ST XI Enterprise conjecture

Fair enough ancient, I respect your take. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I can see as much validity in it as I do in my own take eh.

And yes, I was only sharing my mechanical perceptions on the subject. It was not my intention of touting them as canon. Again, as long as it's believable, I'm cool with it. The thrusters are just attitude adjusters to me though, so that explanation doesn't work for me, but that's just for me eh.

Nice chattin' about it though.

deg

 

I just don't want anyone to confuse fannon ideas with something Abrams needs to care or know about.

 

Well we do have a lot of information about that incident with the Enterprise. The interceptor sent up by the Air Force was an F-104 Starfighter. Those craft could operate at altitudes of over 13 miles (with modified versions used by NASA reaching altitudes of nearly 23 miles).

So basically all we know (from Tomorrow is Yesterday) is that the Enterprise is capable of operating in the Stratosphere. As I recall, we would be talking about the Enterprise operating in an environment of less than 1% that of the Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level.

It seems to me that we would be talking about quite a leap if we are making an assumption that the Enterprise being able to function in 1% atmospheric pressure equates to functioning in an atmosphere 100 times thicker than that. Is that the logical leap that you are attempting to make?

I mean it isn't like you'd be the first to put something like that forward (obviously as New Voyages showed the Farragut doing something not unlike that), but in TOS they were playing it rather conservatively.

 

Well-put, Shaw. Additionally, we don't know how much residual velocity the Enterprise retained after the accident. Pure luck might have had her at the altitude, velocity, and heading that kept her from plummeting to the ground before the crew could take action. Not at all the same as launching from dead stop on the surface.

 

If there is any conclusive onscreen proof that the Enterprise can't take off from a planet I'd like to know about it.

The only episode to address the issue shows that the Enterprise has no difficulty and there is no reason to assume that it's thrusters would have trouble in 1 atm. of pressure. The whole idea is rather bizzare and totally unfounded.

I am not the one making any leaps, I am the one saying that the whole idea that the ship can't land/take off is unfounded. The burdon of proof is on those who want to claim they know the Enterprise's capabilities. I merely pointed out that it seems logical based on TOS that the atm. was a non-issue.

would've been, could've been. Wasn't.

 

Kirk states flat out in "A Piece of the Action" that the ship can't land.

 

There is no evidence that the Enterprise couldn't operate underwater either. By your logic we can assume that it has that ability as well because we haven't not seen it do that.

The information you are relying on only demonstrates operational ability as low as the stratosphere. You've offered nothing that shows that it's operational envelope actually extends all the way to the surface.

I can see that attempting to actually look at data is a rather bizarre and totally unfounded idea for you, but it would be nice if you offered more than just your distain for those who disagree with you as support for your assertions.

 

Yes, but "can't land" and "can't be launched from the ground" are two different things.

 

Oh, sure it can land! Once.

Seriously though, do you think he was referring more to the ship's engine/thruster/whatever abilities or to the fact that it can't land because of it's shape and lack of landing struts (or something to keep it upright)? The Enterprise might actually have the capability to hover motionless just over the ground all day, but it would never actually land. But we're not really given enough information onscreen to decide that indisputably.

BTW, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - personally I'd prefer to keep all my starships outside the atmosphere.

 

I think it makes some sense that a ship with shields and the ability to stand up to energy weapons and boomerang through the Sun's corona could take a dip into an atmosphere. However, I think the whole "not designed to operate in an atmosphere" business from TMoST should be taken just as it was stated. It might be able to do it, but doesn't function well under those circumstances. The atmospheric density might saturate the matter collectors, maybe the warp drive can't be engaged in a deep gravity well, sensors might not function optimally, etc.

Flying a starship in an atmosphere might be like flying an aircraft below its normal minimum cruising altitude. IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) dictate minimum altitudes a jet can fly on any particular route, taking into account terrain, ability to pick up radio signals, other conflicting airspace, etc. Perhaps the makers of TOS thought there would be something similar for starships.

 

All I'm sayin' is, if E could fly in atmo no prob (an assumption in itself also), then why were they is trouble in TIY? Seems to me, that by the logic that E can cruise around in atmo no prob, including a take off, well then, they should not have been in any kind of trouble then.

However, screen canon shows us, that E in fact was having a problem. And to boot, as April reminds us, Kirk states to Oxmyx (or was it Krako) that E cannot land.

I feel you are not understanding the actual physics of established flight compared to the energy needed to move/launch a mass the size of E from a standing planet-bound position. The two scenarios are categorically just not the same.

And when I said decaying orbit, all I meant was that E was on a downward trajectory, meaning trouble. Orbit would imply that they made at least one complete circuit around an orbited body (at whatever distance, even in a plane), yet this was not yet the case.

Yet, with all due respect ancient, it is not your job to guard the world from my ideas as I care to share them. You have a right to share any thought you like, and, so do I. I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind. Peeps, including JJ, have the ability to make up their own minds as to the validity, for themselves, as to what thoughts and observations I may share. IDIC eh.

Thanks for your consideration on this point.

deg

 

No, Kirk doesn't. He says:

"The ship won't land, but we'll transport several people down...Well, that's a little difficult for you to understand, too."

All the difference in the world between "won't" and "can't."

No one says in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" that the ship is in trouble because they're flying in atmosphere.

The dialogue in question is:

"We're too low in the atmosphere to retain this orbit."

And later:

"Mr. Sulu, can you gain altitude faster? I want to outdistance him."

Spock later says:

"We've achieved a stable orbit out of Earth's atmosphere. Our deflectors are operative, enough to prevent our being picked up again as a U.F.O. "

That's it. All they say is that the ship can't maintain a stable orbit within Earth's atmosphere, which is like "Duh."

At no time do they indicate that the Enterprise cannot fly or manuever in atmosphere. Sulu remarks at one point that the helm "is sluggish" but doesn't indicate why - the ship has sustained some damage.

Fans extrapolate stuff that isn't stated, probably as a result of effects footage which shows the vessel accelerating unsteadily at a steep angle in the atmosphere to gain altitude. Nonetheless, there's no canonical support in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" or "A Piece Of The Action" for the supposition that the Enterprise cannot land or has difficulty flying in atmosphere.

 

Well, it's pretty obvious that 1701 wouldn't land. No landing gear, and even if it could come down into a cradle of some sort, once it shut off all its systems it would have that terrible drooping feeling from all that nasty unmodified gravity. Whether the structure itself could handle such forces without the reinforcement of fields is unknown.

But as far as why they were in trouble in "Tomorrow is Yesterday," read above. Precisely the same reason that a plane without radar or radio contact wouldn't want to fly close to the ground. The ship was damaged from flying near a "black star" that required they slingshot themselves away to escape. They were hurt, and being in an atmosphere made it more likely they would end up crashing because of an inability to develop adequate escape velocity, lack of sensors to see potential threats, etc.

 

OK, again, fair enough.

Now reverse that equation and apply your same logic. You are doing the exact same assumpsion-based thinking as you accuse me of, which I concede as my own thinking.

However, my thoughts are merely based on extrapolation of ideas I've gleaned, and thus, just sharing them for the sake of friendly Trek convo, while allowing for other's to share their own, as, speaking only for myself, I can do this, as I don't fear other's POVs eh.

IDIC.

deg

 

Gotcha.

I can follow your well thought-out logic on that aridas sofia.

deg

 

Thank for the eps. facts dude. That's definatly a firm canon consideration, thanks for sharin' that eh.

Getting back to my original Q, I just wondering how they are going to present take-off. That's all. It's was not my intention to ruffle anyone's feathers about E and Trek eh. IDIC, to each their own in my mind always.

Now, considering that Gene came up with the transporter idea to get around the vfx cost of landing E each week, there is that consideration also. I'm not disagreeing with anyone knee-jerk outright, that E couldn't take off (which perhaps will be established as canon soon enough anywho) I was just wondering how they were going to do it. Seems that point got lost for the sake of... well, whatever this has become.

Kinda seems to me some of the attitudes here have drifted away from Trek-based ideas of sharing and discussing without the perception of their ideas being bruised and thus defenses needed to be powered up.

I was just tryin' to chat up some Trek like I love to do.

Oh well, to each their own.

deg

 

Or they are just building the subsections on earth, and then lifting them into orbit for final assembly.

 

That would definitely be my preference. It was stated just that way in The Making of Star Trek, so for me that is as good as saying it was the original intention.

 

Again? So this is a repeating scenario with Trek talk here?

Given Trek and it's evolved ideals, and all those that follow Trek so lovingly, I kinda expected a different forum experience here. Kinda like a Trek crew.

As with anything I guess it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk eh. I will always try to walk as best I can.

My sincere apologies if my Trek/E thoughts shared caused any level of uneasiness.

Oh well, take-off, landing, flying in atmo, it's all a moot point come the premiere eh. Go E!

deg