Re: Star Trek Teaser Trailer Now Up On The Internets

In article <alt4p31it1b8otib9ohaomu15mb3660j10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Brian Thorn <bthorn64@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:28:55 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Actually, we don't know that the Empire used "standard orbit", because
> we never saw them arrive. The show started already in orbit. But it is
> clear they were in a real, laws-of-physics orbit, and the design of
> the Enterprise was the same, so it is reasonable to conclude that the
> USS Enterprise operates the same way. The search pattern flown by the
> Enterprise and Columbus in "Galileo Seven" is another example. 
> 
> >> 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"
> 
> We never saw that. All we know is they were able to beam up from
> wherever the Enterprise was. But they beamed deep underground in
> "Devil in the Dark", so there is no reason to believe line-of-sight is
> necessary. 

I'm not talking about line of site.  I'm talking about the 16,000 mile 
transporter range limit from the writer's bible.  It's what kept them 
from being in geosync.
> 
> But we did see the Faux Earth rotating beneath the Enterprise on the
> viewscreen in "Miri". (Pretty high up, too... maybe 10,000 miles.)
> 
> And there's still the problem of the visuals never even remotely
> suggesting that the Enterprise was stationary over a spot on the
> planet.
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Not really. If you can do one, you can do the other. You have to
> cancel out gravity. It's all magic propulsion anyway.
> 
> Brian

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