square triangle oops...

Hello all,

I just watched the Square Triangle episode today. Did anyone else notice that, in the opening sequence, that Straker calls off the Interceptors attack on the UFO, but when the ships veer off - their missles have been fired?

Peace out,

J.D.



Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

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

Hi All :)

Maybe the interceptor pilots have to fire their missiles off prior to
returning to Moonbase? It must be a tight squeeze trying to land an
interceptor back in their respective crater landing pads, especially with a
loaded missile...

I know from speaking to some RAF pilots, that they often drop unused
ordinance before landing, and almost always do before making a return
landing on aircraft carriers.

Just an idea...

Best to all :)

Griff

-----Original Message-----
From: J. D. [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 23 April 2003 23:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] square triangle oops...



Hello all,

I just watched the Square Triangle episode today. Did anyone else notice
that, in the opening sequence, that Straker calls off the Interceptors
attack on the UFO, but when the ships veer off - their missles have been
fired?

Peace out,

J.D.

I think Griff has the right idea about perhaps the Interceptors "have to"
launch their missles before returning to Moonbase. Since the missles are
suppose to be armed with a "tactical nuclear" warhead a accident with one of
those things would be all the Aliens would need.

James K.


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

--- In [hidden email], "Griff" <griff@g...> wrote:

> Maybe the interceptor pilots have to fire their missiles off prior
to
> returning to Moonbase?

Phew. Good thing I read your response, before making the mistake of
posting that this was probably just a continuity glitch, of reusing
special effect shots over and over throughout the series. But, nah,
that couldn't be the reason...

Ah so Lt. Ellis can greet the returning pilots with "Is that a tactical
thermonuclear device in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

Hmmm - the rockets have to be stored underground in the stores area - and
they are safe there. They could be disarmed before attempting landing
surely? (Don't call me Shirley), unlike conventional weapons which have no
arming device or procedure - HE bombs are always assumed to be active and
deadly. Fission and Fusion devices must be armed before use and are meant
to be safe unless armed (safe from the point of view of explosion - not safe
from contaminating the surroundings with highly toxic Plutonium). The most
that could happen with an unarmed nuclear weapon is a small explosion from
the trigger device, spreading the fissionable material in the process.

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

> I think Griff has the right idea about perhaps the Interceptors "have to"
> launch their missles before returning to Moonbase. Since the missles are
> suppose to be armed with a "tactical nuclear" warhead a accident with one
> of those things would be all the Aliens would need.

> --- In [hidden email], "Griff" <griff@g...> wrote:
>
> > Maybe the interceptor pilots have to fire their missiles off
prior
> to
> > returning to Moonbase?

I can see that it may be a good idea to dump unused highly-explosive
bombs if you are going to land (crash land) on the deck of a moving
aircraft carrier. Probably even if you are going to land on solid
ground. By the way, I have always wondered where exactly they dump
their unused bombs, in the middle of the sea I suppose? But what
about if there is no water nearby, there is always the chance of
hitting an unsuspected civilian.

Going back to the interceptors, seems to me their landing back at
moonbase must had been very soft. They would have had to land
vertically. Unless there was some sort of weight umbalancing issue
with the interceptors, they should had been able to land vertically
with their missile still attached. No need to waste a valuable
missile, remember that all supplies, including the missiles, must be
produced on earth and then transported to the moon.

David Levine

"David Richards" wrote:
> The most that could happen with an unarmed nuclear weapon is a
> small explosion from the trigger device, spreading the
> fissionable material in the process.
>

You're quite right - an accidental nuclear explosion is unlikely to
occur from (say) an interceptor crashing on landing. But the casing
might rupture, causing a massive radiation hazard.

"David Levine" wrote:

> By the way, I have always wondered where exactly they dump their
> unused bombs, in the middle of the sea I suppose? But what about
> if there is no water nearby, there is always the chance of hitting
> an unsuspected civilian.

RAF bomber crews returning to England during WW2 used to drop their
unused ordnance in the channel. It's thought that Glenn Miller
died when the light aircraft in which he was a passenger was hit by
a large bomb dropped by a Lancaster, a couple of thousand feet
above him. It's not just carrier-based aircraft which do this.

> Going back to the interceptors, seems to me their landing back at
> moonbase must had been very soft. They would have had to land
> vertically.

I've never really thought about this, but I suppose you're
right. They take off (roughly) vertically, so I imagine they
land on the crater. But if an interceptor had an engine failure
at speed while returning to Moonbase, then there could have been
a spectacular crash.

James

--- In [hidden email], James Gibbon <james.gibbon@v...> wrote:
> "David Richards" wrote:
> > The most that could happen with an unarmed nuclear weapon is a
> > small explosion from the trigger device, spreading the
> > fissionable material in the process.
> >
>
> You're quite right - an accidental nuclear explosion is unlikely to
> occur from (say) an interceptor crashing on landing. But the casing
> might rupture, causing a massive radiation hazard.

Nowadays, spacecraft that are sent to the outer planets of the solar
system carry RTGs to produce their electrical power. Their casings
are said to be extremely strong, and are supposed to be able to
protect their contents in the event of a rocket/shuttle explosion, re-
entry into earth's atmosphere and then crash, etc., etc. I have no
idea how the design of the interceptor's missiles would look like,
but if we extrapolate, they would probably be very safe, even in the
event of an interceptor crash near moon base.

Now, a very speculative question. I was going to ask if the
interceptor pilots were supposed to be able to eject, but obviously
that would be a dumb question since they don't wear astronaut suits
in the interceptors, and there is no atmosphere for a parachute, but
didn't the interceptors have "Rescue" decals near the canopies?

David Levine

You are correct that they had rescue decals located under the cockpit, but those are more then likely for use only during a ground based rescue. A way to blow the hatch/canapoy from outside in case of the pilot being injured or something.As to the fact that the pilots have no space gear, I think that was arranged to save time and money on costuming. Besides, could you just see them trying to jump down those chutes with any kind of suit on? As it is, I guess that they are just dog meat if they crash since they would not survive outside their ship for more then a few seconds in space. Depending on where they were, they would either freze to death or get an instant fatal sunburn within seconds. Thats assuming that they have enough sense to empty their lungs before they explode from the vacum.On a less gory thought...Isn't there background radation in space all the time? Wouldn't the Interceptors have to go through some kind of Decon every mission. I don't know how much radition there is in space, but I do know that our atmosphere blocks out a lot of the harmful ones (U.V. Gamma, X-ray, Ect.)

>Now, a very speculative question. I was going to ask if the
>interceptor pilots were supposed to be able to eject, but obviously
>that would be a dumb question since they don't wear astronaut suits
>in the interceptors, and there is no atmosphere for a parachute, but
>didn't the interceptors have "Rescue" decals near the canopies?

On the subject of radiation - it would be assumed that the interceptors had
shielding - especially on the windscreen. Therefore the pilots would not
require any decontamination. The interceptors themselves might require
decontamination though to prevent an accumulation of radioctivity, otherwise
after a number of missions they would become hazardous. Some form of Heavy
Water "car wash" as part of the regular after mission service.

(hmmm heavy water ties in with that OT post I made about deuterium :))


---
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

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.


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

Hi all,

I've attempted to piece together what I've heard so far about the new
Italian UFO DVDs from a variety of sources (and sometimes these
sources don't agree with each other!). You can now read this on my
"What's New" page:

http://ufoseries.com/new.html

Also, for you who already have these DVDs, if you see anything about
this writeup which is in error, please let me know!

Thanks!

Marc

You didn't order these yourself? :)

Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:46 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Italian UFO DVD Summary So Far

>You didn't order these yourself? :)

Yes, but it takes a LONG time to get to Seattle... :-)

I'll be the last one to hear the upcoming UFO soundtrack too... :-(

Marc

"David Richards" wrote:
> On the subject of radiation - it would be assumed that the
> interceptors had shielding - especially on the windscreen.
> Therefore the pilots would not require any decontamination.

Decontamination is only necessary to remove radioactive material
(typically dust). It has no effect on someone who has simply
been exposed to radiation (as opposed to contact with
radioactive material).

James

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?


---
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: 11/04/03

>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?

Why do you seek continuity between UFO and Space:1999? They are
different shows after all, and there is nothing in Space:1999 to
indicate that it's a follow-on to UFO.

Marc

Outside of the fact that Gerry Anderson approved an article in Starlog
linking the two series??? Nope, No connection at all.
Jim Durdan


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Martin [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 12:08 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO/Space:1999 continuity


>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?

Why do you seek continuity between UFO and Space:1999? They are
different shows after all, and there is nothing in Space:1999 to
indicate that it's a follow-on to UFO.

Marc




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

>Outside of the fact that Gerry Anderson approved an article in Starlog
>linking the two series??? Nope, No connection at all.

And what evidence is there that Gerry Anderson approved this article --
or even read it, for that matter?

In every interview I've seen with Gerry, he's referred to Space:1999
as a brand new series. I can't recall him ever linking the two series.

Of course, even if Gerry was jumping up and down screaming that the
two series were linked, I'd still point out that there's no evidence
of it onscreen...

Marc