Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • We have updated the Terms and Conditions, you will be prompted to read and agree to these next time you are active on the forum.
SPONSORED BY

Which planes might have flown?

Ham Salad

Alphans
For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion.

The apollo 4, 5 and 6 were not tests. They were actual missions, and the F1 and J2 engines had already been tested and were already taken seriously. Further, the apollo spacecraft isn't a form of propulsion.

Are you referring to the Saturn booster? It isn't a form of propulsion either. It's form of propulsion is cryogenic liquid fueled rocket engines, of 4 types. Your statements make no sense in this context.

The J2 engines used on the upper stages of the Saturn 5 had already been flown (they were the main engines of the saturn 1B).

Taken seriously by whom? I assure you that we always took them seriously, but then we actually designed and built them...and used them to get to the moon. Our atomic engines worked too, and would have taken us to mars had it been allowed.

And when I asked for references as to why Wikipedia is such a bad source of information, I was directed to Conservapedia, of all things. People who donṫ even believe in biological evolution... :no:


Conservapedia is a more reliable source than wikipedia: for example, it has not been found to contain lots of falsified entries. Also, you think that conservapedia (which is a website and has no beliefs in itself) does not somehow 'believe' in evolution? You have proof of this, and if so , how would that prove that their sources that point out the inaccuracy of wikipedia are somehow therefore not valid?

Also, Evolution isn't a religion: if you believe in it, it's not science. Do you think if you wish and believe hard enough you'll evolve, too?

Let's see what it actually says, shall we?

>The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities).

Seems accurate to me.

I don't see anywhere where it states: 'we at coservapedia don't believe in it'.


If you don't like that particular reference, there are many, many others.

Wikipedia has been proved to be a worthless, biased and misleading by multiple studies and it has been reported widely. You can't change that by trying to cast aspersions with unsubstantiated claims.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

Also, it's extremely strange that someone from the other side of the earth is concerned with the politics of a country not his own...very weird. For example, who runs your government now? I have no idea.
I also have no idea what conservative or liberal might mean to you in your country in your context. I suspect that your point of view about politics in your own country hardly has any relevance here.


'Fraid your reaching pretty hard now. You should just give up, it's starting to get rather silly.
 
Last edited:

Odahs

Alphans
For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion.



And when I asked for references as to why Wikipedia is such a bad source of information, I was directed to Conservapedia, of all things. People who donṫ even believe in biological evolution... :no:


I know you said the standard of say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, I asked you to clarify the actual tests you are referring to. As in name the tests, tested by whom, the criteria of the tests..

As Ham Salad has pointed out Apollo 4, 5 and 6 where unmanned tests of the Saturn V launch vehicle, not propulsion unit tests. So you are comparing apples with pears. :?

So I'm not sure how anyone can provide you with the evidence you have asked for without further clarification. We have established that nuclear rockets were never flown and therefore were never tested in a launch vehicle. However it is clear to me that units producing 250,000 lb of thrust, exceeding expectations in all tests were being taken 'seriously' as propulsion units!

I personally directed you to a more informed article to illustrate that Wikipedia is not always the best reference. Reading it would have confirmed the historical facts raised and debated.

I do not think Wikipedia is necessarily a bad source of information. I stated it should not be taken as an authority on a subject. In other words check the facts against other sources before using it to back-up a debate.
 
Last edited:

Odahs

Alphans
'Fraid your reaching pretty hard now. You should just give up, it's starting to get rather silly.

I could be wrong but a sense a determined dismissal is going on, emanating from a small island at the bottom of the earth, best inform Spectrum, I suspect there is a mysteron agent among us :lol:

More what I had in mind when I started this thread was a not too serious look into the mind of Gerry Anderson. His concepts were often described as fanciful, I don't personally think they were at all.

So not being too 'Sanguine' some possible inspirations for the Kingfisher helicopter from UFO:







None a million miles away from the Kingfisher..



(And before it ends up as another silly debate, yes they were all extensively tested and flown, apart from the last one which only flew on wires in a studio ;))
 
Last edited:

Ham Salad

Alphans
I
More what I had in mind when I started this thread was a not too serious look into the mind of Gerry Anderson. His concepts were often described as fanciful, I don't personally think they were at all.


I always wondered how specific a description Gerry would give of a particular vehicle...did he do a sketch? Or was it just a vague line, such as ' Some sort of futuristic helicopter'?
 

Odahs

Alphans
I always wondered how specific a description Gerry would give of a particular vehicle...did he do a sketch? Or was it just a vague line, such as ' Some sort of futuristic helicopter'?

Yep it is a good question, so with the Kingfisher that I believe was a Mike Trim design, I wonder what the brief was from Gerry? VTOL light aircraft, futuristic helicopter or much more detailed? Be great if someone could shed light on this aspect of the process of things getting from Gerry's imagination to our screens. I would have thought at least if Gerry didn't like the concept sketches, it would be back to the drawing board.

There definitely seems to be some control at some point between totally unbelievable and feasible. Accepting that we might be looking at the far future or an organisation working in an extreme situation such as our planet under alien attack.
 

Odahs

Alphans
How about: " NON SERIOUS ENGINE
DANGER: MAY NOT ACTUALLY FLY OR MOVE
STAND CLEAR OF POSSIBLE PRACTICAL JOKE AREA" "


DANGER! NON SERIOUS NUCLEAR ROCKET MOTOR

USE IN NON SERIOUS EMERGENCIES ONLY

RATED AT 111 TONS OF NON SERIOUS THRUST



;)
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
DANGER! NON SERIOUS NUCLEAR ROCKET MOTOR

USE IN NON SERIOUS EMERGENCIES ONLY

RATED AT 111 TONS OF NON SERIOUS THRUST



;)



(texas accent)

"Did we build us up one o' them nu-cu-lar motors? Heck yeah, but we was just foolin' around. Shoot, Here in the US we just ain't serious until we got it on the biggest rocket ever built. Then you KNOW we are serious. 'Til then, we just playin'. "

GENERAL DYNAMICS: The world's leader in creating non-serious propulsion with uranium. If you think this is impressive, wait until you see what happens when we are serious.

 
Last edited:

boatshewsd2

Alphans
You're acquainted, I trust, with Dr Strangelove?



(texas accent)

"Did we build us up one o' them nu-cu-lar motors? Heck yeah, but we was just foolin' around. Shoot, Here in the US we just ain't serious until we got it on the biggest rocket ever built. Then you KNOW we are serious. 'Til then, we just playin'. "

GENERAL DYNAMICS: The world's leader in creating non-serious propulsion with uranium. If you think this is impressive, wait until you see what happens when we are serious.

 

Ham Salad

Alphans
You're acquainted, I trust, with Dr Strangelove?

Of course! And nice gag derivation spotting.

Did you 'hear' that in Slim Pickens' voice? That's what I was trying for.

I've even dressed up as the character. Did you know that girls want to sit on Dr. Strangelove's lap?

I didn't, until I experienced it.
 
Last edited:

boatshewsd2

Alphans
"I Can WAAALK!!!"


Of course! And nice gag derivation spotting.

Did you 'hear' that in Slim Pickens' voice? That's what I was trying for.

I've even dressed up as the character. Did you know that girls want to sit on Dr. Strangelove's lap?

I didn't, until I experienced it.
 

Odahs

Alphans

Own up, that's just Bo and Luke's moonshine still :D


That last one looks like they just shortened it and took off two ducted fans.

Yep, what I found interesting is that by removing two sets of ducted fans from the Bell X-22 to arrive at the Kingfisher design, involves taking away a method of pitch control.

Yet the Kingfisher has the addition of a small tail rotor as found on the XC-142 (middle picture) for the purpose of pitch control, thus solving the problem.

It's this attention to detail that for me makes so many of the designs feasible, rather than fanciful.
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
Own up, that's just Bo and Luke's moonshine still :D


.



It's them duke boys brewin' up some home made U235 lighnin'...something the law just don't abide 'round hazzard county.

Good thing the genr'l Lee has some non-serious propulsion going on... Sherrif ain't never gonna catch them boys with them old fashioned cryogenic-ally fueled motors in those hazzard county po-leese cars.

Seems boss Hogg shoulda spent more on nuclear propulsion technology! That's backwoods thinkin' fer ya!



One of the most notable demonstrations was a 12-minute test of the Phoebus-2A reactor – the most powerful nuclear reactor ever built – which delivered over 4,000 megawatts of thermal energy.


FLIGHT TESTING (NON-SERIOUS PROPULSION)
 
Last edited:

Odahs

Alphans
It's them duke boys brewin' up some home made U235 lighnin'...something the law just don't abide 'round hazzard county.

Good thing the genr'l Lee has some non-serious propulsion going on... Sherrif ain't never gonna catch them boys with them old fashioned cryogenic-ally fueled motors in those hazzard county po-leese cars.

Seems boss Hogg shoulda spent more on nuclear propulsion technology! That's backwoods thinkin' fer ya!



:lol: if they make another movie of the original series, it just has to have an atomic still!


Another thing that's got me interested about the GA air vehicles is where the technical specifications came from in things like the annuals and model kits. Was this left to the imagination of the writers/kit manufacturers, or was there some established brief for the vehicles?

An example is the Airfix Angel Interceptor. The instruction sheet gives a description of it been powered by a ram jet fed by twin turbo-jet compressors. Also a description of a bleed air system for control in rarefied air and Cloudbase landing manoeuvres. Further descriptions of aerodynamic devices etc. Pure waffle from Airfix? Taken from an annual? Or were they given the information by Century 21 based on an established design brief for the vehicle?
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
:lol: if they make another movie of the original series, it just has to have an atomic still!


Another thing that's got me interested about the GA air vehicles is where the technical specifications came from in things like the annuals and model kits. Was this left to the imagination of the writers/kit manufacturers, or was there some established brief for the vehicles?


Hmm...I don't remember ever seeing the captain scarlet models for sale. Just some thunderbirds. We had the dinky toys, but I didn't know where they came from ...never saw captain scarlet broadcast here.

I did notice a lot of ' extra' stuff in the annuals ...I did kinda wonder whether they had any guidance, or just made it up.

Also, I think now when our kiwi cousin wrote 'serious', he was trying to mean 'in regular service' ...
 
Last edited:
Top