skydiver

watching a program on cable dealing with futuristic militaristic flying
machines.

One thing they talk about is a plane launched from a sub, fires its weapons,
and returns to the sub

sound familiar? :)

Bruce

--- In [hidden email], "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@s...> wrote:
>
> watching a program on cable dealing with futuristic militaristic flying
> machines.
>
> One thing they talk about is a plane launched from a sub, fires its
weapons,
> and returns to the sub
>
> sound familiar? :)

Actually, I thought you were talking about a Japanese submarine from
WWII. They used to put a float plane on the submarine in a special
hanger, to do reconaisance. So, it looks like the idea has been
invented yet again...

true, forgot about that.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Carroll <[hidden email]>
Sent: Feb 26, 2005 12:58 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: skydiver



--- In [hidden email], "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@s...> wrote:
>
> watching a program on cable dealing with futuristic militaristic flying
> machines.
>
> One thing they talk about is a plane launched from a sub, fires its
weapons,
> and returns to the sub
>
> sound familiar? :)

Actually, I thought you were talking about a Japanese submarine from
WWII. They used to put a float plane on the submarine in a special
hanger, to do reconaisance. So, it looks like the idea has been
invented yet again...






Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In [hidden email], "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@s...>
wrote:
>>> watching a program on cable dealing with futuristic militaristic
flying machines. One thing they talk about is a plane launched from a
sub, fires its weapons, and returns to the sub. Sound familiar? :) <<<

>> Actually, I thought you were talking about a Japanese submarine
from WWII. They used to put a float plane on the submarine in a
special hanger, to do reconaisance. So, it looks like the idea has
been invented yet again... <<

--- In [hidden email], Bruce Sherman <brucesherman@s...> wrote:
> true, forgot about that.

And the idea goes further back than that. There was at least one
British submarine in WW _One_ (M.2, IIRC, and possibly M.3 as well)
that carried an aircraft -- or was intended to; I'm not sure that the
aircraft ever became operational, but the plans were made and the
boat was built. For those who are interested in submarine "trivia,"
M.1, the first of the class, didn't have a hangar; it had a 12"
(battleship-size) gun instead!

To be honest, that method of operation would work a lot better than
having Sky 1 as the front half of the sub. Apart from anything else,
Sky 1, as dearly as I love it, is an aerodynamic nightmare, and most
of that comes from it being the front "half" of SkyDiver. A far
better fighter/interceptor could be designed if it didn't have to
attach to Diver 1, but was launched from a hangar in some way. Launch
and recovery would be an interesting design project.

Phil

All too familiar....lol


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

thought of this last night. How is it, we never seemed to see shots
of the inteceptors returning and landing? they take off (same shot,
always) and then...what? do they land on the same pad, and then go
back down? are there just three intecetors? why not five or six?
If one gets blown up, then do they launch two?

same for sky1. it takes off..but how does it get stuck back onto
the sub? and..how do control personnel get into the control room?
Ford doesn't just walk into The Man's office, flip open the box, and
down we go. Does he show up in his uniform? How do they get in?





--- In [hidden email], "Phil" <atcliffe@p...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@s...>
> wrote:
> >>> watching a program on cable dealing with futuristic
militaristic
> flying machines. One thing they talk about is a plane launched
from a
> sub, fires its weapons, and returns to the sub. Sound familiar? :)
<<<
>
> >> Actually, I thought you were talking about a Japanese submarine
> from WWII. They used to put a float plane on the submarine in a
> special hanger, to do reconaisance. So, it looks like the idea
has
> been invented yet again... <<
>
> --- In [hidden email], Bruce Sherman <brucesherman@s...>
wrote:
> > true, forgot about that.
>
> And the idea goes further back than that. There was at least one
> British submarine in WW _One_ (M.2, IIRC, and possibly M.3 as
well)
> that carried an aircraft -- or was intended to; I'm not sure that
the
> aircraft ever became operational, but the plans were made and the
> boat was built. For those who are interested in
submarine "trivia,"
> M.1, the first of the class, didn't have a hangar; it had a 12"
> (battleship-size) gun instead!
>
> To be honest, that method of operation would work a lot better
than
> having Sky 1 as the front half of the sub. Apart from anything
else,
> Sky 1, as dearly as I love it, is an aerodynamic nightmare, and
most
> of that comes from it being the front "half" of SkyDiver. A far
> better fighter/interceptor could be designed if it didn't have to
> attach to Diver 1, but was launched from a hangar in some way.
Launch
> and recovery would be an interesting design project.
>
> Phil

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:41:38 -0000
"Brinke" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> thought of this last night. How is it, we never seemed to see shots
> of the inteceptors returning and landing? they take off (same shot,
> always) and then...what? do they land on the same pad, and then go
> back down?

That's a reasonable assumption, I think! They appear to have the same
kind of VTOL capability as a Harrier.

> same for sky1. it takes off..but how does it get stuck back onto
> the sub?

That's a much more interesting question, one that's been asked many
times, but sadly one to which there is no answer. Still, that leaves
plenty of space for us to speculate!

I like to think that it dives back into the water a bit like a Puffin
hunting for fish, then the Diver part manouvres behind it and docks.
Sky 1 wouldn't need underwater propulsion, just the ability to adjust
its depth (ballast tanks?) and stay level.

>How is it, we never seemed to see
> shots
> of the inteceptors returning and landing? they take off (same
> shot,
> always) and then...what?

I think the list at some point theorizied....or maybe it's in some book somewhere that the interceptors land unpowered on the moon and then get dragged back to base (Hence the ski's)

do they land on the same pad, and then
> go
> back down? are there just three intecetors? why not five or six?

Henderson and SHADO budget cuts

> same for sky1. it takes off..but how does it get stuck back onto
> the sub? and..how do control personnel get into the control room?

Skydiver is different. In a scene cut from an episode the Skydiver landed in the water and the sub surfaced. Then as Sky got reattached all the people in the sub sat on deck in folding chairs and sunglasses (And not much else!) drinking pina colada's. Captain Carlin would dance a bit but once they broke out the Englebert Humperdinck records it was all over!

; - ) (It's too early for an April Fool but what the hey!)

Great minds think alike, I had the same thoughts about skydiver
myself and was going to post a question like yours Brinke.

My thoughts about the inteceptors was that they would be expensive to
replace but in some of the episodes it doesn't seem to matter they
get blown up anyway.

I'd thought about the other personnel getting down to the control
room also and thought that they must have a separate entrance. I
noticed on one of the sites that plans were posted of the layout of
Shado and it seemed to me I recalled seeing at least one more exit
and maybe two. Whether or not these were emergency exits I don't know.

There was an escape exit behind Straker's desk (the swirling art
mural) and there was another one that we saw in Timelash at least I
think it was an exit going up to the roof. Maybe there were others.

Karen

--- In [hidden email], "Brinke" <brinkeguthrie@y...> wrote:
>
>
> thought of this last night. How is it, we never seemed to see
shots
> of the inteceptors returning and landing? they take off (same
shot,
> always) and then...what? do they land on the same pad, and then go
> back down? are there just three intecetors? why not five or six?
> If one gets blown up, then do they launch two?

--- In [hidden email], James Gibbon <jg@j...> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:41:38 -0000 "Brinke" <brinkeguthrie@y...>
wrote:
>> How is it, we never seemed to see shots of the inteceptors
returning and landing? <<

Costs money to film, and is considered irrelevant and/or boring.
Gerry did that sort of stuff in the puppet series, but not in UFO,
presumably because it was felt that there were better things to show,
like events related to plot and characterisation. Also, he was
probably aiming at a different target audience, one thought to be
less interested in that sort of stuff -- little did he know! <g>

>> They take off (same shot, always) and then... what? Do they land
on the same pad, and then go back down? <<

> That's a reasonable assumption, I think! They appear to have the
same kind of VTOL capability as a Harrier. <

They _have_ to have that! Remember, they operate from the Moon, and
there's no air, so wings don't work (and the Interceptors don't have
them anyway), so the only thing stopping them from falling back to
the lunar surface must be some kind of vertical thruster(s). Once
they reach lunar escape velocity, they're okay, but below that
something has to hold them up!

>> Same for Sky 1. It takes off... but how does it get stuck back
onto the sub? <<

> That's a much more interesting question, one that's been asked many
times, but sadly one to which there is no answer. Still, that leaves
plenty of space for us to speculate!

> I like to think that it dives back into the water a bit like a
Puffin hunting for fish, then the Diver part manouvres behind it and
docks. Sky 1 wouldn't need underwater propulsion, just the ability to
adjust its depth (ballast tanks?) and stay level. <

That's probably the best way for reconnection to occur, though a
small propulsion unit would help to make Sky 1 more controllable by
providing just enough forward speed for the flying control surfaces
to act as hydroplanes; as any submariner or airship pilot will tell
you, depth/height control using only aero/hydrostatic buoyancy is
difficult at best, and aero/hydrodynamic force is a lot more precise.
Reconnection will most likely take place a hundred or so feet down in
order to get out of the effects of any sea state -- who'd want to,
say, try to reconnect on the surface in a heavy sea?

Having ballast tanks in Sky 1 would also account for its rather deep
fuselage. It's not very streamlined, but if space is needed for tanks
of that sort, it explains some of the reasons for its shape.

Phil

I raised this question a couple months back. I think in "Timelash" there's a
scene where they say Straker's studio office is the ONLY way in or out of
SHADO HQ.
Must get pretty busy at shift-change.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinke" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:41 AM

> Ford doesn't just walk into The Man's office, flip open the box, and
> down we go. Does he show up in his uniform? How do they get in?

Hmmm...there has to be another way. In the event of an emergency and
everyone has to get out- theres no way they all jam into that office.
Meanwhile, I am counting the days til the Product Enterprise Mobile
comes out- maybe with a figure of mark Bradley/Harry Baird at the
wheel, a fitting tribute.


--- In [hidden email], "D Persica" <dennispersica@b...> wrote:
> I raised this question a couple months back. I think in "Timelash"
there's a
> scene where they say Straker's studio office is the ONLY way in or
out of

Although it was never shown on tv or even hinted at I would guess that there was an employees entrance. It may have been further away than Straker's office so Shado agents would get to work early. Most civilians shown Straker's office were there to interview a studio head or were going to get the amnesia drug anyway. I would expect Dr. Jackson and the others coming to work would use the special employee entrance and not Straker's office. Just my opinion.

D Persica <[hidden email]> wrote:
I raised this question a couple months back. I think in "Timelash" there's a
scene where they say Straker's studio office is the ONLY way in or out of
SHADO HQ.
Must get pretty busy at shift-change.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinke"

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:41 AM

> Ford doesn't just walk into The Man's office, flip open the box, and
> down we go. Does he show up in his uniform? How do they get in?





Yahoo! Groups Links










signature

test'; ">
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

I cant think of the episode, but didn't they mention when transporting a
alien back to HQ, that they used a underground tunnel from a hospital?

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "legg bryan" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: skydiver


>
> Although it was never shown on tv or even hinted at I would guess
that there was an employees entrance. It may have been further away than
Straker's office so Shado agents would get to work early. Most civilians
shown Straker's office were there to interview a studio head or were going
to get the amnesia drug anyway. I would expect Dr. Jackson and the others
coming to work would use the special employee entrance and not Straker's
office. Just my opinion.
>
> D Persica <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I raised this question a couple months back. I think in "Timelash" there's
a

Of course, that makes sense, however, the "record" -- ie, the show itself --
says explicitly in "Timelash" that his office is the only way in or out of
HQ. That's why they're shocked when they see Straker arriving when no one
saw him leave via his office (or else they're shocked when he leaves since
no one saw him arrive, I forget which).
Just a flaw in the storyline that probably would have been corrected had the
series been allowed to live on.

----- Original Message -----
From: "legg bryan" <[hidden email]>
> Although it was never shown on tv or even hinted at I would guess that
> there was an employees entrance.

Maybe they meant it was the only way in/out for Straker since he would have to be seen going in and out of the office. Same for the top three studio heads/Shado operatives. Freeman, Foster, and Lake would come in through Straker's office. The operational personnel would come in through the secret entrance located further from the studios.

D Persica <[hidden email]> wrote:

Of course, that makes sense, however, the "record" -- ie, the show itself --
says explicitly in "Timelash" that his office is the only way in or out of
HQ. That's why they're shocked when they see Straker arriving when no one
saw him leave via his office (or else they're shocked when he leaves since
no one saw him arrive, I forget which).
Just a flaw in the storyline that probably would have been corrected had the
series been allowed to live on.

----- Original Message -----
From: "legg bryan"
> Although it was never shown on tv or even hinted at I would guess that
> there was an employees entrance.





Yahoo! Groups Links










signature

test'; ">

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

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

Well, I don't mean to carry this conversation on longer than it should on a
trivial matter that's probably just a script flaw, but if there were another
physical way for people to get in and out of SHADO then the characters (I
forget who all was involved: Miss Ealand for sure, probably Foster and maybe
Freeman) would not have been as shocked as they were by the fact that
Straker had just gone one way when no one had seen him go the other. They
would have assumed that, well, maybe he got in/out through the OTHER
egress/ingress. Take a look at the episode if you can and you'll see what I
mean.

What you're suggesting would be similar to, say, the head of a giant
corporation having his own parking space in a giant parking lot, and someone
trying to insist that the corporate head couldn't POSSIBLY be in the
building since his car wasn't in his parking space. Of course, there'd be
all sorts of other explanations for why he could be there: He could have
parked somewhere else; maybe someone drove him to work; maybe he drove
himself to work but someone picked up his car for service, etc. In other
words you wouldn't insist that the fact that his car wasn't in his space was
absolute proof he wasn't in the building.

However, in Timelash, Ealand and the others are absolutely befuddled that
they just saw Straker come INTO Shado when there was no possible way he
could have gotten OUT earlier. If there were another way in/out, they
wouldn't have been so confused. (and again, I may be confusing which way he
was going: either he was leaving when no one had seen him come in
originally, or he was coming back when no one had seen him leave.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "legg bryan" <[hidden email]>
> Maybe they meant it was the only way in/out for Straker since he
> would have to be seen going in and out of the office. Same for the top
> three studio heads/Shado operatives. Freeman, Foster, and Lake would come
> in through Straker's office. The operational personnel would come in
> through the secret entrance located further from the studios.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:47:04 -0800 (PST)
legg bryan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Although it was never shown on tv or even hinted at I would guess that
> there was an employees entrance. It may have been further away than
> Straker's office so Shado agents would get to work early. Most
> civilians shown Straker's office were there to interview a studio head
> or were going to get the amnesia drug anyway. I would expect Dr.
> Jackson and the others coming to work would use the special employee
> entrance and not Straker's office. Just my opinion.

I like to think that SHADO HQ is a bit like a nuclear submarine,
with sleeping quarters - so that personnel are stationed there
for weeks, or even months at a time without 'surfacing'. Otherwise,
the idea of military personnel working secretly underneath a film
studio is a non-starter from a security point of view - there's just
no way for the regular studio staff to fail to notice mysterious
people turning up in the morning that they don't see for the rest
of the day .. unless perhaps there's a tunnel joining SHADO HQ to
a nearby airbase or other military installation, and the SHADO
personnel get in that way.

What do the families and friends of SHADO personnel think they do,
anyway? We know that Mary thinks Straker works as a studio head, but
what about Keith Ford's family, or everyone else? I suppose they must
know that they work for a military organisation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Gibbon" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:12 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: skydiver


>
> anyway? We know that Mary thinks Straker works as a studio head, but
> what about Keith Ford's family, or everyone else? I suppose they must
> know that they work for a military organisation.
>
>


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


I'm pretty sure that Mary knew Straker's real job was not as a film
exec. She knew he was in a military position, she just never knew the
details.


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



----- Original Message -----
From: "D Persica" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: skydiver


>
> Well, I don't mean to carry this conversation on longer than it should on
a
> trivial matter that's probably just a script flaw, but if there were
another
> physical way for people to get in and out of SHADO then the characters (I
> forget who all was involved: Miss Ealand for sure, probably Foster


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


I agree with every word you say here, but it is just a script flaw.
Sometimes you have to turn off the analysis portion of your brain a bit to
fully enjoy the show.
Naturally, there has to be more than one entrance to the headquarters,
safety demands it and practicality demands it. I just prefer to think that
it was never important enough in any script to specifically show it (and
inconvenient to other scripts; ala "Timelash").

Dave H.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:02:11 -0500
"davrecon" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that Mary knew Straker's real job was not as a film
> exec. She knew he was in a military position, she just never knew the
> details.
>

I doubt that, to be honest - I can't see any reason for her to know
that Straker was leading a 'double life' after they split, and he
left Air Force Intelligence.