By Joshua Tyler | Published
One of the most interesting things about old science fiction novels is the shed light on how people of that time viewed the future. People in 1975 had a very different, more optimistic view of the future than we have today. That optimism was best expressed in a now-largely forgotten TV series: Space: 1999.
Six years after the historic Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, it seemed like humanity was taking its first steps toward bigger and more spectacular things. Other sci-fi shows produced around that time included: Logan’s Run and Unidentified Flying Objecttook a bolder approach to what was to come.
By comparison, Gerry Anderson’s British TV series Space: 1999 He took a conservative approach to what humanity could accomplish in deep space, but even Jerry’s realistic view turned out to be far too optimistic.
Still, in 1975, it seemed entirely plausible that humanity would establish a permanent base on the moon within the next 25 years, so Anderson wanted to create a show about what, at least at the time, seemed like an inevitable future.
Martin Landau was a space star: 1999
at that time Space: 1999 At the time of production, lead actor Martin Landau was already a well-known actor, having appeared in films such as: Head north-northwest and GazeboHe is perhaps best known for his roles in films such as; Ed Wood or Rounders.
Martin Landau was a good acquisition for the show, enough to keep the show going for two seasons, and enough to justify a big budget for the project.
Space: 1999was the most expensive TV show ever made at the time, and all of its money went into constructing a future that seemed real and was supposed to happen. It never did, but the truth is that, zippers on sleeves aside, this is the world we should be living in now.
Accurate predictions of the future are made inaccurate by human incompetence
Had NASA continued to receive the funding it deserved, building a base on the moon, perhaps something like Moonbase Alpha, would have been entirely feasible by 1999. However, after Apollo 11, American interest in space exploration waned, and the government was less willing to spend money on it.
Ultimately, part of the problem is that there’s no benefit to be had: the Moon is a barren wasteland, and we haven’t yet found anything worth the trouble of going there for.
Space: 1999 It seeks to remove this obstacle by presenting the Moon as a reasonable solution to the space waste storage problem. That might have made sense if the costs of launching materials into space had reached a manageable level. Unfortunately, despite great advances in rocket reusability by companies like SpaceX, the cost of sending anything into space, let alone radioactive waste, remains prohibitively expensive.
Space: 1999 got almost everything right
Space: 1999 It ran for two seasons and 48 episodes. Critics praised the show at the time, but scientists and sci-fi writers were understandably hesitant about the “nuclear reaction knocking the moon out of orbit” premise; even in the ’70s, it just didn’t make much sense.
But so much of the rest of the show, right down to the gravitational acceleration of the moon as it falls out of orbit, is so well thought out that it’s easy to forgive its gross absurdities, at a time when most science fiction predicted a future that was largely wild fantasy. Battlestar Galactica or Buck RogersAnderson’s series deserves praise for moving in mostly the right direction.
In fact, I would argue he was right. Space: 1999 This is the world we should live in, and it is we who are wrong.
How to Watch Space: 1999
Happily, Space: 1999 Now you can stream it for free almost anywhere, including YouTube. Start watching here.
Check it out and leave a comment to let us know what you think.
