Talk:Thunderbirds machines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thunderbirds machines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British / ITC productions Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the ITC productions task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thunderbird 3's maximum speed

In the article it is speculated that the max speed of Thunderbird 3 is somewhere above 25000 mph because of that speed being the required escape velocity, but seeing as how Thunderbird 3 is a self propelled craft the concept of escape velocity do not apply. I was wondering if it's speed has been stated in canon or is this simply speculation that should be removed as erroneous? Doctoroxenbriery 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitroglycerin fire-fighting?

Apparently some IR vehicles use nitroglycerin to fight fires. I'm not sure if that assertation is in the show (the last time I saw an episode was in the 90s, after all), but how would that work? Oxygen deprivation? It really doesn't make sense to me, can anyone more knowledgeable explain> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Egg (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explosives were often used by Red Adair to fight oil well fires. They work by blowing the burning fuel and flames away from the fresh oil shooting out of the well, the same way you would blow out a candle. SaabieAU (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird Two's Hangar

According to the cross-sections of Tracy Island, as drawn by Graham Bleathman, Thunderbird Two's hangar and hangar entrance are on the same side of the island as the Tracy's Villa and other visible buildings. Because of this, I've edited the line "It is hangared in its own large facility, along with its equipment pods, on the other side of the island." by removing the last phrase.

Do you think this needs a citation of any kind? If it does, I can provide it.

Tikatu (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never hurts to provide citation Doctoroxenbriery (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird 2

It says Thunderbird 2 is the only to get seriously damaged...Didn't Thunderbird 1 get shot down? And didn't Thunderbird 3 get damaged enough to nearly crash into the sun? That sounds kinda serious to me =p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.27.52 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thunderbird 1 was shot down in "The Uninvited". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.3.186 (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apologetics used to justify Thunderbird 2 needing a ramp at initial take off don't stack up if it uses an Atomic Fusion Reactor to generate power. The difference in mass would be negligible. EeekiE (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

betacommandbot sucks

I really wanted to see the pictures of the devices. I do not understand why some images are allowed and others are not under 'fair use'. I was most interested to seee a picture of the monobrake etc. where are they?

cheers betacommandbot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.247.165 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Mole?

I see no mention of the Mole. Surely this is also an important IR vehicle?

Hi there, a very valid point. However the Mole, along with all the other pod vehicles, can be found on the Pod Vehicles page. - Jcamts (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

geostationary or geosynchronous orbit for T5?

It's implied, and the altitude supports it, that T5's orbit is geosynchronous. However is there anything to support that it's additionally geostationary?

There is no benefit to being geostationary. For a comms system working to mobile base stations the difference is irrelevant - the small changes in pointing angle are less than those of a moving vehicle. Being geostationary also requires ongoing orbital correction, implying fuel and thrusters, which aren't evident. T5 is a huge vessel, it would need quite some impulse to do this. Or is it simply nudged into places during the T3 servicing visits, when they bring John new socks and mouthwash?

Is there any source where the specific term "geostationary" is applied, as opposed to merely "above us" or similar? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: The main book sources used in the series article all use the term "geostationary". Whether the series creators or source authors were/are aware that "geosynchronous" and "geostationary" aren't strictly interchangeable is unclear. I do not recall any dialogue from the episodes that actually describes the nature of the space station's orbit. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response section

Some of the critique here is unsupportable, for example: "wings of questionable function or value (in the case of Thunderbirds 1 and 2)" may be true when hovering or on an initial sub-orbital trajectory, but they are essential for lift and maneuvering during normal flight. "none of the Thunderbirds seem to have adequate capacity for large amounts of fuel, or turbo generators to convert the heat from their nuclear reactors.". Fuel is only needed for rapid acceleration during takeoff of T1 & T2, then the reactor-driven jets take over. Turbo generators produce electricity and would be small, as they would need no more power than any aircraft. Thrust would be produced by channeling molten sodium from the reactor through heat exchangers in the jet engines to heat the air instead of burning fuel, then directing hot compressed air out of the main exhaust, VTOL thruster(s), or reverse thruster(s). "with only three main rocket engines, Thunderbird 3 could be unstable in flight". Small rockets have only one engine, larger rockets have several closely clustered together, so three widely spaced engines should be even more stable. SaabieAU (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]