|
Author
|
Topic: Barbolight's Apollo ACR penlight replica
|
DMScott
Member Posts: 354
From: Lexington, MA, USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-24-2017 04:01 PM
   
The Apollo penlight (replica) on Kickstarter: In 1968, the company ACR supplied for NASA a series of flashlights that would be used in the APOLLO missions, from VII to XVII... 48 years later we decided to pay homage to those heroic times of space exploration, times that left. [Javier Barbarin] has scrupulously respected the external appearance and dimensions, but instead of an incandescent bulb that was very unreliable and had high consumption we have installed a high efficiency LED, which together with a diffuse optics make up a perfect light to work in a confined environment. I have an unflown original of the penlight and it is amazing. I always wished for one I could use. I am not affiliated with this project other than by backing it. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-24-2017 04:49 PM
Thanks for the heads-up. Backed. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-24-2017 05:09 PM
Excellent, wanted one for ages. |
Panther494
Member Posts: 402
From: London UK
Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 07-24-2017 05:39 PM
Very nice. I've signed up. |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-26-2017 04:11 PM
Has the creator of this campaign advertised outside the space community? There are entire forums dedicated to collecting flashlights and carried gear.That may be the only way this one might make it. |
Ronpur
Member Posts: 1211
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012
|
posted 07-26-2017 04:49 PM
That is a lot of backers to get by the 12th of August. I signed up. I hope it gets done. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-27-2017 06:47 AM
I'm in. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-27-2017 09:09 PM
I'm keenly interested in seeing this funded (I don't know the producer and have no personal stake in this other than just wanting a replica penlight), so I posted about it on a Facebook group dedicated to flashlights. (Who knew there was one?)In any case, someone pointed out that the only real departures from an absolutely authentic replica are that (1) it has an LED bulb instead of incandescent; and (2) because the LED bulb gooses up the lumen output, he went with a diffuse lens instead of a clear one. I learned that the reason he did so was to preserve the penlight's ability to be used in close quarters (to make the beam spread out more quickly rather than a concentrated beam that would be useful over long distances). There's more here on the early prototypes of this replica. The early versions got the knurling wrong, but later ones are pretty close to the actual flown hardware. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-27-2017 11:01 PM
Yeah, when I first saw that the lens wasn't clear I wasn't sure. I think it depends if you want to use it or just display it. I want to use it so on balance I'm OK with a diffuser type. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-28-2017 02:20 AM
I would think it shouldn't be terribly difficult to replace the lens if one was really determined about it. Heck, maybe the bulb for that matter. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-28-2017 08:35 AM
Three new options have been added: a "Gemini crew pack" of two penlights, a "Columbia crew pack" of four penlights, and an "Endeavour crew pack" with 10 penlights and custom laser engraving with a custom logo of your choice. |
neo1022
Member Posts: 281
From: Santa Monica, CA
Registered: Jun 2013
|
posted 07-28-2017 07:00 PM
I can't figure out why they chose to use a manufacture date of 04-76 on this? Seems to suggest this is a "post-ASTP" penlight — a period when nothing Apollo was happening... Would have been nicer if it was a replica the Apollo 11 pen in the Smithsonian. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-29-2017 05:05 AM
I think that's just an example. On the first page they state that the last original was manufactured in 1972. In the gallery they state manufacturing dates will be "real," I presume that means 2017. That's fine because it makes it harder for some unscrupulous person to try to pass one off as original. |
crash
Member Posts: 318
From: West Sussex, England
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-29-2017 11:42 AM
Very nice but I immediately spotted the '76 date after reading that the last batch were produced in 1972. Personally, it will be less of an authentic repro if it carries a date of 2017 and I am aware that the LED/diffuser have already taken away some it's authenticity. The date will stand out like a sore thumb. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-29-2017 12:44 PM
I agree that a more subtle form of identification as a reproduction is desirable. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-29-2017 09:04 PM
For me the date is not so important as a replica. I work in the aviation industry and my training has led me to think that if it were to have a manufacturing date that was back dated this would be more like an attempt to produce fake or bogus items rather than an authentic replica with a modern day twist. For people that want a sample that they can hold and use and try out or carry around then the date stamp is not such an issue because they won't be pristine flown examples that live in display cases and if you buy a replica for your own display just turn it around so people can't see the date and stand it on its end so they can't see its LED lamp. If you want an authentic item it's always going to be a problem. They do look really cool. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-30-2017 12:14 AM
I think the date should be after when those models went out of production, to prevent the very issue that David C raises: the inevitability that some unscrupulous person will sooner or later try to pass off a replica as genuine. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-30-2017 03:49 AM
The guy behind the project contacted me when he launched it as he'd been partly inspired by the flashlight page on my site. Although the lens stood out to me when I first took a look I'm happy with it now and in terms of the etching I'm very happy that they didn't copy the original text exactly.The approach here seems to be to create a modern usable flashlight that's inspired by the Apollo ACR flashlight rather than an exact replica. It's not an ACR product so shouldn't be marked "ACR". They've marked it as "BBL" because it's a Barbolight product. Personally I'm very happy with their approach and looking forward to getting my hands on one. |
rgarner
Member Posts: 1193
From: Shepperton, United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 07-30-2017 04:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
They've marked it as "BBL" because it's a Barbolight product.
So long as that is the case I can't see there being a problem. With that said, I believe all replicas should have the word "replica" on them somewhere. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-30-2017 05:18 AM
My view is it needs to be clearly identified as not being an original for the reason I mentioned earlier. However, I'm not sure this needs to be external, and certainly not in as obvious a way as date of manufacture and serial number.I'd be very happy to see it externally marked as a flown torch of known wherabouts (say Lovell's Apolo 13 torch which is with the Smithsonian). I think that BBL and an internal replica marking would more than suffice for anti-fraud purposes. I really don't think it needs to be completely ruined to save those that do zero research from themselves. |
neo1022
Member Posts: 281
From: Santa Monica, CA
Registered: Jun 2013
|
posted 07-30-2017 05:40 AM
My thoughts exactly, Dave... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-31-2017 07:32 AM
The project has now reached and surpassed its goal of 11,969 euros ($14,000 US) and will be funded. From Javier Barbarin: I want you to know that we have decided to contribute with a 3% of the funds of this project to the restoring of the Command Center in Houston, which is a project running also here, on Kickstarter. Without the Apollo project this one would be a nice nautical looking light, with quality components... but just that. So, it is fair to do this donation, which is being done by you all! Production has been launched (in fact was two days ago). |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-31-2017 01:57 PM
Great news, looking forward to mine. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-31-2017 03:02 PM
Excellent! |
Panther494
Member Posts: 402
From: London UK
Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 08-01-2017 07:04 AM
I've just received a survey request concerning what date to have applied on the penlight. This is good news, didn't really want 2017. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 08-01-2017 01:22 PM
Anyone going for 2017? |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 08-01-2017 02:59 PM
I went for 2017. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-02-2017 05:30 AM
My vote was for 2017 too... |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-02-2017 06:35 PM
I wanted 7-69. It was not a production date. Now they have decided to use the production date of 7-68. I wish they hadn't decided to use an actual production date for the penlight. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-02-2017 06:39 PM
Even with the use of a real production date, the inscription (at least as pictured on the prototype) will differ from an original by the use of "BBL" in place of "ACR." |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-02-2017 07:20 PM
I do understand that fact, but it would have ended any chance of an attempt to pass the penlight off as real to have a 2017 date or the date of the first moon landing. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 08-02-2017 10:39 PM
I feel that "BBL" is sufficient. Personally I'd have liked an internal distinguishing mark as well. |
neo1022
Member Posts: 281
From: Santa Monica, CA
Registered: Jun 2013
|
posted 08-03-2017 03:37 AM
Correct date! That's good news. The BBL is sufficient to identify it as a replica. A quick google search will make clear that it is not vintage. And as Dave suggested, having "replica" etched into some inconspicuous place — say, under the focusing ring — would provide further safeguards without compromising the appearance of the piece. Once we start letting lowest-common denominator concerns direct design decisions on an otherwise nice tribute piece, we might as just well save our money... |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-03-2017 09:54 AM
I guess it's much ado about nothing. It ain't the real thing, so whatever they do will be okay. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 08-03-2017 01:19 PM
Do they take PayPal for the flashlight? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-03-2017 01:21 PM
Per Kickstarter: We do not currently support PayPal as a payment or account set up method. In order to pledge towards a project on Kickstarter, backers must enter a valid credit or debit card onto our site. |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-05-2017 02:06 AM
The ACR FA-5 was used until January 1986 on the Space Shuttle. Sen. Jake Garn's from STS-51D was dated 1968, while some flew earlier with the 1972 date, so there doesn't seem to be any pattern of the dates and batches and when they flew. Its really an Apollo, Skylab, ASTP, and Shuttle (first 5 years) penlight.Starting with STS-26 through present the common black Maglite that is roughly the same size has been in use. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-12-2017 12:22 PM
The Kickstarter campaign ended today, having successfully raised about $26,135. 191 backers pledged €22,111 to help bring this project to life. Barbolight is thanking its backers by offering them a choice between the inscribed dates and the type of lenses: We have been reading all your comments and interests on this project. We know that most of you wanted engraved the date Neil Armstrong penlight, but some other wanted the real date. Some people was OK with the TIR lense of the optics, but some other wanted a more traditional solution, based on a aluminized reflector. Well, you are going to be able to choose.DATE OF MFG: 8-2017 or 7-1968; Optics type: TIR (lense), or Aluminun reflector + Sapphire lens with AR finish. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 09-07-2017 03:03 PM
I received the email today from Kickstarter asking which date/lens I wanted. What they don't seem to offer is different combinations of them if you ordered more than one. Has anyone asked the question yet?I'd like to have one for display and one for use, with different dates. As an aside... Robert did you go forward with collectSPACE logo idea? Just curious if those might get produced. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-07-2017 03:47 PM
I did not order the cS logo penlights. I did order a light for myself (without the logo). |
advertisement