XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.tv
From: ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net
in article 2tCdnajNi8KyZcLeRVn-jw@comcast.com, Ken from Chicago at
kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net wrote on 10/26/05 2:42 PM:
>
> "David Johnston" wrote in message
> news:435f7d93.1847677@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:02:21 -0000, pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ANIM8Rfsk writes:
>>>>> Star Trek communicators are magic. Deal with it. *
>>>>
>>>> First I want an example of communicators talking through a planet.
>>>
>>> The enterprise is in orbit. Therefore, for much of the time, it has no
>>> line
>>> of sight to the landing party. The planet's in the way.
>>>
>>> Unless the enterprise always uses geosyncronous orbits anyway. I suppose
>>> that's a possible fanwank. *
>>
>> Why wouldn't they be in a geosynch orbit? The only reason I can think
>> of is, that they are in orbit around a planet with a lot of space
>> traffic so they need to take an available orbit instead of a good one.
They aren't in a geosync orbit because geosync is well beyond the range of
the transporter.
>>
>> Even then they have the kind of power budget that lets them just hover
>> in position.
That's what they do.
But since we know they can't normally beam through
>> planets, and since we know they can normally beam up from every
>> landing party at a moment's notice, I don't think there's a good
>> reason to automatically assume that communicators work through
>> planets.
There's none, unless there's an example I can't think of.
>
> Kinda like parking a car right in front of a hous--unless it's a crowded
> street and then having to park further away.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
