I just don't see how they could do this without using a wormhole. If the Moon moved at any major interplanetary speed at all (anything other than its normal orbital trajectory around Earth), wouldn't that kill everyone on it? Unless they had some kind of inertial dampening field?
They do. The have antigrav screens way above 20th Century tech. It's the source of their artificial gravity. I think the idea was that it protected them from the (implausibly huge) acceleration. I thought about whether their anti-grav could be the source of their acceleration, but that doesn't really work IMO because it's too implausible for it to go out of control in a way that's irreversible. To stay within the bounds of the original premise, it needs to be some weird, unpredictable, and preferably external effect (say a space distortion) that gets the moon up to speed once and then sends it on its way as a rogue body.
That's not the REAL problem. If the Moon is traveling at relativistic speeds, the real problem is how does one visit a planet without SLOWING DOWN?
lol, I'm turning into the resident Space: 1999 "expert." The Moon was generally just on a rogue trajectory through each solar system. The Moon was only in range of each planet it visited for a few days. The Eagles were capable of unbelievable acceleration, and had anti-grav screens. Alien attacks notwithstanding, the general plan was to test each planet to see if it was suitable for the Alphans to disembark and colonize according to Operation Exodus, before the Moon got out of range. Something always turned up, to make the planet unsuitable, so they never did.
Even at the Speed of Light? Seriously? Even at 90% of the Speed of Light? They must... those little ships were able to catch up to something traveling at near light speeds... Ultimately, unless one is willing to have the cast basically just be on the Moon, the show can't be done "realistically."
Yes. Which makes it more a of a challenge for today's audience. If they want to keep a lot of the premise, they need to not go a BSG route... don't make it gritty realism.
Allthese arguments are basically saying that the mythical "today's audience" has no soul. Glad I'm not one of them, then. The Moon is not travelling at relativistic speeds. A basic inability to grasp the sheer scale of space in inherent in all Gerry Anderson's shows back to Fireball XL5. (And in Star Trek too for that matter - that never seems to bother people...) I think one just has to accept that it's a fantasy - a modern myth. What's important is what the story is saying about the human condition, about faith, fear, philosophy, etc - not the mechanisms of how it actually works. Not that the show doesn't feature a lot of interesting science - it uses some really big and cutting-edge concepts, maybe not accurately but interestingly. I fear that the sort of over-analysis that's happening in this thread will also be going on in the heads of those developing this remake - sucking the soul out of it even before it's started. It's not making me optimistic about the whole venture.
Upthread, I actually quoted some dialog from an episode that backs up that they are traveling at relativistic speeds. Can you quote any that backs up that they aren't?
First, Second, what does a soul have to do with criticisms of the concept in terms of physics? Third, today's audience, whether you like it or not, is less forgiving, and suspension of disbelief only stretches SOO far. Yeah, because in Star Trek they actually travel at faster than light speeds (warp) to explain how they are crossing vast distances. That's why it doesn't seem to bother people. Which is FINE. That's why I said above, you can't do the show as a gritty realistic show. It will fall apart on the face of the concept. And, the reality is, two tones seem to work for science fiction on TV today: light action/comedy or gritty realistic. And really, light action/comedy both fantasy and science fiction is the more popular choice. They SHOULD be asking those questions. I know you love the show, but, if it at it's CORE it's silly, it won't be taken seriously. So, hard to talk about faith, fear, all of that, if people are distracted by the concept of somehow the Moon is traveling the stars. It's not the 1970s anymore.
That's a bit of a stretch from that one line of dialogue, but fair enough point. What I'm trying to say is, that it's fairly obvious that the Moon is not speeding up and slowing down to reach different solar systems - it's just not a consideration that the show's makers had, and the real distances and velocities involved just weren't on their radar.
I think they could do like SG-U and Sliders and I'm sure others where the travel method involves timed jumps followed by rest periods where they could travel and explore. Maybe they activate some mysterious ancient alien device or whatever. There's probably lots of possibilities.
This I do agree with. However, they also occasionally went through a weird space warp or a black hole, which also bridged distances, but these were one-time events and only sporadic. And I completely agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I've tried to reflect that in my posts in this thread. The tone of the show was more fantasy than hard science fiction, and a lot of the ideas were "metaphysical" in nature. Riding the wave of 2001 was all part of the charm, and sometimes I found it rather fun. But Professor Zoom is right that today's audience is different. Heck, even the audience of the 1970's wasn't widely receptive to the series. Recruiting better writers to develop ideas would have gone a long way. I called the series a guilty pleasure, and I'll stick to that description (the first season anyway). Another thing. Some of the series one episodes were genuinely creepy, I thought. In the new series, maybe they will play up the horror/unexplained phenomena, sort of in the vein of The X-Files, as a third alternative to comedy versus grit.
Well, there's no need to be rude. Well, I think the thing is, the show is not a science documentary, any more than a John Wayne Western is an accurate historical record. It's on an instinctual level that the show talks to me. When my girlfriend accuses me of not having any spiritual feelings, my stock answer is to point out that I'm a fan of Space: 1999. Obviously - but I was thinking about how, even with the warp drive, the Enterprise still crosses ridiculous distances at unbelievable speeds, such as going beyond the edge of the gakaxy or to the galactic core. They seem to have reined it in a bit by the time they get to TNG. Which is an interesting comment, actually, because if true, it illustrates that the time is not right for a revival of Space: 1999. If they're going to do justice to and respect the original concept, then it really doesn't fit into either of those categories. It seems from the press release that none of the original creative team are involved in this revamp. Byrne and Terpiloff are dead obviously, but Penfold and Di Lorenzo are still alive - I'm not sure about Bellak. It would be good to have their input. I don't think it's a modern phenomenon to be worrying about the physics involved. People were ripping the shit out of it in 1975 as well, believe me. But it found its audience. It's very much a marmite show, of course. So again, I think, it's not really ripe for a revival if they're going to have to worry and over-analyse it before they even starts. I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I can still pinpoint exactly that day in 1992 when I re-discovered the show I'd seen as a child and then forgot about. I did a degree in astronomy, so one half of my brain was perfectly aware of what wasn't right scientifically. But you know what? I just didn't care. Because I "got" it. I could see exactly what they were trying to do. It was an epiphany for me. I don't think this revival is really going to do the same, and that's possibly more to do with the corporate climate in which television is made these days - something as weird and maverick as the original Space: 1999 just wouldn't get made, and I think that's a shame.
Actually I think his assent of that quote is wrong. I seem to recall that in both "Black Sun", "Another TIme, Another Place" and the season two episode "Space Warp" they specifically mention the fact that the moon was speeding up. In Space warp they consider it ASTONISHING that the moon has traveled several light years...never mind that the whole premise of the show would require that they do that fairly regularly. Additionally on several occasions they SPECIFICALLY NOTE that the moon either enters an planetary orbit or actually STOPS . That was a SERIOUS problem for a body with no means of propulsion. In the "Guardian of Piri" I recall Victor shrieking "the moons going out of orbit!"....umm WHAT! The show created this problem by telling us that the whole reason that the moon was moving at all was because of an explosion on the Far Side. (We'll ignore the idiocy of the pilot which had them swing that they could not simply evacuate the base because it was on an "unknown trajectory"...just get in the eagles and go back the way you came). Objects in motion and all that...once the moon stops moving it should stay that way unless they've got some more nuclear waste to blow up. Of course...even in the pilot the started slowing down shortly after area two exploded...which is why they were no longer pinned to the floor. Personally, I think that one of the reasons the poor science of the show sticks out so much is because they seemed to wrap the show in a veneer of 2001 like hard science...and then do absurd things with them. I always found it funny that they created VERY realistic and viable lunar transports in the eagles. However they they proceeded to make those boxy vehicles with no wings atmospheric craft.
What do you mean? At what point did I suggest the show was remotely plausible? When did I fail to mention that the moon was subject to space warps and weird effects? ETA: I've been lol-ing in this thread, because I might seem like a defender or apologist of the show, which I'm not. It's just as I've said, a guilty pleasure. If you listen to the rest of the episode, they provide an "explanation" for this as something artificial created by Piri [http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/tscript/z08gop.html]: Space warps (and artificial effects) notwithstanding, the Moon was on a rogue trajectory.
I felt your "soulless" comment was hyperbolic and rude, so... I'm not suggesting that it IS a documentary. And don't you think people would question a John Wayne Western if he was riding a dinosaur? And I'm GLAD it speaks to you. I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T. I'm saying why it doesn't speak to a lot of sci-fi fans. And why it probably would have problems for a modern audience. No, it illustrates that the time is not right to revive Space 1999 as YOU see it. As YOU want it to be. As it WAS. People were turned of to the New Battlestar Galactica because it wasn't tonally VERY different from the BSG of their youth... That's the reality of revivals. But revivals aren't made to appeal to the PAST audience, but for the present audience. You and I disagree: but it's not over analysis to figure out how the Moon travels from one planet to the next to a way that makes SOME amount of sense. The wormhole idea is the most plausible I've heard, and even then... wormhole of the week has a been there done that feeling. These things matter to a modern TV sci-fi audience. I'm honestly glad that you love the show. That's great. If this revival gets on TV, it won't be the show you remember.
Why does it have to be done realistically? What, like Superman, Trek, Heroes, Stargate, Dr Who or some such. If realistic science is a yardstick for what makes good TV sci-fi, then there’s never been a good TV sci-fi show. It’s escapism, entertainment and here’s the kicker – fiction. ; ) As long as it has the occasional nod to the original, an interesting story that’s hopefully planned out, blows shit up occasionally and doesn’t suffer from that plague which seems to infest most US shows – getting bogged down with dysfunctional f’ing families with parents and kiddies that can’t relate to each other, or otherwise preaches at it’s apparently dysfunctional audience (not that we are, but many TV producers seem to think we are) – then I’ll be watching it, and most likely enjoying it, for what it is.