Does it? As someone mentioned so far its a one way trip. Its great for transport but what about Starfleet's other duties? They arent exclusively in the transportation business. Well it's two for two. Though attempt one did have a hiccup. Which doesn't mean they can't spend time in an atmosphere It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon. Canon is filmed Trek authorized by the copyright holder. Books, both fiction and non fiction are not canon. Even TAS isn't canon. [ You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either. I asked for in-universe evidence that a starship can't operate in an atmosphere. That they would break apart trying to enter the atmosphere. The "incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon" evidence you mentioned. The statement you quoted seems to want to dismiss the pseudo-science in Star Trek, though in a selective manner. If we are tossing out "structural integrity fields" why not transporters, universal translators, artificial gravity and warp drive too? It's a house of cards really. This quote made me chuckle I'm not sure how much thought Jeffries put into the Enterprise's space worthiness. It's basically a mash-up of the two prevalent space ship designs of the 50s and 60s: the rocket and the saucer. And as others wiser than me have pointed out the struts the nacelles sit on might as well be Papier Mâché. It's a good looking design from a visual standpoint but I'm wary of it's engineering. This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech... well you get the idea. We do know that the Delta Flyer and the NX-01 managed to survive the atmospheric pressure of gas giants. Which even at higher altitudes might have more pressure than the Nibiru ocean. And "bad ass digest" just isn't a source I can take seriously. Which is petty of me, I know.