Interceptors

Hello all,
I would think the "rescue" decal is for morale purposes, much as our pilots today carry a sidearm. The sidearm is fairly useless when confronted by an enemy platoon with automatic rifles, heavy caliber machine guns, etc. but having it is infinitely better then NOT having one. Perhaps the decal represents a radar reflector, IFF type system for the rescue craft. More likely, the rescue decal denotes the side of the interceptor that a rescue craft has to mate with the interceptor due to the docking mechanisms being on that side. Being in Space or on the lunar surface a proper docking would need to be made before a rescue could be attempted. Once the airtight seal/docking has been made then the pilot could be rescued, first aid rendered etc.

It has also been noted that the Interceptors are small so I would assume that they have limited fuel range. In addition, since they are kept on "alert" status, I assume they are kept ready to launch, i.e. engines warmed and/or running, missile loaded, systems up (like communications/ computer) and is therefore burning fuel. So a pilot sent out on an intercept mission may have to fly out, launch his missile, then fly an evasive return route and try to navigate back to base with less then a full tank of fuel, which is limited to start with. The rescue decal might mark where a fuel-tanker vehicle "tops off" the fuel load.

Has anyone (or maybe everyone?) noted that moonbase must have a great artificial gravity system to make a slide work on the moon? Just how far are the launch silo's from moonbase? I'm assuming, since moonbase has 0% capacity to support it's operation and must receive all their supplies from Earth, even oxygen, then the Interceptor silo's are de-pressurized before launch. I would guess the Pilot's slide must have several airtight doors, assuming they end in the silo, that open and close as the pilot slides through.
Lastly, does anyone else get a chill up & down their spine when Lt. Ellis say "Interceptors One, Two and Three. Immediate launch!

--- In [hidden email], <rkrueg@t...> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I would think the "rescue" decal is for morale purposes, much as
our pilots today carry a sidearm. The sidearm is fairly useless when
confronted by an enemy platoon with automatic rifles, heavy caliber
machine guns, etc. but having it is infinitely better then NOT
having one. Perhaps the decal represents a radar reflector, IFF type
system for the rescue craft... [stuff deleted]
> ...It has also been noted that the Interceptors are small so I
would assume that they have limited fuel range. In addition, since
they are kept on "alert" status, I assume they are kept ready to
launch, i.e. engines warmed and/or running, missile loaded, systems
up (like communications/ computer) and is therefore burning fuel. So
a pilot sent out on an intercept mission may have to fly out, launch
his missile, then fly an evasive return route and try to navigate
back to base with less then a full tank of fuel, which is limited to
start with. The rescue decal might mark where a fuel-tanker
vehicle "tops off" the fuel load.

I think it would be misleading an even dangerous to put an
indication (rescue decal) on the interceptors for "morale purposes".
One has to assume that the interceptor pilots were professionals
with a lot of training, who would know the risks of flying the
interceptors. In case of an emergency, you want the people trying to
help to have precise information about what they can do and cannot
do to help. The rescue decal could have indicated that pressing a
button would blow up the canopy. But somewhere there should had been
an indication saying this was to be done only within a pressurized
chamber. Of course, the most likely explanation for the decal is
that the model builder was thinking about a military aircraft, and
the decal would add "coolness" to the model, but I don't think they
thought much about the details involved in actually trying to rescue
an interceptor pilot.

Regarding the propulsion system on the interceptors, does anyone
know any details? It couldn't have been anything we use nowadays for
rocket propulsion, since the interceptors would had needed huge fuel
thanks. Did they ever mentioned how fast they could go??

David Levine

Does Lt. Ellis saying, "Interceptors One, Two and Three. Immediate Launch."
send a chill up and down my spine. Yes. Particularly when she is very close
when doing it.




James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anytime Lt. Ellis says anything at all i get tingles - "honey would you take
out the garbage" would be poetry from those lips <sigh>

David Levine <[hidden email]> wrote:
--- In [hidden email], wrote:
> Hello all,
> ...It has also been noted that the Interceptors are small so I
would assume that they have limited fuel range. In addition, since
they are kept on "alert" status, I assume they are kept ready to
launch, i.e. engines warmed and/or running, missile loaded, systems up (like communications/ computer) and is therefore burning fuel. So a pilot sent out on an intercept mission may have to fly out, launch his missile, then fly an evasive return route and try to navigate back to base with less then a full tank of fuel, which is limited to start with. The rescue decal might mark where a fuel-tanker vehicle "tops off" the fuel load.


Why would you think that they are "Running" since they obviously aren't belching flame (Or anything else for that matter) from the exhaust ports. Despite the clear precence of what look like standard rocket exhausts, I have never seen anything come out of them. Therefore, it is a mystery to me as to what kind of thrust sytem they do use. Even in the "Launch" sequence they have no visible way of rising from the launch pad. (Yes I know how they did it on the show, but we are talking "Reality" here.)

Every other spaceship is shown using standard rockets so why are the Interceptors diffrent? Was this just lazyness on the part of the production staff, or some kind of deliberate action?


One has to assume that the interceptor pilots were professionals with a lot of training, who would know the risks of flying the interceptors. In case of an emergency, you want the people trying to help to have precise information about what they can do and cannot do to help.

An interesting point there. Since we only saw three Interceptor pilots, even after Bill (?) was killed in Surviver, just who were the men and where did they train?

As I mentioned in an earlier E-mail, many details of both MoonBase and SkyDiver are missing. Some of them have been worked out in some of the FanFics, but that isn't Cannon, so we will have to come up with ideals that seem to "Fit into the Jigsaw puzzle" that they left us. I must admit that I like working on some of these just for the fun of it.

I also see since I have been working on this off and on for two days that someone has beaten me to the punch with one of my pet peves for SubSmash, about how there was all the room in the world in the escape trunk for people (No doubt to make it easier to film) Will write more on SubSmash in a bit.


Regarding the propulsion system on the interceptors, does anyone
know any details? It couldn't have been anything we use nowadays for
rocket propulsion, since the interceptors would had needed huge fuel
thanks. Did they ever mentioned how fast they could go??

David Levine


If anyone has mentioned the speed, range or any other "Official" data on the Interceptors, then I have missed it. Any one have anything that is cannon?



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas
<screwedmorethenonce@y...> wrote:
>
>
> David Levine <dlevine2100@y...> wrote:
> --- In [hidden email], wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > ...It has also been noted that the Interceptors are small so I
> would assume that they have limited fuel range. In addition, since
> they are kept on "alert" status, I assume they are kept ready to
> launch, i.e. engines warmed and/or running, missile loaded,
systems up (like communications/ computer) and is therefore burning
fuel. So a pilot sent out on an intercept mission may have to fly
out, launch his missile, then fly an evasive return route and try to
navigate back to base with less then a full tank of fuel, which is
limited to start with. The rescue decal might mark where a fuel-
tanker vehicle "tops off" the fuel load.

Robert,

Minor point, but please try to keep the excerpts from previous posts
straight, contrary to what it looks in your previous post (relevant
part copied above), I did not write the first paragraph above, I was
referencing what someone else wrote, and as I recall, I gave proper
reference.

Anyhow, it would be hard to "fix" the problems (give a reasonable
believable explanation) with the interceptors' propulsion system.
First of all, you probably have noticed that when they take off, you
can hear the engines roaring. In reality, in space, sound does not
travel through vacuum. I remember reading that Gerry Anderson et al
knew this well, but nevertheless added the sound to make the take
off more spectacular.

Most likely, obviously, they didn't include "sparks" or
a "combustion flame" coming off the engines just to make the models
less complicated and to save money. The only exception to this that
I can recall is the lunar module during landing...

David Levine

> Regarding the propulsion system on the interceptors, does anyone
> know any details?

Countdown did publish a cutaway of an interceptor in one of their annuals
once, back in the early 70s. It clearly showed fuel tanks etc. Of course, that
might well be nothing to do with the original series' artists concepts but could
simply have been drawn 'in house' by Polystyle Publications.

Dave.

> Most likely, obviously, they didn't include "sparks" or
> a "combustion flame" coming off the engines just to make the models
> less complicated and to save money. The only exception to this that
> I can recall is the lunar module during landing...

And let's face it, the production teams never dreamed that the shows would
be looked at in aything like that level of detail. Let alone examined and
picked over some 30-odd years hence!

Dave.

Fuel tanks for what though? As can be clearly seen in the opening credits, the Interceptors blow "Dust" around when they launch, but you can not see any flames or other methods of movement for the Interceptors themselves.

>Countdown did publish a cutaway of an interceptor in one of their annuals
>once, back in the early 70s. It clearly showed fuel tanks etc.

--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas
<screwedmorethenonce@y...> wrote:
> Fuel tanks for what though? As can be clearly seen in the opening
credits, the Interceptors blow "Dust" around when they launch, but
you can not see any flames or other methods of movement for the
Interceptors themselves.

By the way, that reminds me... clearly, the interceptors take off
semi-vertically, but now that I think about it, I don't remember
seeing a nozzle somewhere on the "belly" of the interceptors
(required for a vertical take off). Am I correct? Was that an
oversight by the model builders? Or is there perhaps a mechanism
like in the Harrier aircraft to redirect the propulsion flow
downwards??

David Levine

>By the way, that reminds me... clearly, the interceptors take off
>semi-vertically, but now that I think about it, I don't remember
>seeing a nozzle somewhere on the "belly" of the interceptors
>(required for a vertical take off). Am I correct?

There *is* something that looks like an exhaust port on the bottom
of the Interceptors:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/int_btm.jpg

Marc

At 06:09 PM 5/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >By the way, that reminds me... clearly, the interceptors take off
> >semi-vertically, but now that I think about it, I don't remember
> >seeing a nozzle somewhere on the "belly" of the interceptors
> >(required for a vertical take off). Am I correct?
>
>There *is* something that looks like an exhaust port on the bottom
>of the Interceptors:
>
> http://www.starshipmodeler.com/other/int_btm.jpg

Yeah, it's a recessed nozzle, lying flush with the underside of the
craft. It's easy to miss, especially if you have the Bandai model (The only
thing under there is the mounting slot for a display base), but the Konami
mini model does have the vertical thrust port.

BTW, I'm baaaaaack! 8-D



"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!"

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]

Robert,

Strangely enough neither did the Apollo LM Ascent Module when it
left the lunar surface. If you've ever seen the famous film footage from
Apollo 17 IIRC there is no visible flame from its takeoff either, just
dust and debris from the launch.

Tom Bryant

Flaming exhausts are primitive technology - the Interceptors must use a form
of ion drive - charged particles that provide the thrust - hence no visible
exhaust - just dust getting blown around.

As for the pilots and the chutes they slide down - as was pointed out the
gravity is one sixth that of earth so a slide would be very slow - unless it
was like those pneumatic message tubes we used to use in the department
stores to send messages from department to department - with compressed air
pushing the pilots down the chute, with some form of airlocking in the
interceptor storage bays to reduce air loss. Alternatively, if the parking
bays were pressurised up to the time the pilots entered the interceptors and
the cockpits closed - the air could be pumped out prior to launch and stored
for reuse - perhaps in the air recycling facility (hydroponic gardens would
conveniently convert the CO2 to Oxygen and can be augmented by more
technical filtering and chemical processing to provide all the oxygen
required for Moonbase to operate). Grey water would similarly need to be
recycled as would black water.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Interceptors


> >By the way, that reminds me... clearly, the interceptors take off
> >semi-vertically, but now that I think about it, I don't remember
> >seeing a nozzle somewhere on the "belly" of the interceptors
> >(required for a vertical take off). Am I correct?
>
> There *is* something that looks like an exhaust port on the bottom
> of the Interceptors:

Explanation for no visible flame as applied to interceptors and Apollo Lunar
Modules is that although combustion takes place - this takes place inside
the engine - once the gases exit the engine - there is no oxygen to sustain
combustion and therefore no flames will be or can be seen as they are
effectively snuffed out on exit the confines of the engine nozzles.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Bryant" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Interceptors



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03

In a message dated 05/05/03 10:27:39 GMT Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> Amelia (considering seppuku after looking at the price of the Japanese dvds
> and wondering how much the UFO book will be)
>

Don't do it, just watched someone do that on Shogun!




Claire






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "David Richards" <davrich@b...> wrote:
>Explanation for no visible flame as applied to interceptors and
Apollo Lunar>Modules is that although combustion takes place - this
takes place
inside
>the engine - once the gases exit the engine - there is no oxygen to
sustain
>combustion and therefore no flames will be or can be seen as they are
effectively snuffed out on exit the confines of the engine nozzles.
I don't agree with this. You can see the "flame" of the space shuttle
engines all the way until they are shut off (burning hydrogen with
oxygen). On the other hand, with the Apollo Lunar modules, they used
hypergolic propellants, hydrazine and something else. You probably
could had seen the "flame" if you had been just underneath the
nozzle. Actually, you can see a small flame when the reaction control
system (small thrusters to control attitude) fires.

> Flaming exhausts are primitive technology - the Interceptors must
use a form
> of ion drive - charged particles that provide the thrust - hence no
visible
> exhaust - just dust getting blown around.
I don't remember the physics of ion propulsion, but my guess is that
you would need much bigger ion engines than what the interceptors
show to produce enough thrust like what they show when the
interceptors take off.

I think the main issue is that they just modeled the interceptors
having in mind that they were like combat aircraft, but with some
changes because they would be in space. Near the missile, they have
something that looks like air intakes. It is also interesting to see
that they have skids, like if they could land horizontally... I don't
think these could be of much use on the moon!

David Levine

Apprently not. Some people have posted pics of the underside of the interceptor, and there is some kind of exhaust or other port along the centerline of the craft. However, your guess is as good as mine, as to whether this would be sufficent to lift the craft up in a straight line or not. I would think that you would want at least two jets to ensure that you didn't tilt in one or more dimensions.Also, with only one port, how would you control your lateral motion? This would be great for going up and down, but there is no apparent way to vector the thrust to change the direction of your flight, as with the Harrier.By the way, have we gotten to Annal Retentive yet?

David Levine <[hidden email]> wrote:--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas
wrote:
> Fuel tanks for what though? As can be clearly seen in the opening
credits, the Interceptors blow "Dust" around when they launch, but
you can not see any flames or other methods of movement for the
Interceptors themselves.

By the way, that reminds me... clearly, the interceptors take off
semi-vertically, but now that I think about it, I don't remember
seeing a nozzle somewhere on the "belly" of the interceptors
(required for a vertical take off). Am I correct? Was that an
oversight by the model builders? Or is there perhaps a mechanism
like in the Harrier aircraft to redirect the propulsion flow
downwards??

David Richards <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flaming exhausts are primitive technology - the Interceptors must use a form
of ion drive - charged particles that provide the thrust - hence no visible
exhaust - just dust getting blown around.


If there are no flames, then why do es every picture I have ever seen of the Interceptors have blackened exhaust nozzles like you would see in a rocket power ship?


As for the pilots and the chutes they slide down - as was pointed out the
gravity is one sixth that of earth so a slide would be very slow - unless it
was like those pneumatic message tubes we used to use in the department
stores to send messages from department to department - with compressed air
pushing the pilots down the chute, with some form of airlocking in the
interceptor storage bays to reduce air loss. Alternatively, if the parking
bays were pressurised up to the time the pilots entered the interceptors and
the cockpits closed - the air could be pumped out prior to launch and stored
for reuse -

Interesting thoughts on the chutes, but i am not sure how you would be able to do a hot launch if you had to wait for the bay to depressurize each time. Considering the volume of the launch tubes, you are talking about a lot of air there.

Perhaps they have an airlock that they hover through, before getting to the main launch bay, so as to reduce the loss of air as much as possible.

As I noted before, there are many things that are left to our imangination as to how they actually did things on MoonBase.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> BTW, I'm baaaaaack! 8-D

Hi, Dave. Nice to see you back :)

Dave.