Real life SHADO

I think they hooked up a giant shop-vac, and just sucked them back up the chutes. ; )

Jeff

Rob Neal <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip> My other thought was, given they fell via a chute, how the hell did
they get back out of the interceptors once they got back??
Rob



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

Ok, Mario or Rob, yes you are being a "Nit Picker" 30 years later.
Make no mistake about that.

Now lets imagine for a minute that you have a point.

It was cool that they actually did shute into the interceptors
because it would have been a drag to see them climb into them.
The actual mechanics of how the chute interphased with the
interceptor served no object since what was cool was the sense of
urgency the pilots had to board the Interceptors and meet up with
the invading UFO's.

Getting out. Again, suppose this was relevant. Are they in any hurry
to get out. The answer is a categoric no. Mission accomplished the
impending invasion has been avoided, its "Miller Time" and please
don't show us (the viewers back then) how the heck they got out.

On the cheapness of the show. Anderson made the sets UFO the most
elaborate for the its time. Up until this time no SCIFI show had
even come close. There were no green rooms, CGI's or anything that
would be colored in post production. What you saw was minitures or
sets and by now Anderson probably had realized that miniatures and
elaborate set were all good but, a story line is what makes a show.

Sure many of the props used at the time almost 40 years later seem
hokie and almost silly but you know what? Back in the day they were
freaking earth shattering. Hindsight is 20-20 but the memories I
have as a kid watching the show are beyond the visual realm!

Mark


--- In [hidden email], "Mario Butter" <mario.butter@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps, like modern fighters, the entire top of the cockpit opens
up.
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:25 PM, Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:
>
> > Let's be honest here, this is a relatively low-budget TV show,
with
> > lots of Anderson technology, it's all been made to look flashy,
but
> > nobody's really thought this through. It was only expected to be
> > viewed once, not nit-picked thirty years later!
> >
> > There was never any indication of how the "jump-chutes" ever
connected
> > to the interceptors, but I think most people imagined there was
some
> > kind of "Thunderbird 2" style tube that connected to the machine.
> > That said, having closely examined the models and stills, there
is no
> > indication of a hatch over the cockpit.
> >
> > My other thought was, given they fell via a chute, how the hell
did

--- In [hidden email], "marktomor" <marktomor@...> wrote:
> and please don't show us (the viewers back then) how the heck they
got out.

Being a viewer back then you do not speak for me (and several others)
I like to theorize about these things...

> On the cheapness of the show.

I see nothing "cheap" about the production...


Up until this time no SCIFI show had
> even come close.

I think the original Star Trek did!


There were no green rooms, CGI's or anything that
> would be colored in post production. What you saw was minitures or
> sets and by now Anderson probably had realized that miniatures and
> elaborate set were all good but, a story line is what makes a show.

So what was wrong with the storylines in Thunderbirds?!



Regards,
Barry

> > the chutes drop to a hughspeed shuttle
> > car that takes the pilots to their ships
> > a short distance away from the base.
>
> But in this case you can't be space born within two minutes as
> Straker demands.

Do we take space born as say 100 miles off the surface or just taken
off the pad? If the pad 2 minutes is good for me...



>
> But as you wrote it's all been made to look flashy, but nobody's
> really thought this through. Think of Sky 1: how would it dock on
> Skydiver after its mission? On the assumption that this should work
> properly and above all quick.
>
> Christian


Well, I think Sky1 would land on the water using a hydroski, come to a
stop and submerge to a depth where it would be still in the water (not
affected by the rolling waves on the surface). Diver would move to a
position behind it and extend a clamp on an arm that had some movement
to it. Clamp on, straighten out and retract in.

Regards,
Barry

>
> Thanks for all the responses - I thought the Gym was an underground
> level of the 'central park' section of moonbase - the square section
> in the middle - of course I don't have any facts to back that up -
> just my impression

Well it probably just used the wall sections of the Central park set so
that it gives the impression of being another level of the cental
section of Moonbase. Moonbase is of modular construction so other outer
parts (if they existed) would look the same! Who's to say there isn't
more than one gym or that it is not a multi-use room?

Regards,
Barry

I have to agree. I watched the show in its original release (And no old joke or Imm put you in one of the Interceptor torpedos *Laughs*) In those days it was cutting edge and it had a good story line. I still watch the DVD's. I also lover Captain Scarlet. Mainly for the tech ideas it showed.


You have reached the Psicorp. I know who you are. I know your phone number. I know what you want. Do not leave a message and I will get back to you.



----- Original Message ----
From: marktomor <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:03:56 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Interceptor launch craters?

Ok, Mario or Rob, yes you are being a "Nit Picker" 30 years later.
Make no mistake about that.

Now lets imagine for a minute that you have a point.

It was cool that they actually did shute into the interceptors
because it would have been a drag to see them climb into them.
The actual mechanics of how the chute interphased with the
interceptor served no object since what was cool was the sense of
urgency the pilots had to board the Interceptors and meet up with
the invading UFO's.

Getting out. Again, suppose this was relevant. Are they in any hurry
to get out. The answer is a categoric no. Mission accomplished the
impending invasion has been avoided, its "Miller Time" and please
don't show us (the viewers back then) how the heck they got out.

On the cheapness of the show. Anderson made the sets UFO the most
elaborate for the its time. Up until this time no SCIFI show had
even come close. There were no green rooms, CGI's or anything that
would be colored in post production. What you saw was minitures or
sets and by now Anderson probably had realized that miniatures and
elaborate set were all good but, a story line is what makes a show.

Sure many of the props used at the time almost 40 years later seem
hokie and almost silly but you know what? Back in the day they were
freaking earth shattering. Hindsight is 20-20 but the memories I
have as a kid watching the show are beyond the visual realm!

Mark


--- In [hidden email], "Mario Butter" <mario.butter@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps, like modern fighters, the entire top of the cockpit opens
up.
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:25 PM, Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:
>
> > Let's be honest here, this is a relatively low-budget TV show,
with
> > lots of Anderson technology, it's all been made to look flashy,
but
> > nobody's really thought this through. It was only expected to be
> > viewed once, not nit-picked thirty years later!
> >
> > There was never any indication of how the "jump-chutes" ever
connected
> > to the interceptors, but I think most people imagined there was
some
> > kind of "Thunderbird 2" style tube that connected to the machine.
> > That said, having closely examined the models and stills, there
is no
> > indication of a hatch over the cockpit.
> >
> > My other thought was, given they fell via a chute, how the hell
did




Yahoo! Groups Links




____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

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

There is a hatch directly behind the canopy. It has the word "Rescue"
emblazoned on it and an arrow indicating a little panel below that
says "Hatch Release". I have posted a pic in Photos in a folder called
Interceptor Hatch.

Regards,
Barry



--- In [hidden email], "Mario Butter" <mario.butter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, like modern fighters, the entire top of the cockpit opens up.
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:25 PM, Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:


> > That said, having closely examined the models and stills, there is
no
> > indication of a hatch over the cockpit.
> >

Barry, thanks for the pic! I just looked at my Product Enterprise Interceptor, and it's on that one, too.

Jeff

naughtyhector <[hidden email]> wrote:
There is a hatch directly behind the canopy. It has the word "Rescue"
emblazoned on it and an arrow indicating a little panel below that
says "Hatch Release". I have posted a pic in Photos in a folder called
Interceptor Hatch.

Regards,
Barry

--- In [hidden email], "Mario Butter" <mario.butter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, like modern fighters, the entire top of the cockpit opens up.
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:25 PM, Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:

> > That said, having closely examined the models and stills, there is
no
> > indication of a hatch over the cockpit.
> >






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

Well, they certainly have plenty of vacuum available on the moon to do so!


--- In [hidden email], Jeffrey Nelson <1shado1@...> wrote:
>
> I think they hooked up a giant shop-vac, and just sucked them back
up the chutes. ; )
>    
> Jeff
>    
> Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:
> <snip> My other thought was, given they fell via a chute, how
the hell did
> they get back out of the interceptors once they got back??
> Rob
>

Point taken, LOL! Reminds me once again of the old joke about the new restaurant on the moon: Great food, but no atmosphere. ; )

Jeff

John Coleman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, they certainly have plenty of vacuum available on the moon to do so!

--- In [hidden email], Jeffrey Nelson <1shado1@...> wrote:
>
> I think they hooked up a giant shop-vac, and just sucked them back
up the chutes. ; )
>
> Jeff
>
> Rob Neal <tryptych@...> wrote:
> <snip> My other thought was, given they fell via a chute, how
the hell did
> they get back out of the interceptors once they got back??
> Rob
>






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

Hi All

I remember when I attended Uforia/Uforia2 I got talking with some
others with Derek Meddings off stage. He mentioned that he had been a
great fan of the XB-70 Valkyrie
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie) and had modelled the
Seagull X-Ray directly after it, but had inverted the wing design and
engine intakes. Also, the design of the Seagull X-Ray was a much
smaller craft.

Of course inverting the wing and intakes would nullify the
'compression lift' which used the shock wave generated by the nose or
other sharp points on the Valkyrie as a source of high pressure air.
But, it looked great anyway. Also, the drooping nose for takeoff and
landing was borrowed from the Concord.

One other thing that I remember mentioned was that the crew of the
Valkyrie didn't have to wear pressure suits as the cockpit of the
Valkyrie was fully pressurised, and that in the event of a disaster,
they (2 crew) were able to eject in individual presurised capsules.
Derek also mentioned this, and said that it had influenced the
Moonbase Interceptor design as the Interceptor pilots would not have
to wear bulky spacesuits.

I wrote all this down at the time and after the event - I'll dig it
out as I know there were a whole load of other snippets...

Best to all :)

Griff

----- Original Message -----
From: Griff Wason
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:33 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Interceptor launch craters?

<.............
Hi All

I remember when I attended Uforia/Uforia2 I got talking with some
others with Derek Meddings off stage. He mentioned that he had been a
great fan of the XB-70 Valkyrie
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie) and had modelled the
Seagull X-Ray directly after it, but had inverted the wing design and
engine intakes. Also, the design of the Seagull X-Ray was a much
smaller craft.

Of course inverting the wing and intakes would nullify the
'compression lift' which used the shock wave generated by the nose or
other sharp points on the Valkyrie as a source of high pressure air.
But, it looked great anyway. Also, the drooping nose for takeoff and
landing was borrowed from the Concord.
.............>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




Not to mention how it disturbs the intake flow at high AOA.

Valkerie had the droop snoot as well.... but SeaGull X-Ray's
looked more like theConcord's than the Valkerie's.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<..............
One other thing that I remember mentioned was that the crew of the
Valkyrie didn't have to wear pressure suits as the cockpit of the
Valkyrie was fully pressurised, and that in the event of a disaster,
they (2 crew) were able to eject in individual presurised capsules.
Derek also mentioned this, and said that it had influenced the
Moonbase Interceptor design as the Interceptor pilots would not have
to wear bulky spacesuits.
..........>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



....Until a bullet/laser penetrates the wall of the escape capsule.... 8-0

Those pilots should be wearing a space suit....

Dave H.



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

but had inverted the wing design and
> engine intakes.

I have seen a couple of SST designs before Concorde where the engine
intakes were above the wing.


>
> Of course inverting the wing and intakes would nullify the
> 'compression lift' which used the shock wave generated by the nose
or other sharp points on the Valkyrie as a source of high pressure
air.

I didn't think compression lift had anything to do with where the
engines were. My understanding is that the shockwave from the nose is
channelled under the craft to get some more lift. Also the Valkyrie
had wings that hinged halfway along that dropped to help box in the
airflow. The wings on Seagull are deadringers of the wings from the
Avro Arrow.



> But, it looked great anyway. Also, the drooping nose for takeoff and
> landing was borrowed from the Concord.

Or Fairey Delta 1 (and that be Concorde).


>
> One other thing that I remember mentioned was that the crew of the
> Valkyrie didn't have to wear pressure suits as the cockpit of the
> Valkyrie was fully pressurised, and that in the event of a disaster,
> they (2 crew) were able to eject in individual presurised capsules.

Of which when Valkyrie No2 had a mid air collision with a Starfighter
which rolled across its back taking both rudders with it only one
pilot got out in his capsule which dislocated one arm when it was
shutting and didn't deploy a device to cushion the landing resulting
in him hitting the ground rather violently.

>
> Not to mention how it disturbs the intake flow at high AOA.

Seagull was a passenger craft not a fighter so it wouldn't really be
doing flying like that.

>
> Valkerie had the droop snoot as well.... but SeaGull X-Ray's
> looked more like theConcord's than the Valkerie's.

Er no, Valkyrie's nose did not articulate up or down. Its windscreen
did change shape for landing though.


> ....Until a bullet/laser penetrates the wall of the escape
capsule.... shredding the spacesuit and the pilot at the same time with
the shrapnel/molten metal that would be entering the confined
space... 8-0
 

Hi all

> I didn't think compression lift had anything to do with where the
> engines were. My understanding is that the shockwave from the nose
> is channelled under the craft to get some more lift. Also the
> Valkyrie had wings that hinged halfway along that dropped to help
> box in the airflow. The wings on Seagull are deadringers of the
> wings from the Avro Arrow.

The location of the engines is nothing to do with 'compression lift'.
Basically the XB-70 Valkyrie rode on its own shockwave like a surfboard.

> Of which when Valkyrie No2 had a mid air collision with a Starfighter
> which rolled across its back taking both rudders with it only one
> pilot got out in his capsule which dislocated one arm when it was
> shutting and didn't deploy a device to cushion the landing resulting
> in him hitting the ground rather violently.

Just to be perfectly clear, Derek implied that the whole cabin section
of the Interceptor was the escape capsule, much like the F-111 where
the entire cockpit with both crew is ejected. But, as I mentioned, he
did say that he was a big fan of the XB-70 (cutting edge in the 60's)
and it was a huge inspiration to him, and his designs. Some of which
Mike Trim did the initial work and in some cases complete work, but
with Derek acting as a kind of design editor - as with the Moonbase
Interceptor.

Best to all :)

Griff

Actually, that wedge in front of the engine intakes increased the effects of
compression lift on the Valkyrie.

On Jan 27, 2008 5:19 PM, Griff Wason <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The location of the engines is nothing to do with 'compression lift'.
> Basically the XB-70 Valkyrie rode on its own shockwave like a surfboard.
>



--
Mario

http://mario.silent-tower.org/


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

True, but the wedge also contains the bomb bay, undercarriage and
fuel tanks - I wasn't advocating the removal of the wedge/under
fuselage.

Regards,
Barry


--- In [hidden email], "Mario Butter" <mario.butter@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, that wedge in front of the engine intakes increased the
effects of
> compression lift on the Valkyrie.
>
> On Jan 27, 2008 5:19 PM, Griff Wason <griff@...> wrote:
>
> > The location of the engines is nothing to do with 'compression
lift'.
> > Basically the XB-70 Valkyrie rode on its own shockwave like a
surfboard.

I've posted a couple of pics of a F111 escape capsule in the
Interceptor Hatch photo album.

Regards,
Barry



--- In [hidden email], "Griff Wason" <griff@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> > I didn't think compression lift had anything to do with where the
> > engines were. My understanding is that the shockwave from the
nose
> > is channelled under the craft to get some more lift. Also the
> > Valkyrie had wings that hinged halfway along that dropped to help
> > box in the airflow. The wings on Seagull are deadringers of the
> > wings from the Avro Arrow.
>
> The location of the engines is nothing to do with 'compression
lift'.
> Basically the XB-70 Valkyrie rode on its own shockwave like a
surfboard.
>
> > Of which when Valkyrie No2 had a mid air collision with a
Starfighter
> > which rolled across its back taking both rudders with it only one
> > pilot got out in his capsule which dislocated one arm when it was
> > shutting and didn't deploy a device to cushion the landing
resulting
> > in him hitting the ground rather violently.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear, Derek implied that the whole cabin
section
> of the Interceptor was the escape capsule, much like the F-111 where
> the entire cockpit with both crew is ejected. But, as I mentioned,
he
> did say that he was a big fan of the XB-70 (cutting edge in the
60's)
> and it was a huge inspiration to him, and his designs. Some of which
> Mike Trim did the initial work and in some cases complete work, but
> with Derek acting as a kind of design editor - as with the Moonbase
> Interceptor.
>
> Best to all :)
>
> Griff
>

----- Original Message -----
From: naughtyhector
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:25 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Interceptor launch craters?


<.....
I have seen a couple of SST designs before Concorde where
the engine intakes were above the wing.
.....>

---------------------------------------------------




But how many of those were built? I rest my case..... ;-)




---------------------------------------------------

<.....
I didn't think compression lift had anything to do with where the
engines were. My understanding is that the shockwave from the
nose is channelled under the craft to get some more lift. Also the
Valkyrie had wings that hinged halfway along that dropped to help
box in the airflow. The wings on Seagull are deadringers of the
wings from the Avro Arrow.
.....>

---------------------------------------------------



It doesn't, but it has a lot to do with inlet flow, and getting good flow
into the engines over the top of a wing, fuselage, or, especially a
large delta wing can be rather tricky at the high angles of attack
that most delta wing planes demand for take-off and landing, or
severe maneuvering g-loads.

Also, I always found it amusing in the show how they dropped the
nose in the middle of the flight while flying at high speed and altitude.
That's something only done during the landing phase to enhance
visibility over the nose on approach (it also messes up the high
speed aerodynamics).

My impression of SeaGull X-Ray was that it was a cross between the
designs of the Concorde and and the MiG-25 Foxbat (tailfins). Also,
they do need to move the main landing gear farther forward if they
expect to rotate for liftoff....

Dave H


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

----- Original Message -----
From: naughtyhector
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:56 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Interceptor launch craters?


<.....
Seagull was a passenger craft not a fighter so it wouldn't really be
doing flying like that.
.....>

------------------------------------------------



Doesn't matter, during the Take-Off and Landing phases it will have
a very high angle of attack, thus the importance.



------------------------------------------------

<.....
Er no, Valkyrie's nose did not articulate up or down. Its windscreen
did change shape for landing though.
.....>

------------------------------------------------




I'm pretty sure it did, but I'll look into it......




------------------------------------------------


<.....
....Until a bullet/laser penetrates the wall of the escape
capsule.... shredding the spacesuit and the pilot at the same time with
the shrapnel/molten metal that would be entering the confined
space... 8-0
.....>

--------------------------------------------------




Yeah, but I think pilot's would rather have that extra layer of protection.
Space suits also allow you to survive slow leaks, hard landings, and
other unforeseen incidents that might ruin your day.... ;-)

Dave H.



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