Sky -1 questions

Hello everybody!
I have some technical questions for someone out there,
and this may have been discussed before . . . but I
have always wondered how it was that Sky-1 was able to
"re-attach" itself back onto the sub. It must land
somewhere. Is there a secret landing strip along with
where they house the submarines? Also, what was its
maximum speed when in flight? I know that when it is
launched it is powered by rocket fuel, but then soon
after it switches to jets. Does anyone happen to have
this information?

Jason Sweet

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

CONTENTS DELETED

--- In SHADO@y..., "Hemmings, R.K." <rkh@l...> wrote:
> ... (if you count stories in the Annual as being canon, that is -
> see SEASCOPE on p53). ...

How many annuals were there with UFO matter in? What were they called?
I had not heard of Seascope before.

> If you're thinking of writing a story and want facts,
> then just make 'em up as you go ...

Such as, I explaind the notorious magenta Moonbase wigs as being
mreely a fashion that was going round and Straker decided to tolerate
it while it lasted.

"Hemmings, R.K." wrote:

> There have been many theories over the years, but my best guess is
> that a SKY simply lands on the surface of the sea, then sinks to
> meet it's associated DIVER. Re-attachment would be much easier
> under water than trying to do so on the surface, which would be
> impossible in rough weather.


I mostly agree, though I wouldn't call it a guess exactly, since
there really is no answer. I like to think of Sky 1 performing a
shallow dive into the water somehow, then performing a docking
manouevre in which Diver 1 comes up behind it at slightly higher
speed to dock.

I don't like the theory in which Sky 1 lands on a surface air strip
for two reasons. The first of these is security - I've always
assumed that one of the reasons that Sky One is based underwater is
that it's conveniently out of view until it's needed - and
unfortunately, I typed the first part of this paragraph over an hour
ago and have forgotten the second.

James

"anthonyappleyard" wrote:

> Such as, I explaind the notorious magenta Moonbase wigs as being
> merely a fashion that was going round and Straker decided to
> tolerate it while it lasted.
>

I can't quite accept this Anthony - Straker ran SHADO very much as a
military organisation and in my opinion would not have tolerated
non-uniform bright purple wigs, any more than any other fashion item.

Actually if there was ONE thing I could change about UFO, it would
be the purple wigs.

How about this theory:

Their Wigs are purple because they cannot walk freely on the mmon without a
space suit. As we on earth move freely in our enviornment, sunlight
supplies needed stimuli for our organic functions, such as hair color and
strength.

As there is no direct contact with sunlight on the moon without protection,
the benefits of sunlight must be artificially created.

So, the dye in the wigs is actually a conductor for ultraviolet light which
allows the wearer's normal hair underneath to absorb the converted sunlight
and remain healthy. Also this may explain the uniforms as well. They are
made of a material which protects the wearer from harmful ultraviolet light
and minimum radiation..........

As for why only the women wear wigs and the men and pilots do not I submit
this theory within a theory:

The men are not on Moonbase long enough for the lunar and solar effects to
make a difference, as they are most likely rotated back to Earth whereas
the girls are stationed there until............

Again it's only a theory......................

Matt O'Malley
Account Representative
Philadelphia DSC
E-Mail: [hidden email]

[hidden email] wrote:

well - it's convinced me.

Here's a really SIMPLE theory:

The wig was a standard part of a female's Moonbase outfit. The wigs were
distributed when women first were assigned to Moonbase to create a standard
"look", ie - all the women would have the same hair length.

It was sexist that it only applied to women - pure and simple. :)

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Sky -1 questions


>
> How about this theory:
<snip>

Just a quick message from myself and Gareth Bevan. we've set up a new
e-mail group for anyone who is interested in meeting celebrities. The
idea is that
we keep each other informed about where celebrities are appearing, be it
at special events, book signings, theatre tours, location filming,
dinners etc.
Both Gareth and myself have a good idea of where famous people can be
found, but our knowledge is most definitely not exhaustive, so this is
about sharing all our information.

This is the info on the yahoo website about the group:

"Hi, and welcome to the yahoo group that allows you to share info about
the whereabouts of celebrities - book signings, dinners, special
appearances, theatre tours, filming and location dates. You can tell us
where to find your favourite stars from film and TV - Bond, Star Wars,
Star Trek, Hammer Horror, Star Trek, Buffy, British Comedy such as the
Carry On's, Dad's Army and Are You Being Served, and classic series from
the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties such as Randall and
Hopkirk (Deceased), Thunderbirds, UFO, Space 1999..."

Hope you all come along a join. Go to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celebritywhereabouts/

If you know where Ed Bishop is next appearing please let us know by
posting a message,

Enjoy!

Adrian

--- In SHADO@y..., "Anthony D" <atd1999@n...> wrote:
> Here's a really SIMPLE theory:
>
> The wig was a standard part of a female's Moonbase outfit.

That is also Sylvia's explanation.

> The wigs were distributed when women first were assigned to
> Moonbase to create a standard "look", ie - all the women
> would have the same hair length.
>
> It was sexist that it only applied to women - pure and simple. :)

No more so than current military regs w/r/t men's hair length.
Of course Alec and Paul would look pretty silly in purple bobs.
:-)

Teresa

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Gibbon" <[hidden email]>

<snips>

> > The men are not on Moonbase long enough for the lunar and solar effects
to
> > make a difference, as they are most likely rotated back to Earth whereas
> > the girls are stationed there until............
> >
>
>
> well - it's convinced me.

<relief>
Then the girls get to keep the purple wigs!

BTW, came upon this addy on Yahoo auction...
http://search.auctions.shopping.yahoo.com/search/auc?p=ufo+%2B+gerry+anderso
n&st=auct&alocale=0us&acc=us

Those are VHS tapes made from the DVDs...

Are those from the same ultramannick who's on this list?

I'm not sure this is a good thing for the future sells of the UFO dvds...
We all know that they are region free (I had no trouble playing 'em on the
TV set I have and didn't have to hack the DVD player either) and that there
will be a release in the US in July...

When there was no way of getting the complete series otherwise, well... The
end may have justified the means, but, now that we had that beautiful gift,
why endanger it?

I'm not even sure that it's an endorsed practice on Yahoo Auctions...

--Anny

CONTENTS DELETED

Anthony D wrote:
>
> Here's a really SIMPLE theory:
>
> The wig was a standard part of a female's Moonbase outfit. The wigs were
> distributed when women first were assigned to Moonbase to create a standard
> "look", ie - all the women would have the same hair length.

Actually, I believe the accepted "unofficial" explanation is that the
wigs help to deflect the magnetic waves generated by the Utronic
tracking equipment on Moonbase, and the reason the women wear them is
that it keeps them from getting massive headaches while working in close
proximity to the equipment.
AT

If it's accepted, then why all the debate?

1999 Lives,
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Sky -1 questions


> Anthony D wrote:
> >
> > Here's a really SIMPLE theory:
> >
> > The wig was a standard part of a female's Moonbase outfit. The wigs were
> > distributed when women first were assigned to Moonbase to create a
standard

Good question.
AT

Anthony D wrote:

Sky-1 most likely has the ability to land on a runway though and it is
likely that this occurred in Identified when Capt. Carlin is at SHADO HQ.
Diver alone probably cannot make much headway underwater with such a blunt
front end and could only do 40 Kts underwater when whole anyway. It also
probably cannot exceed 70 Kts when sea skimming or hydroplaning, actions
which it almost certainly cannot do when Sky is separated. This would not
lend itself to having Diver go pick up Sky from anywhere... Sky has to
come to it or suffer up to several weeks of down-time. Also; in one
episode, Foster *brings out* a relief Sky-1 and we see the other Sky-1 in
the air out his cockpit window, presumably this means that there may be
lots of Sky's, and almost certainly more Sky's than there are divers by at
least 2:1. So there must be another, probably land-based facility -- but
just perhaps there is an underwater base with a fixed underwater launcher
or perhaps even a spare Diver module, you might call it a "Slave-Diver"
<G>.

I think it is up to the fan-fic writers to decide. An underwater base
sounds kinda like fun and there's nothing in cannon to say no. It might
have come up in the second or third season if we'd gotten them.

BTW, in Identified, I think the UFO and Foster's plane are at 250K feet
altitude and nobody appeared too concerned about Sky-1 going up there to
intercept the UFO so I'd guess from this that Sky's operational ceiling is
even higher than 250K. It must have rocket power other than the launch
rockets though, because there isn't enough oxygen up there for
air-breathing engines of any kind to operate, same goes for Fosters
X-plane.

"GOT SKY?"
Shawn Kelly
www.sdaa.org
www.darksky.org


--- In SHADO@y..., James Gibbon <james.gibbon@v...> wrote:

--- In SHADO@y..., "Shawn Kelly" <sdkelly@s...> wrote:
> Sky-1 most likely has the ability to land on a runway though and it
> is likely that this occurred in Identified when Capt. Carlin is at
> SHADO HQ. Diver alone probably cannot make much headway underwater
> with such a blunt front end ...

I can't see how a sub could go far with a jet fighter stuck to its
nose, anyway. To be light enough to fly fast and far the plane would
have to be much lighter than water and very flimsy against bumps; the
combination woulld be very stern-heavy and the plane's fuselage would
soon get stove in by minor bumbs or even by hydrodynamic water
pressure at speed. The fighter would have to have folding wings and
be in an onboard enclosed hangar somewhat a Polaris missile but
manned.

"anthonyappleyard" wrote:

>
> I can't see how a sub could go far with a jet fighter stuck to its
> nose, anyway. To be light enough to fly fast and far the plane would
> have to be much lighter than water and very flimsy against bumps; the
> combination woulld be very stern-heavy and the plane's fuselage would
> soon get stove in by minor bumbs or even by hydrodynamic water
> pressure at speed.

Good point, but perhaps it was filled with seawater to equalise
the pressure, being evacuated just before launch.

That was my thought too. It could have multiple cavities filled with
high pressure air or perhaps mostly with water and a little of each
volume with pressurized air. The water would have the mass and
incompressibility required to not be stove in and the small amount of
air in each cavity would allow for flexibility and adjustment of
internal pressures when changing depths and speed. It would even
have a higher pressure than the ambient water pressure in order to
withstand the hydrodynamic forces when under way. To be sure it
would be heavy when filled and there would be a substantial weight
penalty to pay. Acceleration and manouverability underwater would be
adversely affected by the large extra mass in the extreme. When
underwater, practically all of the volume of Sky would be acting like
a swim bladder in a fish and as a water balloon, simultaneously.
While this is probably not practical it is do-able.

Providing powerplants that can operate Sky to its demonstrated levels
in flight is actually a far more challenging explanation. It would
have to be carrying a large amount of oxidizer in addition to it's
fuel supply. That's a lot of additional weight and would mostly
never be used since Sky appears to operate usually no higher than a
regular airliner (50k max) and most often very low. Extra weight
cuts performance, then it needs even bigger engines to restore
perfomance, which means even more fuel, more weight then yet bigger
engines... a real catch 22.

Unless the engines were somehow nuclear... A small nuclear fission
reactor heating fluid in a closed loop, driving a fluid power turbine
connected to an air-breathing turbine. There could be shielding
behind the pilot, shielding in Diver and shielding in the pilot
loading tube retracted into Diver before launch. Radiation shielding
underwater would be provided by the water itself. It would however
be extremely dangerous to be near Sky when it wasn't underwater, (and
rather lethal within 10m or so even underwater). I doubt if it is
terribly realistic though, I don't believe the energy yield of a
flight-weight reactor would be sufficient to power the vehicle to the
observed performance levels. It has been tried by the Soviets, US
DOE and USAF, it flew but was heavy and underpowered to the point of
uselessness as well as incredibly dangerous to operate. It was never
put into anything smaller than a large bomber bacause the smallest
reactor weighed about 80 tons!

Fusion perhaps?... :-)
S.K.

--- In SHADO@y..., James Gibbon <james.gibbon@v...> wrote:
> "anthonyappleyard" wrote:
>
> >
> > I can't see how a sub could go far with a jet fighter stuck to
its
> > nose, anyway. To be light enough to fly fast and far the plane
would
> > have to be much lighter than water and very flimsy against bumps;
the
> > combination woulld be very stern-heavy and the plane's fuselage
would
> > soon get stove in by minor bumbs or even by hydrodynamic water
> > pressure at speed.
>
> Good point, but perhaps it was filled with seawater to equalise
> the pressure, being evacuated just before launch.

I think I should make a comment about the design of Sky 1. There has been
alot of talk about whether or not it is a good design and if it would be
possible to do what it does in real life. The answer seems to be yes. In
the early 70's after seeing UFO I read a book called Invisible Residents by
Ivan T. Sanderson. The book put forth the idea that UFO's are actually
residents of Earth that live in the oceans and that their UFO's are actually
capable of going underwater as well as flying in air and space. Well the
thing that caught my attention in the book mention all a airplane made by the
Douglas aircraft company that could operate like a submarine. It also
mention at this plane was shown in a issue of Popular Mechanics. Intrigued
by this I ordered the back issue of this magazine as was amazed to see a
artist consept of the plane and a photo on of the prototypes being tested.
The prototype was stripped down to the frame for tests in the water but the
consept drawing of what the finished plane would look like looked so much
like Sky 1 that I have always wondered if this was seen by the people who
thought up the design for UFO. Fun thing about the plane is while you can
find lots about all other X-planes made this one is missing from all books on
the subject and the internet. The only thing I could learn was that after
the article appeared in Popular Mechanics that the project was closed down
due to a crash and this was in the Sanderson book. But if so why is there no
mention of this plane in books on X-planes? The only thing I can think of is
that the program wasn't really closed and was funded as a "Black Ops" project
and the so call crash was a cover story when the Popular Mechanics article
blew their cover. So somewhere out there there might be a submersible
airplane operating that no one suspects.
As to launching planes from subs, the Japanese had made some at the
end of the war that launched from subs but they never got used in combat as
they came too late. The sub had a special bay that held to fighter with
folding wings. The wing had to but put in place and the planes picked up by
cranes after landing in the water near the sub.
As to Sky 1 taking off it is done with something similar to Rocket
Assisted Take-Off device used to boost planes overloaded to take off speed.
As to the use of an oxider. This would not be needed. The jet engine of Sky
1 would not fire till it had left the water and the rocker assist device
would have its own fuel that burns underwater like the old Gyrojet pistol
ammo.

James K.


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