Sky-1 docking procedures

Hello everyone! I haven't left a message in a while. This question might have been asked before, but I was curious as to how the SKY aircraft conduct their docking procedures. Does the aircraft land back in the water for re-attachment or does it land on the ground? Are the rocket/missle nacels also used as a type a "ski" for landing? I would like to hear what you guys might think?

~ Jason Sweet


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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

To Jason, question of how the Sky plane and Diver sub redock. In
Flight Path we seem to see Sky One hovering of the car wreck. If it has this
ability it would make things a lot easier. it would be very difficult to land
on water using the missle and engine pods as skids. You can't land a plane
coming in level. You have to keep the nose up. You also have to worry about
catching a wave in that large air intake in the nose of the plane. That would
be like hitting a brick wall at 200 mph. So I think the Sky planes have to
have vertical landing system and then they just pull the Diver up behind it and
winch them back together.

James K.


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

Here we go again. Check back in the posts for when we were discussing Subsmash last year. We had a very lively discussion going on about the merits of various docking procedures, not to mention how the sub would actually be built and operated.
We had ideals from ex-Navy people as well as those who built rockets and all sorts of interesting stuff. I'd have to check my records for the exact timing of the posts or check with Mac. He should know.

jason sweet <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello everyone! I haven't left a message in a while. This question might have been asked before, but I was curious as to how the SKY aircraft conduct their docking procedures. Does the aircraft land back in the water for re-attachment or does it land on the ground? Are the rocket/missile nacelles also used as a type a "ski" for landing? I would like to hear what you guys might think?

~ Jason Sweet


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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




Yahoo! Groups Links







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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

--- jason sweet <imultraman@y...> wrote:
> ... Does the aircraft land back in the water for re-attachment or
> does it land on the ground? Are the rocket/missile nacelles also
> used as a type a "ski" for landing? ...

Perhaps Sky 1 has foldaway landing wheels that we never see.

To re-unite, Sky 1 would have to ditch at sea and wait until Diver
picks it up.

But, unfortunately, ultimately, the set-up is flawed. A submerged
submarine could never carry a jet fighter stuck to its nose. The jet
fighter would have to be carried in an enclosed hangar on board.

Hi,
A few years ago i started redrawing some SHADO gear for UFO 2000, and I did actually redraw Skydiver as a submersible aircraft carrier with a folding hanger on the dorsal tail end.
Looked OK.
Grant.

--- "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@b...> wrote:
> ...
> But, unfortunately, ultimately, the set-up is flawed. A submerged
> submarine could never carry a jet fighter stuck to its nose. The
> jet fighter would have to be carried in an enclosed hangar on board.

Also, Sky 1 is a hopelessly unaerodynamic shape. Its big squared-off
stern end shouts TAIL EDDY DRAG. A real super-fast aircraft designed
to chase UFO's in atmosphere would likelier be missile-shaped like
some of the real experimental rocket planes. And its wings and tail
fins would have to be foldable to let the sub launch it through a
tube like a missile.

I think all of the vehicles on UFO were just meant to be cool looking. It
was a very cool idea to have a plane and a submarine combined into one craft.
Moon base always looked too small for me. I am 6ft and i am claustraphobic.
The Skydiver set seemed larger than moon base control set. We have to
remember that whoever designed the vehicles for the show had no technical expertis.
We also have to remember that it was science fiction not fact. I also
remember one of my friends remarking that the Enterprise in the original series
looked top heavy . The vehicles in UFO were cool for that time period. I was more
interested in the space battles than design flaws. bsl


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Wray" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: RE: [SHADO] Re: Sky-1 docking procedures


> Hi,
> A few years ago i started redrawing some SHADO gear for UFO 2000, and I
did actually redraw Skydiver as a submersible aircraft carrier with a
folding hanger on the dorsal tail end.
> Looked OK.
> Grant.
>

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

Hey Grant;

How bout posting a JPEG on the site?....

I think either the germans or japs tried that sort of thing with a
submarine and a fighterplane back in WW2 and got it to work, though they
never put it into production....

Dave H.

I'm a crap drawer! I did post some sketches on my site, but I can't remember if it was the Sky 1 as well as the mobiles. The originals are lost now anyway. I posted some of the sketching to go with my script for UFO2000.

http://travel.to/grant

Grant.


> ----------
> From: davrecon
> Reply To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2004 19:47 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Sky-1 docking procedures
> How bout posting a JPEG on the site?....

Just got back from a trip... Where is everyone? Sure is quiet.

Best, Griff

> Just got back from a trip... Where is everyone? Sure is quiet.

Yes, it sure is quiet these days... have we all been here so
long that there's nothing left to discuss?

By the way, I still have not heard back from the San Diego
Comic Con organizers about whether or not we'll have a room
in the convention center to interview Antonia Ellis. They
said they'd have more information by "May at the earliest",
so I guess we'll have to wait a bit more before going to
"Plan B" (hotel room offsite)

Marc

While I was away my girlfriend bought me the BBC DVD of Dr Who (The Green
Death)... I'd already seen it on VHS, but I thought I'd mention it again asthe
mysterious 'Boss' of Global Chemicals (a computer) is almost entirely
constructed of Moonbase and SHADO HQ and SkyDiver computer equipment. Giventhat
the series 'The Green Death' was first broadcast in May/June of 1973 it's
interesting to see where many of the UFO props went to.

I wonder if the BBC hired them for the series (I have never seen them in any
other Dr Who or BBC series), or bought up all the props wholesale?

I did once see the Moonbase astronauts helmets used in some children's series -
can't remember the name..

Best, Griff

Griff,

This is interesting as UFO was not made by the BBC. I'm wondering how
they got hold of this stuff. I was always under the impression that
the BBC had their own special effects/props unit for things like Dr
Who (wasn't there a depot for all of this out towards White City? I'm
sure I saw a rather dilapedated factory in that area with old props
lying outside the doors which were clearly scifi in nature in the
mid-1980's).Any chance of a screenshot or two uploaded to a site
soemwhere to see these UFO remnants?


David


--- In [hidden email], "Griff" <griff@g...> wrote:
> While I was away my girlfriend bought me the BBC DVD of Dr Who (The
Green
> Death)... I'd already seen it on VHS, but I thought I'd mention it
again as the
> mysterious 'Boss' of Global Chemicals (a computer) is almost entirely
> constructed of Moonbase and SHADO HQ and SkyDiver computer
equipment. Given that
> the series 'The Green Death' was first broadcast in May/June of 1973
it's
> interesting to see where many of the UFO props went to.
>
> I wonder if the BBC hired them for the series (I have never seen
them in any
> other Dr Who or BBC series), or bought up all the props wholesale?
>
> I did once see the Moonbase astronauts helmets used in some
children's series -
> can't remember the name..
>
> Best, Griff

If you access the information
subtitles extra on THE GREEN DEATH
DVD, you will find the full answers
to your questions on what other WHO
serials the Century 21 props were
used on. The childrens show you
refer to is THE TOMORROW PEOPLE and
the serial THE DOOMSDAY MEN did
indeed also feature a UFO
spacesuit, among other items. ---
In [hidden email], "Griff"
<griff@g...> wrote:
> While I was away my girlfriend
bought me the BBC DVD of Dr Who
(The Green
> Death)... I'd already seen it on
VHS, but I thought I'd mention it
again as the
> mysterious 'Boss' of Global
Chemicals (a computer) is almost
entirely
> constructed of Moonbase and SHADO
HQ and SkyDiver computer equipment.
Given that
> the series 'The Green Death' was
first broadcast in May/June of 1973
it's
> interesting to see where many of
the UFO props went to.
>
> I wonder if the BBC hired them
for the series (I have never seen
them in any
> other Dr Who or BBC series), or
bought up all the props wholesale?
>
> I did once see the Moonbase
astronauts helmets used in some
children's series -
> can't remember the name..
>
> Best, Griff

I am only here late nights and early mornings. I get online at work while it
is not busy. I only answer emails that strike a chord in me. I have seen
every episode of UFO twice since i got the DVD s last spring. I like 90% of the
episodes. Point of interest. If you see the movie The ABYSS you should
notice the water breather apparatuse. Did James Cameron remember it from UFO or
have they really been experimenting with it. bsl


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

Hi,

I will take a few example screen grabs when I have a second... However, one
thing I just wanted to observe was the dramatically different 'look' the UFO
computer took on the Dr Who program (The Green Death) compared to the look in
UFO.

Under the overall control of Gerry/Sylvia Anderson with Brendon Stafford (as the
Lighting cameraman) UFO generally has a very bright superbly lit (the bright
coloration chosen by Bob Bell just sings out), and glossy futuristic look (This
is another reason why the DVD presentation looks so good after reprocessing).
All the optimum camera angles and visual 'beauty' shots are well worked outand
anticipated. The equipment 'looks' glossy, exciting, new and futuristic... In
short it looks 'real', plausible and functional...

Whereas, and I do not mean this as any criticism to the BBC production
techniques... There is a massive and stark difference in the production look of
the same equipment in Dr Who. Even the SHADO Moonbase main control console looks
small and fairly insignificant. It looks dirty and not very exciting. Observing
carefully, in UFO the camera angles are from a human angle and tend to be fairly
low, this gives a more realistic (but much harder to pull off and focus)
presentation. Each shot in UFO probably took much longer to achieve. Where as in
Dr Who (again to be fair was shot with early video as opposed to film)
everything is much more monochromatic, and almost documentary style.

What I do find surprising however (given the dramatically different
presentation) is that Gerry Anderson stated that he expected 5 minutes actual
sequence (final shooting rush) shooting per day (very fast) even with all the
careful lighting, camera angles and sequence shots.... And yet according towhat
I have read, only a few minutes more per shooting day schedule were achieved
with the relatively low-budget Dr Who.

So, I guess what I am really trying to say is: Gerry/Sylvia Anderson, Brendan
Stafford, Bob Bell and all the others (esp. directors and actors) did a
FANTASTIC JOB!!! No wonder UFO looks to slick, colourful (another thing that
sticks in my mind from when I first saw it as a child - it was SO colourful)

No wonder it's my favourite TV series of all time :)

Best, Griff

-----Original Message-----
From: pointy100 [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 7:32 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Recycled SHADO computer equipment


Griff,

This is interesting as UFO was not made by the BBC. I'm wondering how they got
hold of this stuff. I was always under the impression that the BBC had their own
special effects/props unit for things like Dr Who (wasn't there a depot forall
of this out towards White City? I'm sure I saw a rather dilapedated factoryin
that area with old props lying outside the doors which were clearly scifi in
nature in the mid-1980's).Any chance of a screenshot or two uploaded to a site
soemwhere to see these UFO remnants?


David

> Any chance of a screenshot or two uploaded to a site
> soemwhere to see these UFO remnants?
>
> David

I've got two at hand and will send it to the group :-)

Christian

>
> I've got two at hand and will send it to the group :-)

...but it's from the episode ARK IN SPACE, ahem...

Christian

Hi all,

I have uploaded a few screen grabs (4) showing some of the UFO equipment used in
Dr Who (The Green Death). There are lots of other scenes with further UFO
equipment, but I think the uploaded images help get my point across. I findit a
bit disheartening, our beloved UFO equipment sure looks dowdy...

Anyone know where it all ended up?

Best, Griff

-----Original Message-----
From: pointy100 [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 7:32 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Recycled SHADO computer equipment

Griff,

This is interesting as UFO was not made by the BBC. I'm wondering how they got
hold of this stuff. I was always under the impression that the BBC had their own
special effects/props unit for things like Dr Who (wasn't there a depot forall
of this out towards White City? I'm sure I saw a rather dilapedated factoryin
that area with old props lying outside the doors which were clearly scifi in
nature in the mid-1980's).Any chance of a screenshot or two uploaded to a site
soemwhere to see these UFO remnants?

David