Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

submarine depth

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Willmetts
    Hello Dino There was some suggestion of how Khan’s people left in the ‘Enterprise’ series and why these enhanced humans were unstable. It does make you
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Dino



      There was some suggestion of how Khan�s
      people left in the �Enterprise� series and why these enhanced humans were
      unstable. It does make you wonder what happened for such a rebellion to force
      Khan to flee than stay and fight. After all, they had all the advantages.

      From a military pov, would you risk Khan�s
      people coming back and taking over again in a few generations down the line??
      These people made Hitler and his Nazi Party look like softies. Would you want
      to risk that?? He who flees can come back another day after all.



      Re: faces. Some are just born to smile. :-)



      Re: Sonar. There is some similarity to
      supersonic aircraft in that they had to be moving faster than the radar pings
      they send out. It must be possible for both types of vehicle to receive some
      signal back or they�d be forever flying blind. As long as you�re receiving some
      pings you can build up a picture. Didn�t we discuss how limited the observation
      nose visibility was?? If something was coming towards you underwater, you can�t
      put your brakes on. I�m beginning to wish you�d watch �The Abyss� and how the
      submarine dealt with the problem of an approaching fast object. Rather than run
      away, they plotted an interception course.



      As to subs withstanding estimated crush
      depths. Going back to WW2 subs, you might calculate based on what is known
      possible depths to reach but it is still only a calculation and there wasn�t
      much time, at least with UK subs, to do much research. At pressure, metals can
      become a little more cohesive than just crumble but it still depends on design,
      which also applies to the varying speeds subs have on and below the water.
      Current stealth subs have a rubber coating on the outside these days to deflect
      signals.



      Seaview�s flat underbelly would suggest
      that even with weight displacement that it could move pretty fast on the
      surface.



      Skydiver is a smaller submarine with a
      normal crew of about five and no one having time to sleep, although I imagine
      as a lot of the time they�re waiting for a UFO, they have regular hours except
      under alert. They didn�t need to go into the fine details any more than they
      did with Moonbase�s Interceptor Bay which had to evacuate its air before launch.



      Hello John



      I agree with you as to what should be
      canon or not. The Sturgeon book definitely isn�t. A lot of the time with these
      novelisations is that they are written while the series is in pre-production
      and even its producers haven�t laid everything down.





      Hello Stephen



      Paul makes a good point about power
      source. Just because you have nuclear power, it doesn�t mean you can�t take
      hull shape into consideration. All it really does is give you a longer range
      before refuelling.



      Geoff



      ********* GF Willmetts ****************************
      Commissioning Editor: http://www.sfcrowsnest.co.uk or http://www.computercrowsnest.co.uk
      THE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY MAGAZINE THE E-BOOK PUBLISHER THAT TRIES HARDER
      Between 42-48 million hits a month!!!


      WE DON�T CHOOSE OUR RANK POSITIONS, OTHERS PUT US THERE:-

      AOL AOL ranks SFcrowsnest #1 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://search.aol.com/aolcom/browse?id=906&source=subcats Yahoo Yahoo ranks SFcrowsnest #4 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/ DMOZ DMOZ ranks SFcrowsnest #1 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Genres/Science_Fiction/ Google Google ranks SFcrowsnest #2 most popular SFF site on the Internet http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/

      ***************************************************


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John
      This reminds me of a question someone asked Dorothy Fontana at a Trek convention back in the 70 s. They wanted to know how the Enterprise could fire phasers
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        This reminds me of a question someone asked Dorothy Fontana at a Trek
        convention back in the 70's. They wanted to know how the Enterprise could
        fire phasers when they were going faster than light...the assumption being
        that if phasers were the next step after lasers, then they were subject to
        the speed of light limit. Her answer was that who says phasers were limited
        to the speed of light, and that they would have to ask Roddenberry how the
        physics worked.

        On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Geoff Willmetts <gfwillmetts@...>wrote:

        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Re: Sonar. There is some similarity to
        > supersonic aircraft in that they had to be moving faster than the radar
        > pings
        > they send out. It must be possible for both types of vehicle to receive
        > some
        > signal back or they�d be forever flying blind. As long as you�re receiving
        > some
        > pings you can build up a picture. Didn�t we discuss how limited the
        > observation
        > nose visibility was?? If something was coming towards you underwater, you
        > can�t
        > put your brakes on. I�m beginning to wish you�d watch �The Abyss� and how
        > the
        > submarine dealt with the problem of an approaching fast object. Rather
        > than run
        > away, they plotted an interception course.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • LambuLambu@aol.com
        Geoff, Khan s departure: since there wasn t all that much detail on Khan s defeat, I would speculate that even his super-humans couldn t stand up to bullets
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Geoff,


          Khan's departure: since there wasn't all that much detail on Khan's defeat, I would speculate that even his super-humans couldn't stand up to bullets and the other conventional weapons that were most likely used against them, considering the timeframe in which the Eugenics Wars were supposed to have taken place. Khan was probably running out of followers, and rather than have his superior intellect race be completely wiped out, thought it best to surrender and save as many as he could.


          As for his returning, I would think that those who launched the BOTANY BAY with Khan and his followers frozen aboard would have programmed the ship to take it far enough away that if Khan and his crew ever woke up they would be too far from Earth to return. And if he did return, it would have been so far into the future (about 200 years according to Kirk) that Earth would have advanced enough to deal with Kahn rather swiftly.


          The problem with Khan's encounter with Kirk and ENTERPRISE was that Kirk underestimated Khan, or he fell for Khan's story to the point where Kirk let his guard down (though that was very un-Kirk-like). Most Earth people of Khan's time probably didn't want to lower themselves to Khan's level otherwise they would have just executed Khan and all of his remaining followers rather than spend the money to build a prison ship and then launch Khan away from Earth. And given the expense of having done that, why blast the ship to bits, effectively wasting the money your economy had spent and again lowering yourself to Khan's level: killing a ship-full of people while they were frozen and helpless?


          Sonar vs. radar: Supersonic aircraft actually can't outrun their radar as radar "pings" travel at near-light speed. So even an aircraft travelling at Mach 5 would still get a good radar picture. Sonar, on the other hand, travels only as fast as sound can in water, which is based on density (depth), salinity, temperature, etc. So a sub travelling at, say, 30 knots at 400 feet deep could (and again according to the prior submariner Sonar Techs I worked with) and did run blind because their sonar pings would return to a point behind the sub because it was running too fast for a ping to make it back. And yes, SEAVIEW's observation nose would give extremely limited visibility, and this little warning of something blocking her path (presumably something not living as a live creature would normally try to get out of the way). And I have seen "The Abyss" so I'm aware that it's best to go heavy on the rudder and try to steer around something than it would be to go "all back emergency" (as the command would be) to avoid colliding with something.


          One of the Cutters I was on was only moving through the water at about 8 knots - not really fast at all - as we were approaching a hospital ship to transfer some migrants during the huge Haitian Exodus back in July of 1994. We had a bad angle of approach, and even at 8 knots when those of us who were topside heard the command ring out from the bridge "ALL BACK 10!" (which is as far back as the throttles go) we looked at each other and said - a few colorful metaphors - and held tightly as the entire boat shuddered and took forever to slow down. White foam prop wash pushed forward alongside and was passing the bow as we plowed quite hard into the barge alongside the hospital ship. There was scraping and screeching as we slid along the barge, putting a huge crease and black skid marks in our hull plating, not to mention knocking a few people off of their feet when we hit, despite sounding the collision alarm. So I know first hand just how difficult it is to bring a ship to a stop. (We were only 270 feet long and weighed far less than SEAVIEW is supposed to have, so at high speeds her stopping distance would be considerable.)


          But the fact remains that a sub can travel too fast for her sonar to be of any practical use. With this info coming directly from people who not only served aboard subs, but were also Sonar Techs, I have to defer to what they said as they should know. And while they wouldn't give the max speed of the subs they were on, they did say that after about 20 knots or so, the sonar was for all intents and purposes useless, so they kept to speeds of less than 20 knots while submerged to avoid outrunning their sonar, even though they had the capability of running "in excess of 30 knots". (And yes; that's all I could get out of any of them for a max speed: "in excess of..." as any sub's top speed is classified. Even "Jane's Fighting Ships" will only list sub speeds as "30+" knots.)


          Crush Depth: Yes; aside from hull design and material, like with the speed of sound you also have to take into account water density and such. That's why I mentioned the engineers calculated the crush depth and no hulls were actually dived that deep. I think it also depends on the builders and a bit of luck. That WWII sub far exceeded its crush depth and survived, though deformed in places, while the THRESHER fell just a little below crush depth and imploded even though it was a far more modern sub.


          And modern subs are indeed covered with rubber to absorb sonar pings from other vessels, be they surface or subs. WWII subs, and I think even subs built in the 1960s were just metal hulls with no rubber covering. I remember an interview with Captain Beach (author of "Run Silent, Run Deep") who was the CO of a Fleet Boat in WWII, and he said many times he would dive his boat deep to "get under" the enemy's sonar (indicating sonar has limited range) and depth charge settings. He said his boat would groan under the water pressure, but if he could get deep enough they couldn't hear the enemy pings anymore, and then they would hope the enemy's passive sonar couldn't pick up their motors as they moved off. (Obviously his trick worked as he survived the War.)


          SEAVIEW's bottom: Actually, if you look at the filming minis (and the studio blueprints for those minis) you'll notice that her belly is actually rounded. It's just her extended bilge keels running down her sides that make her look flat-bottomed until you look closely. In several of the episodes you can see SEAVIEW's cross section diagrams in either Nelson's cabin (all seasons) or on the bulkhead in the Season 1 Observation Nose, and you can see that she's round, though her bottom does flare out a bit - but stays rounded - for the Flying Sub docking bay from Season 2 on. The only place where her bottom gets a little flat is in the bow, under the stingray wings on the Season 1 version.


          Skydiver: I would love to see the blueprints for that one... ones showing a cutaway and where all of the crew accommodations and such are located. If, as is suggested in the series, there are 4 Skydivers on constant patrol, there would have to be at least 12 crew aboard: six on watch (one being the pilot) and another six getting some rest so they could take the next shift, assuming 12-hour shifts rather than the normal 8-hour; if they went by the 8-hour shift there would have to be accommodations for at least 18 crew. If, however, of the 4 Skydivers only one is on patrol at a time, then yes, only 6 crew would be needed as at the end of a shift, one Skydiver would return to base and another Skydiver would take its place. (I can't remember just how much detail they mentioned of that in the series, but I thought it was mentioned at some point that all Skydivers were on constant patrol - barring the time they would need to resupply with food and such.)


          And not meaning to intrude on your discussion with John about what is canon, but I think you're right. Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the 1961 feature film was published in 1967, "Voyage's" Season 3. So he was probably taking bits from the series into account while writing the novelization. And as with any novelization the author goes into greater depth with the characters and their surroundings (in this case, SEAVIEW and her capabilities). Whether or not he asked for or received any input from Irwin Allen, or had Allen review the manuscript before publishing it, I don't think anyone knows but them, and sadly Allen (Irwin and Sheila) and Sturgeon have all passed.


          Again not meaning to intrude on you and Stephen, the nuclear aspect of the sub isn't so much the longer range before refueling; on a nuke that could take years/decades. The current USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65) has only been refueled about 4 times since her commissioning in the 1960s. So it's more of how much food you can carry that determines when you have to pull into a port, or visit a sub tender. On my 270, even with just diesel engines we carried enough fuel to stay at sea for several months; however, we only had room aboard for about three weeks of food and other necessities (read as toiletries). And then there is certain trash that you just can't dump at sea and have to make port to unload it (and good suffering Jehoshaphat! Does that trash room reek when it gets full!). At times it was so full you could hardly open the door when we pulled in to unload the nastiness.


          And again I would like to say it is very enjoyable having so many people getting involved in this discussion.


          Dino.


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Geoff Willmetts <gfwillmetts@...>
          To: chat search <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 6:18 am
          Subject: [probe_control] submarine depth


          Hello Dino

          There was some suggestion of how Khan�s
          people left in the �Enterprise� series and why these enhanced humans were
          unstable. It does make you wonder what happened for such a rebellion to force
          Khan to flee than stay and fight. After all, they had all the advantages.

          From a military pov, would you risk Khan�s
          people coming back and taking over again in a few generations down the line??
          These people made Hitler and his Nazi Party look like softies. Would you want
          to risk that?? He who flees can come back another day after all.

          Re: faces. Some are just born to smile. :-)

          Re: Sonar. There is some similarity to
          supersonic aircraft in that they had to be moving faster than the radar pings
          they send out. It must be possible for both types of vehicle to receive some
          signal back or they�d be forever flying blind. As long as you�re receiving some
          pings you can build up a picture. Didn�t we discuss how limited the observation
          nose visibility was?? If something was coming towards you underwater, you can�t
          put your brakes on. I�m beginning to wish you�d watch �The Abyss� and how the
          submarine dealt with the problem of an approaching fast object. Rather than run
          away, they plotted an interception course.

          As to subs withstanding estimated crush
          depths. Going back to WW2 subs, you might calculate based on what is known
          possible depths to reach but it is still only a calculation and there wasn�t
          much time, at least with UK subs, to do much research. At pressure, metals can
          become a little more cohesive than just crumble but it still depends on design,
          which also applies to the varying speeds subs have on and below the water.
          Current stealth subs have a rubber coating on the outside these days to deflect
          signals.

          Seaview�s flat underbelly would suggest
          that even with weight displacement that it could move pretty fast on the
          surface.

          Skydiver is a smaller submarine with a
          normal crew of about five and no one having time to sleep, although I imagine
          as a lot of the time they�re waiting for a UFO, they have regular hours except
          under alert. They didn�t need to go into the fine details any more than they
          did with Moonbase�s Interceptor Bay which had to evacuate its air before launch.


          Hello John

          I agree with you as to what should be
          canon or not. The Sturgeon book definitely isn�t. A lot of the time with these
          novelisations is that they are written while the series is in pre-production
          and even its producers haven�t laid everything down.


          Hello Stephen

          Paul makes a good point about power
          source. Just because you have nuclear power, it doesn�t mean you can�t take
          hull shape into consideration. All it really does is give you a longer range
          before refuelling.

          Geoff





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • LambuLambu@aol.com
          For this they could have simply fallen back on Einstein s theories, one of which states that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source:
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            For this they could have simply fallen back on Einstein's theories, one of which states that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source: meaning that no matter how fast an object it travelling, if it shoots out a beam of light (even a phaser since it's essentially some form of light beam) the beam will still travel as through it was shot from a stationary object. (Good grief, you should see the equation for this one!)


            Einstein: you gotta love that guy.


            Dino.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: John <actingman6@...>
            To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 9:45 am
            Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth


            This reminds me of a question someone asked Dorothy Fontana at a Trek
            convention back in the 70's. They wanted to know how the Enterprise could
            fire phasers when they were going faster than light...the assumption being
            that if phasers were the next step after lasers, then they were subject to
            the speed of light limit. Her answer was that who says phasers were limited
            to the speed of light, and that they would have to ask Roddenberry how the
            physics worked.





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John
            Unless there s been a breaking news bulletin, Sheila Matthews Allen is alive and well. Also, the Voyage movie novel came out earlier than 1967...from
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Unless there's been a breaking news bulletin, Sheila Matthews Allen is
              alive and well.

              Also, the Voyage movie novel came out earlier than 1967...from Wikipedia:

              "In June 1961, Pyramid Books
              <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Books> published
              a novelization <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelization> of the feature
              film by Theodore Sturgeon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Sturgeon>.
              The book was reprinted several times during the 1960s. One of those
              reprintings has Richard Basehart and David Hedison pictured on the cover,
              but the book is still based on the Walter Pidgeon film. Collectors who want
              a novelization of the television series should find *City Under the Sea*.
              That book uses the television characters, but should not be confused with
              either the television episode or the later Irwin Allen film of the same
              name.

              Sturgeon's book is based on an early version of the film's script and has
              the same basic story as the film. The book also has a few characters that
              were not shown in the film and some additional technical explanation. Some
              scenes are different from the film. Some scenes in the book are wholly
              absent from the film, and likewise some scenes from the film are entirely
              missing from the book."

              It also seems to me from reading the tie-ins from back then that there was
              less (or no) oversight over the original novels. There was certainly none
              with the IA factory. None of the books from LIS, LOTG and TT were to
              format.

              I heard or read once that the whole thing about the outside books drove
              Roddenberry nuts....and I think it also said that it was news to him when
              he would hear that original novels had been written on ST (Mission To
              Horatio and Spock Must Die.)

              And to this day I still regret not having bought that Gomer Pyle book in
              that second hand bookstore back in the 70's...what an oddity that must have
              been.

              On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              >
              > And not meaning to intrude on your discussion with John about what is
              > canon, but I think you're right. Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the
              > 1961 feature film was published in 1967, "Voyage's" Season 3. So he was
              > probably taking bits from the series into account while writing the
              > novelization. And as with any novelization the author goes into greater
              > depth with the characters and their surroundings (in this case, SEAVIEW and
              > her capabilities). Whether or not he asked for or received any input from
              > Irwin Allen, or had Allen review the manuscript before publishing it, I
              > don't think anyone knows but them, and sadly Allen (Irwin and Sheila) and
              > Sturgeon have all passed.
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • John
              Okay...this now makes my head hurt. How does that keep the ship, which is going faster than the beam, from running into the beam it just shot out? ...
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Okay...this now makes my head hurt. How does that keep the ship, which is
                going faster than the beam, from running into the beam it just shot out?

                On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

                > **
                >
                >
                > For this they could have simply fallen back on Einstein's theories, one of
                > which states that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its
                > source: meaning that no matter how fast an object it travelling, if it
                > shoots out a beam of light (even a phaser since it's essentially some form
                > of light beam) the beam will still travel as through it was shot from a
                > stationary object. (Good grief, you should see the equation for this one!)
                >
                > Einstein: you gotta love that guy.
                >
                > Dino.
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: John <actingman6@...>
                > To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 9:45 am
                > Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth
                >
                > This reminds me of a question someone asked Dorothy Fontana at a Trek
                > convention back in the 70's. They wanted to know how the Enterprise could
                > fire phasers when they were going faster than light...the assumption being
                > that if phasers were the next step after lasers, then they were subject to
                > the speed of light limit. Her answer was that who says phasers were limited
                > to the speed of light, and that they would have to ask Roddenberry how the
                > physics worked.
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • LambuLambu@aol.com
                AH! I stand corrected, on both counts. It turns out I was looking at the wrong Sheila Allen. Mrs. Irwin Allen is 83 and still going. And Amazon does have a few
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  AH! I stand corrected, on both counts. It turns out I was looking at the wrong Sheila Allen. Mrs. Irwin Allen is 83 and still going. And Amazon does have a few 1961 printing in their selections available, but they don't list the author, only the publisher.


                  So that answers that question.


                  Dino.


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: John <actingman6@...>
                  To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 12:35 pm
                  Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth





                  Unless there's been a breaking news bulletin, Sheila Matthews Allen is
                  alive and well.

                  Also, the Voyage movie novel came out earlier than 1967...from Wikipedia:

                  "In June 1961, Pyramid Books
                  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Books> published
                  a novelization <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelization> of the feature
                  film by Theodore Sturgeon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Sturgeon>.
                  The book was reprinted several times during the 1960s. One of those
                  reprintings has Richard Basehart and David Hedison pictured on the cover,
                  but the book is still based on the Walter Pidgeon film. Collectors who want
                  a novelization of the television series should find *City Under the Sea*.
                  That book uses the television characters, but should not be confused with
                  either the television episode or the later Irwin Allen film of the same
                  name.

                  Sturgeon's book is based on an early version of the film's script and has
                  the same basic story as the film. The book also has a few characters that
                  were not shown in the film and some additional technical explanation. Some
                  scenes are different from the film. Some scenes in the book are wholly
                  absent from the film, and likewise some scenes from the film are entirely
                  missing from the book."

                  It also seems to me from reading the tie-ins from back then that there was
                  less (or no) oversight over the original novels. There was certainly none
                  with the IA factory. None of the books from LIS, LOTG and TT were to
                  format.

                  I heard or read once that the whole thing about the outside books drove
                  Roddenberry nuts....and I think it also said that it was news to him when
                  he would hear that original novels had been written on ST (Mission To
                  Horatio and Spock Must Die.)

                  And to this day I still regret not having bought that Gomer Pyle book in
                  that second hand bookstore back in the 70's...what an oddity that must have
                  been.

                  On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

                  > **
                  > And not meaning to intrude on your discussion with John about what is
                  > canon, but I think you're right. Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the
                  > 1961 feature film was published in 1967, "Voyage's" Season 3. So he was
                  > probably taking bits from the series into account while writing the
                  > novelization. And as with any novelization the author goes into greater
                  > depth with the characters and their surroundings (in this case, SEAVIEW and
                  > her capabilities). Whether or not he asked for or received any input from
                  > Irwin Allen, or had Allen review the manuscript before publishing it, I
                  > don't think anyone knows but them, and sadly Allen (Irwin and Sheila) and
                  > Sturgeon have all passed.
                  >





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Robert McNay
                  Sheila Allen is most definitely alive and taking her role as protector of Irwin s legacy quite seriously. From what I understand, from entertainment rumor
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sheila Allen is most definitely alive and taking her role as protector of
                    Irwin's legacy quite seriously. From what I understand, from entertainment rumor
                    mongering, she's the biggest stumbling block to there being current versions of
                    his shows being made.

                    The copy I have has a more stylized cover. The sub looks more like a Skipjack
                    than the Seaview of the movie or TV, IRC. I can't remember right off it's pub
                    date.

                    In the book, one big difference I recall is that the Senator aboard when the Van
                    Allen Belt catches fire, ends up being very helpful to the Admiral. After Nelson
                    and Lucius are dissed by the UN "experts", a move is made to stop them, but the
                    Senator, who is with them, stands and silences the uproar by requesting to be
                    heard. He than leans over, pats Nelson on the shoulder and says something to the
                    effect of "I'll quiet them and get them to listen, I'm a politician and you know
                    how you get to be a Senator". The Senator steps up, is recognized and launches
                    into a speech. With attention on the Senator, Nelson suddenly grabs Lucius and
                    his secretary and heads quickly for the door. After a bit, Lucius asks Nelson
                    what's the hurry. Nelson tells him that the Senator is just stalling the UN so
                    they can get away. Lucius asks him how does he know that. Nelson answers "He
                    asked me "you know how you get to be a Senator" ". Lucius smiles at Nelson and
                    answers "You run for it".

                    I would have loved to have seen that scene in the movie. The description of
                    Crane watching the trio coming down the dock is pretty funny, too. Nelson, erect
                    and slightly leaned back with speed, Lucius, head down chugging along like a
                    bulldog, have their arms under the secretary's arms and she's off her feet being
                    swept along.

                    Rob McNay
                    Chicago IL



                    ----- Original Message ----
                    From: John <actingman6@...>
                    To: probe_control@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thu, July 5, 2012 11:35:52 AM
                    Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth

                    Unless there's been a breaking news bulletin, Sheila Matthews Allen is
                    alive and well.

                    Also, the Voyage movie novel came out earlier than 1967...from Wikipedia:

                    "In June 1961, Pyramid Books
                    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Books> published
                    a novelization <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelization> of the feature
                    film by Theodore Sturgeon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Sturgeon>.
                    The book was reprinted several times during the 1960s. One of those
                    reprintings has Richard Basehart and David Hedison pictured on the cover,
                    but the book is still based on the Walter Pidgeon film. Collectors who want
                    a novelization of the television series should find *City Under the Sea*.
                    That book uses the television characters, but should not be confused with
                    either the television episode or the later Irwin Allen film of the same
                    name.

                    Sturgeon's book is based on an early version of the film's script and has
                    the same basic story as the film. The book also has a few characters that
                    were not shown in the film and some additional technical explanation. Some
                    scenes are different from the film. Some scenes in the book are wholly
                    absent from the film, and likewise some scenes from the film are entirely
                    missing from the book."

                    It also seems to me from reading the tie-ins from back then that there was
                    less (or no) oversight over the original novels.  There was certainly none
                    with the IA factory.  None of the books from LIS, LOTG and TT were to
                    format.

                    I heard or read once that the whole thing about the outside books drove
                    Roddenberry nuts....and I think it also said that it was news to him when
                    he would hear that original novels had been written on ST (Mission To
                    Horatio and Spock Must Die.)

                    And to this day I still regret not having bought that Gomer Pyle book in
                    that second hand bookstore back in the 70's...what an oddity that must have
                    been.

                    On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > And not meaning to intrude on your discussion with John about what is
                    > canon, but I think you're right. Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the
                    > 1961 feature film was published in 1967, "Voyage's" Season 3. So he was
                    > probably taking bits from the series into account while writing the
                    > novelization. And as with any novelization the author goes into greater
                    > depth with the characters and their surroundings (in this case, SEAVIEW and
                    > her capabilities). Whether or not he asked for or received any input from
                    > Irwin Allen, or had Allen review the manuscript before publishing it, I
                    > don't think anyone knows but them, and sadly Allen (Irwin and Sheila) and
                    > Sturgeon have all passed.
                  • LambuLambu@aol.com
                    John, it makes my head hurt as well, but it s Einstein who figured all of this out. I guess if the beam of light is independent of the speed of its source, as
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John, it makes my head hurt as well, but it's Einstein who figured all of this out. I guess if the beam of light is independent of the speed of its source, as Einstein said, and travels as though it was shot from a stationary object even when the object is moving faster than light, the light beam will just act as though the speeding starship is effectively standing still.

                      Like I said, you should see the equations for this one! If just this makes your head hurt, try reading the theory and working that equation! Your head might explode. I just look at this way; Einstein knew what he was talking about, it can be applied to an FTL starship, so that's good enough for me (until I get struck by lightning in just the right way so it activates all of my brain cells and I understand everything Einstein did, and more).


                      Dino.


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: John <actingman6@...>
                      To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 1:00 pm
                      Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth





                      Okay...this now makes my head hurt. How does that keep the ship, which is
                      going faster than the beam, from running into the beam it just shot out?

                      On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

                      > **
                      > For this they could have simply fallen back on Einstein's theories, one of
                      > which states that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its
                      > source: meaning that no matter how fast an object it travelling, if it
                      > shoots out a beam of light (even a phaser since it's essentially some form
                      > of light beam) the beam will still travel as through it was shot from a
                      > stationary object. (Good grief, you should see the equation for this one!)
                      >
                      > Einstein: you gotta love that guy.
                      >
                      > Dino.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • John
                      Sounds like you have an original copy. Again, from Wikipedia: The original 1961 cover of Sturgeon s book shows a submarine meeting a fanged sea serpent. This
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sounds like you have an original copy. Again, from Wikipedia:

                        "The original 1961 cover of Sturgeon's book shows a submarine meeting a
                        fanged sea serpent. This scene appears in neither the novel nor the film.
                        The design of the submarine on the 1961 cover matches neither the
                        *Seaview* shown
                        in the film nor the *Seaview* described in the novel. The cover submarine's
                        bow is opaque, and her "Observation Room" is a rearward projection from the
                        base of the conning tower. The basic shape of her hull resembles that of
                        USS *Skipjack* (SSN-585)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skipjack_(SSN-585)>,
                        the first American nuclear powered submarine with an "Albacore
                        hull<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore_hull>",
                        including the cruciform stern and single
                        propeller<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller>
                        .[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_bottom_of_the_sea#cite_note-5>

                        Interestingly, a submarine design very similar to the craft on the 1961
                        cover, and its mission to save the world, shows up in a Dell
                        Comics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Comics> series
                        called *Voyage to the Deep* in 1962 to capitalize on the movie's
                        popularity. Its mission also took it to the Mariana Trench to stop the
                        Earth from wobbling out of orbit. It stopped publishing by issue #4.[*citation
                        needed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*] That ship
                        was named *Proteus*."

                        On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Robert McNay <CptMatt@...> wrote:

                        > **
                        >
                        >
                        > Sheila Allen is most definitely alive and taking her role as protector of
                        > Irwin's legacy quite seriously. From what I understand, from entertainment
                        > rumor
                        > mongering, she's the biggest stumbling block to there being current
                        > versions of
                        > his shows being made.
                        >
                        > The copy I have has a more stylized cover. The sub looks more like a
                        > Skipjack
                        > than the Seaview of the movie or TV, IRC. I can't remember right off it's
                        > pub
                        > date.
                        >
                        > In the book, one big difference I recall is that the Senator aboard when
                        > the Van
                        > Allen Belt catches fire, ends up being very helpful to the Admiral. After
                        > Nelson
                        > and Lucius are dissed by the UN "experts", a move is made to stop them,
                        > but the
                        > Senator, who is with them, stands and silences the uproar by requesting to
                        > be
                        > heard. He than leans over, pats Nelson on the shoulder and says something
                        > to the
                        > effect of "I'll quiet them and get them to listen, I'm a politician and
                        > you know
                        > how you get to be a Senator". The Senator steps up, is recognized and
                        > launches
                        > into a speech. With attention on the Senator, Nelson suddenly grabs Lucius
                        > and
                        > his secretary and heads quickly for the door. After a bit, Lucius asks
                        > Nelson
                        > what's the hurry. Nelson tells him that the Senator is just stalling the
                        > UN so
                        > they can get away. Lucius asks him how does he know that. Nelson answers
                        > "He
                        > asked me "you know how you get to be a Senator" ". Lucius smiles at Nelson
                        > and
                        > answers "You run for it".
                        >
                        > I would have loved to have seen that scene in the movie. The description
                        > of
                        > Crane watching the trio coming down the dock is pretty funny, too. Nelson,
                        > erect
                        > and slightly leaned back with speed, Lucius, head down chugging along like
                        > a
                        > bulldog, have their arms under the secretary's arms and she's off her feet
                        > being
                        > swept along.
                        >
                        > Rob McNay
                        > Chicago IL
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • LambuLambu@aol.com
                        Check out Mike s Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Zone for some preliminary designs of the SEAVIEW. A few look like the below descriptions:
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 5, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Check out "Mike's 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Zone'" for some preliminary designs of the SEAVIEW. A few look like the below descriptions:

                          http://www.vttbots.com/seaview.html


                          http://www.vttbots.com/movie_prod_art.html


                          (Home page: http://www.vttbots.com/page1A.html - and if you want some nostalgia before entering the site: http://www.vttbots.com/)


                          Dino.


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: John <actingman6@...>
                          To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 1:48 pm
                          Subject: Re: [probe_control] submarine depth





                          Sounds like you have an original copy. Again, from Wikipedia:

                          "The original 1961 cover of Sturgeon's book shows a submarine meeting a
                          fanged sea serpent. This scene appears in neither the novel nor the film.
                          The design of the submarine on the 1961 cover matches neither the
                          *Seaview* shown
                          in the film nor the *Seaview* described in the novel. The cover submarine's
                          bow is opaque, and her "Observation Room" is a rearward projection from the
                          base of the conning tower. The basic shape of her hull resembles that of
                          USS *Skipjack* (SSN-585)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skipjack_(SSN-585)>,
                          the first American nuclear powered submarine with an "Albacore
                          hull<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore_hull>",
                          including the cruciform stern and single
                          propeller<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller>
                          .[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_bottom_of_the_sea#cite_note-5>

                          Interestingly, a submarine design very similar to the craft on the 1961
                          cover, and its mission to save the world, shows up in a Dell
                          Comics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Comics> series
                          called *Voyage to the Deep* in 1962 to capitalize on the movie's
                          popularity. Its mission also took it to the Mariana Trench to stop the
                          Earth from wobbling out of orbit. It stopped publishing by issue #4.[*citation
                          needed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*] That ship
                          was named *Proteus*."






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.