In article <13p4up5p3dmsaec@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jaxtraw wrote:
> > Anybody wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >> The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't give much enlightenment from the
> >> Star Trek universe's point of view, but does give a little behind the
> >> scenes information:
> >>
> >> Standard Orbit
> >> --------------
> >> Normal orbit assumed by a Federation starship above
> >> a Class-M planet.
> >>
> >> Editors Note: The term "standard orbit" was used as
> >> an ingenious means of allowing the captain to give
> >> a technical-sounding command when the ship entered
> >> orbit, without having to bore the viewer with
> >> tedious details of orbital inclination, apogee,
> >> perigee, and orbital period. It was at one point
> >> thought that standard orbit would be synchronous,
> >> allowing the ship to remain stationary over a
> >> single point on the planet's surface, but a
> >> visual-effects shot of the ship, motionless over
> >> the plaent, would not have been dynamic, thereby
> >> lacking dramatic value. Moving the ship was,
> >> therefore, a conscious decision by the show's
> >> producers. Even when the ship was required to
> >> "hover", some slight movement was shown so that
> >> the image wouldn't be static.
> >>
> >> - Star Trek Encyclopedia
> >> Michael & Denise Okuda
> >>
> >> I would have thought all those "tedious details" would have been the
> >> navigation / pilot's problem anyway, not the captain's. The captain
> >> simply needs to say "enter orbit" and the crew take care of the
> >> details by assuming a "standard" distance unless told otherwise.
> >
> > The thing's hopelessly overmanned anyway. There's no way the
navigator's
> > actually doing anything useful. Boop boop boop "course plotted". I
don't
> > think that right hand console's actually connected to anything.
>
> Occasionally we saw the navigator plotting a more complex course:
>
> Kirk telling Bailey to plot a spiral course away from the cube in
> "Corbomite Maneuver"
>
> Kirk ordering a conic section flight path to end up parallel to V'ger
>
> It's just that for dramatic purposes, the complexity of the courses that
> the navigator plots were not explained most of the rest of the time.
> Roddenberry had stipulated that stuff should be minimized to maintain a
> fast pace to the episode.
Technically they don't need any of them. The computer could fly the
Enterprise all by itself (despite the obvious episode where the
computer was trying to be the captain), except perhaps in highly
complex situations, eg. combat where more unpredictability would be
better.
|
