Re: Star Trek Teaser Trailer Now Up On The Internets

In article <im84p39v3sm54ef28dlq5q1q2u55nfs7em@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Brian Thorn <bthorn64@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:10:54 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> There's not such thing as an "orbit over the San Francisco Navy
> >> Yards". There are geostationary orbits, but they only "hover" (22,300
> >> miles up) over a point on the equator. San Francisco is not on the
> >> equator.
> 
> >Trek never used 'orbit' the way we do.  Standard 'orbit' is way below 
> >geosync, which is why they're always spiralling in at the first loss of

> >power.  They consider 'hovering under power' to be 'orbit'
> 
> I've always assumed "standard orbit" to be some typical value from the
> center of the planet along the planet's equator, like "circular orbit
> 150% of the planet's diameter at 0 degrees inclination" or something
> like that. It was never specified, but that's why the Enterprise
> always seems to be the same size relative to the planet it's orbiting
> in those visuals.
> 
> The first time they "spiralled out of orbit" was in "Naked Time"
> because Psi 2000 was contracting beneath them and they had to keep
> lowering their orbit, and the planet's gravity field was all wonky (so
> the spiralling down makes sense within that context and shouldn't be
> considered a typical danger to being in orbit.) The second time was in
> "Court Martial", with no planet-breakup-wonky-gravity explanation, and
> that was just lazy writing. I don't remember any others. ("The Apple"
> was caused by external forces, not gravity or lack of engines.)
> 
> Not often, but in episodes like "Mirror, Mirror", their orbits worked
> the ways ours do in the real world. Targets that the ISS Enterprise
> was supposed to strike kept going out of range while Good Kirk tried
> to think of a way to get out of doing it. "Galileo 7" deorbited and
> burned up because it was in a very low orbit in the first place.

Yeah, Mirror Mirror was one of the ones that made sense.  Of course all 
that means is that the Empire's definition of 'standard orbit' is 
different than Starfleets.
> 
> Also, none of the visuals in any way suggested that the Enterprise was
> "hovering under power". They were always happily circling the planet
> of the week.

But they usually were station keeping over a beam down spot.  And that 
means they were "hovering under power"
> 
> Of course, if you have the power to hover anywhere you want above a
> planet, then that could also explain how the Enterprise was built on
> terra firma. They just used that magic propulsion system to fly up
> into space once construction was finished.

I'd submit that holding your ship 16,000 miles above a planet is 
different than a cold take off from ground level.

-- 
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand.  Doesn't work.  Again.
Billing is all wrong.  Again.
Avoid at all costs.