• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

My take on The Galileo Seven

Henoch said:
Side note: The Galileo Seven was one of the most beautifully filmed episodes. :techman:

Any thoughts about chain of command and the roles the officers should have done...for example, technically, Scott was second in command or Spock's de facto first officer. As much as I love the Scotty character, he should have lowered the boom on those others that were being disobedient and present a unified front with Spock. I guess he was too preoccupied with the shuttlecraft repairs which was his primary job per Spock's orders. :( At least the two command gold shirts followed commands and dutifully died in time to reduce the takeoff weight. :techman::techman:

Also, McCoy and Boma should have been reprimanded...then we may have avoided the same problem later in The Tholian Web. :rommie: Since both are blue shirts, perhaps there is a less stringent code of behavior for those in the Sciences branch due to the combined services structure, after all, you wouldn't want Starfleet scientists saying "scientists have always been the pawns of the military". ;)
Click to expand...
Scotty did eventually put Boma in his place, but I see your point. Too focused on fixing the shuttle to keep the junior officers in line.
 
It's odd the abscence of any reference to the stun setting on the episode. However, one could assume that it wouldn't have worked anyway.

I think Spock made the correct decisions but his flaw was that he didn't took into account the emotional factor. People under those types of stress and danger aren't going to stay calm. Spock is a cold person and his able to control his emotions, not a human being. It was logical that he should've taken a more lenient approach. The fact that this is Spock's first command mission it's also very strange, considering he's second-in-command to the Captain. By this point in his career, he probably should've lead some kind of mission.
 
Overall one of the aims of the episode was to show how isolated and misunderstood Spock was.
Just ignoring that for a moment I thpught Spock's mistakes were trying to explain himself and sending some guys out without a gun or knife or anything for protection. I mean why did Boma care who Spock picked for survival. It was probably as random to Boma as picking out straws.
I never thought about Spock not having an exec to support him until now. Yes Scotty should have or McCoy. McCoys lack of support led to unhappiness with the team. I know this is McCoys modus operandus and Kirk (and Spock) lets him behave like this all the time. This could costs lives. On This Side of Paradise McCoy caused Spock to hesitate and that caused them to be late in firing. But it isn't just McCoy's fault. Its Spock's and Kirk's fault for letting him get away with it. He's not a line officer so shouldn't be involved with shall we murder the natives or scare them or let them be. Thats the senior officer's call. Right or wrong. McCoy should have talked with Spock in private if he has a problem with him not gossiping with Boma behind Spock's back like a bunch of unhappy schoolboys.
Boma and McCoy are senior officers and should know better. If they don't like taking commands then get out of the military. They should set a better example for thejunior officers and enlisted.
Now Spock could have made it easier by saying "I'm sorry we have to do this" and "we value your contribution" etc. I think he learnt this by "The Tholian Web" time.
 
dupersuper said:
There's that word again... :devil:
Click to expand...
True lol but doesn't Kirk say in Corbomite Manoeuvre that Starfleet isn't a democracy? The importance of the chain of command is clear. I think McCoy gets to vent as medical officer in a way that command officers shouldn't. Trip Tucker should have been transferred to a ship away from his friend by the end of season one. He made Archer look weak and prone to favouritism.
 
Pauln6 said:
True lol but doesn't Kirk say in Corbomite Manoeuvre that Starfleet isn't a democracy? The importance of the chain of command is clear. I think McCoy gets to vent as medical officer in a way that command officers shouldn't. Trip Tucker should have been transferred to a ship away from his friend by the end of season one. He made Archer look weak and prone to favouritism.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, when bravely flying into the unknown, wanting trusted friends by your side is an understandable impulse.
 
dupersuper said:
To play devil's advocate, when bravely flying into the unknown, wanting trusted friends by your side is an understandable impulse.
Click to expand...
Understandable yes, but not necessarily professional. There was one episode where Archer just rocks up and offers Trip shore leave on the spur of the moment. He may have been a workaholic like Scotty but on screen it looked like Archer was offering preferential treatment to his friend.
 
Kor said:
In any case, the Hippocratic Oath is an archaic formality that has lost much of its relevance to the world of modern medicine, not to speak of whatever the field of medicine will be like three hundred years from now. But it's one of those notions that persists in popular thought.

Many medical schools today use something completely different such as the Declaration of Geneva, or a particular oath that they came up with themselves, if they even administer an oath at all. Such oaths are not legally binding, and there is ongoing debate among medical professionals about how appropriate and relevant they are, as many are just vague formal platitudes that are arguably inadequate in addressing the complex realities of contemporary medical practice, and don't really even hold physicians accountable for acting contrary to the oath.

... but I digress. :shrug:

Kor
Click to expand...

i asked my wife (a pediatrician) if they ever studied or took the oath in med school. She doesn’t actually recall it clearly, she thinks it might have been shared at graduation. So, not a lot of emphasis on it….
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
The thought has occured ot me that one strategy might have been to use the heat setting on the phasers to heat up the ground and the rocks around the shuttle. Make them so hot that the natives can't cross them to get at the shuttle.

I also note that the shuttle didn't use rockets to take off. The shuttle seems to have about the size of an Apollo command module, service module, and LEM. So if it used rockets to take off they would have been as energetic as a Saturn V and even a 1 percent setting on the rockets would have roasted the natives holding down the shuttle.

And the landing of hte shuttle should have used approximately as much energy as the takeoff. So if it used rockets coming down all the natives within a few miles would have been killed, and those beyond the death zone would be fleeing in terror from the light, noise, and heat.

Obviously the shuttle doesn't use rockets but some much more advanced form of propulsion to take off and land. If that form of propulsion uses the same amount of energy as a Saturn V rocket, the added weight of one or two of the natives would not have been enough to keep the shuttle down. The natives would have to drop off the shuttle to avoid being carried away by it.

And that puts a very large lower limit to the amount of energy that the phasers must have had in their "batteries" to drain into the shuttle. Someone should be able to calculate how much energy a phaser should have at a minimum, and how much that energy could do.

Or possibly the propulsin system of a shuttle somehow could move the shuttle using much less energy than a rocket would need to do the same thinng.
 
MAGolding said:
The thought has occured ot me that one strategy might have been to use the heat setting on the phasers to heat up the ground and the rocks around the shuttle. Make them so hot that the natives can't cross them to get at the shuttle.

I also note that the shuttle didn't use rockets to take off. The shuttle seems to have about the size of an Apollo command module, service module, and LEM. So if it used rockets to take off they would have been as energetic as a Saturn V and even a 1 percent setting on the rockets would have roasted the natives holding down the shuttle.

And the landing of hte shuttle should have used approximately as much energy as the takeoff. So if it used rockets coming down all the natives within a few miles would have been killed, and those beyond the death zone would be fleeing in terror from the light, noise, and heat.

Obviously the shuttle doesn't use rockets but some much more advanced form of propulsion to take off and land. If that form of propulsion uses the same amount of energy as a Saturn V rocket, the added weight of one or two of the natives would not have been enough to keep the shuttle down. The natives would have to drop off the shuttle to avoid being carried away by it.

And that puts a very large lower limit to the amount of energy that the phasers must have had in their "batteries" to drain into the shuttle. Someone should be able to calculate how much energy a phaser should have at a minimum, and how much that energy could do.

Or possibly the propulsin system of a shuttle somehow could move the shuttle using much less energy than a rocket would need to do the same thinng.
Click to expand...

I've always assumed that vessels landing used a combination of ion propulsion impulse power and hydrogen thrusters. I found this fun Wiki: https://www.spaceengineerswiki.com/Thruster#Hydrogen_Thruster

Ion Thruster (Electrical)
All standard Electric-based Ion thrusters will consume a minimum of 0.002 kW (2 Watts), even when not in use. They use electricity to generate thrust, their power consumption scales linearly with what percentage (as seen on the thrust override slider) the thruster is operating at. It's effectiveness is inversely dependent on the density of the atmosphere, having an actual effectiveness anywhere from 30% at minimum to full effectiveness outside planetary atmospheres - becoming increasingly less effective the thicker the atmosphere.

Hydrogen Thruster
All Hydrogen-based thrusters require a Conveyor connection to a source of Hydrogen such as an Oxygen Generator or a Hydrogen Tank. (*) Hydrogen based Thrusters despite having a 'power consumption' rating will not actually consume electrical power they ONLY consume Hydrogen from a hydrogen source accessed via conveyors. Their only electrical requirements will be for the hydrogen sources that store or make hydrogen and the Conveyor system. Each Hydrogen Thruster consumes a tiny amount of Hydrogen even if not active (as seen with its 'pilot light'), much like the minimum that electric-based thrusters have. Their effectiveness is entirely unaffected by the presence of planetary atmospheres, being equally effective everywhere.

************

From the narrative I guess we have to assume that the shuttle's hydrogen thrusters were damaged, leaving more inefficient impulse as the only way to leave. Since both methods require gas as fuel, presumably the hydrogen tanks must have remained intact and it was having enough electrical power to operate the impulse engine that was the issue? Modern Ion propulsion uses inert gas as fuel but is there any reason hydrogen could not be used? Seems unlikely that ships would have two separate fuel sources if they use hydrogen thrusters in any event. The bi-product of ion propulsion would be hot ionised gas, although don't these creatures live in a region where the Murasaki effect sends out ionised radiation? So maybe they are immune to the radiation, possibly with minimal pain receptors, and they might be able to unable to feel the damage being caused by the heat, whereas electricity was still capable of disrupting their nervous systems?
 
MAGolding said:
I also note that the shuttle didn't use rockets to take off. The shuttle seems to have about the size of an Apollo command module, service module, and LEM. So if it used rockets to take off they would have been as energetic as a Saturn V and even a 1 percent setting on the rockets would have roasted the natives holding down the shuttle.
Click to expand...

I would refine that argument by saying that, since the shuttlecraft does not need a final big push to head for the moon (the "trans-lunar injection" burn), it would not need a Saturn V. The Saturn IB would suffice to put that payload in orbit. Still enough rocket power to satisfy your line of reasoning.

I also think shuttlecraft is a lot smaller than the combined Apollo ships, but that's getting into quibble territory. I stood next to a LM that was on outdoors display at the Kennedy Space Center, circa 1974, and all by itself it was huge. :)
 
Commishsleer said:
On This Side of Paradise McCoy caused Spock to hesitate and that caused them to be late in firing. But it isn't just McCoy's fault. Its Spock's and Kirk's fault for letting him get away with it.
Click to expand...

You kinda lost me. Did you mean "The Paradise Syndrome?" Even so, McCoy didn't hold Spock up, Spock was waiting to the last moment and if he felt the point of no return was passing, he would have beamed them up and continued the discussion en route to the asteroid.

Now, if McCoy or Spock had suggested leaving a search party behind to look for amnesiac Kirk while Spock played footsie with the asteroid, that would have made sense.
 
SPOCK: That is a most illogical attitude. Orbit in one minute, Mister Scott. Fuel status?
SCOTT: Fifteen pounds psi. Approximately enough for one orbit, sir.
MCCOY: After that?
SCOTT: Tapping our boosters ended our last chance for a soft landing.
Click to expand...
What kind of units of fuel measure is pounds psi? Normally, aircraft and spacecraft fuel is measured by its weight, for example, fifteen pounds. No psi at the end.

In any case, the shuttlecraft had "boosters" not "thrusters". I think the boosters are not rockets, either. The boosters may be tied into to the shuttlecraft's engine like a turbocharger or a supercharger or even afterburners (which are well known devices in airplane engines) which are fuel hogs that boost an engine's performance.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
@MAGolding was including the Lunar Module along with the CSM, referring to the combined payload of a Saturn V. That's what I was responding to.
Click to expand...
And I was agreeing with you using data.
BTW, the LM was 9.29 ft for the ascent stage and 10.6 ft for the descent stage (sans landing probes)
 
Yeah the LM is a monster. I've lived near the Smithsonian my whole life and it never ceases to stop me in my tracks.
Bd3cb4w.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[REUPLOAD] Some stuff i made about Star Trek: Lower Decks.
Replies
3
Views
1K
cooleddie74
cooleddie74
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top