square triangle oops...

At Seattle's Museum of Flight:

http://www.museumofflight.org/visit/calendar/display.html?Date=2003-05-31

Note the Space:1999 Eagle in the photo!

==============================

Toys, games and fanciful stories of space travel have
been around a lot longer than space travel itself, and
these “childish” expressions of imagination have in
fact been powerful engines of the progress humanity
has made among the stars. On display through September
7, the Space Toys exhibition explores more than 130
years’ worth of space fantasy as expressed in more
than 1,200 toys, models, games, publications and
collectibles. From Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon
through Tom Corbett and Space Patrol to Star Trek and
Star Wars, society’s evolving vision of space is
revealed through artifacts familiar and unexpected.
Also on display are clips from classic science fiction
films and television series from 1902 through 1960.
And eleven interactive stations throughout the exhibit
provide visitors hands-on opportunities to explore the
Space Toys “space.”



=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

--- In [hidden email], "Jim Durdan" <jdurdan@b...> wrote:
> Outside of the fact that Gerry Anderson approved an article in
Starlog of the
> The only connection is that the space 1999 moonbase was going to be
part of a new improved UFO series but UFO was not doing to well in
the USA so thay droped UFO and went on whith a compleatly new show
space 1999

Robert

--- In [hidden email], SumitonJD@a... wrote:
> About the Rescue decal under the canopy. Since the astronauts did
not wear
> spacesuit it wouldn't be likely for them to be ejected. But
consider that
> the whole interceptor cockpit might be ejected from the rests of
the
> interceptor. This would work anywhere, space, on the lunar suface
or back in
> the hanger bay.
>
> James K.
I guess originally the point I was trying to make is that in
reality, the rescue decals perhaps shouldn't have been placed in the
interceptors, since under most circumstances a rescue where the
canopy has some sort of pyros that blow up the canopy would had
meant the death of the pilot (that was trying to be rescued). Then
perhaps having those decals on the interceptor was a mistake because
it was misleading.

Some time ago some people in this group speculated about how the
pilots get in the interceptors, and if the silos are air tight.
Obviously if you could pressurize the silos, a lot of air would have
escaped every time the silos were open (which makes it unlikely that
they would have been air tight in the first place). But anyhow,
assuming this was the case, inside the silos would had been the only
place where it would had made sense to blow up the canopy in case of
a rescue. But unless you were in a big, big hurry, it wouldn't have
made sense to blow the canopy in the first place. By the way, now
that I think about it, why were the silos so big inside? I don't
think this makes much sense.

For those of you that have seen 2001 Space Odyssey (who in his right
mind hasn't seen this movie ??? :-) I say this of course because Ed
Bishop plays a small part in the movie! :-) ), that scene were David
Bowman is in space without his helmet for a few seconds, it is not
implausible. NASA investigated the matter several years ago and
concluded that a human could survive a sudden depressurizaton and
exposure in space of just a few seconds (30, 45 max?). So going back
to our situation of the rescue of an interceptor pilot, if this had
happen on the surface on the moon, it sounds implausible that the
people rescuing the pilot would have enough time to blow up the
canopy, pull the pilot from the interceptor, and then put him inside
a pressurized chamber (or spacecraft), all of this in less than 1
minute.

Finally, I doubt that the whole cockpit could have been ejected. The
interceptors look very small, ejecting the canopy would have been
like ejecting half of the interceptor! Perhaps if the interceptors
had been many times bigger, this would have been remotely feasible.
Anyhow, I don't know of any airplane when this is done, for a
spacecraft this certainly would be even more difficult to do.

David Levine

An intdresting thought occured to me after reading this. Since we never actually see how the pilots get into their ships, I wonder just how they do do it.The launch bay would have to be presurerized so that they could be able to climb into the cockpit. I wouldn't think that they would move them into the launch bay from somewhere else since this would waste time. You would have to have an area where they could work on the craft thought, so that there would have to be hangers and a system to get them to that area if they were in a non flyable condition.Just how extensive is MoonBase below the surface? There is no way that the surface installation is all that there is. Just how long did it take to get everything up there and set up?Anyone seen any "Plans" for the underground area or is this just another area that we have to take a SWAG at?By the way, I do enjoy getting into the technical side of side of things. You should see my collection of UNCLE tech manuals and stuff that I have extrapolated on my own based on the show. Guess that makes me a "True" fan (Or Fanatic...)

[hidden email] wrote:About the Rescue decal under the canopy. Since the astronauts did not wear
spacesuit it wouldn't be likely for them to be ejected. But consider that
the whole interceptor cockpit might be ejected from the rests of the
interceptor. This would work anywhere, space, on the lunar suface or back in
the hanger bay.

James K.

Does anyone have this article? What issue was it. I have looked through my Starlogs and I can't find it, but I only have the last five years or so of them.

robert_law <[hidden email]> wrote:--- In [hidden email], "Jim Durdan" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that Gerry Anderson approved an article in
Starlog
> linking the two series??? Nope, No connection at all.

Robert:

Good question. I don't quite recall such an article myself. I used to buy
Starlog in its first few years of existence -- right thru the Gerry Anderson
column years. After that I stopped as there wasn't much they covered that I
was interested in.

Personally, I don't see why people have this urge to connect the two series.
Does anyone connect Thunderbirds to Stingray? Fireball XL-5 to Supercar? Then
why UFO to 1999? Yes, in the background of the series there was a connection
as one's demise lead to the others rise...but on screen (as MM said) there's
no connection.

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: UFO/Space:1999 continuity


> Does anyone have this article? What issue was it. I have looked through my
Starlogs and I can't find it, but I only have the last five years or so of
them.
>
> robert_law <[hidden email]> wrote:--- In [hidden email], "Jim
Durdan" wrote:

Hi,
If you check the Photo Archives here at the group I uploaded the
article several months ago. It ran under the heading of the Gerry Anderson
Report, which means some one signed off on this.

Jim Durdan

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony D [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 9:06 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: UFO/Space:1999 continuity


Robert:

Good question. I don't quite recall such an article myself. I used to buy
Starlog in its first few years of existence -- right thru the Gerry Anderson
column years. After that I stopped as there wasn't much they covered that I
was interested in.

Personally, I don't see why people have this urge to connect the two series.
Does anyone connect Thunderbirds to Stingray? Fireball XL-5 to Supercar?
Then why UFO to 1999? Yes, in the background of the series there was a
connection as one's demise lead to the others rise...but on screen (as MM
said) there's no connection.

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: UFO/Space:1999 continuity


> Does anyone have this article? What issue was it. I have looked
> through my
Starlogs and I can't find it, but I only have the last five years or so of
them.
>
> robert_law <[hidden email]> wrote:--- In [hidden email],
> "Jim
Durdan" wrote:


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

At 10:06 PM 4/27/03 -0400, you wrote:
>Personally, I don't see why people have this urge to connect the two series.
>Does anyone connect Thunderbirds to Stingray? Fireball XL-5 to Supercar? Then
>why UFO to 1999? Yes, in the background of the series there was a connection
>as one's demise lead to the others rise...but on screen (as MM said) there's
>no connection.

I'm pretty sure (But too lazy to go look it it up right now.) that the old
SIG fanzine or maybe Century 21 had a comic strip that attempted to connect
all the Gerry Anderson series (I'm pretty sure they left out Four Feather
Falls, Torchy & Twizzle but I could be wrong) from Supercar through Space
1999. (Maybe Terrahawks too, the comic was written around the time
Terrahawks was in production)

I remember at some point they were constructing a man made moon to resemble
the moon lost in 1999 so it wouldn't mess up the continuity of Stingray,
Thunderbirds etc! I don't remember reading about UFO in the strip but that
may have just been that issue.

Space 1999 and UFO are related since a lot of the pre-production work for
the proposed 2nd season of UFO went into Space 1999, including early drafts
of the Space premise having an organization like SHADO called WANDER but on
screen there is no real reference to UFO.

I was at two Science Fiction conventions this weekend, Jersey Devil Con
(Small convention with a SF/Fantasy/Horror writing focus) and Chiller
Theater (A huge autograph show) I went to Chiller for a few hours on
Saturday commuting from the JErsey Devil con as both were on,ly 30 minutes
apart.

Spotted another UFO soundtrack bootleg, not the one that had been discussed
a few days ago on the list. This one is very obviously a CD-R, with no
attempt to mask the CD-R with a real label or anything. There was no table
of contents, just three long pictures side by side on the cover with UFO
underneath (Pictures of Lt Ellis, Straker and maybe Foster? I can't
remember because the dealers area was a madhouse, overcrowded and there was
also a lot of smoking (Bleah!) So I wasn't enjoying standing in one spot
too much (And I was on a mission to buy Ugioh (SP?) cards for my daughter)

I did see a Space 1999 soundtrack bootleg, two versions, one was one that
you see on EBAY a lot and the other was a copy of the Fanderson
release. Maybe it was the Fanderson Year one release? I couldn't get near
it to see if the back cover was different. Another bootleg I saw was the
Fanderson Supercar/Fireball XL5 CD which was exactly like the Fanderson
version except for the back cover which omitted the Fanderson logo and name.

Not much else UFO stuff going on at Chiller, did get to see David Prowse
and Caroline Munro (Who were both sort of in Space 1999), and chatted with
a very friendly and sweet Karen Black who I thought I'd never get near to
talk to (I figured she'd be mobbed with people but she wasn't.) The other
fun were some of the cast from The Poseidon Adventure, Lost In Space and
Seinfelds parents.

A year or two back I did get to see Shane Rimmer at Chiller and we talked a
bit about Space 1999 (Space Brain) and UFO (Identified) but we mostly
talked about Barry Gray who he had many kind words about. Glad to see you
put back some of the music Marc! When i went to the Space 1999 convention
in 2001 in Tampa I ran a panel/game show about Barry Gray called name that
Barry Gray tune. The work you've done over the years and your helping me
with my questions about certain music certainly expanded my mind about
Gray's music and made that panel/game a real success!

>Anthony
>
> > Does anyone have this article? What issue was it. I have looked through my
>Starlogs and I can't find it, but I only have the last five years or so of
>them.

On Sunday, April 27, 2003 8:46 PM, David Levine
[SMTP:[hidden email]] wrote:
> I guess originally the point I was trying to make is that in
> reality, the rescue decals perhaps shouldn't have been placed in the
> interceptors, since under most circumstances a rescue where the
> canopy has some sort of pyros that blow up the canopy would had
> meant the death of the pilot (that was trying to be rescued). Then
> perhaps having those decals on the interceptor was a mistake because
> it was misleading.

Possibly, the decals were for morale purposes...

> Some time ago some people in this group speculated about how the
> pilots get in the interceptors, and if the silos are air tight.
> Obviously if you could pressurize the silos, a lot of air would have
> escaped every time the silos were open (which makes it unlikely that
> they would have been air tight in the first place).

It may be that, like with the Eagles in the later Space 1999, series. The
silos were the elevator bays to lift the intercepters to launch position.
Then you could have a seperate sealed hanger where the pilot boards. This
would allow a "shirt-sleave" environment for the technicians maintaining
and rearming the intercepters...

> Finally, I doubt that the whole cockpit could have been ejected. The
> interceptors look very small, ejecting the canopy would have been
> like ejecting half of the interceptor! Perhaps if the interceptors
> had been many times bigger, this would have been remotely feasible.
> Anyhow, I don't know of any airplane when this is done, for a
> spacecraft this certainly would be even more difficult to do.

Its possible, look at Golden Eye, the cockpit ejection system Bond uses to
escape from the grounded Eurocoptor is over half the size of the gunship
itself... An intercepter escape system wouldn't need a parachute either...

Steven P. Ross
[hidden email]

>If you check the Photo Archives here at the group I uploaded the
>article several months ago. It ran under the heading of the Gerry Anderson
>Report, which means some one signed off on this.

I think in the beginning, the Gerry Anderson Space Report actually
was written by Gerry, but after a while it was basically done by the
few Gerry Anderson fans left on the Starlog staff. This particular
article says it was written by Geoffrey Mandell, and edited by David
Hirsch. I doubt Gerry ever even saw it.

To see the article in question, go to:

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/

And select "Mark IX Hawk".

Marc

> implausible. NASA investigated the matter several years ago and
> concluded that a human could survive a sudden depressurizaton and
> exposure in space of just a few seconds (30, 45 max?).

This would be because it takes a finite time for a) the blood and other
bodily fluids to boil, b) for water vapour in the lungs to freeze, c) for
the internal pressure to overcome the resistance of skin, bone, muscle and
sinew before you explode

So if you are VERY VERY VERY VERY lucky - you have a slim chance of
surviving. Just hope that the "Heart of Gold" is cruising nearby.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 10/04/03

--- In [hidden email], "David Richards" <davrich@b...> wrote:
> What happened to the UFO era moonbase? Was it used as the basis of
the 1999
> moonbase alpha, or did they coexist? What happens when the moon
departs
> Earth orbit? What then is SHADO's first line of defence?
>

I don't think they'd have to worry about defending the Earth anymore,
because without the moon there are no tides, no tides the oceans
eventually die. And the oceans are the major source of oxygen (not to
mention food for many nations). No oxygen, no life on Earth.

--- In [hidden email], "David Richards" <davrich@b...> wrote:
> So if you are VERY VERY VERY VERY lucky - you have a slim chance of
> surviving. Just hope that the "Heart of Gold" is cruising nearby.

It's also worth nothing that the human would probably being
unconscious after about 15 seconds. So, while you might survive for
a few minutes, someone else had better be around to take care of you
during that time.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

What everyone has been say about ejecting from the Interceptors and surviving
in space without a suit is quite true. Which is why I think my idea that the
whole cockpit of the Interceptor would launch away as a survival pod. It
would have to have its own air supply other wise on the long sit out there
and wait for the aliens missions you see like in Destruction they would soon
use up all their air. Also they would have the heating and cooling of the
cockpit to keep them safe. Lastly since the ejection is done by small rocket
motors not explosive the distance would be greater in space than on the
surface that the pod is sent from the damaged Interceptor.

James K.


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

--- In [hidden email], SumitonJD@a... wrote:
> What everyone has been say about ejecting from the Interceptors and
surviving
> in space without a suit is quite true. Which is why I think my
idea that the
> whole cockpit of the Interceptor would launch away as a survival
pod. It
> would have to have its own air supply other wise on the long sit
out there
> and wait for the aliens missions you see like in Destruction they
would soon
> use up all their air. Also they would have the heating and cooling
of the
> cockpit to keep them safe. Lastly since the ejection is done by
small rocket
> motors not explosive the distance would be greater in space than on
the
> surface that the pod is sent from the damaged Interceptor.
>
> James K.
Question: Why do people eject from their aircraft? Because the
aircraft is on its way to a big crash and it is not possible to "soft-
land" the craft, and because after the pilot ejects, there are means
for the pilot to land softly on the ground.
With the interceptor, as you point out, if you eject the canopy, you
would need to provide a life support system and a rocket control
system for a safe, soft landing. Doesn't sound like something
trivial, and the whole ejection system would likekly be complicated,
and probably very heavy. Again, the interceptors are quite small, it
probably would be easier in that case to provide a mechanism to eject
the heavy parts (i.e., engines) and put a rocket motor on the bottom,
so in case of an emergency, you can still keep the cockpit intact
(and thus you don't need to duplicate systems to provide life support
inside an ejected canopy), without further risking the pilot in an
ejection maneouver (which are very dangerous by nature).
So there again, those "rescue" decals shouldn't have been on the
interceptors, I insist! :-)

David Levine

I think the rescue decals are a model makers mistake - they were probably
used to making aircraft models and simply got it wrong. Sky1 for instance
has rescue decals.

If interceptors had an eject mechanism then you'd have thought that the
astronaut Ken in 'The Computer Affair' would have bailed to get out of the
way from the UFO, instead of screaming at Lnt Ellis for new co-ordinates.
Initiative - if I saw a silly-great alien spaceship heading towards me and
my control centre weren't responding to my calls, I'd be out of there.

Surely the life-support systems would be more or less confined to the
cockpit area anyway - engines wouldn't really need it, so I agree that if
you got rid of the combustables - the fuel at least and the missile if it
was still armed, you could probably treat the interceptor itself as an
escape pod.

Maybe they have pilot's airbags?

Jess

--- In [hidden email], "J Ramage" <moonbase804@h...> wrote:
> If interceptors had an eject mechanism ...

If Interceptor pilots could ejectm, then surely their pilot's suits
would be full pressure suits with a completely enclosed helmet like a
space helmet and not merely a riotsquad-type visor.

> I'm pretty sure (But too lazy to go look it it up right now.) that the old
> SIG fanzine or maybe Century 21 had a comic strip that attempted to connect
> all the Gerry Anderson series (I'm pretty sure they left out Four Feather
> Falls, Torchy & Twizzle but I could be wrong) from Supercar through Space
> 1999. (Maybe Terrahawks too, the comic was written around the time
> Terrahawks was in production)

Yes, round about 82/83 I think. A cartoon strip with artwork by Graham
Bleathman.

SIG's successor publication also published an 'all-series' chronology which
linked pretty much all the Anderson sci-fi series together (including, of course,
'creative continuity').

> I remember at some point they were constructing a man made moon to resemble
> the moon lost in 1999 so it wouldn't mess up the continuity of Stingray,
> Thunderbirds etc! I don't remember reading about UFO in the strip but that
> may have just been that issue.

No, there was no mention of UFO anywhere in the storyline.

Dave.

"David Richards" wrote:

>
> So if you are VERY VERY VERY VERY lucky - you have a slim chance of
> surviving. Just hope that the "Heart of Gold" is cruising nearby.
>

Or anything with an Infinite Improbability Drive.