Skydiver/Sky 1 launch.

If you take on board that POLARIS/TRIDENT missiles are launch from
Nuclear Submarines from under water, & Sky 1 is launched on the same
principle,
it could be feasible.

Besides, who`s to say that it hasn`t happened yet, considering the thousands
of Billions of pounds spent via the "Black Budget".

I'm Canadian, and not up on all British lingo - what's the "Black Budget"?

Vis a vis Polaris/trident missles - they are meant to be launched and not
retrieved, nor are they an active part of the submarines they are launched
from. We've never seen Sky 1 getting put back together with the rest of the
sub structure - how does it happen?

Pam

----- Original Message -----

From: kevin lazenby

Subject: [SHADO] Skydiver/Sky 1
launch.





If you take on board that POLARIS/TRIDENT missiles are launch from

Nuclear Submarines from under water, Sky 1 is launched on the
same

principle, it could be feasible.





Neat observation, but
not the same thing. Polaris missiles are

protected inside the submarine until launched, and then their silo's
are

only flooded when launched near the surface. Sky 1 is constantly
hauled

about on the nose at great depths...everywhere that submarine goes.

Weight is the God of
aerospace design, and to make a plane capable

of withstanding those pressures and the corrosion of constant
salt water

immersion is impractical. It requires a heavy pressure hull to keep the
thing

from collapsing at depth.



It sure does look cool
though!



Dave H.





__________|__________


___\___(*)___/___

o/
\o




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

Dave wrote: "Neat observation, but not the same thing. Polaris missiles are
protected inside the submarine until launched, and then their silo's are
only flooded when launched near the surface. Sky 1 is constantly hauled
about on the nose at great depths...everywhere that submarine goes. Weight
is the God of aerospace design, and to make a plane capable of withstanding
those pressures and the corrosion of constant salt water immersion is
impractical. It requires a heavy pressure hull to keep the thing from
collapsing at depth.It sure does look cool though!"

Not only that, but the missles are never retrieved. They go out, find their
target and explode, right? Sky 1 not only has to find its target, but shoot
it down AND return to hook back up with the remainder of the Skydiver sub.
What happens to the sub while Sky 1 is out looking for UFOs? How do they
reconnect? I've seen snippets showing the sub pointing its nose
surface-ward, to release Sky 1, but I cannot figure out the reverse order -
Sky 1 cannot 'back itself up" to re-connect with Skydiver sub.

Pam

Our US Navy actually once studied the feasability of the possiblilty
of launching jets from a submarine. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
fans asked if they got the idea from the show (the flying sub) which
the Navy of course denied, they had in fact but thinking about the
idea before it was even in Voyage.


> Dave wrote: "Neat observation, but not the same thing. Polaris
missiles are
> protected inside the submarine until launched, and then their
silo's are
> only flooded when launched near the surface. Sky 1 is constantly
hauled
> about on the nose at great depths...everywhere that submarine goes.
Weight
> is the God of aerospace design, and to make a plane capable of
withstanding
> those pressures and the corrosion of constant salt water immersion
is
> impractical. It requires a heavy pressure hull to keep the thing
from
> collapsing at depth.It sure does look cool though!"
>
> Not only that, but the missles are never retrieved. They go out,
find their
> target and explode, right? Sky 1 not only has to find its target,
but shoot
> it down AND return to hook back up with the remainder of the
Skydiver sub.
> What happens to the sub while Sky 1 is out looking for UFOs? How do
they
> reconnect? I've seen snippets showing the sub pointing its nose
> surface-ward, to release Sky 1, but I cannot figure out the reverse
order -
> Sky 1 cannot 'back itself up" to re-connect with Skydiver sub.
>
> Pam

"davrecon" <[hidden email]> wrote:-
> ... Sky 1 is constantly hauled about on the nose at great depths ...

DITTO!!! Sky 1 should be in an enclosed hangar onboard. It should be much more
like an ordinary jet fighter shape. Or, if it was missile-shaped like a X-15,
it could be launched through a tube. Preferably with foldable wings. It should
also be a LOT smaller compared to the sub :: someone wrote that when the Sky 1
model was made it was at first meant to represent a midget sub.

CONTENTS DELETED

----- Original Message -----

From: Anthony Appleyard

Subject: [SHADO] RE: Skydiver/Sky 1
launch.







Sky 1..... ......foldable wings. It
should

also be a LOT smaller compared to the sub :: someone wrote that when the
Sky 1

model was made it was at first meant to represent a midget sub.



When
I fisrt saw the show as a kid,

I got the impression that SkyDiver was a big sub;

300 ft + , with this gigantic airplane on the nose of it,

with a crew of at least 40 or so, and that it went on long

patrol missions like regular navy submarines.

But
now seeing it again recently, It appears

more like it were just this little mini sub, with just a

handfull of crew, less than half a dozen. And it's mission

profile seems to be that of making merely day trips,

with the crew getting to go home at night.

Seeing
the production sketches on Marc's

website seems to supprt that, as there is only one

main deck and appearently no messing or berthing

quarters for any crew. Also, we frequently see Peter

Gordeno returning to SHADO headquarters after

shooting down his prey, so it doesn't seem likely

he's that far away.

Somehow
it was more fun as a big, long range

patrol craft, than as a little day tripper....



Dave H.


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

"kevin lazenby" <[hidden email]> wrote:-
> Perhaps Sky 1 should be held in a Silo, ...
> A launch tube wouldn`t be practical for docking purposes, whereas a silo would.

On return: Sky 1 ditches somewhere near the bows of the sub. It would have to
have some sort of auxiliary motor and sea-propeller to get back inside Sky 1.
But such a thing would be deadweight in the air and would burden Sky 1 badly
as it was chasing UFO's. Perhaps the sub fires a torpedo which locks onto Sky
1 and brings it back. Once the back end of Sky 1 is back in its launch tube,
the sub could suck water out of the launch tube and suck Sky 1 the rest ofai
the way back inside. Sky 1 would have to be missile-shaped with foldable
wings. Perhaps shaped like a Cruise Missile. I can't believe in a fighter
shaped like the Sky 1 model: its big flat back end is an aerodynamic disaster.
Gerry Anderson knew little about aerodynamics, as the shapes of the
Thunderbirds show, unless he assumed that by then Man would have discovered
compact portable anti-gravity devices. In Gerry Anderson's studio, model-
making was expensive, and once the Sky 1 and Skydiver models were made, as a
midget sub, and later he decided to treat it as a full-sized sub, be would be
unwilling to throw all that work and expense away and start again, but he
would have had to use the same model and put up with the size/scale error.

"davrecon" <[hidden email]> wrote:-
> When I first saw the show as a kid,
> I got the impression that SkyDiver was a big sub; 300 ft + ...

Someone wrote once that there is a scene with men on Skydiver's outside deck,
and the scale shows that as finally imagined, Skydiver is a full-sized sub.
Just because we never see the rest of Skydiver's crew, doesn't prove that they
don't exist, given the amount of times we see inside Skydiver.

----- Original Message -----

From: Anthony Appleyard

Subject: [SHADO] RE: Skydiver/Sky 1
launch.





Someone wrote once that there is a scene with men on Skydiver's outside
deck,

and the scale shows that as finally imagined, Skydiver is a full-sized sub.


Just because we never see the rest of Skydiver's crew, doesn't prove that
they

don't exist, given the amount of times we see inside Skydiver.





The
scenes I've seen show the men looking pretty big compared to the conning tower
they're stranding on. There is the entry door on the side of the tower as well;
it is huge on the sub. Also, check out "Reflections in the Water" where they
show Straker and Foster retrieving motorized aqua scooters and swimming
next to the sub. It looks real small there too.

I
like to "ignore" those evidences though, assume that they are not showing
the rest of the crew, and pretend the sub is actually big.



Dave







__________|__________


___\___(*)___/___

o/
\o




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

Here's my take on Sky 1 which helps me to accept the concept with the
least amount of suspension of disbelief:

Sky 1 is of a lighter weight construction than the Diver 1 portion
of the sub. However, fuel tanks are kept full while in the water
(supplied from Diver 1) and the remainder of the fuselage is
pressurized to match the surrounding water pressure at all times. When
it is ready to launch, Skydiver hovers at shallow depth (less than
10m) just below the surface. The pressure difference between Sky 1 and
the main sub is small enough at this point that the pilot can equalize
while in the chute. As Sky 1 launches, the pressure is reduced in the
cockpit slowly as to not affect the pilot any more than a normal climb
to altitude.

To reconnect, Sky 1 ditches in the ocean and waits at or just below
the surface for Diver 1 to approach from behind. The liftoff thrusters
perhaps can be redirected (harrier style?) to provide reverse thrust
allowing Sky 1 to re-dock independently.

Sorry it's just the nerd engineer in me. :-)

ttfn,
Teresa