Earthrise

[mooncadet]

I’ve been enjoying the stories in Shepherd Moon, but I just had to stop and say one thing re: Remembering Julia.

THE EARTH DOESN’T RISE AND SET ON THE MOON!

The earth stays in the same place in the sky as seen from any point on the near side–if you are standing in the “center” of the moon as seen from earth (the point closest to the earth in fact) then the earth will be straight overhead. Someone standing nearer to the “edges” of the moon will see the earth closer to the lunar horizon. From Alpha, in Plato crater, the earth is about 40 degrees above the horizon, with the earth’s northern hemisphere oriented up (so it appears as would a desk globe–if Alpha were in the moon’s southern hemisphere, the earth would appear upside-down!)

This is due to the fact that we only see one face of the moon. The moon is tidally locked to the earth, making one rotation (one lunar day) equal to one revolution about the earth (one lunar month). Alphans would see the earth going through phases, but it would never rise and set in the way the moon does as seen from earth.

Now, in Cargo, Linden was crawling up the crater wall which obscured his view of the earth until he emerged above it, at which point the earth became visible. But it was Linden doing the rising, not the earth. 🙂

Finally, if you are flying over the moon from the far side to the near side, you would see the earth “rising” over the moon by virtue of the fact that you are moving around the moon–this is what the Apollo astronauts saw when in lunar orbit.

Sorry for the dissertation, but when I read about how Julia “looked from the window of her laboratory at the blue sphere of the earth as it climbed above the distant lunar mountains”, I was pulled out of the story by the impossibility of the statement. That’s just not how it works on the moon!

[Glenn McCrabb]

So many stories have this inconsistancy, not just Space 1999 stories. It always amazed me that the authors, editors, proof readers always missed that little glitch. Now days I just smile and think there’s another one…

[Patrick Zimmerman]

[b]mooncadet wrote:[/b][quote]
THE EARTH DOESN’T RISE AND SET ON THE MOON![/quote]
mooncadet, you really shouldn’t become so obsessed or upset with these small errors or inaccuracies. just go with the flow and enjoy the story

oh, wait, who am I kidding?
these botched items bug the crap out of me.
I never finished up my reviews of all the stories in Shepard’s Moon, but that item made me roll my eyes in frustration and made my list for that book.
one among many.
I love what Powys is doing and where they’re going, but it’d be nice to have the astronomy correct along the way

[Kerry]

[quote]I love what Powys is doing and where they’re going, but it’d be nice to have the astronomy correct along the way [/quote]

Except we’re by definition living in a universe here where astronomy and physics gets routinely ignored or twisted…I mean, who are we kidding? 😉

[Steve Foster]

[b]kerry wrote:[/b]
[quote][quote]I love what Powys is doing and where they’re going, but it’d be nice to have the astronomy correct along the way [/quote]

Except we’re by definition living in a universe here where astronomy and physics gets routinely ignored or twisted…I mean, who are we kidding? ;)[/quote]

I have to agree. Guys… the story, the characters, the drama… that’s what’s important. technobabble & scientific gobbledygook was a tired obsession of Star Trek. [b]SPACE: 1999[/b] just isn’t about this sort of stuff. The Moon being blasted out of orbit by a Nuclear Explosion. Ludicrous, and scientifically impossible (or at least, highly improbable, at most barely credible). Also, it is a very depressing premise. As there is no hope in it for the survivors of Alpha Colony at all.

But…….

The Moon… being grabbed, by MUF’s, torn out of its orbit, and hurled into outer space… OK. I’m hooked. Who tore it out of orbit & hurled it into outer space and why? Much more interesting than the correctness of the astronomy & the physics is the drama & the telling of the tale. The Greek Gods were not bound by science or the laws of physics, that’s why their stories are so fascinating! Everything they do is imposssible! The Black Sun… it’s a Black Hole folks. The Moon should have been destroyed – scientifically speaking. It isn’t… & the physics of that is impossible. But MUF’s… in collision, with different, secret agenda’s, with abilities that go beyond science, beyond nature and which turn the laws of physics inside out, fighting an eternal war, using the Moon and its survivors as pawns in games of the Gods, one side protecting it as it traverses through the Black Hole, the other using the Black Hole to try & destroy it… again, I’m hooked! See what I’m getting at?

If you want to be scientifically accurate… make the Eagles silent whilst in space & let them drop out of the sky and crash on the surface of any new planet the Alphan’s encouter because they’re not aerodynamic and don’t have preposterous Star Trek science guff like anti-gravity emitters or some such scientific bullsh*t to keep them skyborne, and silence every SFX shot & explosion in space whilst you’re at it. To be scientifically accurate, there must be no sound at all. Take away all the star fields too… & don’t forget to tear the base off the surface of the Moon as soon as the Moon reaches any kind of velocity… etc. etc. the list goes on & on. Star Trek’s no better. It invents nonsense science (technobabble) at every turn to get around every scientific obstacle. Warp Drive is impossible. The crew would indeed be chunky salsa. End of franchise right at the beggining of The Cage. The excuse given for why they don’t turn into chunky salsa… is frankly, scientific nonsense. But that doesn’t change the fact that Star Trek & [b]SPACE: 1999 [/b]are both brilliant franchises that have very different premises and are exploring space travel in equally entertaining but totally divergent ways.

I am perfectly happy to leave Science at the door & happy to embrace the mystery, the awe & the terror of the Alphan’s Odyssey as seen in Year 1 & the action, the humour, and the romance of the Alphan’s Odyssey as seen in Year 2. I’m not interested in a science lecture.

I’m interested in good drama, stroy arcs, character interaction and development, plot twists, unexpected developments, tradgedy and everything else that makes for good storytelling on an EPIC SCALE & that is what [b]SPACE: 1999 [/b]was always supposed to be. Good storytelling in the style of classic literature on an epic scale via the medium of a science fiction premise, not a dramatised technical manual.

It is, in my opinion, one of the few TV series that broke all the rules… and went against (particularly in the first year) every convention as to what you should do to make a popularist science fiction tv series. The novels are upholding this tradition, and in my opinion, are elevating the franchise above and beyond what was possilble on tv (witness the mind boggling brilliance and complexity of [b]OMEGA [/b]and [b]ALPHA[/b] if you really need me to cite examples to prove my point here)!

Gentleman, I hear what you’re saying, but, with all due respect, I think you’re missing the point.[i][/i]

[Kerry]

Yes, the pull of this series for me has never been the technology or psuedo-science. It is the idea of a small colony of humans drifting through space, at the whim of science and/or spirit, and barely able to defend against either. The feeling of isolation you might feel in your treehouse as a kid, even if your friends are there with you: us against the universe with whatever we can scrap together. A new mystery and threat every week. Claustrophopia, but in the vastness of space.

Seriously, there are feelings from that show that have never been fully duplicated by another. Star Trek: Voyager tried in some ways. (Similar premise, right?) And Battlestar Galatica had some of it too…but nobody has really reproduced it since. Except the novels, of course. 🙂

[mooncadet]

Thanks for all the feedback, folks. I’m glad to know some feel as I do, while others feel I’m “missing the point” of the story, somehow. I never made any comment regarding the drama of the story, or of Space: 1999 in general. Of course I appreciate the scope and mystery that the series had to offer, both on television and now in print. My point was that dropping in a [i]non sequitur[/i] such as I described can only have the effect of disrupting the story by making one stop to scratch their head.

If Shakespeare had written, “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the west, and Juliet is the sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon…”, would you not halt and gape in astonishment that Shakespeare got his celestial mechanics so wrong? Even while admiring the poetry of the scene?

So, OK, the author had a blind spot with respect to how the earth appears from the moon. Fine–it was a flub. Let’s give it a mulligan. 🙂 Not such a big deal, especially now that such things could conceivably be fixed after the fact thanks to print-on-demand. If Mateo and Co. can rewrite bits of the old novelizations and novels to fit the stories together better, then perhaps this little point can be addressed as well someday.

[Author]

Posts