List of Space: 1999 vehicles was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 April 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Space: 1999. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space: 1999 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the References section, I think we should have a few links to speculations on alternate episode order. It'd be a handy resource for fans seeking a less jarring viewing experience. Anyone agree?
My fave thus far: [1]
- Eyeresist 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this information should be on the episode chart. For one thing this information was not provided in most episodes of season 1, and in season 2 it's obvious the numbers were simply chosen at random (there is something like 1000 days difference between the two parts of "Bringers of Wonder"). I personally would rather see a subsection written about this, with a discussion of the inconsistencies. 23skidoo 02:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The cynical "War Games", said to be the highest-budgeted single episode of any TV series up to that time, was an overt commentary on humanity's combative nature. Alpha finds itself under attack by an unstoppable alien force that kills most of its population. Yet in another of the series' metaphysical twists, the Alphans are given a second chance at the end, and time is reversed to mere moments prior to the attack so that Commander Koenig (Landau) can rethink his fateful decisions.
Slightly different topic, but was UFO really a "gritty" portrayal of anything - seemed more campy than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.71.109 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The season 2 section has a rather incendiary quote attributed to Morse: "I'd rather work with grown ups." This quote needs to be sourced since there are other sources such as "The Complete Gerry Anderson" which say he left in a salary dispute. 23skidoo 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Re Movies- I am pretty certain none of the four ITC compilations were ever shown theatrically in Europe (and I'm sceptical they were anywhere). I believe only Spazio 1999 was ever shown in cinemas. Does anyone have any evidence of this?
Why are there both a Bibliography and a References sub-heading? I don't want to change it in case there's a good reason for it, but it looks tp me like a cock-up. I'm also wondering, if they are references, why aren't references being used in context using <ref ... > </ref> and <references/> tags? Oversight? Cain Mosni 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have set up a wiki for Space: 1999, which can be located here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone describe what the uniform colours on the sleeves in the first season represented? I'd love to see that information here. jdobbin 04:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/cguide/uc05.html
Someone claims that "the producers and writers also completely ignored the fact that the moon would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to reach the vicinity of another star" -- to me that's completely untrue. It's a while since I've watched the show, but I remember they went to a significant amount of trouble to justify why the Moon could travel from star to star, by having it go through a 'black sun' and end up in a different part of the universe where stars were closer together.
Now, that's extremely silly in itself, but as far as I'm concerned claiming that they 'completely ignored' the problem is just plain wrong. If no-one else updates this section beforehand, I'll watch those episodes on the DVD when I get a chance and rewrite it myself: for now I'm removing the 'this glaring omission makes the series laughable to the point being unwatchable to anyone with any knowledge of physics' section, since it's clearly not a verifiable claim and it's wrong (I can provide at least one counter-example). Mark Grant 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Does make me wonder looking at the criticisms section of how far we should analyse what is in effect a piece of fiction? Strange how Space 1999 is always subject to this rubbishing over its "scientific accuracy" whilst there are other equally flawed shows on Wikipedia on which no critcism is tolerated, instead the articles gush with praises........Greenpeas 12:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Off topic chat
|
---|
Here's something to keep in mind when resorting to Black Sun apologetics: The Black Sun only addresses getting Alpha to a very remote region of the Universe in a timely manner. It still doesn't address accelerating the Moon up to escape velocity in the first place. There's not that much nuclear energy in all the fissile materials everywhere in Earth's crust. There's also the problem of spending energy in a manner which efficiently changes the Moon's total momentum. To generate forward thrust, mass must be accelerated rearward. The waste dump was practically at the lunar surface. With the waste dump being buried so shallowly, only a negligible amount of mass can be ejected with velocity primarily rearward. Most of the ejecta will be scattered laterally, inducing no forward impulse. There are also more dynamical problems with the whole scenario, but which I needn't pick at in detail. If one wants to defend the Show's integrity by invoking the Black Sun as a rationale for some aspects of the plot, then one must also accept the shortcomings present elsewhere. I'm not bashing the Series altogether. I enjoy it. But, it's worth admitting what a lost cause it is to try making all the elements fit together in a natural, seamless way. They don't, just like they don't for Star Trek, or even for Gilligan's Island. Serial television is a vehicle for writers. A series premise is like a chess set: the characters are the playing pieces, and their environment is the board. Each episode is a new game. Each writer plays out a hypothetical game, with the aim being that checkmate occurs when the Author's comment about the Human Condition has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're being inconsistent. You haven't hidden the other comments, so readers other than myself are equally likely to see them and make more similarly off-topic responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
What about the transporters, obviously intended only to fly between points on the lunar surface, being used to fly into and out of gravity wells of planets with atmospheres? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
On a similar subject, has anyone ever counted how many Alphans were killed and Eagles destroyed? By my rough guess based on the typical death and destruction rate in an episode, they must have lost nearly 50% of their crew and several times their original complement of Eagles by the end of the second season... Mark Grant 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is an issue with dust clouds. It's not that dust is thrown into the 'air' by the rockets, which happens on Earth or Moon, it's that the dust remains in the 'air' after the rocket thrust stops propelling it... in a vacuum it would drop straight to the ground under gravity if there was no force to hold it up. However, I think that's pedantic enough that removing the comment is probably justified... rewriting it to properly explain the issue would probably take half a page :). Mark Grant 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is sorely lacking in Eagle information. Perhaps I'll make a page. For now, though, I've added a three image gallery showing the events leading to the nuclear explosion. I chose images that also highlight the Eagles. Come on, now. Isn't the Eagle just about the best design for a utilitarian Sci-Fi space ship ever? sinewaveTalk 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Sylvia Anderson was against the casting of Landau and Bain? Too old? Too commercial? Americans? Format 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started this and I need someone who is familiar with the show to add short summaries so the article is more complete. Anyone want to help? — Moe 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed the Orbiter link claiming 'it's only there to promote a product'. Orbiter is _freeware_, and as far as I'm aware it's the only way to fly Space 1999 spacecraft in a simulator on a PC. I'd agree that it would be better in an article specifically about the Space 1999 spacecraft (which I don't believe exists at the moment?), but it seems a legitimate-enough link. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mark Grant 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be people on the Space:1999 editing committee that feel anything they don't agree with is "advertising". I can't understand why an entry for a mostly forgotten (by the public at large - not fans) 70s sci-fi show causes so much consternation. I don't know "Orbiter", but I can't see why it can't be included for the purpose of using it in a Space:1999 simulation. They also deleted links to Space:1999 Yahoo!Groups as "advertising"...yeesh. Anthonyd 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Google has a link to it, I wanted to confirm that Peter Duncan had been in it but some busy boy must have deleted this.Mariegriffiths 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Sadly Gareth Hunt died today so I had to add him to the main article to make up for the deletion of the cast member list. The article is a top BBC story. But some wikipedia admins, Otto4711, seem to think facts like these can be deleted. Mariegriffiths 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added Dragons Domain to the episode list with an entry all of its own. At the moment its a bit rough and ready but if anyone wants to tidy it up, feel free. Douglasnicol 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in starting a Wikiproject on this. I'm not really 100% on how to start a Wikiproject, but I imagine getting some interested parties would be a start. Douglasnicol 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think Space:1999 counts as a space opera, if you look at Wiki's definition of it...
"Space opera is a genre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, interstellar travel, and space battles where the main storyline is centered around interstellar conflict and character drama."
I wouldn't say that describes Space:1999 at all, especially the first season and not even the more action themed second season. Douglasnicol 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I made a small start and integrated the Sandra Benes/Sahn info into the main article. Now regarding the rest, could some of it go into a section called 'references in popular culture'? This would bring in things like the Futurama episode info and so on. Douglasnicol 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an error under Regular cast and characters. Both Kano and Carter are listed as third in commmand of Alpha. Which is it? newspaperman Dec. 2, 2007
There is no well-defined command structure in Space: 1999. Just in the first year, there are episodes that indicate that Victor is Koenig's second (Koenig often tells Victor that should something happen to him, Victor is to take command of Alpha), yet in other episodes it is clearly Paul Morrow. Third in command tends to fluctuate between Kano, Carter, and, to an extent, even Helena. The second year is more defined in this regard. Tony is clearly second, while Carter is third. But that's because all the "second" and "third" in command characters are pretty much out of the equation, sans Carter and Helena. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Starlog.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the novelisation of Breakaway saying that the explosion of the waste dumps was acting like a gigantic rocket motor, this dialogue is also in the episode itself. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This section had been answered. Thanks! Danielcg (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoever may have originally said it (the article claims it was Harlan Ellison --not an authority on physics last time I checked), it is NOT correct that a giant explosion on the far side of the Moon would send it crashing to the Earth. A simple vector impulse diagram shows that a shove pointing radially inward increases the Moon's velocity and therefore its orbital energy. If the impulse is large enough, increasing its velocity by a minimum of 41.4%, it would necessarily then be placed on a hyperbolic orbit which would pass the Earth at a distance closer than its normal distance before "escaping" on the far side of the normal lunar orbit. Yes, there are many physical problems with this show, as with so much tv sci-fi, but this particular complaint is not correct.216.80.110.88 (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been six months without comment, so it's time to edit this out of the article. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have another complaint to add to the list of scientific inaccuracies. Tell me how a huge explosion on the far side of the moon could cause it to blow away from the Earth? Wouldn't that have caused it to blow toward the Earth thereby destroying both bodies? 208.125.135.137 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) mcc99
I am profound deaf (permanent). I want to know if Space 1999 30th Anniversary megaset DVD supports subtitles or closed captions? I will not able to buy this DVD set from "Amazon.ca" if this DVD set cannot support subtitles or closed captions. Thank you!
Danielcg (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to introduce such garish colours into the article. Alastairward (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1999 | I like Space: 1999. |
If you like this series, you may put this Userbox on your userpage like this: ((User:UBX/Space 1999))
--Tangopaso (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There are way too many articles related to Space:1999. We have a list of episodes, some of which have their own articles. We have at least 11 articles on individual characters, and seven articles on various spaceships, plus two other articles on other vehicles. I've counted 25 in total and there could certainly be more. I think there needs to be a lot of trimming and merging here. How should we go about eliminating some of this unencyclopedic material? Couldn't some of this information be placed on Wikia or a fan site instead of Wikipedia? See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Gary (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In Mission of the Darians, near the end of the show, a woman is lifted off of a slab and you see one of her breasts. (Cyberia3 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC))
I came to this page as the result of a redirect from a movie riffed by Mystery Science Theater 3000 entitled "Cosmic Princess". I looked over the article and found no reference to any such film in the article. Does anyone know what might have caused this, or any rationale for it?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The Italian Wikipedia reports it is and italian-british co-production. Should we report it as well? Twilight 10:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In season 2, episode 13 of the series Bones there's a mention of Moonbase Alpha. Might be nice to include in the article although it seems there's no section about such Space 1999 mentions made in other media. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
As the notice at the top of the page states, the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta Probe was recently closed with the required action being a merger of Mark IX Hawk, Meta Probe, Space Dock (Space: 1999) and Ultra Probe into the main series article.
Creating a "list of vehicles" page (similar to List of Star Wars starfighters or List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series) would, in my opinion, be preferable for at least two reasons: 1) at 74KB, this article is arguably long enough already (indeed, some sections could do with significant trimming); 2) where individual fictional vehicles (or characters, or other plot elements) are non-notable, it is common Wikipedia practice to merge the separate sub-articles into a single list. I think that for Space: 1999, any such list would need to contain the Super Swift entry as well, since that ship, like most of those included in the original nomination, makes only one appearance in the series and demonstrates no real-world notability.
I've created a list in userspace, at User:SuperMarioMan/List of Space: 1999 vehicles. If there are no objections to merging the nominated articles to a page other than Space: 1999, I'll move the draft into the mainspace about a week from now, and redirect the individual articles to that page. SuperMarioMan 04:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A good section of this article is written in UK English; it also contains US English. It should standardize/standardise on one dialect only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.2.62 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, where would I insert Irving Martin's compositions "Death's Other Dominion" and "Black Sun" into the Music section. Is there a need to expand the sound track info ? Afternoon Cat (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The disambiguation information at the top says it is about the U.S. show, but the article opening correctly states it is a British show!Rogerclarinet (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have recently started watching Space: 1999 (first time in years!) on Comet TV, and I've just seen the first 4 Year-Two episodes. I noticed that the scenes featuring the Command Center (Main Mission in Year One) use the American spelling "Center", not the British "Centre" in on-screen visual text descriptions--in spite of the show's British base. Why isn't clear; perhaps it's 1) like the casting of Martin Landou and Barbara Bain--to hook in the American audience, 2) Fred Feiberger's doing, or 3) representing the fact that Moon Base Alpha supposedly has international personnel (like the actors) and America has an outsized role in space travel.
Whatever the reason, I think it's important to use the spelling used in the show's scenes. I can understand how many got it "wrong"--it takes a sharp eye to catch, and most of the editors of this and related articles are probably British. (??) But I, as an American, would make a point of spelling it "Centre" if that's what they actually used on-screen, even though that's not a natural spelling for me. I've correct the spelling for the main article; I'm leaving it up to others to fix it in the related articles (there are so many). (I can't vouch for spellings in season-1 scenes, but my guess is that the spellings are "Americanized" there too.)
(BTW, If you don't believe me, watch the first 4 season-2 shows' Command-Center scenes, to see where the name is displayed on the walls.)72.23.115.81 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
After all, the bald eagle is the American symbol, and the Eagle was the name of the first (American) lunar landing vehicle to put people on the Moon, LM-5. Thus, the choice of this name seems to indicate an attempt to appeal to an American audience. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
In the Space 2099 section, I think something should be added to update the section with the 'leaning' that the reboot will probably never happen.
It's been a tad over two years since there was any word and even the "official" Space 2099 website no longer exists (at least as of this comment).
I don't think there's any use in "prolonging the agony" in hope for something that most likely will never happen.
Thoughts / comments ? 2600:8800:785:2A00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
it says John Koenig for an actor that is obviously Martin Landau 188.238.75.123 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)