the original files or the ability to convert them), then he would never be able to print or display the drawings at any other size. That would be a big problem because, for example, the resolution needed to display something on the internet is quite different than the resolution needed to print it in a book.

-- Roger

 

[PeterAlway]

The color scheme of the R7 Soyuz... Seriously, not the grey vs green thing (though that could be an interesting discussion) but rather the aero brake plates on the capsule. They are displayed with a hash pattern which makes them look like they should be "red", though examination of the photo on p57 shows them as white grids.

Thanks for the great resources and I hope to see another supplement someday.

Kevin

Thanks. This is the kind of advice I was requesting.

Peter Alway

 

[PeterAlway]

I don't think you understand. It's not a matter of preference. Storing drawings in a raster format means that they can only be printed and displayed at one specific size. Any time they are resized - smaller or larger - they will be distorted. If you enlarge a drawing stored in a raster format, the sharp lines become fat and blurry. If you shrink a drawing stored in a raster format, smaller lines disappear. Vector formats allow drawings to be resized without losing detail.

I am fully aware of these issues. I am retaining my MacDraw drawings for exactly these (and many other) reasons. However, I have found that 300 dpi raster drawings are absolutely fine for print reproduction.

In the long run, those MacDraw drawings will not live forever. They require obsolete software, which in turn requires obsolete hardware. Almost nobody can read them, edit them, or print them. I need to have them in a form that I can submit to Sport Rocketry, email to friends, alter to post online, and import into page layout software. That form also has to be one that my obsolete computer can produce with zero budget (unless someone wants to pay me a living salary for this work and hire me a local IT specialist, that's how it's going to be). So guess what? 300 dpi GIF files are the best choice available. The quality of printouts from these files matches or exceeds the quality of reproduction in "Rockets of the World" and "Retro Rockets." In fact it is exactly how I produced the RotW supplements from 2002 onward, and the Soviet Missile book.

Oh, and by the way, I've already converted the whole collection--over 300 drawing subjects, many with multiple pages to GIF format. It's done. I was actually asking for corrections I could go back and make.

Now, if you don't like my choice of software and document formats, that's fine. But rather than complain about my mistaken use of technology, why not take a few years of your life, dig into some archives, search the internet, heck, even use my stuff as a reference, and develop your own drawing style using the software you prefer, and draw up 300-400 pages of vector-graphic drawings that you can distribute any way you please.

Peter "Mr. Crankypants" Alway

 

[Gus]

Roger,

I was with Peter a few nights ago and got a chance to see the new drawings.

First, the fact that he has rescued them from MacDraw and MacPaint is a HUGE benefit to all of us. This has been an ENORMOUS amount of work as he has been checking and refining each illustration as he goes. If you know Peter, you know he is an absolute perfectionist, which is why he posted this thread in the first place. He would truly love for folks here to point out bits and pieces of drawings which should be corrected or could be improved in some way. As Peter began this effort he spent quite a bit of time checking the web for new info but most of what comes up are either the sources he used to create his drawings or, more frequently, just copies of his own drawings, LOL.

As for the format he is using, the printouts from his home printer were superior to anything, quality-wise, which currently appears in any edition of ROTW. Just beautiful.

I am incredibly grateful Peter's interest in rocketry has returned and that he has been willing to make the huge effort to rescue these drawings from his old Bondi-blue iMac. If they are never printed at any other size or format than what he is currently doing (the same format as ROTW) we should still all be thrilled that he's back in the game. The new versions are just truly beautiful.

And as for suggestions, I have personally volunteered to provide info on the Pad Abort 1 (PA-2 is in the book).

I encourage the rest of you who have used any of Peter's books to build something and noticed something askew or missing, to not hesitate to let Peter know. His true joy in doing these books is in finding out what folks are using and really paying attention to.

I actually brought a few of my copies of his various works for him to sign the other night and, rather than just opening to the title page to sign, Peter actually went through each piece (which I had picked up on the used book market) to see what pages had glue, pencil, or highlighter on them. We examined each find like an archeologist discovering an important artifact. It was huge fun for both of us but, for Peter, each time he opened a page which had been used it was validation of the hours and hours and hours and hundreds of small decisions he made creating that page. He truly has intimate knowledge of each page of each of his books so finding someone paid particular attention to this or that line was really meaningful to him.

So, again, if any of you have anything in any of his works which you think could be improved, please weigh in and let him know.


Steve

 

[jadebox]

Now, if you don't like my choice of software and document formats, that's fine. But rather than complain about my mistaken use of technology ....

I was not complaining. I was trying to help. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.

-- Rogert

 

[mdoering]

Peter,
I think you took that entirely the wrong way. I also think your response was a bit harsh. Roger's response was to someone that was suggesting that vector based drawings were not going to make sense to consumers of your information, which was off base because it's not the consumer who would be dealing with them.

My offer still stands for converting your gifs into a vector based format free of charge. When it comes time to do something like an e-book where images will be displayed on extreme high res displays (like the retina ipad) vector graphics will be your friend. In addition to being more scalable and future proof (i.e. you won't ever have to deal with the mess you're in now again) vector graphics are also much smaller files since it's the math that computes the line segments that is stored and transmitted as opposed to binary representations of RGB values for each individual pixel. As for these formats not working with page layout software used in the publishing world, that's incorrect. Most line drawings begin their life as vector graphics. A format like eps and svg can easily be opened by anyone, and furthermore, even pdf files can be used as a shell for another vector format for distribution.

Let me know if you'd like the help... If you send me one of the 300dpi images (any one) I'll work on it a bit and send it back so you can see an example...

 

[mbauer]

However, I have found that 300 dpi raster drawings are absolutely fine for print reproduction.

Oh, and by the way, I've already converted the whole collection--over 300 drawing subjects, many with multiple pages to GIF format. It's done. I was actually asking for corrections I could go back and make.

Now, if you don't like my choice of software and document formats, that's fine. But rather than complain about my mistaken use of technology, why not take a few years of your life, dig into some archives, search the internet, heck, even use my stuff as a reference, and develop your own drawing style using the software you prefer, and draw up 300-400 pages of vector-graphic drawings that you can distribute any way you please.

Peter "Mr. Crankypants" Alway

Hi Peter,

Bought your book ROTW, it arrived a couple of days ago. Been going through it. Your drawings are very clear and precise. You are correct about the print being excellent!

I draw my models using autocad.

With your dimensioning and stationing, it is easy to start a new drawing, use a centerline, offset lines from base station -0 and then add the correct diameter at the stationing. No need to scan anything into autocad at all. What really makes it nice is the angles you show for the nosecones, haven't seen any other scale drawings that do that, makes it nice for a double check.
To top it off, you show the best top views Ive seen showing placement of tunnels, text, shrouds and fairings.

It is easy to see that you've spent allot of time researching your subjects! Thank you for doing so! Fantastic book at any price!

From all of your research, do you have any suggestions about where to look for resources that show rivet patterns, panel lines and umbilical plug shapes and locations?

I've found several photos on-line of the Mercury Redstones. From these and a couple of drawings supplied by a friend, I was able to add such details to my Redstone Projects. Presently I'm working on the Atlas Mercury Friendship 7 and would like to add more detail stuff to the Atlas Rocket body (panel lines). Attached a couple of photos to show the kind of detail I am looking for.


My rockets are simple tubes/cones with the detail parts shown as graphics only. I use compressed air to launch them, so any "parts" add weight and drag.

Like you say about the time spent researching and archiving for your drawings, it takes hours and hours, plus uses big chunks of hard drive space.

Two more questions:
Have you done any drawings on the Dyna Soar?
Do you have an index of the rockets in each of your supplements?

As much as I would like to buy them all, I just don't have that kind of money. It took three months of budgeting for your ROTW book at only $38.

Your book will save me money and time, Thank you!

Best regards,
Mike Bauer

 

[meega]

Since I just got ROTW two weeks ago, it seems a little soon to nitpick, but here goes:

My primary interest is the Aerobee family of rockets. Since I haven't seen a lot of visual references on the Aerobee 300, the fist thing that I noticed was a discrepancy between the drawing on p.106(along with the Navy & Air Force Aerobee-Hi), and the photo on p.108, both labeled as IGY flight AA 10.02(AF 30). The discrepancy is that the drawing has the fairings/conduit running from the fins to the base of the Sparrow. The photo on p.108 shows only a short section of fairing/conduit near the Sparrow base and a line of "bumps" or "brackets" where the rest of the conduit should be. Since this rocket is in a shop it could be under construction, but the photo that has floated around the web forever, and probably the one Estes got the silver color scheme from, also shows a somewhat longer(but still short fairing) along with the same "bump/bracket" feature...even along the outside of the fairing itself. I have not seen a feature like this on any other Aerobee. This other photo shows fins marked "IGY", but no flight # associated to it.

Although your drawing & photo shows antenna or fins below the Sparrow's nose cone payload, the other photo and the models don't........how common is this feature?

Where did the idea for the red fairing tips come from? Are there color photos around?

...and lastly, I've never come across the rhyme or reason to the fins flight numbering(NRL 41, AF 12, ETC) if any, and at the same time some boosters are marked....some not.

I realize not all of your readers are modeler's, but for those who are the devil is in the details.

~Paul

 

[shrox]

I have over a million years of experience and I say vector format.

Peter your books are great, I would love to render a cover for your book.

 

[mbauer]

Hi Peter,

Enjoying reading your ROTW Fourth Edition.

While drawing the Project Bumper B-8 Rocket, found a few "nitpicks", thought they might be shown on the V-2 drawing; They're not.

What STA are the spin rockets located at?

What STA do the WAC fins angle change?

By placing a straight edge along the fuselage of the V-2 it looks like the lower fin angle changes to horizontal, but at what STA does this happen? (inside near the steering vanes).

Notice that you forgot to add the Diameter symbol for the Diameters for any of the Diameters located on the V-2 stabilizer fins.

All in all a Great Book! Enjoying reading and learning about rockets I haven't known about.

I'm not scanning the pages, just using centerlines and diameters shown to offset for the STA you show. That is why noticed the missing STA for certain items.

Plan is to turn the Bumper B-8 into a compressed Air Powered rocket at 1/10 scale (internal PSI tube will still fit inside WAC = better performance [1/12 scale it won't])

Mike

 

[brianc]

Peter,

Thank you very much for reviving and updating RoTW!

I've dug thru a couple of my build threads where we had already traded a few nitpicks.
They're summarized here in case you didn't retain the notes.

Maxus 1 https://www.rocketryforumarchive.com/showthread.php?t=18414

* fin span missing from drawing

ISRO SLV-3 https://www.rocketryforumarchive.com/showthread.php?t=21752

* red striping on drawing differs from pictures (count & width)

HTH!!

 

[Ez2cDave]

Peter,

Josh Tschirhart and I have been collaborating on obtaining precise data for 18.26 IA since 2004 ( Numerous FOIA requests, correspondence, telephone calls, German Translations, etc ). As it stands now, our highly-detailed Scale Pack is in the final stages of completion, with Josh adding the final touches. Tom Beach is awaiting the material for the NAR magazine.

Your data on Nike-Tomahawk 18.26 IA has several errors in it and is lacking in detail, particularly the de-spin module ( We obtained an actual blueprint drawing for it through FOIA ). This is not your fault, but it was caused by your two main sources of original data. The 1974 & 1983 Model Rocketeer articles BOTH contain outright errors and conflicting data.

I strongly suggest that you contact Josh Tschihart at Meatball Rocketry. He should be willing to help you deal with the issues in your data, Peter !

https://meatballrocketry.com/

https://meatballrocketry.com/nike-tomahawk-data-project/

Best Wishes !

Dave Fitch

 

[mbauer]

Hi Peter,

Redstone page 204 has a typo. Says Soviets nuclear in 1959, should be 1949. (edition Four).

Curious about the Bumper WAC-8. Wiki says the Bumper Wac-2 was the first launch from Cape Canaveral, your books says number 8 was.

I'm going to be busy designing rockets, lots of interesting stuff in your book, very interesting reading! Drawings are excellent!

Mike

 

[Raptor 2]

Hi Peter
In working on my Ariane 5 JWST build I’m using your drawing. I’ve discovered an error in the location of the small secondary strut at the bottom of the SRB. Have attached a revised drawing for your review. Thanks for all your info you have provided to our community.
Al8

 

[PeterAlway]

Thanks! I've printed it out for future reference.

Hi Peter
In working on my Ariane 5 JWST build I’m using your drawing. I’ve discovered an error in the location of the small secondary strut at the bottom of the SRB. Have attached a revised drawing for your review. Thanks for all your info you have provided to our community.
Al8

 

[jhill9693]

(I just did a lot of revisions on the Pegasus, Terrapin, and R-11A/V-11A based on data I've picked up in the past 10 years

@PeterAlway I have ROTW third edition, and am drawing up plans for a 1:6 scale Terrapin. Where can I find the updated scale data? On a cursory search, your book and this screenshot from a publication is the only source data I can find.



Both leave some key dimensions left to guesswork. Thanks in advance!

 

[PeterAlway]

I've found some better material since RotW, so here is an updated drawing. I believe it is both more detailed and more accurate.

 

[jhill9693]

I've found some better material since RotW, so here is an updated drawing. I believe it is both more detailed and more accurate.

Thank you!!!

 

[jhill9693]

This look about right?

 

[grillsjosephbus]

Great first scratch scale model

 

[jazzviper1]

My biggest nit pick is that it's not in print any more!