Posted by
Dave Walsh-4 on
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/Sky-1-tp1500661p1500713.html
At 08:46 AM 5/15/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>Thanks for your comment.
>I admit that my exposition on the Sky 1's hovering system is quite
>strained on, but I cannot think of another ground how the Sky 1 was
>able to hover in the episode 'Flight Path'.
>Otherwise, SHADO might have the anti-gravity equipment?
That theory could also possibly account for the normal gravity seen on
Moonbase.
>Thank you very much for your professional explanation, Dave.
>I almost agree with you except on few points.
>Regarding the Sky 1's rocket boosters attached to the rear section of
>its underwing missile pods, I suppose they are liquid/solid hybrid
>reusable rocket engines.
>Watching a Sky 1 departing from a Diver, it ignite their engines
>while underwater.
>Isn't it quite dangerous to ignite a liquid rocket engine in the
>water?
It isn't being ignited in the water, it's being ignited in the engine
ducting on Diver!
>On the other hand, solid rocket engine may much safer, I suppose, and
>if my memory serves me right, all the present US Navy submarine-
>launched ballistic missiles have solid rocket engines which can be
>launched immediately.
Solid rockets also can't be shut down! They burn continuously until
the fuel supply is consumed, whereas liquid-fueled rockets can simply shut
off the flow of the fuel with a valve! Marc is our resident rocket expert,
so howzabout we defer to his advice?
>In addition, Sky 1's rocket engines exhaust quite dense white smoke,
>which is a characteristic of solid rocket engines such as ones of the
>Spaceshuttle's SRB.
There any number of chemical additives to make fuel exhaust smoky
(Take a look at the smoke generators on the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels),
and Sky 1 could be using something to make a smokescreen to help avoid
detection (Okay, I admit I'm really reaching here and the amount of smoke
it produces isn't nearly enough to hide it, but the only other explanation
is low-tech special effects!).
>But a solid rocket engine cannnot be shut down once ignited until it
>burns out.
Correct!
>So a Sky 1 also needs liquid rocket engines to fly in the edges of
>space.
Or a scramjet! The SR-71 doesn't have rocket engines, and it flies at
80,000 feet plus!
>I quite agree with the idea of that the trapezoid intake should have
>a retractable cover.
>I'm afraid that the lack of an exhaust which forms a counterpart to
>the above intake was one of the most regrettable mistake that the
>studio model department done.
>Perhaps, Derek Meddings' design pictures did not suggest the cross
>section of a Sky 1 and a Diver, I suppose, so they overlooked.
>If, however, I am forced to explain what happens to the air taken
>into the same intake, I have to say that the compressed air is
>refregerated into the liquid air by the cold liauid hydrogen fuel and
>transferred to the underwing liquid rocket engines each.
Possibly, but rocket engines burn fuel at an enormous rate as opposed
to a jet engine, so Sky 1 couldn't stay airborne very long (Take a look at
the Messerschmitt Me163B Komet from WWII-- total flight time was something
around 7 1/2 minutes, takeoff to landing, and landings were less than
spectacular (Unleess you count the inevitable fireball!).
>Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
>intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance
Then why make it flat, never mind concave? It's still a major drag
(pun intended), and would limit the airspeed big time!