Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei
I always thought Space 1999 had one of the stupidest premises of any science-fiction show from the period. Why would we transport nuclear waste through space and then bury it on the moon? Wouldn't it be better to aim it into the sun? Or shoot it off into deep space? The latter would be my choice for dealing with the waste issue. The biggest problem would be guaranteeing that there wouldn't be an accident during launch and the waste be spread throughout the atmosphere. But if you accept the notion of sending if off into space in the first place, why in the hell would you bury it on the moon?
I only watched the show because I had a crush on Barbara Bain. Martin Landau was a lucky guy.
|
Barbara Bain certainly makes it worth watching, no doubt.
Actually the part that I still cry bullshit on is that any size nuclear explosion that is not strong enough to destroy the moon, would in turn not be powerful enough to send it into interstellar space at any great speed (meaning they should not be outside the solar system anytime during the series).
As for storing nuclear waste on the moon, I think it was due to the idea that it was the only place they could safely store it.
During the pilot the commissioner tells Commander Koneing that it's the last place they can store nuclear waste material. I don't think the Eagles have the ability to fly to the other planets (which begs the question of how they can catch up to a moon flying at interstellar velocities, but I digress
)
For all its flaws, the ideas of the show are what attract me.
And as for SF shows othe 1970s, I'd have to say that space 1999 was one of the better ones.
Buck Rogers was far worse, although by the same token, Battle Star Galactica was far better.
Also,
ABC is redoing Space 1999.
