The Enemy Within

Tim Takahashi

unread,

Mar 27, 1986, 2:36:30 PM3/27/86

to

>
> In "The Best of Trek #5", eds. Irwin & Love, there is an attempt to
> answer the question "Why wasn't the shuttlecraft used to get Sulu and the
> others off the planet?"

More likely answer : "The shuttlecraft hadn't been invented until
the "Galileo 7" was written."

Tim Takahashi

John Kempf

unread,

Mar 28, 1986, 9:02:03 PM3/28/86

to

>
> In "The Best of Trek #5", eds. Irwin & Love, there is an attempt to
> answer the question "Why wasn't the shuttlecraft used to get Sulu and the
> others off the planet?"
>

> Answer: The upper-air turbulence of the storms on the icy planet was so
> strong that a shuttlecraft would have been risking destruction to venture
> into it. As it would have been foolish to almost certainly lose more lives in
> a futile attempt to rescue Sulu and Co. in that way, Kirk and Spock did not
> even consider it.
>
I have always wondered about that one. The answer is rather falacious.
a shuttle craft has a reasonable amount of fuel. Are they trying to
say that there was upper air turbulance over the *entire* planet? Including
the poles? Besides, shuttle craft do have some deflector screens.
-cory

Chris Ambler

unread,

Mar 29, 1986, 2:56:59 AM3/29/86

to

> > In "The Best of Trek #5", eds. Irwin & Love, there is an attempt to
> > answer the question "Why wasn't the shuttlecraft used to get Sulu and the
> > others off the planet?"
> >
> > Answer: The upper-air turbulence of the storms on the icy planet was so
> > strong that a shuttlecraft would have been risking destruction to venture

> > into it. As it would have been foolish to almost certainly lose more lives.

> I have always wondered about that one. The answer is rather falacious.
> a shuttle craft has a reasonable amount of fuel. Are they trying to
> say that there was upper air turbulance over the *entire* planet? Including
> the poles? Besides, shuttle craft do have some deflector screens.

Sure, they have deflector screens, and then the turbulance would boff the
screens around which would boff the shuttlecraft in turn. The only explanation
*I* can forward is that the turbulance was as low as the mountain peaks, and
a shuttlecraft stood a chance of being blown into a mountain. Weak, but...

-Spock! (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)
-"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..."

Lord Kahless @ Imperial Propoganda

unread,

Mar 29, 1986, 2:06:37 PM3/29/86

to

> I have always wondered about that one. The answer is rather falacious.
> a shuttle craft has a reasonable amount of fuel. Are they trying to
> say that there was upper air turbulance over the *entire* planet? Including
> the poles? Besides, shuttle craft do have some deflector screens.
> -cory

As near as I understood it, the situation was that the transporters
weren't safe for human use, but DID function. Why didn't the big E
just beam down parkas, down filled sleeping bags, a thermo-concrete
shelter, 50 hand phasers to keep all the rocks red hot, a Bar-B-que,
etc, etc, etc.

Also, if the shuttle craft couldn't land, how come he couldn't at
least air drop parkas, etc.

Either Captain Kirk was too slow on the uptake or he didn't give a
damn about his men.

Kahless tai-Hazar