[EDITOR'S NOTE: Started from a thread on 'The Last Sunset'] From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@newrock44.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: THE LAST SUNSET Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:25:36 -0600 > We find alot of strange details thrown in on this episode > that may or may not have anything to do with the situation: the UV filters > turned off a 20,000 feet! Eagle 15 grounded for seizure of it's lateral > stabilizers! Cloud forming crystals! Rain over the Taurus Mountains! > Potassic Acid tank leaks! Yeah, these are some strange comments. I don't remember the UV one though. The lateral stabilizers make sense, I'm assuming Victor means the small rockets that keep the eagle from drifting or sliding sideways(laterally). [..snip..]
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: Space1999: Re: The Last Sunset Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 01:29:09 -0500 > Eagle 15 grounded for seizure of it's lateral > stabilizers! I'm assuming Victor means the small rockets that keep the eagle from drifting or sliding sideways(laterally). Yes that is what they would be... if the Eagle had them. Call it a nit, or blooper, but the Eagle (actually the model) has no lateral stablilizers. In fact, from what I can see, the Eagle has no means to fly sideways at all whatsoever. The four thrusters on the underside allow for vertical take-off and landing, the main thrusters at the rear provide forward motion, and each thruster pack on the landing gear pods can be combined for pitch (nose down/up) and roll (bank left or right) and possibly yaw (nose left/right with no bank) I've looked at just about every reference (on the net, and in print) that I could lay my hands on and can't find any way the Eagle could fly sideways. The Eagle has always been my favorite sci-fi space ship, but like the rest of Space:1999 it is subject to a few minor technical flaws. Anyone interested in discussing the dynamics of Eagle flight? -Eric "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot."
From: bjscannell@m1.sprynet44.com Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:20:03 +0000 Subject: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers Eric and All, A good point is raised here. True there is no obvious Lateral Stabilizers as mentioned however they are in there, right next to the Artificial Gravity Generators. Now that you know, I hope this helps. :), Barry
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:30:09 -0600 From: Donald Hayunga (miramar@escape44.ca) Subject: Space1999: Re:Eagle Flight Hi all; I've wondered about the Eagles ability to fly sideways and turning too. This is how I think it works. For a turn in any direction the pod thrusters are fired in combination with the correct underside thruster pkg's. The reason its not seen.. thats easy it money. and the actual models were never equiped with propelent tanks in the pods or nozels. Donald Hayunga Special Projects Division Moonbase Alpha Technical Section
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:47:02 -0800 From: James Smith (jsmith@ncube44.com) Subject: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stablizers Eric, I was under the impression that the two silver "dimples" on the port and starboard sides of the command module were lateral stablizers, and the one topside is for "downward" thrust. I believe the dimple on the bottom is for the main laser. I don't have Roberto's fantastic blueprints in front of me, so I'm not sure how he has these labeled. Roberto, what are you comments on this matter? Also, as I recall, the small maneuvering thrusters on the landing pods (in front of the black "X"s) are slightly angled away from the ship, rather than firing straight up and down, or front and rear. We musn't forget that the Alphans have artificial gravity, so using some sort of gravitic stablizers is not out of the question...especially if you forgot to put side rockets on the model! James Smith
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:17:24 +0000 From: Rui Ricardo (rricardo@esoterica44.pt) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers Regardless the fact that there are no lateral stabilizers, as the ones existing in space shutle´s, the "real" Harriers fighters doesn't have them either. Lateral and foward motion is acomplished by moving their thrusters. If the Eagle´s four underside thrusters have some independent slightly side-to-side moving capabilities, combined with computer assisted power from the back engines, i think that a total axys motion can be acomplished. The nice thing is that at the naked eye (like the subtil motion of a helicopter pad), the underside thrusters appeared to not move at all, and those 1999 Eagles can fly :) -- Rui Ricardo "I like these calm moments before the storm"
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: RE: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:37:56 -0500 Actually the Harrier does have a reaction control system. Air from the engine's compressor section is piped out to each wingtip and the tail. This duct system allow the Harrier to change direction or sideslip in a hover. A fairly decent diagram of this system can be found at: http://www.splusnet.com/~av8ter/36.gif Look for the grey tubes running out from the engine to each wingtip and also out to the tail. The four main ducts (the one's on the side) allow the aircraft to take-off vertically and provide for forward flight. In all honesty though I think the Harrier provides an excellent example of how the Eagle would actually fly.
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:20:50 +0200 Subject: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers I guess we all agree that the Eagle is one of the coolest looking spacecraft ever seen on screen. Despite its quasi realism achieved by using shapes familiar from existing real spacecraft, it requires only a little deeper look with only a little understanding of space technology to see that most of the Eagle's features make no sense technologically. The guy who designed it either had very little knowledge of space technology or he consciously ignored the facts for the sake of artistic impression. Therefore I find it very fruitless to discuss Eagle's flight dynamics, because apparently the original designer didn't. The Eagle has not been designed by a rocket scientist as a realistic excercise but instead by a designer working for a tv-show with the goal to make it look good and meet the requirements set by Gerry and the writers. Instead of wondering how the Eagle works I would prefer discussing how it could look like if it were designed with at least a little realism. -Pertti
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizers Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:53:58 -0500 >I was under the impression that the two silver "dimples" on the port and >starboard sides of the command module were lateral stablizers, and the one >topside is for "downward" thrust. I believe the dimple on the bottom is for >the main laser. I had always thought that these dimples were sensor arrays or something similar. Can anyone else provide some input? >I don't have Roberto's fantastic blueprints in front of me, >so I'm not sure how he has these labeled. Roberto, what are you comments on >this matter? I have also heard that these blueprints are sold out, any word on reprints? >Also, as I recall, the small maneuvering thrusters on the landing pods (in >front of the black "X"s) are slightly angled away from the ship, rather >than firing straight up and down, or front and rear. I looked at those thrusters, but they don't seem to have enough of an angle to push sideways. Both Donald Hayunga and Rui Ricardo have brought up valid points about using combinations of the various thrusters. (In fact due to Rui's post I had to go back and take a real good look at the Harrier again). The firing and combination of the Eagle's thrusters would be a function of the Flight Control Computers in response to any pilot input (basically a fly-by-wire system) Again the whole sideways thrust business is just a blooper I noticed about the Eagle Model. I'm sure that if the Eagle were real (and honestly it doesn't take a great leap of faith to believe) it would have the necessary thruster packages. >We musn't forget that the Alphans have artificial gravity, so using some >sort of gravitic stablizers is not out of the question...especially if you >forgot to put side rockets on the model! The artificial gravity fields are something else worth toying with (how they work, what they actually do, etc) I haven't given them (the gravity fields) much thought yet, but I think the (sci-fi) technology would behave something like two magnets set to oppose each other. but this is something for another post. -Eric
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: RE: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:33:58 -0500 >Instead of wondering how the Eagle works I would prefer discussing >how it could look like if it were designed with at least a little >realism. Oh, where to begin? Interior, control systems, propulsion, entry into a planet's atmosphere, manuevers, crew requirements etc. Okay call me blasphamous, but I have never liked the Eagle's cockpit. Too much wasted space and a control system that was at best... odd. The Eagle seems to be an extension of existing technology (mid 70's) and was built from parts of models of actual space-craft. So why didn't the cockpit look more like an airplane? If I were to redesign the Eagle I would try to pattern the cockpit and flight control systems after the V-22 Tilt-rotor (same basic flight characteristics) or the AV-8B Harrier. Two flight modes would be available (and switchable by the pilot) the first for space flight (similar to the shuttle in orbit) and the other for planet-side flight (like a helicopter). Thoughts? -Eric
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:59:10 +0200 Subject: RE: Space1999: Lateral Stabilizers >Okay call me blasphamous, but I have never liked the Eagle's cockpit. Too >much wasted space and a control system that was at best... odd. The front part of the command module is filled with on-board computer:). Space 1999 clearly overestimated the development of spacefaring technology but even more clearly underestimated the development pace of information technology. >The Eagle seems to be an extension of existing technology (mid 70's) and was built >from parts of models of actual space-craft. So why didn't the cockpit look >more like an airplane? And why the windows are designed for minimum visibility? The window slot design is only copied from Gemini capsule. Looks cool, but no real reason can be found for the command module design. Why does it have the semi-aerodynamic design while the rest of the craft is clearly non-aerodynamic? >If I were to redesign the Eagle I would try to >pattern the cockpit and flight control systems after the V-22 Tilt-rotor >(same basic flight characteristics) or the AV-8B Harrier. I have also thought about a tilting engine concept, because there is no excuse for carrying extra engines just for vtol use. >Two flight modes >would be available (and switchable by the pilot) the first for space flight >(similar to the shuttle in orbit) and the other for planet-side flight >(like a helicopter). Anyway it would be unforgivable waste of propellant to use it for hovering. If the Eagle were supposed to handle horizontal atmospheric flight, it should have wings and use engines in vtol position only for takeoff and landing. Actually they could be in vtol position during all spaceflight and the horizontal position would be used only during atmospheric flight and during Earth-to-space acceleration. -Pertti
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:39:42 +0100 From: Roberto Baldassari (baldas@tin44.it) Subject: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stablizer Hi James, all: >I was under the impression that the two silver "dimples" on the port and >starboard sides of the command module were lateral stablizers, and the one >topside is for "downward" thrust. I believe the dimple on the bottom is for >the main laser. I don't have Roberto's fantastic blueprints in front of me, >so I'm not sure how he has these labeled. Roberto, what are you comments on >this matter? The four silver "dimples" on the command module are labeled "steering rockets" in my blueprints as well as in the original Geoffrey Mandel drawing from Starlog. As for the main laser at the bottom I did not indicate it because from the POV of my 3d drawing this point is not visible and I did not wanted to cutaway too much the command module. But it must be there because they showed many times the laser beam coming somewhere from the bottom of the Eagle. Regarding the lateral stabilizer issue, I think that with combined action from each of the 16 thrusters on the landing gears and the 4 "steering rockets" on the command module, the Eagle can do almost everything. We also have to remember that the alphans can control gravitation and that's the reason why we see an Eagle (which has not an aerodynamic shape at all) flying on an earth type gravity planet atmosfere just like she does in space. Roberto
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:19:23 +0200 Subject: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stablizer >We also >have to remember that the alphans can control gravitation and that's the >reason why we see an Eagle (which has not an aerodynamic shape at all) >flying on an earth type gravity planet atmosfere just like she does in >space. Then why does it need these vtol thrusters or rocket engines of any kind if they can control gravity? Is there any more accurate description about Alphans' gravity control technology available? I have always thought that they can boost gravity inside Alpha but have no anti-gravity abilities. Or is it so that they can reduce the force of gravity possibly even to zero but can not achieve any acceleration to a direction opposite to gravity? -Pertti
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@newrock44.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stablizer Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:03:45 -0600 Koenig speaks of "anit-gravity screens" in RING AROUND THE MOON, and theyre are a few other references to the eagles having this. The eagle must have some form of artificial gravity, everyone walks about the interior normally. Otherwise they would be squashed when the eagle accelerated to 1/10 lightspeed(according to Starlog). I don't know about them having total contol of it though, that would imply technology far beyond what we see. The ships would not need thrusters at all, and would resemble the Far Star from the Foundation Novels. Now there's an interesting ship. Later, -Mark
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:46:53 +0100 From: Roberto Baldassari (baldas@tin44.it) Subject: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stablizer >Then why does it need these vtol thrusters or rocket engines of >any kind if they can control gravity? Well, we are in speculation zone here. Reading the wonderful Continuity Guide written by Martin Willey one can see the production staff of Space: 1999, unfortuinately, does not care very much about technical plausibility. Anyway if I remember correctly in "Space Brain" Victor says they have to reduce gravity in order to transport the melted Eagle in the laboratory. This line suggests they can control gravity both increasing it (as on Alpha and on the Eagle Earth type gravity) or reducing it (as in the episode mentioned above). Why to use vtol thrusters to take off? Maybe gravity control is a very energy consuming procedure so the alphans use it only when it is essential as on Earth type gravity planets. Any thoughts?
From: Tom Miller (tmiller@northnet44.org) Subject: Space1999: eagle works Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 07:31:38 -0500 Does anyone remember the term Science Fiction? The eagle fits for what is is, the same way Star Trek transporters work. Or Inertial Dampeners to prevent a person from being smushed when approching the speed of light. It's FUN....
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:37:42 +0100 Subject: Space1999: Re: Lateral Stabilizers From: Ekmar Brand (Ekmar.Brand@t-online44.de) Hi Alphans! I think it did't make any sense to compare EAGLES with planes. I makes more sense to compare the EAGLES with the APOLLO technology by NASA. Remember, the first lunar module was called EAGLE... Ekmar
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:30:01 From: "Phillip C. Merkel" (captphil@unix.asb44.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >Anyway if I remember correctly in "Space Brain" Victor says they have to >reduce gravity in order to transport the melted Eagle in the laboratory. >This line suggests they can control gravity both increasing it (as on Alpha >and on the Eagle Earth type gravity) or reducing it (as in the episode >mentioned above). Why to use vtol thrusters to take off? Any science types confirm or deny this theory? Say the eagles can control their gravity. They definitely have control over gravity inside the pod section and the cockpit. The lighter the craft would make liftoff on earth or the moon easier and in Breakaway there was no real sign of a "ferry station" in earth orbit where traffic would move from earth/orbit type ships to moon ships. This was shown in 2001 and there was a station close to the moon in breakaway. So maybe for the purpose of this discussion the eagle can be the main travel link between the earth and the moon. (Although this doesn't make sense in real life but try to go with it) Wouldn't some amount of thrust be necessary to move the eagle up even if its gravity was reduced to zero? It still would have mass. Also couldn't an eagle INCREASE its gravity to give it a boost when going into a planets gravity well? OK I know its just a show and up until Babylon 5 no SF show has had a good explanation for gravity other than its too much money to hang actors from wires for 45 minutes of drama! But in the interest of fun, is there a way to make this work? I remember (When I was 14) reading some of Alan Dean Fosters Star Trek Log books and in one passage the gravity went out on the Enterprise. Now on the show except for the Tholian Web they could never do this but having the crew helpless when the gravity went out was a very dramatic moment in the book. Alpha and the Eagles could theoretically use gravity as an assist to propulsion. The other thing is in an age when we can't even get toilets to work right that gravity on alpha seems to work under any stress! I doubt the lowest bidding contractor made that work! Now like the eagles which crash with more regularity than old DC-10's did in the 70's!
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: RE: Space1999: eagle works Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:10:04 -0500 >Does anyone remember the term Science Fiction? The eagle fits for what is >is, the same way Star Trek transporters work. Or Inertial Dampeners to >prevent a person from being smushed when approching the speed of light. >It's FUN.... I'm sorry, I'm just one of those people that likes a lot of 'Science' in Science-Fiction. After the reading the book "Jurassic Park" I had to run down to the library and figure out why breeding dinosaurs like that wouldn't work. If the Sci-fi technology of a show or movie is fairly sound, it makes the suspension of belief a lot easier. Good Sci-Fi tech leaves the audience scratching their heads wondering "Well, why couldn't that work?" This is one of the big reasons I really enjoyed the movie "Alien" (the first one) So much detail was put into the sets and props it looked "believable". The set of the bridge or control section of the NOSTROMO was constructed so that each switch and light worked (or at least moved or lit up), even down to the little fiddle-bits (similar to fuzzy dice) that hung down from the upper consoles. The medical section wasn't filled with little "what-the-hell-is-that-for" gizmos. You could tell what stuff was just by looking at it. It was easy to imagine that was what a real space-ship would look like. It was dirty, it was used, it had that 'lived in' look (or rather that 'died in' look) Two other details that added to movie: The star charts were accurate, and the flame throwers were real and functional. Like Space:1999, the crew was about a bunch of humans trying to react to (and survive in) a new hostile environment. And again like Space:1999, the crew died in alarming numbers... (thus I digress) As far as Star Trek goes, I actually sat through an episode of 'Voyager' last week. I didn't care much for it. Like most of the Star Trek stories it falls back to much on wildly imaginative technology, and "too quick" solutions. It was just as simple as "push a button, mutter some good 'ole techno-babble, and PING! Problem Solved!) However I did like the body suit on the ex-borg woman, and it had a nice imploding space station but other than that, well that's for another time and post. So in summary, good Sci-Fi tech makes the imaginary believable, and gives the nit-picky types (like me) a chance to enjoy a good story and not trip over things like Allen Carter having a head injury when he was strapped in and the Eagle wasn't even 'Bumped' (didn't think this was connected, did 'ya?) I hope this sheds some light on why some of us spend time on the why's and how's of Eagles-n-things -Eric
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: Space1999: RE: Of Eagles and things... Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:54:31 -0500 >I think it did't make any sense to compare EAGLES with planes. I makes more >sense to compare the EAGLES with the APOLLO technology by NASA. Remember, >the first lunar module was called EAGLE... Consider this then, watch a helicopter take-off, fly around, and land. What are the real differences between what the helicopter is doing and what the Eagle does? Aircraft, the Apollo Command Module, are the Space Shuttle are all 'flown' the same way: by use of a control stick or yoke. Control of the engines is different to a point but there is a way to select thrust 'ON' or 'OFF'. Space technology progressed from our understanding of terrestrial flight. Basically we had to build an airplane to withstand the harsh environment of space. (yes, I know I skipped the part about rockets, but most space programs are trying to design reusable vehicles like the American Shuttle, or the Russian Buran (sp?) In most cases the technology used in space-craft is the same as that used in aircraft, or it is a direct off-shoot. So comparing an Eagle to an aircraft is not like comparing apples to oranges. Astronauts (at least the ones who actually 'fly' these craft) all started out as airplane pilots, most as test pilots, and almost all military. When the engineers got together to design new space-craft (Apollo, the Shuttle, etc) they try to keep as much in common (as possible) with current aircraft. This makes it easier and faster for the pilots to upgrade to the new space-craft, instead of trying to learn a new way to make the thing go 'UP / DOWN / LEFT / RIGHT / GO / and STOP' Hope this mad rambling made some sense... -Eric
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: RE: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:42:36 -0500 >This line suggests they can control gravity both increasing it (as on Alpha >and on the Eagle Earth type gravity) or reducing it (as in the episode >mentioned above). Why to use vtol thrusters to take off? This is pure speculation, but I would say that due to space and power constraints, an Eagle would carry a smaller version of the grav/anti-grav units in order to maintain 1 Earth g on-board but not a unit large enough to lift the Eagle and whatever payload into orbit (around whatever) Whereas Alpha has the power resources required for any large scale application. >So maybe for the purpose of this discussion the eagle can be the main >travel link between >the earth and the moon. (Although this doesn't make sense in real life but >try to go with it) If we can get past the aerodynamic issues, the idea of the Eagle being the main link between the Earth and Moon doesn't seem too bad. >Wouldn't some amount of thrust be necessary to move the eagle up even if >its gravity was reduced to zero? It still would have mass. Your still going to need thrust to maneuver. >Alpha and the Eagles could theoretically use gravity as an assist to >propulsion. Let's take this one step farther. If we can lift an Eagle (through an artificial gravity field) why not bounce the Eagle all the way into orbit? If this could be the case it would be possible to dispense with the VTOL thrusters and apply the weight savings to either extra cargo or fuel? Me personally I would like to hold with the thought that the Eagle uses is thrusters for take-off and maneuver, (as can be seen on the series) and uses the grav fields to maintain 1g throughout the passenger areas. While responding to this post, this thought occurred to me... Work with me here, instead of playing with gravity (which is some serious physics) let try this grav/anti-grav thing from another approach. All living things emanate an electrical field of one sort or another (no, this is not a plug for the Force). It also seems that most things around us (CD cases, desks, buildings, planets) can be given a static electrical charge (rub an inflated balloon on your wool sweater, place it next to your head and watch what your hair does!). The Earth (and most other celestial objects I suspect) has a magnetic field around it. What if there was a unit that could manipulate the polarity of these fields in such a way that you don't control gravity, but you do control the attraction or repulsion of these charges. I'm thinking along the lines of magnets here. If the polarity is one way the magnets attract each other, but reversed the magnets push each other apart. Now we (present day Earthlings) are starting to play with technology like this now (so there is a precedent), with experimental trains that ride on opposed magnets (and these suckers can scoot!). The first downside I can see to this right now is the fact that humans don't do well when exposed to strong magnetic or electrical fields. (did you ever get teased when you did something dumb about growing up under power lines?) This is also the reason that monitors have had their fields reduced to negate the health problems caused by prolonged exposure. Well I think I've rambled enough for one night, Say "goodnight" Gracie "Goodnight Gracie" -Eric "The early bird may get the worm But the second mouse gets the cheese!"
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:36:29 +0100 Subject: Space1999: EAGLE PROBLEM From: Ekmar Brand (Ekmar.Brand@t-online44.de) Hi Alphans! I think the problem with the EAGLE is that the ship only has thrusters for back, front, up and down flights, but no thrusters for left and right flights. The EAGLE could fly, but lateral docking manoeuvres would be impossible. I think Brian Johnson has forgotten the manoeuvre thrusters for left and right flights. For heading changes the EAGLE must fire the up or down thrusters together with the main engine. Docking maneuvers as we see it in the series could not be made, but an EAGLE could make docking manoeuvres at the front capsule. The EAGLE has the same manoeuvre thrusters as the APOLLO spaceship, but the manoeuvre thrusters of the APOLLO spaceship were build around the whole body of the ship. Additional manoeuvre thrusters at the EAGLES will solve all problems and these EAGLES could make lateral docking manoeuvres! Ekmar
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@newrock44.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 10:33:23 -0600 > Any science types confirm or deny this theory? There isn't much to confrim, like Robert said, we are in the land of fake science. > in Breakaway there was > no real sign of a "ferry station" in earth orbit where traffic would move > from earth/orbit type ships to moon ships. No, but we really never do see earth from orbit, nor do we follow a ship up from the surface heading for alpha. An orbiting ring station ala 2001 is almost inevitable, I'm sure the traffic to and from earth orbit is much heavier than just to moon. Humans are a spacefaring race in 1999, and there is more to space than just going to the moon. > This was shown in 2001 and > there was a station close to the moon in breakaway. So maybe for the > purpose of this discussion the eagle can be the main travel link between > the earth and the moon. In dragons domain the commissioner states that the cost of space travel is very expensive, and one look at an eagle will tell you it sure wasnot a cheap craft to build. A lower cost way of going to and from earth orbit makes sense. The eagle uses tons of fuel(I imagine) to overcome its crappy aerodynamics when landing and flying in an atmosphere. A shuttle craft with a lifting body makes sense here. And what about the plastic glider from season 2? Obviously, this little marvel wasn't built on the moon, nor is it of use on the moon. However, if you need to leave an orbiting ring station to head back to earth, this thing makes a lot of sense. > Wouldn't some amount of thrust be necessary to move the eagle up even if > its gravity was reduced to zero? It still would have mass. In Foundations Edge, the Far Star had no engine except the jump drive, its gravitic drive handled everything else. > Also couldn't an eagle INCREASE its gravity to give it a boost when going > into a planets gravity well? I'd think you'd want to make yourself very light when going in to a gravity well. > OK I know its just a show and up until Babylon 5 no SF show has had a good > explanation for gravity other than its too much money to hang actors from > wires for 45 minutes of drama! Yes B5 does a great job of showing actual PHYSICS in action. The fighters don't fly like terrestrial fighters, and they spin around to stop or change vectors. The big human crusiers have rotating sections for gravity(as does B5). One big gaffer is CNC, that little "bridge" where all the command crap goes on, should have NO gravity, its not rotating, but no body is floating there. Same goes for the dock, it should be zero G as well. > But in the interest of fun, is there a way to make this work? I doubt it. > Alpha and the Eagles could theoretically use gravity as an assist to > propulsion. Yes that makes sense.
From: jcg@vh44.net Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 11:30:38 -0500 Subject: RE: Space1999: eagle works >So in summary, good Sci-Fi tech makes the imaginary believable, and gives >the nit-picky types (like me) a chance to enjoy a good story and not trip >over things like Allen Carter having a head injury when he was strapped in >and the Eagle wasn't even 'Bumped' >(didn't think this was connected, did 'ya?) > >I hope this sheds some light on why some of us spend time on the why's and >how's of Eagles-n-things The only thing I can add to Eric's comments is a quote from a friend responding to my question regarding a nit in the movie Titanic: "Richard Brown, who runs a longtime film class in NY, says that if you buy the premise of a movie in the first few minutes, you'll go with it and either not notice or forgive any holes or discrepencies. If you don't buy it from the start, you'll be looking for holes and discrepencies, or mismatched levels of wine in the glasses or heights of candles that grow and shrink. If you're into the movie, you just go with it..." Obviously the same goes with a tv episode. What I would add is that the surrounding reality must also make sense, otherwise you don't buy it. We buy the premise of the moon leaving orbit, so we forgive some of the science nits that Dr. Asimov pointed out in his NY Times article in 1975. Some shows, like Trek, try to at least acknowledge science problems (like inertial dampners and Heisenberg compensators), and other shows, like Irwin Allen's, ignore them completly and just tell the story. Eric is going at it from the science. Those of you masochistic enough to read my nit-picking posts on the episodes see that I go at it from the who-what-when-where-why-how of the character's actions and the plot. I am surprised by the reviews I write of the episodes, and a part of me is not. The observations I make have been somewhere in my head since my first viewings in 1975, but sitting down and writing about them brings the observations to the front of my mind. And yet there is somthing I buy so that I can forgive and keep watching. Marty Feldman once said that a comedy sketch can have anything in it, as long as it is consistent. You can have five people in suits standing in garbage cans, and that is not a problem. But, if you have five people in garbage cans, and one who is not, then you have to deal with the one who is not. You are drawn to the inconsistency.
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:18:37 +0200 Subject: RE: Space1999: eagle works Eric T wrote (about Alien): >The medical section wasn't filled with little >"what-the-hell-is-that-for" gizmos. As a designer in medical equipment business I can tell you, that this was part of the fiction not part of the science. In real life medical sections are (if well equipped for really sick patients) filled with little w-t-h-i-t-f gizmos :-) Medical care in science fiction is typically handled completely noninvasively, no cables or hoses attached to the patient. Patients who cannot breathe spontaneously are even ventilated without any moving parts actually touching the patient. This is quite far out compared to real life where catheters for blood pressure measurement are put inside patient's heart and pneumatic devices are needed to take care breathing. >You could tell what stuff was just by >looking at it. Given the speed of technological development during the last century and the acceleration of that speed, it is hard to believe that we could recognize any significant percentage of 23rd century equipment. So, what is my point? The science part in scifi is quite problematic. You shouldn't ignore the facts (like in S1999), but on the other hand you shouldn't underestimate the rate of development in technology (Alien). I believe that if the development rate of technology accelerates at present rate we are technologically more close to Star Trek world than to for instance B5 or Alien world. However, sociologically we may be closer to the two latter examples. -Pertti
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:32:09 +0200 Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >The eagle uses tons of fuel(I imagine) to overcome its crappy >aerodynamics when landing and flying in an atmosphere. May I ask, where are these tons of fuel stored? There is not much space available inside Eagle. Well, the small spatial amount of propellant can be compensated by using a heavier propellant (mercury or some weird neutron stuff) or a greater exhaust speed.
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@newrock44.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:52:52 -0600 Which is precisely the the point. Where does all that fuel come from? Brian Johnson himself is quoted as saying something to the effect of functional looking, but no room for fuel. In one episode we see an eagle getting refueled, but I highly doubt that was the main propellant. One good look at an eagle will tell that its engines are NOT related to modern day spacecraft. Why do I say this. The eagle would need a huge fuel tank for conventional motors, and the added weight of all that fuel would probably make it impsossible for it to take off. So yes, your right, it may be able to store enough fuel for its nuclear engines, buit what does it use as propellant? Mark
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:25:03 +0000 From: Rui Ricardo (rricardo@esoterica44.pt) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >What if there was a unit >that could manipulate the polarity of these fields in such a way that you >don't control gravity, but you do control the attraction or repulsion of >these charges. I'm thinking along the lines of magnets here. If the >polarity is one way the magnets attract each other, but reversed the >magnets push each other apart. Nice though but universal atraction is not positive or negative so we cannot reverse polarity. I think that we are all misleaded here. If Alfa possesses an artificial gravity generator, is plausible enought to think that in a civilization with such technology, the Eagles have a very eficient power generator. If this is the case, aerodinamics is useless because a machine with enough power could lift and get to orbit without wings. Wings are only necessary to help a machine without manouvering thrusters and limited power, to be "suspendend" while being pushed by reactors. The idea that everything has to have wings and be aerodinamic is imposed by current days technology. This is much more plausible to me than artificial gravity in a Eagle.
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:33:10 +0000 From: Rui Ricardo (rricardo@esoterica44.pt) Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer There are many ways to teorectly build engines. Plasma, nuclear, lightwaves pressure etc. Is no need to use conventional propelant. -- Rui Ricardo
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:45:56 +0200 Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >Brian Johnson himself is quoted as saying something to the effect of >functional looking, but no room for fuel. As I have said earlier, it is quite fruitless (although fun) to discuss Eagle technology, because Brian (the Brain) Johnson didn't. >So yes, your right, it may be able to store enough fuel for its nuclear >engines, buit what does it use as propellant? Should we make some calculations? Somebody could make an estimate of Eagle propellant storage space and find the given figures about Eagle mass and performance. With that information we could calculate the needed exhaust speed for a given density of propellant or the needed density for a given exhaust speed. It is basically simple high school physics. If the needed exhaust speed exceeds c even with the densest possible propellant (uranium?) we must assume, that the propellant used is some really weird stuff. -Pertti
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:12:58 +0200 Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >I think that we are all misleaded here. If Alfa possesses an artificial >gravity generator, is plausible enought to think that in a civilization >with such technology, the Eagles have a very eficient power generator. The Eagle has very efficient nuclear (maybe even fusion) power plant(s). However, the amount of energy available doesn't help, if you don't have enough propellant, some stuff that you shoot backwards from the engines to make your ship move. To make a spacecraft move you have to give the exhaust gases the same linear momentum as you would like your ship to have. If during a given time you shoot one ton (1000kg) of propellant with the speed of 1000 m/s, you get a linear momentum of one million kgm/s. If the spacecraft weighs a hundred tonnes (100000kg), it'll go only 10 m/s. With more power you can make the exhaust gases go faster, but as the exhaust speed approaches c, it becomes more difficult. >If this is the case, aerodinamics is useless because a machine with >enough power could lift and get to orbit without wings. >Wings are only necessary to help a machine without manouvering thrusters >and limited power, to be "suspendend" while being pushed by reactors. It is against all good engineering practices to waste power, even if you have plenty of it available. Non-aerodynamic shape is certainly unnecessary waste of power (and unnecessary thermal and mechanical stress to the structure) during atmospheric flight. An aerodynamic shape would enhance the performance in air significantly without compromising performance in space. No engineer would waste this opportunity. >This is much more plausible to me than artificial gravity in a Eagle. The only way a non-aerodynamic shape could be plausible is to have the ship ascend from Earth to space so slowly that aerodynamic forces are insignificant. Doing this with rocket-type engines is complete waste of propellant, so this should be done with a more exotic method, like some sort of anti-gravity. If anti-gravity is not plausible, but an Eagle without anti-gravity is not plausible either. -Pertti
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:16:22 +0200 Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Eagle lateral stabilizer >There are many ways to teorectly build engines. Plasma, nuclear, >lightwaves pressure etc. Is no need to use conventional propelant. The propellant does not have to be conventional. It could even be photons, which have minimal mass but a great speed. But anyway, the propellant must have the same linear momentum (mass X speed) as you would like your ship to have. -Pertti
From: "Eric T. Hagen" (urk@worldnet.att44.net) Subject: Space1999: RE: Fields-n-things Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:24:29 -0500 >Nice though but universal atraction is not positive or negative so we >cannot reverse polarity. Just to clarify things a little bit, we are not trying to manipulate a planet's gravitational pull, but instead manipulating an object's field (either generated or otherwise) relative to the planetary mass. In other words, say we want to lift a cargo container and move it from one bay to the next.The attached field generator produces a highly localized and focused field around the container that is opposite in polarity (or lines of force) to the Moon's own magnetic field just enough to lift the container a few feet (or meters) off of the floor. At this point the handler can easily move the cargo to the next bay. Does this make a little more sense, or did I mis-understand what you had written? -Eric
Type of Propulsion, types of fuel, calculations based on needed thrust, etc. These are the reasons I had hoped to tackle this issue last. Oh well, here goes nothing. Thoughts: Fuel Storage. If a liquid type fuel was used, the Eagle could have what is called a "Wet Structure" Where hollow sections of the ship's structure could be used as fuel tanks. This type of storage is normally found in aircraft wings that do not use fuel cells. Pros: Any large hollow space can be used for fuel storage. Large amounts of fuel can be stored without losing weight to extra structures (i.e. fuel cells, tanks etc) Cons: Very susceptible to leaks. These types of fuel storage can start to leak anywhere. Also more fuel pumps and fuel management systems are needed (more things that can break or fail) Fuel cells on the other hand offer more safety. While they can't be put just anywhere they do offer far better protection in the event of a crash or hull puncture. (Not that Eagle's crash with any regularity) :-) Calculations: How much fuel does an Eagle need? What kind of fuel will it use? (liquid or solid?) How much will the fuel weigh? Example: Jet fuel weighs anywhere from 6.1 to 6.7 pounds per gallon depending on temperature. More to come.... -Eric
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:30:46 +0100 Subject: Space1999: EAGLE TECHNOLOGY From: Ekmar Brand (Ekmar.Brand@t-online44.de) Manouvering? EAGLES have conventional propulsion drive and the so called "UFO drive". The "UFO drive" can create gravity and anti gravity (for docking maneouvers and similar things). Gravity control? You don't see weightlessness in an EAGLE, because EAGLES have gravity generators. With gravity control it is also possible to reduce the gravity to zero with anti gravity screens (watch BLACK SUN). In THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI you can see an EAGLE hanging in the sky. Not enough space for fuel? We don't know what kind of fuel EAGLES use, but for spaceships with gravity control not much fuel is necessary. Aedynamic flights? In RING AROUND THE MOON you see the defense shields in action. For flights in the atmosphere these shields can create an aerodynamic bubble around the ship. Ekmar
From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-engstrom44.com Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:10:33 +0200 Subject: Space1999: EAGLE TECHNOLOGY I think Ekmar's ideas about Eagle technology are the best we can get. They explain most of the inconsistencies between Eagle's performance and its looks. -Pertti