|
ALL SCI-FI The place to “find your people”.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2948 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would also guess that the oxygen bottle "save" was done mainly for dramatic effect more than out of logical scientific concerns.
Although not wrong....action-reaction....it was not a very logical solution to a problem that should have been foreseen and prepared for. _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
orzel-w wrote: | Incidentally, the DVD I bought was a 50th Anniversary Edition. While the color and image quality were good, the print they used for the transfer wasn't in prime condition. It had dirt specks, splices, and other artifacts of use and handling. This movie deserves a restoration. |
Brother, you are preachin' to the choir!
All the DVDs and VHS tapes of that movie used prints that were in less than prime condition, and that's always annoyed me.
Even worse (and very puzzling) is the fact that for years TCM has shown a print that's even worse! Soft-focus picture and faded color, with plenty of those scratches and frame trash.
Between that and the fact that TCM has recently shown academy ratio movies like The Thing from Another World in "widescreen" by clipping off portions of the top and bottom to fill big screen TVs makes a lie of their alleged commitment to film restoration.
And these are the people who aired promos for years about the importance of showing widescreen movies in letterbox because it was "how they were meant to be seen". _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2948 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From FANTASTIC MONSTERS #2 1963
_________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Krel wrote: | If the Luna was suppose to land on it's tale on the return trip, then it wouldn't have needed wings or the fourth leg, they could have gotten away with only three fins, and saved weight. The fourth leg was a retractable strut.
If the Luna was intended to land on it's tail on Earth, then there would have been no need to make the strut retractable. The extend/retract machinery only added weight. |
Exactly right, David. In fact, we now know that fins on rockets are as useless as tits on a boar hog. Stabilization is achieve with thrust vectoring. So all the Luna needed was three light-weight retractable landing legs like these guys have.
Krel wrote: | If the Luna was intended to land on her belly on the return trip, then it makes sense to have the strut retractable. That way the strut could act as a landing skid, and hopefully minimize the damage to the rocket. |
I can't help doubting that the "wings" were far too small to provide the needed lift, and the retractable landing strut would do nothing but drag the ground and pitch the ship over onto it's nose!
The lunar was no belly lander, I'm sorry to say . . .
Krel wrote: | So, what does everybody think of my reasoning? |
Your reasoning is always admirable, David. NASA needs you, and All Sci-Fi appreciates you! _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud Brewster wrote: |
I can't help doubting that the "wings" were far too small to provide the needed lift, and the retractable landing strut would do nothing but drag the ground and pitch the ship over onto it's nose!
The lunar was no belly lander, I'm sorry to say . . . |
Can't say if the wings do, or don't have a large enough surface area. BUT, the wings do have flaps, like an aircraft. Not really necessary, or even good for a vertical landing.
As for the retractable strut, retractable doesn't necessarily mean that it retracts into the hull. It could retract along the hull to act as a landing skid, angled to keep the nose up on landing. When they showed the framework model, it didn't look like there was space inside the hull for the strut and mechanics to fit. The problem is, I don't ever remember seeing the strut side of the Luna in the movie, or even a photo of that side of the miniature.
Also landing skids do drag, they're designed to. They do that to help slow the vehicle down.
Now to maybe throw a monkey wrench into my theory, the landing strut has a triangular cross section. I'm not sure if it would be better to land on a flat surface or a triangular edge.
David. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2948 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would be logical that the "tail landing" was for the Moon's surface landing and the Earth return landing may be a "belly landing".
Less fuel would be required for the Earth landing except for slowing the velocity of the ship on atmospheric approach. The landing could be a complete glide in as the shuttles were. Most of the fuel required on the return would be to get off the moon and course corrections along the way. _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gord Green wrote: | The landing could be a complete glide in as the shuttles were. |
Bear in mind that the shuttle had considerable more wing surface than the Luna, and even it was said to be a very poor glider.
Krel wrote: | Can't say if the wings do, or don't have a large enough surface area. |
I'm no aeronautical engineer, David, but I don't think wings located at the tail of an aircraft provide any lift at all for the front half. It would be like trying to balance a pencil on your finger . . . but putting your finger under the erase!
Krel wrote: | As for the retractable strut, retractable doesn't necessarily mean that it retracts into the hull. It could retract along the hull to act as a landing skid, angled to keep the nose up on landing.[/size] |
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how could a landing strut sticking out from the back end of the ship be "angled to keep the nose up on landing"?
Seems like it would just pitch the nose forward and spoil the attempt at a "belly landing" completely.
A water landing would be better, but the drag from the strut would still pitch the nose forward and prevent the rocket from skimming along and slowing down gradually.
Besides, why would we need to slow it down any quicker than it normally would by sliding on it belly?
Either way, the idea of having the rocket make what amounts to a "crash landing" is much less appealing than what the movie specifically stated about the the way the rocket would land.
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Let's play a little game. It's called Where's Gizmo?
See if you can find the famous Gizmo in the pile of discarded items in the photo below.
If you think you've found it (or you give up), scroll down for the answer.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 2948 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bravo Bud!
You have a sharp eye! _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scotpens Starship Captain
Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 882 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud Brewster wrote: |
I'm no aeronautical engineer, David, but I don't think wings located at the tail of an aircraft provide any lift at all for the front half. It would be like trying to balance a pencil on your finger . . . but putting your finger under the erase!
|
I'm not an aeronautical engineer either, but I believe it depends on how far forward or aft the aircraft's center of mass is. For an aircraft to have inherent stability, it helps to have the center of mass located somewhat ahead of the aerodynamic center.
This 1950s proposal for an atomic-powered bomber would have had its wings mounted well aft and a super-long fuselage to help protect the crew from radiation. Presumably the weight of the reactor and shielding would have made the aircraft extremely tail-heavy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________________________
Good call, scotpens. Those huge wings (and the extra lift from the T tail), along the slender fuselage makes that design much more plausible as a craft that had sufficient lift for horizontal flight. _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eadie Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 1695
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The cover of the Fawcett Movie Comics:
Fawvett only published 14 titles between 1950 and 1954. _________________ ____________
Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Krel Guest
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched it on TCM, it's the first time I have seen it in years, maybe decades.
I was wrong, the movie states that the Luna on return to Earth would fly in on it's wings, then go nose up, deploy parachutes and land.
I still have doubts on the feasibility of the parachute landing. Look at the large parachutes the Apollo capsules needed for a safe landing, a hard landing on water. Now look at the size of the Luna, it would need ENORMOUS parachutes, even larger for a soft landing on soil. The space needed in the rocket would be very large, and make the rocket top heavy, even with full fuel tanks. With a rocket that tall, is the spread of the landing legs wide enough to be stable in a parachute landing? If it hit the ground, then tipped over, that would be worse than a belly landing.
I still don't see why the Luna needed a retractable fourth leg. It just added complexity, and more importantly, weight to the to the rocket with the machinery needed to retract/extend the leg. The Luna takes off and lands on four legs, why make one retractable? If they had just arranged the legs, they could have made do with three, with a savings in weight, and two could have still worked as wings.
David.
Corrected, thanks to Eadie's sharp eye.
Last edited by Krel on Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17160 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
____________________________________
Archive.org has this comic, and I cleaned it up considerably before posting it here. But I had to leave the dialog balloons a slightly discolored to keep from reducing the clarity of the text.
Most of the jpegs below have embedded links to larger versions.
I think this is the best "movie comic" we've seen so far! It portrays the film beautifully (although not perfectly) in many respects.
The illustrator must have thought that kids wouldn't like for the story to end with the ship blasting off from the moon without seeing it get home safely, so he showed it landing back on Earth!
____________________________________
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
_________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|