Conference noted::sf

Yes, a nuclear explosion might be able to drive the Moon out of its 
orbit.  The explosion in the first episode 
showed the crew of Moonbase Alpha being pinned to the floor by the 
acceleration for maybe a minute.  Say it was 5 G's for sixty seconds.
Then you get a delta V of 3000 m/s.  Since the orbital velocity of 
the Moon around the sun is something like 30,000 m/s, that kind of 
delta V would be enough to significantly change its orbit.  Now, the 
Moon is not going to go sailing off into interstellar space, or at 
least not very quickly, so that part of the show was nonsense.  And
of course, that kind of acceleration would probably take millions of 
H-bombs to achieve (I don't have the mass of the Moon handy), and 
would reduce the Moon to rubble.

/jlr

...Not to mention that to get to the places they were supposedly going, they
were travelling at (large) relativistic speeds.  A minute or so of 5 gravities
ain't going to get you going quite that fast.  But heck, who cares about
current scientific theory in a science fiction story? 

- chris

     Re: .1

     Actually the Moon Base Installation supposedly had an artificial
     gravity system which covered the area. (This allowed them to live
     in Earth normal gravity rather the .16 G of the moon). The 
     acceleration that the base personnel experienced during the 
     'explosion' was probably much higher, since the 5 G's seen on
     screen was only that which could not be 'compensated' for.


     Re: .2

     Since the moon is geologically non active, disruption of the crust
     and break up would not be as likely as would be on the earth.


     I still don't think that any conceivable amount of nuclear waste 
     brought up from Earth and deposited on the moon could be ignited
     (even on total conversion) to give the moon sufficient velocity
     to achieve solar escape velocity.

     /jim

    this may be off the wall but...
    
    total conversion of a mass 'm' to energy yields an energy of mc^2
    
    kinetic energy is mv^2/2, where m is the kinetic (relativity adjusted)
    mass.
    
    So if the moon has a mass of M, and is accelerated by the blast
    to say 10% of the speed of light (at least that much velocity would
    be needed to achieve the galaxy wandering shown in the series) it
    has a k.e. of Mc^2/200. That is to say a mass equal to 1/200th of
    the moon would need to be totally converted to energy to achieve
    the effect. . . . a little too far fetched, even for children's
    TV?
    
    /. Ian .\

    As I recall, when this series first came out it was dubbed
    "Space 1949" by Algis Budrys.
    
    I couldn't help but agree.
    
    Nigel

    I have also heard it called "Space 1999 marked down from 2001,"
    because some of the props, so I was told, are left over from the
    Kubrick movie.  I could never figure out which props, but then I
    never tried very hard.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

I did like those Eagles!  They're construction made a lot of sense, they 'flew'
realistically in space, and they did not made them do stupid impossible things.

Jim. 

    	I will state my prejudices right now, and say that I thought
    Space:1999 was a show that HAD possibilities, but was ruined by
    poor and ignorant writers, creating very innaccurate and very boring
    scripts.
    	For starters, the amount of nuclear material necessary to knock
    the Moon out of Earth's orbit would SHATTER the Moon in the process.
    Besides, there is the 1967 UN Space Treaty forbidding nuclear materials
    on the Moon.
    	Secondly, Moonbase Alpha looks like something  - along with
    many of its devices - that should belong more in the END of the
    NEXT century.
    	Thirdly, going back to no.1, remember that the material exploded
    on the far side of the Moon - so barring the fact that the explosion
    would only destroy the Moon - our satellite would be headed TOWARDS
    Earth, not away from (These writers couldn't even get directions
    straight!).  The explosion also certainly WOULDN'T move the Moon
    at faster than light speeds!  And it also seemed to always send
    them right through an inhabited solar system - boy, now that's
    coincidence for you!
    	Fourth, how is it that the Eagles (one of the very few aspects
    of the show that I liked - and was possible!) could fly back and
    forth to the planets they passed and get back to the Moon if it
    was going faster than light - and they certainly couldn't go that
    fast (But God knows with this show!).  Nor are they equipped to
    enter a planet's atmosphere without burning up (no heat shield).
    They are fine for the airless Moon, but not for an Earth-type planet.
    	
    	Space:1999 could have been a good show by either taking place
    say a century from now on the Moon in a well-populated Solar System,
    where they could get all the adventures they wanted  by realistically
    traveling through the populated frontiers of our planetary system;
    or they could have had the show take place aboard a multi-generational;
    starship that gets lost - no, its not original, and if you gave
    their ship any type of fast engine everyone would cry "Star Trek
    ripoff!", but at least its a hell of a lot more plausible than the
    Moon getting blown out of Earth's orbit by illegal atomic waste
    and speeding off at warp velocities to every alien in the Universe
    (Space:1999 also seemed to have no idea between the differences
    in asteroids, stars, galaxies, and planets, but that's another story).
    I personally would have gone with my first suggestion about a colonized
    Solar System - there's a lot in our part of space alone to make
    interesting stories.
    	I hope readers realize that I am being more critical about
    Space:1999than hating it, because it had such potential (as mentioned
    above), but its creators decided to go with fancy special effects
    over good stories, not realizing that many, many SF fans are fanatics
    for scientific accuracy.  The fact that the show's creators avoided
    fact more than not is what makes almost all their plots invalid.
        Comments?
    	Larry
    
    
    
    	

    re .8:
    
    First, there _was_ a show about a multigenerational starship: _The
    Starlost_, about the less said the better.
    
    Second, the difference between "sci-fi" and "science fiction" is
    that the latter tries to hew to a great degree to known scientific
    fact or theoretical model; the former doesn't care.  Thus, in
    _Starlost_, no scriptwriter saw anything wrong with saying that
    a character was afflicted with "a massive radiation virus," which
    was the straw, if I recall right, that made Ben Bova sever his
    connection with the show and made Harlan Ellison use his nom de
    plume.  Space 1999 was no better, and was meant as a kiddie show.
    
    At the risk of encountering some flames, I'll point out that _Star
    Trek_ skirted close to the line a numberr of times, including the
    miserable shows where the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany popped up
    on odd worlds; however, most of the time the disacipline was good
    enough so it remained a science fiction show.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

        Actually, not to defend Star Trek totally (it did have many
        scientific fallacies), but the specific "weaknesses" mentioned
        in .9 are irrelevant... both of those societies were imported
        from Earth by wayward space travellers.  They weren't simple
        coincidences.  The same is true for the Chicago Gangland
        world (A Piece of the Action).  The theme was perhaps overused
        a bit, but given the variety of people doing star travelling
        over a long period of time, you're likely to get quite a
        few of these carbon-copy societies scattered about the galaxy.
        
        The really main weakness in Star Trek was that virtually
        every alien species they met was humanoid... but of course,
        that's really more of a budgetary weakness than a scientific
        weakness!
        
        Also, I don't much like the term "sci-fi".  It's got too
        many negative connotations from association with the really
        bad "science fiction" movies with which it's primarily
        associated.  Star Lost, Space: 1999, Battlestar Galactica,
        etc. may not qualify as pure science fiction in the sense
        we normally mean it, but they're not *that* bad!  I prefer
        the term "science fantasy" for such stuff.  It's (vaguely)
        more scientific than the traditional sword and sorcery fantasy
        (although it could easily be argued that Tolkien's universe
        is much more consistent and scientific than Space: 1999's),
        but is more interested in popularily identifiable pseudo-science
        than in the real thing (which most people don't understand
        anyway).
        
        For that matter, very little of modern "science fiction"
        is really very scientific.  As has been pointed out a lot
        in this conference, such common SF devices as time travel
        and FTL violate currently known science.  This isn't to say
        they can't happen... but postulating them is hardly "scientific"
        considering present day science.
        
	Footfall is science fiction... while it postulates aliens
        which may not exist and technology which we haven't used,
        it assumes nothing which our current science isn't pretty
        sure could be done.  How much else of modern SF can say the
        same?  For most, the best you can say is that pseudo-science
        is used credibly and consistently.  That's one reason why
        the term "science fiction" has fallen into disfavor, to be
        replaced by "speculative fiction" or just "SF".
        
        	/dave

Sapce: 1999, Battlestar Galactica, and others of their ilk weren't (aren't)
as bad as may seem from this discussion.  The constraints of the genre
of episodic drama (and comedy) are very tight.  Maintaining the continuity
of characters and their situations is very hard.  
In space, major characters can't be swapped in and out except at rare
junctures.  In a situation comedy or a situation drama (non-SF),
the audience is presented with conflicts with which they can identify,
like job problems, marital conflict, child rearing fiascos, etc.
The problem of coming up with novelty on a weekly basis in a situation
with which the audience can not identify (lost on a space station
far beyond contact with Earth) is solved by bending the rules far past
the point normally accepted for one-shot SF (books, movies, whatever).
Why do sequels generally fail (artistically)? Probably because the trouble
of building in both continuity and breakpoints (between episodes)
is so hard.  Human and American cultural chauvinism aside, that Star Trek
could do it for three years is an exceptional feat!

On the matter of Space: 1999 versus Space: 2099.....
At the time of its first release (1975), the space age was less than
20 years old, and man had already walked on the moon, as much as 6 years
earlier. Surely a simple extrapolation based on assumed (inter)national
will could have resulted in a permanent human habitation on the moon
24 years later (the same time frame as 2001, which also supposed such 
settlement).  I do remember one incident, probably late in the second year 
of 1999 that attempted to explain the speed of the moon through the galaxy.
It was, I believe, tucked into a diary type soliloquy from Landau or Bain
about encountering numerous "time warps" and "transmission gates" or some
such.  Apparently the writers felt the need to justify their "luck" 
in encountering as many adventures as they did.
All in all, it might have been more interesting to have situated the series
on Earth.  Imagine the effects of losing the moon and enduring a close,
very violent gravity slingshot effect from tossing it out into space, 
probably changing the orbit of the Earth in significant and fatal ways.
Combinations of "When Worlds Collide" and "Lucifer's Hammer."

- tom]

re: .-1

Serieses don't seem to work very well in sf books either, as witness "Dune",
"Foundation", or the Xanth books.  The best TV form for sf might be
the mini-series, although as far as I know no one has ever done one.
("Shogun" might count, actually: a lost adventurer in an alien
soceity).  There's time enough to fill in the background and to use 
those expensive effects more than once, and you aren't stuck with 
having to put the same characters in the same situation at the start 
of each show.  "Lucifer's Hammer" would be perfect for a mini-series, 
and at times seems to be written with box-office in mind.  A really 
adventurous producer might even go for "Ringworld" or "The Mote in 
God's Eye", but they would need a lot of stops for explication. "Dune"
itself might have OK if it were spread over six hours.

/jlr

    	Let's face it, we can all make as many excuses as we want for
    Space:1999 - yes, even I did - but in the end the scientific
    implausibility was just too much:  Who among us could watch, say,
    a regular non-SF TV series which constantly had the characters defying
    the law of gravity; OF COURSE it would be fun at first, but eventually
    even the most numb couch potato would find the show's unreality
    too disconcerting - his (or her) sense of normalcy would be crying
    for reality.  
    	This applies even moreso to SF; that in fact is why it is called
    SF - SCIENCE Fiction, fiction with a PLAUSIBLE science background.
    While one is certainly allowed to push humanity's knowledge of science
    to its literary limits, it becomes inexcusably wrong when the writer
    defies known and irrefutable physical laws.  Isaac Asimov once said
    you can have a technology that LOOKS like magic, but when it BECOMES
    magic, then it is no longer SCIENCE Fiction.  So too when physical
    laws are abandoned while still under the guise of SF.
    	No, no one has to take what I am saying any more than they want
    to; if you want to look upon Space:1999 as pure kidsstuff, then
    that's fine; but if it is going to BE CONSIDERED SF, then it must
    be scrutinized as such.
    	Space:1999 also came under one other damaging scrutiny - it
    was BORING!  How they could have all those special effects and wild
    concepts and still have boring plots almost escapes understanding;
    until you see the characters:  I have nothing personal against those
    actors and actresses, but their characters were forever in this
    form of limbo between being two and three dimensional human beings.
    And when they tried to spice them up in the second season, they
    became cartoonish!  Even here, Space:1999 could not seem to hack
    it.  As I said before, a show with a lot of potential that was left
    unused and misguided.
    	One last note, readers of this section seemed to have missed
    the other way Space:1999 could have been presented - as a futuristic
    lunar colony in an era when humanity has colonized much of the Solar
    System, which I mentioned along with the lost space colony.  That
    could have been very realistic and entertaining; look at what the
    American Voyager spacecraft have shown of our outer Solar Sysytem
    and you will agree we live in an incredibly interesting Solar System,
    one that can even go beyond the imaginations of SF writers and still
    be PLAUSIBLE!
    	Comments?
    	Larry
    

    re .13
    	
    	The highly improbable (defying gravity, etc.) would be acceptable
    	if a _reasonable_ explanation were given; take, for example,
    	E.E.Smith's 'Lensman' universe.  I reread the series while a
	physics major in college; the liberties taken with physical laws 
    	were appalling, but tolerable/enjoyable within the limits set by
    	his rationale for that universe...

    
    Dwight

re:.13 by EDEN::KLAES >
>    	Space:1999 also came under one other damaging scrutiny - it
>    was BORING!  How they could have all those special effects and wild
>    concepts and still have boring plots almost escapes understanding;
    
Agreed!!

Space:1999 was the reason I deecided I could live without commercial TV
in my house. The tragedy is, as Larry mentions, that the concept was ALMOST
usable, with some fixes: that the series take place within the solar system,
a few centuries further in the future (so there is more going on, and the
transportation systems are more plausable...). But the stories always seemed
to involve some pedantic exposition of some "philosphical" point wrapped
in completely implausable plot and background.

Ignoring huge and obvious flaws, already mentioned, the idea of any vehicle
moving RANDOMLY about the universe encountering ANYTHING AT ALL, at ANY
speed, is ludicrous. A series with continuing characters being placed in
novel situatiuons requires both a vehicle under some rational control and
a reason to go to these situations. Note that Gene Roddenberry came up with
two without stretching the "science" hopelessly: Star Trek and Genesis II.
The idea that characters would randomly be tossed into perilous situations
week after week is absurd. 

One of the things which Roddenberry (and Gene Coon) attempted on Star Trek
was to maintain reasonable plausability in the day-to-day workings. Not so
1999! Consider the doors: on the starship Enterprise, they just open when
someone stands near them, unless locked, not unlike a grocery store, but
perfectly acceptable. On Moonbase Alpha, the whole crew carries this 
large, boxy, complicated communicator-tv-garage-door-opener whatzit, and
this idiot thing is required to open every door. Suppose every interior
door in your house required you to have a garage-door-opener to open it?
How long would it be before you removed every door in the house? Yet these
characters, purportedly capable of building a force field that can protect
them from the effects of a black hole(!!), cannot figure this out.

Well, I'm getting carried away. I was very disappointed that Genesis II
was not made into a series, and that ST was cancelled. Both had much more
potential than concepts like Lost in Space, 1999, V, the Invaders, and
a host of other run-of-the-mill junk.

John O.

    re .14, .15:
    
    This talk about boring brings up memories of something I don't think
    _quite_ fits another forum; plot limitations.  Theree was a vaer
    entertaining (for a few shows) semi-SF program numbers of years
    ago derived from a so-sdo movie: _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_
    was, well, okay, but there are only so many things you can do with
    the crew of a futuristic atomic submarine.  And soon they ran out
    of plot elements, and audiences were treated to week after week
    of someone (or something) trying to take over the submarine.  (What's
    the rationale of an extraterrestrial expedition trying _first_ to
    capture a sub?)
    
    The result is one soon no longer cares.
    
    (one of the invaders was called "the Lobster Man," having exoskeleton
    and modified pincers; a _good_ plot variant would have been for
    the men of the _Seaview_ catch him, then cook & eat him, but I guess
    the producers were too squeamish...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

        .13:
        "plausible" mumbo-jumbo is not science.  And "plausible"
        is a very ambiguous term... plausible to whom?  I'm sure
        a research physicist would have a very different idea of
        "plausible pseudo-physics" than a second grader (e.g., your
        average adult American TV watcher).
        
        And if you are willing to accept "magic" as merely
        manifestations of physical rules we haven't yet discovered,
        then stories dealing with magic can certainly be termed "science
        fiction" as much as most "hard science fiction" I've seen.
        This has some relation to the ambiguity of "plausible". 
        For some people, the word "magic" has such strong negative
        connotations that they can't look at it objectively.  If
        you can't suspend disbelief, you'll likely have trouble with
        even really "hard" SF dealing with *known* science.
        
        If the "magic" in a book is consistant and well-defined,
        then how is it less SF than the consistant, well-defined,
        and equally impossible "science" of time travel and FTL?
        Maybe the difference is only in whether you, the reader,
        are willing to follow the author into the story, or whether
        you back out on the basis of flimsy and irrelevant
        technicalities? 
        
        	/dave

    See note 316 for a discussion of similarities and differences between
    magic and pseudo-science.
    
    ESW

    	The magic I was referring to is the type of power and "technology"
    that comes from the SUPERNATURAL world, not our level of reality
    - those are two different planes of existence.  Also, I only used
    the example in refence to Space:1999's almost total disregard for
    true scientific accuracy, and how it greatly diminished the quality
    of the show as science fiction (one could hardly call it fantasy
    without being insultive to the show - but I think it did a pretty
    good job of insulting itself to anyone of us who cares about having
    quality Science Fiction on television.
    
    	Larry
    

        So?  What's the "supernatural world"?  Is it a set of laws
        within our universe we don't yet understand?  Could well
        be "science".  Is it some parallel universe?  Well, lots
        of FTL drives and "time travel" stories have used "parallel
        universes", so I suppose that can be "science" too, huh?
        
        My point was that it's simply all in the definitions.  If
        you define "magic" as something which "isn't science", then
        you've erected a stone wall across the argument.  People
        used to do the same thing for sailing around the world, flying,
        space travel, and any number of other things.
        
        Science fiction at its best is all about being open minded,
        and absorbing what you read without irrelevant prejudices.
        Judging that a story "can't be SF" simply because it uses
        the word "magic" is not my idea of open minded... and isn't
        a very good way to approach SF.
        
        	/dave

    re .20:
    
    <deep breath>
    
    If you want "magic as an undiscovered (or undeveloped) science,
    I gently refer you to the Lord D'Arcy stories.
    
    If you want "magic as something forever outside science," I refer
    you to many sources, including much of The Brothers Grimm.
    
    We're talking in this topic about a show that presents itself as
    a _science fiction_ program.  If that indeed is the case, then
    saying, "Well, what the hey!  Nobody'll know the difference: it
    it's beyond the Moon's orbit, it can be anywhere," is saying that
    the scientific content of a science fiction show is meaningless
    or unnecessary.  By that definition, _any_ piece of fiction is science
    fiction, which is silly.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
      

    	Thank you, Mr. Kallis, for exactly expressing what I meant
    about magic and science.  I hope that is clear to everyone else
    too.
    	Larry
    

        .20 didn't say anything relating to my previous comments
        (aside from the references, perhaps), so I don't see that
        it's such a big deal.
        
        As for the specific subject of this topic... first, I'll
        admit the conversation has strayed, but that's not at all
        unusual in Notes, and I'm not the one who started it, either.
        Again, I don't think it's a very big deal... the discussion
        is valid, and this is as good a place as any.
        
        I'm not sure Space: 1999 ever really claimed to be "Science
        Fiction", although it's generally labelled as such by others.
        I'm not saying it *didn't*, either, mind you (no flames!),
        but that's really irrelevant.  It's claim to being SF is
        that it deals with things which couldn't happen *here and
        now*... which makes it just as much SF as 90% of everything
        published recently as "science fiction".  In the pure sense,
        it's *bad* SF... but then, so was Star Trek (oh no!  Heresy!).
        I *liked*, and continue to like, Star Trek episodes, while
        I got quickly *bored* by Space: 1999, Battlestar Galactica,
        Buck Rogers, and all the other TV "SF".  The real difference
        isn't how good they were as SF, but how good they were as
        *stories*.  They're all vaguely technological fantasy in
        a space setting... to most people, that's SF.  There's nothing
        wrong with that, I suppose, although I'd prefer a distinct
        term such as "space fantasy".  Again, no big deal.
        
        	/dave

How about "writer embarrassment" as a measure of SF quality?  Everybody
makes mistakes but I got the feeling that errors in Star Trek were
regretted.  And that there was an underlying consistency to the Star
Trek universe even though that consistency could not be presented in the
context of a 1-hour TV show.  On the other hand, if the scriptwriters of
1999 were capable of embarrassment over scientific errors, they'd have
died of it before the second episode was written.  

Larry Niven was picketed at an SF convention by MIT students carrying
signs that said "RINGWORLD IS UNSTABLE!"  Ringworld (as presented in 
"Ringworld") was unstable, so Niven fixed the error in "Ringworld Engineers."

The detection of writer embarrassment is awfully subjective, but
SF, like pornography, is one of those "I know it when I see it" items.

JP

P.S.  Is Immanual Velikovsky still alive?  Did he moonlight as a Space: 1999
      scriptwriter?

    Immanuel Velikovsky died in 1979, or earlier.  It would be amusing
    to know what he thought of Space:1999.
    
    ESW

    	He'd probably say that the Moon caused the Red Sea to part and
    plagues of locust to appear, all portents before a terrible SF TV
    is to appear upon the face of the Earth and corrupt our intelligence!
    
    	Larry
    

    Who was Immanuel Velikovsky?

    <sigh>
    
    How quickly they forget!
    
    A very thumbnail overview:  Velikovsky was a scholar who came up
    with a "scientific" explanation for early Biblical miracles such
    as the parting of the rRed Sea, Manna from Heaven, Joshua's making
    the sun stand still, etc.  His basic idea was that a comet emitted
    from Jupiter dinged around the Solar System, and electrical discharges
    plus/or gravitational perturbations were responsible for the miracles.
    
    (The comet later became the planet Venus)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    As it happens, I once did a paper on Velikovsky for a science
    journalism class.  He is a very plausible fellow.  Carl Sagan heard
    about him at a cocktail party once and thought that, though his
    astronomy was obviously silly, his historical and archeological
    theories sounded intriguing.  Then he met a historian who remarked
    that, though Velikovsky's history and archeology were obviously
    silly, his astronomical theories sounded interesting.  He looks
    good to the non-expert.
    
    In fact, Velikovsky was a psychoanalyst and insisted that the
    scientific community rejected his theories as part of the collective
    neurotic repression humanity had mad in reaction to the catastrophes
    caused by Venus and Mars.
    
    He first published around 1955.  In "Harpers" and "Atlantic Monthly."
    This failure to go through channels, combined with the slick and
    splashy presentation of the magazine articles, the basic
    ridiculousness of the theories, and the conformity of '50's culture,
    made the scientific community hold Velikovsky in high scorn.  They
    threatened to boycott any publisher that printed his books.  Velikovsky
    used this bit or persecution for all the publicity it was worth
    and has sold very well ever since.
    
    His best-known titles are "Worlds in Collision" and "Ages in "Chaos."
                   
    In the '70's, Sagan persuaded the AAAS to let Velikovsky defend
    his views publicly, thus erasing the blot on the reputation of the
    American scientific community.  I've read the various speeches of
    this debate and Velikovsky came across as arrogant and asinine.
    Sagan came across as conceited and rude, but he still had the better
    of the scientific debate.  These speeches can be found in back-issues
    of "Humanist" magazine.
    
    Now that Velikovsky is dead, it will be interesting to see if his
    doctrine dies out.  He has a few supporters, who ran a magazine.
    The name escapes me.  He's a facinating case-study of pseudo-science.
    
    And that's probably more than you wanted to know.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

  In one very narrow sense, the scientific establishment has come around
  to Velikovsky's way of thinking.  V's theories were classified as
  "catastrophism," meaning that the world had at times undergone great
  changes in a short amount of time.  Conventional wisdom at the time said
  that the the world and its contents evolved at a slow and even pace.
  And so V's theories were sometimes rejected on the basis of this
  general principle, rather than for any specific example of silliness. 

  Although the jury is still out on the specific causes of mass extinctions
  every 25-30 million years, no one laughs about the possibility of
  catastrophic events in earth's past anymore.

  My favorite bit of silliness was his idea about manna from heaven.
  Since manna was food and food is often made of carbohydrates, and since
  the object "emitted" from Jupiter was likely to contain lots of
  hydrocarbons, it follows as the night follows day that...  Well, you get
  the picture. 

  JP

    	What really frightens me is that Velikovsky's theories would
    make a typical Space:1999 episode!
    	BBRRRRRRRR!
    
    	Larry
    

    	Do SF fans also realize that Space:1999 is a VERY bastardized
    version of the beloved 2001: A Space Odyssey"?!
    	Check out the design of Moonbase Alpha as compared to Clavius
    Base and the two show's spacesuits as the most outstanding
    similarities.
    	I also think that Gerry Anderson tried to imitate 2001's outer
    "murkiness" of its plot, but was too shallow to realize just how
    truly deep 2001's plot actually is; thus his show's plot are mostly
    all surface and little substance.
    	And let's not forget the most vulgar similarity of all:
    
    			2001: A Space Odyssey
    			Space: 1999
    
    	Lord have mercy!
    
    	Larry
    

    I had heard that some of the props in Space:1999 were simply leftovers
    from 2001, and that this was why the members of the local SF club
    often refered to the show as "Space: 1999, marked down from 2001."
    
    (Cf. "Cattlecar Galactica" and "Battlestar Galaxative.")
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .33
    
    	"...local SF club..."  ?  There _is_ such an entity around ?
    
    
    Dwight 

    I was referring to NESFA, the New England Science Fiction Association.
    Several noters in this conference are members.  I used to be until
    I moved to New Hampshire (whereon NESFA ceased to be "local" in
    relation to me).
    
    There are many SF clubs scattered about the United States and beyond.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

        .33:
        
        Not likely.  There were *very*, *very* few "leftover" props from
        2001.  Kubrick destroyed every model and prop when the movie was
        completed.  One spacesuit (Keir Dullea's, I think) survived (I
        know because I had the opportunity to actually wear it when it
        was on exhibit at the Strasenburg Planetarium in Rochester, many
        years ago), and possibly one or two miniature models which had
        already vanished.  The few which did survive are highly
        valuable, and it's unlikely 1999 could have gotten their hands
        on any. Everything had to be rebuilt from scratch even for 2010. 
        
        It's certainly possible that 1999 deliberately *copied* some
        props used in 2001, but highly unlikely that they actually
        reused any.
        
        	/dave

    	YOU GOT TO WEAR A SPACESUIT FROM 2001?!
        YOU GOT TO WEAR A SPACESUIT FROM 2001?!
    
    	Now that I'm calm....
    
    	WHERE DID THAT PLANETARIUM GET IT, AND WHY?
    
    
    
    	Larry
    
    

        .37:  Gee, thanks!  That reaction just made my day!
        
        Yes, really, and truely, I did.  Unfortunately, it was many
        years ago, and I really don't recall the circumstances. 
        I *think* it was on loan, but for all I know for sure they
        may have owned it (though I didn't ever see it again, and
        I doubt they would have hidden it!)
        
        The planetarium and associated museum had a set of courses
        you could take, and my parents (I was in high school)
        were members of the museum and science center.  I was
        irresistably attracted to a course in Astrogation, which
        dealt (in a somewhat simplistic manner, of course) with
        navigating from Earth to Mars.  We also got a tour of the
        whole planetarium, and got to see the spacesuit.  The instructor
        judged me to be the most appropriately sized person to wear
        it (the fact that I jumped up and down and yelled "me, me!"
        may or may not have had anything to do with the decision :-)).
        The rest is history.
        
        It was a bit big, and of course not nearly as impressive
        as it looks on film, some of the attachments were missing,
        the buttons on the arm were just painted, etc.  But it was
        still fantastic!
        
        	/dave

    	LUCKY, LUCKY YOU!
    
    	I hope this makes your day too, small as it is.
    
    	Larry
    

    I would like to see if a prediction of one of the SPACE 1999 
    episodes comes true or not.  When asked to an unknown intelligent
    force in space:  "If your from earth, who won the world series in
    1999"?  Answer:  <Pause>  "The Boston Red Sox" 
    Now THAT, I call science fiction!!!!!!             
                   
    Mike_L

    	I actually REMEMBER that episode.
    	It was also one Space:1999 episode I actually found interesting
    because it had them going back into Earth's time in the year 1339
    in Scotland.  It is interesting in that it is one of the few SF
    shows I can remember where people traveling in time did NOT end
    up at some major historical event/place or CAUSE an important event
    to happen - they just got caught by some Scottish folk who thought
    Helena's cold was the Plague and tried to burn them all.  I even
    remember Helena commenting how dissapointed they were that of all
    the places and times those future Earth people could have sent them,
    they ended up back in 1339 Scotland (no offense to any Scottish
    readers, please!)!
    	By the way, wouldn't it be unreal if the Red Sox DID win the
    1998 (or any) World Series?!  Then of course next year the Moon
    would be blasted out of Earth's orbit by nuclear waste on its far
    side and sent traveling at FLT speeds to every inhabited planet
    in the Universe!
    	It COULD happen.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    Uh-huh.
    
    

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!lll-lcc!seismo!sundc!potomac!jtn
Subject: SPACE: 1999
Posted: 14 Mar 87 18:38:01 GMT
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; Arlington, VA
  
> From: Cyberma%[email protected]
>
> But very little has been said about another great British TV serial,
> SPACE: 1999. It was made in the late 1970's by the BBC for the American
> market. I feel that the plots, the special effects, and the acting are
> outstanding.
 
    I think no one has mentioned it because we're all trying to forget
it! ;-) 
 
    Typical SPACE: 1999 plot:
 
    Green glowing glob approaches Moonbase Alpha.  Scientist proclaims
"It's on a direct collision course!"  Barbara Bane (not her real name)
gets worried and intones woodenly "John, what are we going to do?"
Commander Koneig mumbles, "It hasn't tried to signal us so IT MUST be
hostile", whereupon he dispatches a fleet of EAGLE spacecraft to
destroy the space menace.  Of course the glowing glob reduces all
EAGLES to glittery sparklers. 
 
    Green glowing space menace eventually mutilates several Alphans
(the British love their gore), steals a carton of ice cream and heads
on its way.  This leaves Commander Koneig and Professor
what's-his-name to ponder infinite philosophies about other life forms - 
not that we've learned anything for the hour we've just spent. 
 
    Ho hum.
 
    Actually the special effects WERE outstanding for their time
(1975-77).  Excellent model work.  Atrocious story-lines. 
Unbelievably wooden acting. 
 
    Someone else on the net had asked "Has anyone explained how the
Moon was able to travel to other regions of the Galaxy that were
light-years distant?"  In fact, they tried to explain this in SPACE:
1999's second season.  Apparently there are a number of collapsars
scattered above the ecliptic of the Galaxy, enabling one to enter in
one region of space and "slingshot" off to another one. 
 
    Sine Visa Ars Nihil Est.

- John T. Nelson

    Does anyone remember the British Series U. F. O.. Basically the
    story line was a Secret Group of Military types defending the
    Earth from Aliens. The aliens were from another Galaxy and wanted
    to move here on the relocation plan. The aliens came from a presumably
    well watered planet,as they resided or hid on our planet in the
    Oceans or lakes of the world. 
    The story was pretty silly at times but had its good moments.
    
    Mike Turro

    	This Note should be its own Topic.
    
    	Larry
    

From: [email protected] (Chad Fogg)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,rec.arts.drwho,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Isaac Asimov reviews "Space 1999" (scientific errors)
Date: 3 Jun 89 00:25:58 GMT
Organization: Univ of Washington, Seattle
  
    In rec.arts.sf-lovers there has been recent discussion of
scientific errors from SF TV series ("Battlestar Galactica," in
particular).  This Isaac Asimov article for the New York Times uses
another SF series as an example. 
 
         Is `Space 1999' More Fi Than Sci?
         New York Times, Sect. 2, pg 1, Sunday, Sept. 28, 1975
         By Isaac Asimov
 
              A science-fiction television show ought to be reviewed,
         it seems to me, not only for its dramatic quality, the
         acting, the plot, but especially for scientific accuracy.
         Why?  Well, simply because television is a powerful
         educational influence. Why should it contribute unnecessarily
         to the raising of a misinformed generation?
              There are three possible sources of scientific errors in
         a television show --errors made out of dramatic necessity,
         which one can be lenient with; errors made out of commercial
         necessity, which one can sigh over; and errors made out of
         ignorance, which are intolerable.
              Suppose we consider each type of error in connection
         with "Space 1999," a new hour-long series that premiered last
         Sunday on Channel 11 [Sept. 21, 1975 on WPIX, NYC]. It deals
         with a colony of human beings on the Moon who are permanently
         marooned there when the Moon leaves its orbit and goes
         drifting up into space.
              One dramatic fact about the Moon is that its surface
         gravity is one-sixth that of the Earth. For a given muscular
         effort you could lift your center of gravity six times as
         high on the Moon and you could lift six times the weight you
         can here on Earth. Also, you would rise more slowly when you
         jumped, and fall back more slowly, too.
              In "Space 1999," the surface gravity effects on the Moon
         are captured perfectly.  The characters move with a slow
         long-stepping high-bounding grace.  When one man must throw
         another, he does so with astonishing ease, and the thrown man
         describes the proper parabola.  (Slow motion filming and, I
         suspect, the ingenious use of wires are responsible for these
         effects). I have never seen anywhere, so precise a simulation
         of low gravity. I marvelled and enjoyed the sight. (Other
         special effects were taken care of with equal care.)
              So far, there is no error. Within the lunar base,
         however --indoors, so to speak-- it was clear that everyone
         was operating under normal Earth gravity.  There was some
         passing reference to artificial gravity --which, of we accept
         the general theory of relativity, is not theoretically
         possible, but never mind, for it is an error forced by
         dramatic necessity.  You just can't have your characters
         moving slow motion throughout the show and throughout all
         future shows in the series.
 
              A more serious error involves the methods by which the
         Moon is blasted out of orbit.  On the show, nuclear wastes
         apparently stored on the Moon somehow heat up and explode.
         The reasons for this are not made luminously clear. (Although
         nuclear wastes can heat up and melt, they can't possibly be
         involved in a nuclear explosion.) Still, there is enough talk
         of magnetic field to give the explosion a certain surface
         plausibility.  But having exploded, the show's nuclear waste
         canisters act as rockets, blowing off exhausts in one
         direction, and driving the Moon in the other.
              The problem here is that the mass of the Moon is being
         underestimated. If all the nuclear waste the Earth were to
         produce in the next 24 years were placed in one spot, and if
         it were all to explode (assuming it could explode) it would
         not budge the Moon much or alter its orbit very noticeably --
         let alone accelerate it to such a degree that the people of
         the lunar base would be pinned immovably to the ground. But
         that's an error out of dramatic necessity, too, and I'm
         willing to let it go.  The Moon has to be gotten out of orbit
         somehow, and at least a scientific principle was correctly,
         if exaggeratedly, used for the purpose.
 
              What about errors out of commercial necessity?  There is
         one in the very title "Space 1999." The series begins in A.D.
         1999, 24 years from now.  There is no reasonable possibility
         that we will have a lunar base so large, so advanced, and so
         self-contained in a mere 24 years.  It would have been more
         plausible to call the show "Space 2049" and allow another
         half-century.
              I suspect, though, that the title arose out of a
         conviction on the part of those who thought of the series as
         a potential money-maker that the viewing audience is so
         egocentric, so limited in its perception of the universe,
         that it would not watch anything it thought would not happen
         in its own lifetime  Furthermore, the very successful picture
         "2001" was probably in everyone's mind --and it would be one-
         upped by "1999."
 
              And mistakes out of ignorance? Are there any? Alas, yes.
 
              There are a number of references, for instance, to the
         "dark side of the Moon."  The show opens with a caption
         reading "Dark Side of the Moon" and it is on the "dark side"
         that the nuclear wastes are stored and where they explode.
              Yet there is no dark side of the Moon. A dark side of
         any world is the side that faces permanently away from the
         Sun.  One side of the Moon does indeed face permanently away
         from the Earth,  but not from the Sun, and every part of the
         Moon gets both day and night in two-week alternations.  The
         side of the Moon that is permanently turned away from the
         Earth is the FAR SIDE not the dark side.
              Even if this misuse of a phrase makes no difference, why
         not be right just for the fun of it? But there is a
         difference. Why should a popular TV show mislead youngsters
         into thinking that half the Moon is a land of perennial night
         --which it isn't?
              Incidentally, of the big nuclear explosions took place
         on the far side of the Moon, the rocket action would serve to
         drive the Moon toward the Earth, something the program
         doesn't mention.  The Moon's original orbital motion would
         keep it from hitting the Earth, but it would skim by at an
         abnormally close distance (how close would depend on the
         force of the explosion) and would create disastrous tidal
         effects.
              Sometimes one can't be sure whether an error is produced
         out of dramatic necessity or out of ignorance.  For example,
         mention was made on several occasions during the initial
         program ["Breakaway"] of a new planet named "Meta."  It is
         supposed to be close enough to the Moon to be seen clearly
         through telescopes as a large sphere.  It has an atmosphere;
         it is sending out space signals; it seems to bear intelligent
         life.  The mean of the lunar base are preparing to send out a
         manned probe to the planet.
 
              But where did Meta come from? If Meta is the planet of
         another sun, where is that sun?  If it is as near to Earth
         and the Moon as Meta seems to be, then the Earth and the Moon
         are being baked to death.
              If Meta isn't circling a sun, but just invaded our solar
         system on its own, then it must be frozen solid through all
         the eons of its interstellar journey and hence is very
         unlikely to bear our kind of life.
              If on the other hand, it has been a member of our solar
         system all along, if we can see it in 1999, then we should
         also be able to see it in 1975 --but, of course we don't. As
         a matter of fact, any planet that could be close enough to
         the Earth in 1999 to invite a manned expedition of exploration 
         must be close enough right now in 1975 to be seen by astronomers.
              Well, then, is Meta there out of dramatic necessity?
         Will our heros and heroins be interacting with it in the next
         episode because the effect of the nuclear explosion is sure
         to send the Moon, by sheer coincidence, right in the
         direction of Meta?
              Or do those who are producing "Space 1999" simply not
         know or not care what the structure of the universe is like?
         For instance, will they have the Moon drifting through space
         and visiting different planets in each installment? Now that
         would be too ignorant a view of the universe to be tolerated
         even in the name of dramatic necessity.
 
              Suppose that the Moon were to be hurled out of its orbit
         with such force that it ended up drifting out of the solar
         system and through interstellar space at 1000 miles per
         second. (This is flatly inconceivable, but let us suppose
         it.) It would then take the Moon something like 800 years to
         reach the nearest star IF it were aimed in the right
         direction. To have it constantly involved with worlds and
         alien intelligences is too much to swallow by several
         thousand cubic miles.
              To be sure, the spaceship ENTERPRISE on "Star Trek" did
         it, but the ENTERPRISE was not merely drifting.  It was a
         ship under powered flight; it could be accelerated  --and
         could, we were informed, go faster than light.
              But perhaps I need not be pessimistic. "Space 1999" may
         yet avoid too many errors of ignorance.  I hope so, for its
         special effects are remarkable and I want very much for the
         show to succeed.

                             S P A C E : 1 9 9 9

                                 Version 0.2

                 by Chad Fogg ([email protected])
                 and Dave White ([email protected])
         -------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Cast
 
                   Commander John Koenig......Martin Landau
                   Doctor Elenor Russel........Barbara Bain
                   Professor Victor Bergman.....Barry Morse (season 1)
                   Maya.....................Catherine Shell (season 2)
                   Commissioner Simmonds........Roy Dotrice (season 1)
                   Paul Marrow............. Prentis Hancock
                   Alan Carter................... Nick Tate
                   Sandra.................... Zienia Merton
                   Tony Verdeschi.............. Tony Anholt (season 2)
  
         -------------------
         Season 1 (1975)
         -------------------
 
         1.  BREAKAWAY
         Pilot/Debut: The "Mission Impossible" team of husband Martin
         Landau and wife Barbara Bain is reunited in a series whose
         credibility is heightened by authentic looking sets, Rudi
         Gernreich's costumes and, for television, spectacular special
         effects.  On Moonbase Alpha, which monitors lunar storage
         sites for atomic wastes shuttled from Earth, Commander Koenig
         and Dr. Russel oversee an eleventh-hour attempt to avert
         spectacular explosions on the Moon that eventually hurtle it
         out of Earth's orbit and cast 311 men and women stationed on
         the Moon on the ultimate journey into space across the Universe.
 
         [Later re-edited into the first half of the movie "Alien Attack"].
 
         2.  DRAGON'S DOMAIN
         Guest cast: Gianni Galko (Cellini), Douglas Wilmer
         (Commissioner Dixon)
 
         Dr. Russel retells the farfetched explanation offered by the
         sole survivors of a disastrous 1996 space probe.  This episode 
         features the classical music of Tomaso Albinoni's (1671-1751) 
         "Adagio" as the space probe approaches an alien planet.
 
         3.  A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
         Guest Cast: Richard Jonhson (Lee), Stuart Damon (Parks),
         Anton Phillips (Dr. Mathias)
 
         Helena Russel's husband, who has been missing in space for
         years, mysteriously appears on Moonbase Alpha to warn her
         away from the planet where he and everything on it exist as
         antimatter.
 
         4. END OF ETERNITY
         Guest Cast: Peter Boweles, Jim Smilie (Baxter)
 
         Commander Koenig rescues an immortal alien (Boweles) doomed to 
         spend an eternity inside a barren asteroid.  The liberated one 
         repays his kindness by wreaking destruction among the Alphans.
 
         5.  VOYAGER'S RETURN
         Guest Cast: Jeremy Kemp (Dr. Ernst Linden), Barry Strokes
         (Jim Haines), Alex Scott (Aarchon), Lawrence Trimble (Abrams)
 
         Moonbase Alpha is endangered by a malfunctioning, unmanned
         spacecraft that had been spewing lethal particles since its
         launch from Earth in 1985, and by aliens whose people have
         already been destroyed by the errant probe.
 
         6.  MISSION OF THE DARIANS
         Guest Cast: Joan Collins (Kava), Aubrey Morris (Petros High
         Priest), Dennis Burgess (Newman), Paul Antrim (Lowry),
         Robbert Russel (Hadin)
 
         A call for help is made on the Alphans by the incumbents of a
         gigantic, crippled ship who are the sole survivors of a dying
         planet.
 
         7.  DEATH'S OTHER DOMINIION
         Guest Cast: John Shrapnel, Brian Blessed (Rowland), Mary
         Miller (Freda)
 
         A half-crazed Soothsayer (Shrapnel) warns the Alphans to flee
         from a frozen planet where Koenig and colleagues discover
         immortal members of an earlier space probe from Earth.
 
         8.  COLLISION COURSE
         Koenig meets with the queen of an enormous planet to avoid
         collision with her world and his.  And she insists on a
         preposterous solution.
 
         [Later re-edited into the 1st half of the movie "Journey
         Through The Black Sun"].
 
         9.  FORCE OF LIFE
         Guest Cast: Ian McShane, Gay Hamilton (Eva), John Hamil (Donnix)
 
         Burned-out equipment and frozen corpses lie in the wake of a
         technician (McShane) who has become an instrument of destruction 
         that feeds on energy and endangers anything that he touches.
 
         10. ALPHA CHILD
         Guest Cast: Julian Grover (Jarak), Cyd Hayman (Cynthia
         Crawford), Wayne Brooks (Jackie)
 
         When the first baby born on Alpha suddenly grows to the size
         of a 5-year-old, Koenig senses a more sinister explanation
         than outer space conditions for a child that heralds an alien
         war in which, no matter who wins, Alpha loses.
 
         11. GUARDIAN OF PIRI
         Guest Cast: Catherine Shell (Servant of the Guardian),
         Michael Culver (Pete Irving)
 
         The Guardian of a tranquil and beautiful planet where machines
         do the bidding of all, lures Moonbase personnel to the land
         of eternal peace, which Koenig realizes is living death.
 
         12. THE TROUBLED SPIRIT
         Guest Cast: Giancarlo Prette, Hilary Dwyer (Laura Adams),
         Anthony Nichols (Dr. James Warren)
 
         A botanist (Prette) conducting experiments on communications
         with plants is haunted by a disfigured apparition.
 
         13. THE BLACK SUN
         "The Black Sun." A space phenomenon that even devours light
         draws Alpha to its center.
 
         [Later re-edited into the 2nd half of the movie "Journey
         Through The Black Sun"].
 
         14. TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA
         Guest Cast: Orso Maria Guerrini (Luke Ferro), Lisa Harrow
         (Anna Davis)
 
         The Alphans encounter what may be the origins of life on
         Earth.  The runaway Moon's uncontrolled flight comes to a
         sudden halt at the outer limits of space, and Alpha's power
         plummets when it approaches an unidentified planet.
 
         15. THE LAST ENEMY
         Guest Cast: Caroline Mortimer (Dione), Maxine Audley (Theia),
         Kevin Stoney (Talos)
 
         Two warring planets, positioned so that they cannot shoot at
         each other directly, seize Alpha as a gun platform when it
         wanders into their range.
 
         16. EARTHBOUND
         Guest Cast: Christopher Lee (Captian Zantor)
 
         An alien ship bound for Earth lands on the runaway Moon, its
         crew frozen-down for the long journey.  Commissioner
         Simmonds, who was visiting the Moon when it broke away from
         Earth, insists on a chance to go home aboard the vessel.
 
         17. ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE
         Guest Cast: Judy Geeson
 
         Past and future overlap as Moonbase Alpha personnel land on a
         duplicate Moon and discover themselves, and the eerie
         phenomenon convinces a main mission staffer (Geeson) that she
         is living in her own future.
 
         18. THE INFERNAL MACHINE
         Guest Cast: Leo McKern
 
         An ancient man (McKern) and the talking machine he serves
         come to Alpha to request urgently needed supplies.  Alpha
         then encounters one of the strangest mysteries of the
         Universe in a living machine.
 
         19. MISSING LINK
         Guest Cast: Peter Crushing, Joanna Dunham (Vara)
 
         An anthropologist (Crushing) from the planet Zenno abducts
         Koenig to become the subject of study as a spaceman of an
         earlier life form.
 
         20. THE LAST SUNSET
         Paul (Hancock) and Sandra (Merton) look forward to raising a
         family as the Alphans prepare for an exodus to the planet
         Ariel, which apparently approximates Earth environment.
 
         21. SPACE BRAIN
         Guest Cast: Shane Rimmer (Kelly), Carka Romanelli (Melita)
 
         Alpha encounters a deadly force as it heads through space...
         and towards disaster when an outburst of strange
         hieroglyphics on all of the Moon's screens portends its
         encounter with a "Space Brain."
 
         22. WAR GAMES
         Guest Cast: Isla Bliar (female alien), Anthony Valentine
         (male alien), Clifton Jones (David)
 
         After an alien attack devastates Alpha, John and Helena go to
         the hostile planet to plead for mercy on the survivors.
 
         [Later re-edited into the 2nd half of the movie "Alien Attack"]
 
         23. THE FULL CIRCLE
         On a strange planet, Sandra (Merton) is kidnapped by cave men
         whose chief bears a striking resemblance to Koenig.
 
         24. RING AROUND THE MOON
         An alien spaceship locks Alpha into an orbit and proceeds to
         steal classified data from its computer banks.
 
         -------------------
         Season 2 (1976)
         -------------------
 
         25. THE METAMORPH
         Return: This episode introduces Moonbase Alpha's resident
         alien Maya (Catherine Schell), who has the ability to will
         herself into any creature at will.  Tony Verdeschi:  Tony
         Anholt.
 
         [Later re-edited into the first half of the movie "Cosmic
         Princess"].
 
         26. THE EXILES
         Guest Cast: Peter Duncan (Carter), Stacy Dorning (Zova),
         Margot Inglis (Mirella)
 
         The Alphans come upon a fleet of missile-like objects that
         imprison the frozen bodies of exiles from another planet.
 
         27. JOURNEY TO WHERE
         Guest Cast: Freddie Jones (Dr. Logan), Isla Blair (Carla)
 
         A technological breakthrough in space-time travel gone awry 
         lands John, Helena, and Alan in plague-ravaged Scotland in 1339.
 
         28. THE TAYBOR
         Guest Cast: Willoughby Goddard (Taybor), John Hug (Bill Fraser)
 
         A traveling trader of the Universe covets Maya in return for
         a device that could transport the Alphans back to Earth.
 
         29. NEW ADAM, NEW EVE
         Guest Cast: Guy Rolfe
 
         Magus (Rolfe), an alien bearing gifts and claiming to be the
         "creator" offers the Alphans a present they can't refuse:  A
         new Garden of Eden-Earth.
 
         30. THE MARK OF ARKONON
         Guest Cast: John Standig (Pasic)
 
         Two aliens discovered sealed in a chamber beneath the Moon's
         surface suffer from a communicable disease that causes
         outbursts of violence.
 
         31.  BRIAN THE BRAIN
         Guest Cast: Bernard Cribbins (Captain Michael)
 
         Kidnap victims Commander John Koenig and Dr. Helena Russel
         find themselves at the mercy of a robot on a planet with a
         poisonous atmosphere.
 
         32. THE RULES OF LUTON
         Guest Cast:  David Jackson, Godfrey James, Roy Mardsen (aliens)
 
         Because of Maya's accidental "murder" of some flowers on a
         strange planet ruled by highly intelligent plant life, she
         and John must stand trial and engage in mortal combat with
         three aliens who committed a similar "crime".
 
         33. A-B CHRYSALIS
         Guest Cast: Ina Skriver (A), Sarah Douglas (B)
 
         Maya, Alan, and John head for a planet from which shock waves
         wreaking devastation upon Alpha have been emanating for a
         week, a planet towards which the runaway Moon is headed for.
 
         34. CATACOMBS OF THE MOON
         Guest Cast: James Laurenson, Pamela Stevonson (Michelle
         Osgood), Jeffrey Kissoon (Dr. Ben Vincent)
 
         Blasted from a tunnel by an underground explosion, miner
         Patrick Osgood (Laurenson) has a surrealistic vision of the
         destruction of Alpha.
 
         35. THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION
         On an asteroid, Cdr. John Koenig collapses inside a cave
         whose crystal-like walls reflect myriad images of himself,
         one of which returns in his stead to Alpha.
 
         36. SPACE WARP
         Her powers disturbed by a mysterious disease, Maya loses
         control over her metamorphic powers, changing from one
         creature to another.  Meanwhile Koenig is separated light
         years from Alpha when the Moon travels through a space warp.
 
         [later incorporated into the 2nd half of "Cosmic Princess"]
 
         37. A MATTER OF BALANCE
         Guest Cast: Lynne Frederick (Shermeen), Stuart Wilson (Virdus)
 
         An alien whose people are moving back in time threatens to
         exchange them with Alpha's crew through a "time portal".
 
         38. THE BETA CLOUD
         Many Alphans are already mysteriously incapacitated when they
         are further menaced by a huge creature sent by another planet
         to steal their life-support system.
 
         39. THE LAMBA FACTOR
         Guest Cast: Debrah Fallander (Carolyn Powell), Jess Conrad
         (Mark Sanders)
 
         The appearance of a cosmic cloud coincides with the mysterious 
         death of a young woman and nightmares experienced by Koenig.
 
         40. ONE MOMENT OF HUMANITY
         Guest Cast: Billie Whitelaw (Zamara), Leigh Lawson (Zarl),
         Geoffry Bayldon (Number Eight)
 
         Helena and Tony are pressed into service as teachers on a
         planet of robots eager to learn about emotions and willing to
         become humanoid themselves.
 
         41. ALL THAT GLISTERS
         Guest Cast: Patrick Mower (Dave Reilly)
 
         John, Helena, and Maya must battle time and an army of living
         rocks that emit deadly rays of colored light.
 
         42. THE SEANCE SPECTRE
         Guest Cast: Ken Hutchinson (Sanderson), Carolyn Seymour (Eva)
 
         Dissident Alphans challenge Commander Koenig's authority when
         the Moonbase appears to be on a collision course with a huge
         planet, and no one can agree on how to handle the crisis.
 
         43. BRINGERS OF WONDER (PART 1)
         Guest Cast: Stuart Damon (Guido Verdischi)
 
         A "Superswift" spaceship from Earth arrives to rescue the
         Alphans, but an experimental machine enable Koenig to
         perceive the apparent rescuers for what they really are -
         aliens intending to destroy the Moon.  First of two parts.
 
         [Both parts later re-edited into the movie "Destination:
         Moonbase Alpha"].
 
         44. BRINGERS OF WONDER (PART 2)
         The Alphans send Maya to infiltrate the ranks of alien
         warriors who are posing as rescuers from Earth.  Conclusion
         of a two-part story.
 
         45. DORZAK
         Guest Cast: Lee Montague (Dorzak), Jill Townsend (Sahala)
 
         A survivor from Maya's destroyed planet Psychon arrives on
         Alpha as the exiled prisoner of an alien woman.
 
         46. IMMUNITY SYNDROME
         The disintegration of their Eagle spacecraft traps John, Alan
         and a critically injured Tony on a planet they were exploring.  
         As they are stranded on the nearby planet, they discover that 
         they are being stalked by an alien and that they are now the
         prey of unknown creatures.
 
         47. DEVIL'S PLANET
         Koenig is sent to the moon of an alien's penal colony planet
         and is trapped by whip-wielding cat-women.
 
         48. THE DORCONS
         Guest Cast: Ann Firbank (Varda)
 
         The warrior Darcons threaten to invade Alpha unless Maya is
         handed over to them for use in their medical experiments.
 
         "Movies" edited from the TV series and the episodes they
         incorperate:
 
                                 "Alien Attack"
                                   BREAKAWAY
                                   WAR GAMES
                        "Journey Through the Black Sun"
                                COLLISION COURSE
                                 THE BLACK SUN
                               "Cosmic Princess"
                                 THE METAMORPH
                                   SPACE WARP
                         "Destination: Moonbase Alpha"
                        BRINGERS OF WONDER (PARTS 1 and 2)
  
         Private collectors interested in obtaining Space:1999 are
         asked to contact:
 
                                  Jim Jamarrow
                               J-2 Communication
                              10850 Wilshire Blvd
                                   Suite 1000
                             Los Angeles, CA 90024
----
INTERNET,BITNET:  [email protected]   DECNET:  max::cfogg
UUCP:             cfogg%blake.acs.washington.edu@uw-beaver
 

    re .46 - maybe this isn't the place to raise this question, but
    I'll do so anyway: why would lunar gravity (1/6 Earth gravity) result
    in *slower* ascents for jumpers?  Assuming that the force one could
    exert with the musculature of the legs was unaffected by the lower
    surface gravity, wouldn't the lower gravity imply a slightly *higher*
    velocity of ascent?  The force/mass ratio (and hence the acceleration)
    for the jumper remains unchanged, but the "resisting" acceleration
    (due to lunar gravity) is only 1/6 that on Earth.  The mathematics
    are as follows (assuming a vertical jump - for angled jumps apply
    the relevant trigonometry):
    
    	moon   A = (F/M) - (1/6)
    
    	earth  A = (F/M) - 1
    
    Now, you'd have to figure out how long that acceleration was applied;
    it'd be shorter in the lunar case, but I suspect the net effect
    is that the velocities are either very nearly the same, or slightly
    higher for the lunar case.
    
    Should we take this to PHYSICS?
    
    len.
      

    Re .48:
    
    If you give the same amount of push, you'll be moving faster on the
    Moon than on Earth (as long as you are on your way up).
    
    But suppose you want to jump from the ground onto a certain object;
    i.e., you jump a fixed distance.  On the Moon, that takes longer:  You
    have to give a smaller push.  The time it takes to jump onto (or fall
    to the floor from) a four-foot table is .5 seconds on Earth and 1.2
    seconds on the Moon. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

       I am looking for videos of individual TV episodes of the old "Space:
    1999" series. I have lived in many places but it never seems to be on
    anymore. I know there's several movies made from the series, but I'm
    looking for specific episodes that weren't made into movies such as
    "MIssion of the Darians", "Gaurdian of Piri" and others. If anyone
    out there knows if hows these individual episodes can be obtained on
    tape, it would be greatly appreciated.

    They haven't been available up til now, but supposedly starting
    in January, the entire series will be released on video.
    
    --- jerry

    Well, they are now available on tape. The following is an excerpt
    from the latest "STARLOG" issue # 164:
    
    Title of article: "QUO VADIS MOONBASE ALPHA?"
    
    ["Forty-two one hour episodes of 'SPACE:1999' have been acquired by
    J2 Communications for home video release. Each episode will be issued
    individually on VHS cassettes under the ITC Hone Video label at $ 14.95
    each. A laserdisc version is planned by Image Entertainment. The first
    four episodes out are "Voyager's Return", "Matter of Life and Death",
    "Earthbound", and "The Guardian of Piri"."]
    
    ---                                           
       
    I also saw the tapes advertised by a company called Dickens Video By Mail.
    If you'd like the address and other pertinent info, please send me e-mail 
    to the above node.
     
    "Earthbound" guest-starred Christopher Lee. "The Guardian of Piri"
    guest-starred Catherine Schell, who would later go on to play Maya
    the following (and IMHO the better) season.
    

    Well, for anybody that lives in the MetroWest Area in Massachusetts,
    the video tapes mentioned in the prior reply are currently available
    at "COCONUTS" right near the Loews Theatre on the Natick/Framingham
    line on route # 9. This store's great and, of course, if you don't
    see what you're looking for, they'll see if they can order it for you.
                                                                     
    

    
    Oh, I'd been meaning to mention...
    
    This series is still on M-F at midnight on WHLL ch 27 Worcester (for
    those of you in Salem/Derry, NH, it's cable channel 44).
    
    

    re:-.54
    
    Just as a caution to those wanting to either view or tape Space : 1999
    on channel 27 WHLL, be warned that:
    
    1) it's on at midnight every night, and
    
    2) it's pre-empted by half-hour to hour-long commercials about every
       other night, especially on weekends.
    
    Channel 27 as has "Time Tunnel", "Land of the Giants" (and they
    used to have "Lost in Space", but I haven't seen that one in almost
    a year, so I wonder if they still do). These shows constantly are
    pre-empted, WITHOUT WARNING, by those &*^^$##&^($ annoying commercials.
    
     
                                       

    
    
    Then all you have to do is change the shannel to 60 and watch Star Trek
    :') which is also on at midnight 
    

    
    Re-.56
    
    I'm laughing at the previous reply right now, because that's exactly
    what I do...;-) ;-)

    re-.56 and .57
    
    ....which is exactly what happened last night at midnight....grrrrrr!

    
    I always watch the trek anyway.  I just found space 1999 while channel
    hunting one night when the old trek was on.  its hard to watch it now
    when i watch TNG every day.
    
    

    No, you've got it wrong, the paying customers (those with those
    *&%!#%@$&@ commercials) are interspersed with low-cost (to the TV
    station) shows.  The fact that anyone with a brain would rather watch
    old SF shows than commercials has nothing to do with TV programming.
    
    Willie

    re-.60
    
    Altough sometimes it's harder to tell the difference in production
    quality as to which is the better program...  ;-) ;-)
                                                  
    

    No it's easy, the hour-long ads have better special effects! :+)
    
    Willie

    
    oooh...ouch...oooh...that one hurt...;-) ;-) ;-) etc.

    The following is from a court decision in volume 841 of the second
    edition of the Federal Reporter, page 181.  Judge Easterbrook wrote:
    
         Many things -- beating with a rubber truncheon, water
         torture, electric shock, incessant noise, reruns of "Space
         1999" -- may cause agony as they occur yet leave no enduring
         injury.
         
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re .64
    
    (-:
    
    Aw, gee, I'm kind of partial to Space 1999 (albeit not enough to know
    whether it is currently running here).

    
    
    It's still on the Sci fi channel I think.
    
    Chris
    :)

    re .66
    
    sci fi channel?
    
    your "here" <> my "here"

    
    	Yeah, I have a feeling Australia might be a bit different from
    	US/Canada.  8^)
    

    re .68
    
    although his "here" is, I think, the UK.

    
    
    re .69
    
    
    correct, I'm in the UK but I think its also on the sci fi channel
    in the states.
    
    Chris
    :)