# Seaview Graphic



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

In my on going attempt to single handedly drag our favorite 'Grey Lady' from
the fantasy world to the edge of the real world. I came up with this. . .


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nifty! 

You need to add those roundish moveable dive planes to the forward stabilizers.
The lower hatch - isn't is shaped longer for the minisub?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> In my on going attempt to single handedly drag our favorite 'Grey Lady' from
> the fantasy world to the edge of the real world. I came up with this. . .


I had the same idea.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

That's beautiful stuff, guys, very clean. 

I have a somewhat radical idea.One of the issues with the Seaview is there's just not enough room for all the stuff (a not uncommon problem in the IA world, yes? ) so here's a wacky idea.

Every blueprint shows all those missile tubes, because of all those hatches, right? Yet the missile room set only has 4 tubes, and the 'failsafe' board only unlocks 4 missiles. So, keeping in mind military thinking, and the paranoia of the cold war and all that sort of thing, WHAT IF there really ARE only 4 missiles? What if all the other hatches are for camoflage, spoofing spyplane photography, making a surface running Seaview look like 'any other' Boomer? (well, of course except for the rather unusual wake and the 'V' tail and..um  )

This could account for the different number of missile hatches too.

Of course I understand that the fact the missile room set only has 4 tubes is a stage limitation and if it was important IA would have shown ALL of them, but that forward bulkhead is pretty firm, there (even if it does grow and discard hatches and windows depending on story needs)

Waddya think, guys? Gives them room to store a Snowcat at least.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> That's beautiful stuff, guys, very clean.
> 
> I have a somewhat radical idea.One of the issues with the Seaview is there's just not enough room for all the stuff (a not uncommon problem in the IA world, yes? ) so here's a wacky idea.
> 
> ...


I guess in the "imaginary" world of Irwin Allen, the Seaview only carried 4 nuclear missiles. This would require Presidential Authorization on only the 4 tubes that they were in. Nelson said, either in the movie or on the show that they were also used for testing, possible new types of non-nuclear warheads. Just my way to make sense out of set limitations!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The other missle hatches could have been dedicated to other types of launches- survey probes, secret testing of new equipment, etc...

One thing I always wondered about is the forward torpedo tubes. My best guess is that there are some pop open doors under the main hull which sends them down the length of the hull forward. Not a bad design as long as you do not change direction during launch


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

RSN said:


> I had the same idea.


What's funny is there's no engine/turbine room. Also, what's up with the crawlspace for the flying sub?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> What's funny is there's no engine/turbine room. Also, what's up with the crawlspace for the flying sub?


The Flying sub, in my interpretation, slides forward to the hatch in the control room (yes, I made sure the tip of the nose would fit behind the search light). It then slides back into the launch bay for deployment. As for the engine room, I cut the ship down the middle, so I imagine the turbines would be in board and outboard of what I drew. Hey, I was lucky to get this much to fit and still make it look logical!


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

My heretical thought is that the four-window Seaview is apocryphal. An eight window Seaview can accomodate the flying sub bay just fine, given how far back the latter lies, retain the as-shown-in-motion-picture observation nose set, and allow the FS-1's accessway to dispense with a crawlspace. 

In "reality," the control room must underlie the conning tower, not due to the periscope, but the control room ladder's direct access to the "flying bridge" above (as shown throughout the series). Moebius' kit can be built stock only to represent Irwin Allen's sub as shown...not as real-world buildable.

I'm not entirely sure, but I strongly suspect Seaview's overall diameter allows it to contain an early-generation Polaris SSBN pressure hull, albeit with "SSRN" interior and, of course, the observation nose. Not sure if the missile hatches line up or not...I haven't had time to compare my newly-received 24-inch Monsters in Motion Seaview to the reissued 1/200 Ethan Allen cutaway.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

trekkist said:


> My heretical thought is that the four-window Seaview is apocryphal. An eight window Seaview can accomodate the flying sub bay just fine, given how far back the latter lies, retain the as-shown-in-motion-picture observation nose set, and allow the FS-1's accessway to dispense with a crawlspace.
> 
> In "reality," the control room must underlie the conning tower, not due to the periscope, but the control room ladder's direct access to the "flying bridge" above (as shown throughout the series). Moebius' kit can be built stock only to represent Irwin Allen's sub as shown...not as real-world buildable.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure, but I strongly suspect Seaview's overall diameter allows it to contain an early-generation Polaris SSBN pressure hull, albeit with "SSRN" interior and, of course, the observation nose. Not sure if the missile hatches line up or not...I haven't had time to compare my newly-received 24-inch Monsters in Motion Seaview to the reissued 1/200 Ethan Allen cutaway.


That's not bad thinking and would make an interesting model, or at least blueprint set. 

I'm unsure which came first, the set changes or the change to the mini. I'm pretty sure the set change was driven by the desire to 'open up' the control room and to make scenes more dynamic, instead of having to keep cutting to the 1st season observation room and characters running back and forth. 

(of course THAT meant the rear projection screen in front of the windows had to be 'up' all the time, with all the cost that involved, so the 'crash doors' were a solution to closing off the view to the front, which made the control room 'tight' again...what a circle!)

The changes to the mini no doubt were at least partially driven by the FS hatch and all the mechanics of that, which I'm guessing was faster to do as a separate piece and graft it on rather than cutting into the existing mini.

now, for me, it would be much more logical to enter the FS from a lower deck, with a gantry leading to the hatch on the back. I'd think it'd be better for all that specialized equipment they bring along, instead of risking lowering down thru a hatch, just walk it aboard. 

now, THERE'S an interesting question! is the FS bay 'wet' or 'dry'? Even in those early episodes when they actually used a checklist to pre-flight the ship, I don't recall ANY talk of 'flood the bay', so I'm guessing it's wet, but can be pumped out (only while the Seaview is surface running?) to do basic maintenance on the Flying Sub.


----------



## sgariepy (Jun 20, 2003)

I agree with trekkist about the control room being under the sail like it would be on a real ship. And I would think that to some extent it is also where it was intended to be in the series. Consider the scenes where Crane or Nelson uses the intercom system to call someone in the nose. I think they wanted to created the illusion that the control room was much farther away than the perspective we saw on tv. It would also seem that this concept was kind of abandonned at some point along with any logic. I guess they never cared about what the real size of the Seaview would have been.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Seems to me the flying sub bay had to have been wet, as the corrugated hatch doors wouldn't have stood up to the pressure of Seaview's incredible operating depths (not sure what these were, but one episode cited the minisub's as 10,000 ft). 

To raise the heresy level higher, what about Seaview's carrying two flying subs? This would rationalize the radio callsign of "FS _one."_

I'd also suggest the show's stated time of occurrance (1975) to be apocryphal. Reel-to-reel tapes and automobile models as shown imply some ten years earlier.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Any Seaview experts (I'm talking to you, Ductapeforever) know when the designations "USOS" and "SSRN" were used? Was the change between the film and series, or within the series, or what?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

You are correct, the film used USOS and the series used SSRN. Other than a few names, sets and models, not much carried over from the movie to TV. There does not seem to be any continuity to it, even by Irwin's standards.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

*Way too cool...*

I love both illustrations!! Thanks for taking the time and effort. *Super cool!!*


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> I love both illustrations!! Thanks for taking the time and effort. *Super cool!!*


Thanks, I just wish I could render the way Ductape does. What program did you use? I only have Paint Shop Pro that came with my computer. I pretty much have to go pixel by pixel to draw, yours has much more depth!


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Engine room?*

Thank you to the people that worked on these drawing! Outstanding work...



Antimatter said:


> What's funny is there's no engine/turbine room. Also, what's up with the crawlspace for the flying sub?


 
It is not shown because it is STILL top secret. 
Actually it is built around the rear torpedo tubes and houses an early prototype of a "catapiller" drive made famous in a different movie.... :lol: You can see the intake vents on the side view...

Scott


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I am currently making some alterations and corrections to the drawing I posted and working on some others. Using common sense and logic does not work with Irwins designs and concepts, my imagination and artistic license applied only serve to entertain myself, but I will share.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

My greatest compliments to Ductapeforever, whose Seaview work I've admired for years. You too, RSN. Agreed that common sense and logic are insufficient to Irwin's vessels...but it's a reflection upon the creativity of he and his crew that such irrationally-crafted creations fascinate us so.


----------

