Re: moonbase and Sky 1 - above or below surface?

Dave wrote "they need some cool looking base to show in their scenes. It
would have been rather
boring to have them open up the moonbase scenes with the camera just showing
the plowed empty lunar surface above the base...."

My view exactly, Dave! We can try to ferret out what would be proper or even
scientifically realistic, but the bottom line is that UFO was a TV show with
a finite budget and needed to appeal visually to its audience. I have to
admit I find the sight of the Interceptors taking off, or Sky 1 separating
from it's parent sub, very visually satisfying, even tho I know that
technically, they are virtually unworkable!

Ciao - Pam

--- In SHADO@y..., "Pam McCaughey" <editor@a...> wrote:
> I have to admit I find the sight of the Interceptors taking off, or
> Sky 1 separating from it's parent sub, very visually satisfying,
> even tho I know that technically, they are virtually unworkable!

I agree. But then it wouldn't be a Gerry Anderson show without all the
cool stuff like that. Besides I just try to imagine some superlight
superstrong corrosion resistant material (like Niven's "hulmetal") for
Sky 1. Way back when, it was not hard to believe the futuristic world
of "1980" would have them.

Just one problem though. When Skydiver tilts back to launch Sky 1, why
aren't the people inside all tilted over as well?

ttfn,
Teresa