From: Qgmarrow@aol44.com Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Space1999: Moon stuff Dear Fellow Fans, Again, you have probably all talked about this many times before, but could you broach the subject once more--for the sake of the "new guy?" Specifically, from a scientific point of view (I am not a scientist), what would the geological effects of the moon being blasted out of earth's orbit be on: 1) the earth. 2) the moon. I know the subject of what might've happened to the earth when the moon was blasted out of orbit was addressed several times in the show, but I have always been curious, from a strictly scientific point of view, about what might really happen should such an event occur. This will set all of you scientific types to writing, I know. But I truly am curious. Quintin Marrow Qgmarrow@aol.com
From: "Phillip C. Merkel" (captphil@unix.asb44.com) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 17:48:59 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff Well if you want to be serious about it divide the problem up into three sections. The Energy (The Waste Dumps) Effects on the moon Effects on Earth Since the Waste Dumps acted like a huge rocket motor (According to the show) and propelled the moon away from earth first: If the nuclear waste is the same as our real nuclear waste there wouldn't be any energy in it. Thats why we throw it away because we're done using it. If the waste dumps generated enough energy to propel the moon around then the waste is still a pretty good source of energy and not waste at all. The effect on the moon would be an explosion large ennough to move the moon that distance would also be destructive enough to shatter the moon. Since the moon exerts lots of force on the earth moving it away from earth...fast would be pretty devastating. In fact the little news quip from earth at the end of breakaway shouldn't have happened at all as earth would have been dealing with earthquakes and floods and tidal waves. And I think the waste dumps were on the dark side of the moon so pushing the moon from that side would have pushed the moon (If it survuved the explosion) into the earth! Several reviews state this notabley the Isaac Asimov reviews, the Ben Bova Article from American Cinematographer. Also the reviewer for Fanatsy and Science fiction magazine (Baird Searles) had said Space 1999 is much like science fiction of the 1920's and 30's. A Scientifiction concept (The early name for Science Fiction) in which some incrdable adventure takes place which by todays standards defies science and physics completely. Something like EE Doc Smith stories or the professor Jameson stories. Space 1999 makes for pretty good space adventure OR if you ignore the science blunders it makes for metaphysical SF. Fiction that asks us "Why are we here?" I beleive some of the Isaac Asimov material is available online on Roberts site along with the Baird Searles stuff. If not I'm pretty sure I have it. The Ben Bova article I have because its in a NESFA book. (And still in print and available from NESFA for around 10 bucks. It also has Bovas collected editorials from Analog magazine from the time when he took over after the death of John W Campbell, who is pretty much the father of magazine SF. He wasn't very nice to Space 1999 and the Nuclear Waste argument is presented there. I'm not sure if Harlan Ellison ever wrote anything about 1999. I'll have to check the index of my collection of his film reviews. He did review Star Trek TMP in a pretty scathing way. Anyway this is what I remember but I'm not a scientist, I just read too much SF. Actually I only read SF! There are some scientist on the list who can correct my mistakes and misquotes but I think I'm on the right track here. BTW after an early viewing of Journey to Where I thought mankind in the future moved to those domes BECAUSE of the moon disaster. Upon rewatching that episode I found out I was wrong!
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@newrock44.com) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:14:21 -0500 Subj: Space1999: Cassini Mission To Saturn and Voyager's Return Good Evening all, A few weeks back we had a small discussion about the Cassini's RTG's (radioctive plutonium batteries basically) and a few people were concerned that this was equivalent to the Voyager Probe in S1999. I found and interesting article at CNET about it today at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C14916%2C00.html?nd Check out the Cassini Mission Site at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/ :-) Only 6 days till lauch!!!!! Way Cool.....too bad we used such a wimpy booter and it has to make a few flyby's of the Earth before it gets to Saturn :-(
From: djlerda@juno44.com Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:35:40 EDT Subj: Re: Space1999: Cassini Mission To Saturn and Voyager's Return Sorry that I'm late in responding to this one, but there was a segment of yesterday's (10/5/97) edition of "60 Minutes" on Cassini. Pretty even handed. More so than the usual "60 Minutes" story.
From: atomicpossum@juno44.com (Jonathon P Stadter) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:36:27 -0500 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff Actually, in the novelization, I believe there was a more involved explanation, something about magnetics, and a reaction with the particular geologic makeup of the moon's surface surrounding the dump that made it all at least a bit more palatable. >The effect on the moon would be an explosion large ennough to move the moon >that distance would also be destructive enough to shatter the moon. Well, not neccessarily. A Saturn V certainly explodes with enough force to obliterate the booster itself, but it doesn't because of how the energy is handled. If the waste dumps were indeed acting as a 'rocket motor' (a reaction, ongoing, building momentum) instead of a simple atomic blast (everything going foof!), there is at least a little 'wiggle room' (however incredible it may be) in the assertion. >Since the moon exerts lots of force on the earth moving it away from >earth...fast would be pretty devastating. More than that, Earth's orbit around the sun. As a system, Earth and Luna actually wobble around a central point, each affecting the other. Move the moon further away (and further, until it is no longer a factor) and Earth moves, too. Following the loss of the moon, Earth may have found itself in a very unstable orbit around the sun for a very long time afterward, as it sought equilibrium in its orbit. It may have gone more elliptical, resulting in wilder seasonal variations, and even changed the length of a year, as it would no longer take the same amount of time to go around the sun. Even its rotation could have been affected, changing the length of the day. >And I think the waste dumps were on the dark side of the moon so pushing >the moon from that side would have pushed the moon (If it survuved the >explosion) into the earth! Not if the moon were seen waxing or waning. I think the novelization makes the point that the explosion took place with the nuclear dumps on the trailing edge of the moon as it moved around the Earth. Therefore, the waste dumps were situated roughly along the proper vector to actually add to the moon's velocity. Again, not likely, but at least a factor to help it's credibility. >Space 1999 makes for pretty good space adventure OR if you ignore the >science blunders it makes for metaphysical SF. Fiction that asks us >"Why are we here?" Yes, it's not a primer for hard science. But, on the other hand, I find Bova and Asimov pretty dull, pretty poor on a dramatic standpoint. The days when SF was simply for trying on new technologies is pretty passe' as well--it is far more necessary to have a good story than perfect science. >BTW after an early viewing of Journey to Where I thought mankind in >the future moved to those domes BECAUSE of the moon disaster. Upon >rewatching that episode I found out I was wrong! Hmm....maybe all this 'global warming' gobbledygook? ;-)
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:07:30 +0300 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff Ok, let's assume that the waste area acts as an ongoing momentum-building rocket with enough energy to get the Moon going. I believe, that it would have still broken the Moon into pieces as the Moon is probably like Earth, an egg-like body with a thin hard crust and liquid stuff inside. The question about achieving interstellar speeds (and conveniently decelerating to an Eagle-manageable speed near every planet) is pure metaphysics. Or is it Meta-physics? > More than that, Earth's orbit around the sun. As a system, Earth > and Luna actually wobble around a central point, each affecting the other. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the center of rotation (=center of mass) of Earth-Moon system is actually inside earth, so that the we could feel "the Earth move under" our feet, but the orbit around the Sun might not change radically.
From: Jonathon P Stadter (atomicpossum@juno44.com) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:23:42 -0500 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff > as the Moon is probably like Earth, an egg-like body with a thin > hard crust and liquid stuff inside. Actually, I am under the impression that the Moon is geologically dead...that is, pretty much solid to the core. Does anyone know the latest thinking on this? > The question about achieving interstellar speeds (and conveniently > decelerating to an Eagle-manageable speed near every planet) is > pure metaphysics. Or is it Meta-physics? Well, more likely dramatic license. It'd be a fairly boring show if the moon didn't actually get anywhere. > inside earth, so that the we could feel "the Earth move under" our > feet, but the orbit around the Sun might not change radically. The distance of an object in orbit is cause by the speed at which the object travels. At a higher orbit, the object is moving faster. To move to a lower orbit, the object slows down. If the moon suddenly left the Earth/Moon system, as it left it would tug Earth along....not enough to tow it, but enough to effect its motion. Also, Earth's center of mass is off from the center of mass of the Earth/Moon system. Even with no change in orbital velocity from the moon, it would shift from wobbling around that combined center to following its own around the sun. Since it would have to oscillate beyond and back as it sought that equilibrium, its motion around the sun would change as well, in period and distance. How much is a matter of conjecture, of course, depending on any number of variables you wish to consider. I've heard it said that if the Earth were only a few percent closer or farther in relation to the sun, it may have never been capable of supporting life. Given the possibilities of orbital upheaval, Earth may have been feeling some considerable (or even very tiny) effects by the time of "Journey to Where."
From: Gary Shelton (thb@mindless44.com) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 08:17:12 -0700 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff > Actually, I am under the impression that the Moon is geologically > dead...that is, pretty much solid to the core. Does anyone know the > latest thinking on this? ya, the moon is pretty solid - magnetic field is a dead giveaway for a molten core and/or mantle (rotating ferrous materials generate a magnetic field), and the moon has little to no magnetic field. > Well, more likely dramatic license. It'd be a fairly boring show > if the moon didn't actually get anywhere. heh, the cast changes between episodes (due to the length of the voyage) would play havoc with continuity, too!imagine how many generations would pass until the moon arrived at, say, piri... suffice it to say that the effects of the moon's departure would be catastrophic.tidal forces would cause all sorts of geological unrest - massive earthquakes and magma outpourings (as the crust was split along techtonic plate lines). tides would be crazy, with no moon to offset the pull of the sun . dinosaur killers need not apply... > I've heard it said that if the Earth were only a few percent closer > or farther in relation to the sun, it may have never been capable of > supporting life. naw, the band of habitability around the sun actually ranges from about where venus is to mars - the fact that these two planets are lifeless doesn't mean that a planet of our sort in either of their two positions wouldn't support life (of course, it would be warmer or cooler, respectively). of course, were the earth to move in either direction, there would be huge changes in the biosphere as life attempted to adapt to the warmer or cooler temperatures...
From: Boomer1000@aol44.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon stuff; OT: IE4 Hi everyone! Just wanted to chime in on the subject of the Moon blasting out of orbit... I don't really have a problem with a lot of the science behind it, for the following reasons. 1. Sure, standard "nuclear waste" as we think of it today is fairly useless in terms of electrical energy, but it does give off plenty of harmful radiation. Under normal circumstances, and with all other things being equal, it should have performed as specified when the waste dumps on the Far Side were built, and just lain there in their concrete tombs gathering moon-dust, and not hurting anyone. But all things weren't equal. Remember, the Moon was receiving those 'signals' from Meta. Maybe those signals weren't a form of communication after all. Maybe they did something to the stored waste. Also, remember that the dumps were probably storing not just the waste by-products of nuclear reactors (Alpha's waste included), but also the dramatically more lethal and powerful nuclear warheads from every nation on Earth. Why else would the Alphans have all these nuclear warheads to use in later episodes (Collision Course, Space Brain among others), and why else would Koenig remark, "Now we're sitting on the biggest bomb Man has ever created?" Why else would they install laser-barrier defenses around the waste sites? Considering that the world's present nuclear arsenals now pack an immense collective punch, say something in the neighborhood of 50,000+ warheads, let's say with an average of 500 kilotons each... so if you disarmed the Earth and shipped all those warheads up to two or three storage locations on the Earth (Area Two was probably built expressly to handle this aftermath of global disarmament), you would have roughly 25,000 megatons on hand in the pits on the Far Side. (The estimate of world nuclear megatonnage might be way off, but Space: 1999 was obviously set in an alternate universe anyway). So that's quite a bang. Carter was right to throw his arm over his eyes when it went up. 2. Just because the waste dumps were on the Far Side, we shouldn't automatically assume they were placed in the geographical center of the Far Side, nor should we assume that detonation of a huge nuclear waste pit on the Far Side, in any location, would serve to drive the Moon plunging into the Earth. I theorize that the two waste dumps were very near the lunar North Pole, where they would be more accessible to ships from the Moonbase, itself lying in Crater Plato, in the Moon's northern hemisphere near the polar region. This placement explains why the Alphans could see the great fireball of Area Two's detonation rising over the horizon. Any such blast on the Far Side needn't hurl the Moon directly into the Earth. There would still be the Moon's orbital velocity to take into account, the Moon's position in its orbit around the Earth, etc. The Moon might have simply glanced off the Earth's gravity well and then shot out into deep space. 3. Regarding the long-term effects on the Earth: remember that the Earth-Moon system is a stable, cohesive gravitational relationship, alterating of which would have severe short-term effects, and arguable long-term ones. Sudden loss of the mass of the Moon would most likely alter the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, depending entirely upon the angle of the Moon's departure. The orbit around the sun would probably get more elliptical, the Earth's axial tilt might be altered, and the axis itself might become shifted. Maybe some physicists out there could do some of the math on this.
From: judas@netmatters44.co.uk (B J Dowling) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:50:39 +0000 Subj: Space1999: Moon blown out of orbit Indeed. All we know about those dumps is that they contain "atomic waste" - that could mean anything. Given man's propensity for knee-jerk reactions to situationsm, especially where politicians are concerned (like the Labour government here in the UK, for example), who knows just what was shunted up to the moon in those early days after the war Koenig mentioned to Maya. Once its off the Earth, it's no longer a problem for the political types there... Okay, can anyone answer me this: Some of the "waste" goes boom and separates a fairly large chunk of moon from the main body. What are the chances of it paying us a visit and what damage would it do?
From: "Phillip C. Merkel" (captphil@unix.asb44.com) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:16:08 Subj: Re: Space1999: Moon blown out of orbit Two ideas here: First if you want to be precise about it try thinking not what Atomic Waste means in the universe of the show in 1999 BUT what did Atomic Waste mean to the producers of the show in 1973 or 74? What did the term mean to the author of the pilot episode? What did it mean to the authors of the premise to Space 1999? If it means all the nuclear warheads and Earth has come to peace then maybe it works. But how to warheads go off by just sitting there? If that were true wouldn't Montana be the piece of real estate flying around the universe instead of the moon? (The mind boggles at this notion, instead of eagles flying down to alien planets we have cattle. Instead of Alan Carter we have the Marlboro Man instead of Space Warps we have really really cold winters! For that matter would the inhabitents of Montana notice any difference in their surroundings if they were suddenly blasted into outer space?) The other option is spent nuclear fuel from reactors. Does this stuff go up in the real world? And how much did people (Sci Fi TV writers) know about the stuff in 1974? This is pre China Syndrome days. Maybe all they knew back then is that Atomic Waste can kill us, is dealy and makes lots of people nervious! But if they can fly it to the moon why not just drop it into the sun? Wouldn't that be cheaper than digging up the moon to warehouse it? Actually the nuclear waste dumbs on the moon of Space 1999 are a lot like Bellport Long Island. About 15 years ago the Grucci Fireworks company (The one that make the great shows in NYC during the 4th of July) blew up in Bellport. Now Bellport flying into outer space could only be seen as an improvement! Think of driving time saved on your way to the Hamptons! OK too much NY humour in this message!
From: "Amardeep S. Chana" (achana@worldnet.att44.net) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:40:09 -0400 Subj: Space1999: Atomic Waste, MUF, hungry aliens, Cassini Even if the stuff sitting in the waste area was weapons grade nuclear fuel, it would never be able to chain fission in such a way as to explode and yield the destructive force of a warhead. It is a common misconception that plutonium or uranium are basically explosive and that specific measures must be taken to keep them from blowing the world up. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If a very particular and precise set of circumstances do not exist... circumstances that are VERY difficult to achieve... then there is no bang. You might get a flash or a fizzle and a big mess, but no BOOM. That is the reason why any bonehead with some nuclear fuel can't build a bomb and devastate the populace. For the sake of story, I think Boomer is on the right track. Some external influence messed with the waste storage areas and caused the whole thing. Perhaps it was Arra, who needed the moon to smash into her planet so that her people could evolve. Or perhaps the Metaians (is that what you would call a Meta native???) were like the people from The Last Sunset and just didn't want the Meta Probe to succeed. Or the Ultra Monster influenced things so it could finally eat Tony Cellini. One thing is for sure, it wasn't an accident. You don't get a very efficient rocket motor without an aperture/nozzle to vector the thrust. A minor (okay maybe not so minor) digression. I am really dismayed by all the misleading information floating around from supposedly reputable sources about the Cassini spacecraft. There is way too much hysteria being created about something these folks don't seem to want to really educate themselves about. I spent about an hour today reading technical material on the WWW about Cassini's power generators. Not only are they safe, but ridiculously safe. You would have to go out of your way to make them harmful to someone, like perhaps using one of the fuel pellets as a suppository. The plutonium is in ceramic oxide form. It doesn't react or break up easily. It's radiation is so low you can literally hold it in your hand without much harm. It emits alpha particles, which are stopped by a few inches of air and certainly the upper layers of skin. It will not form a deadly cloud of plutonium and kill all life on Earth if there is an accident. THAT is science fiction. Really, though, I think nuclear power is getting a bad rap. Sorry to be so preachy. It just seemed relevant to SPACE: 1999 in a more or less circuitous way, i.e. Voyager's Return. Amardeep
From: djlerda@juno44.com Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 03:23:29 EDT Subj: Space1999: Moon Blowing Up As for the moon blowing up into chunks, I seem to remember in one of the Year Two novelizations by Michael Butterworth, he referred in the narration to the two halves of the moon which was caused by the moon being split when the waste dumps went up. Can't remember which book it was, though. I sold all of my year two books for peanuts to a used book store. :-( David
From: atomicpossum@juno44.com (Jonathon P Stadter) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:16:56 -0500 Subj: Re: Space1999: Atomic Waste, MUF, hungry aliens, Cassini Very well said, Amardeep. I am no fan of the media, very much because of stories like this. The media will repeat 'nuclear-nuclear-nuclear' to the point of building hysteria, yet they never provide even slightly complete coverage so people can make up their own minds. They never mention how little material there actually is, or that it has been used on numerous space probes in the past (Voyager, for one). Yet, the assertions of a few whackos (and activists, I might add) are all they need to fuel a tempest in a teacup.