View Single Post
Old May 31 2013, 12:19 AM   #77
Re: New Treknology Into Darkness

TOS science was based on real world physics even if the writers weren't required to write using a Trek tech bible back in those days.
A weird claim when there isn't a single TOS episode where the science would hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, any episode trying to evoke scientific jargon makes a hopeless mess of it: there isn't a single acceptable treatise of "antimatter", "gravity" or "temperature" there; the biology is all over the place; history is screwy at best; and even arithmetic seems to be off more often than not.

Skimming the upper atmosphere isn't the same as dive-bombing a planet's surface.
No, it's way harder. (Especially when the crew is unconscious and the ship is damaged, but never mind that part.) "Dive-bombing" is just applying engine thrust to correct your flightpath into something halfway acceptable; a steady hover such as the one seen calls for much more delicate control, as there is only one correct solution.

To date, there hasn't been a single episode or movie to suggest that starships couldn't cope with atmospheres or landings. Indeed, "Arsenal of Freedom" shows the E-D entering an atmosphere and then going through the extra effort of making it dangerous to the ship, so that a shadowing enemy ship would also be put to jeopardy.

..but generally speaking shuttlecraft were designed to be freaky and un-aerodynamic because they were built in space and stayed in space. Dumping those clunking great things into an atmosphere and making them zip around is silly.
Corrected the spelling. Again, silliness from day one...

Aerodynamics is overappreciated anyway. Nobody needs it if there's engine power available instead.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote