I would be perfectly happy with a density of 2.5 g/cubic centimeter and a length between 1700 km and 3500 km. That would be a density comparable to Haumea and linear dimensions consistent with the description of being "almost as large as Earth's moon," assuming "almost as large as x" means "smaller than, but more than half the size of, x."Mike DiCenso wrote:I'm not seeing all that much rotation, just a lot of different angles due to the fact that the camera is shifting locations, and doing funky things, like zooming past the Enterprise and towards the big rock. For the most part, there is not near enough evidence to indicate a rotation that would make the asteroid oblate in shape, as your earlier example of Haumea does. But it doesn't help your case much, even if that is so, since while you might have a linearly Moon-sized object, the high spin rate causing oblate shape would point towards a relatively low-density body.Moff Tarquin wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XP0ijkha4s When you first look at it at 0:23 as the Enterprise approaches, it looks like it's pointing towards eleven-o-clock. Later, when they bring it up on the viewscreen at 0:27, it looks like it's somewhere between eleven-o-clock and noon (to me, as they approach the asteroid, it looks like it rotates visibly from that position to noon, period, but that might just be an effect of the quality). Later still, when they're firing the deflector beam at 0:37, it looks like it's pointing nearly to one o clock. By the time they fire the phasers, it looks to be pointing at two-o-clock. Long story short, it's pointing at a different angle in every shot, and in several shots, appears to be visibly rotating.
Both are indeed means of delivery, but one comes direct from the author, and the other comes through the filter of budget and "coolness." So in an apparent contradiction between what is delivered by the one and what is delivered by the other, shouldn't our harmonization err on the side of the former?Good question, and that little matter hasn't been settled. Some people do not rely on special effects and others do for a variety of reasons (see my bit earlier about the Warsies and Saxtonites usage). But in those camps that look at both as methods of story narrative (otherwise this would be a radio show, not live action TV!), one or the other is wrong.Moff Tarquin wrote:What's nonsensical about it, other than its "contradiction" with the visuals?
And why should contradiction with the visuals matter when, from a meta perspective, they aren't a direct vehicle of the storyteller's vision (as the dialogue IS), but are rather a vehicle of the storyteller's vision filtered through "what Bob the special effects tech could afford," "what Bob the special effects tech thought an asteroid the size of earth's moon would look like," and "what Bob the special effects tech thought would look cool" ?
It is the latter point that most needs to be addressed. If we're going to take the meta perspective, then we should only rely on visuals to augment what is established in dialogue, or to come to conclusions when no relevant pieces of dialogue are available, for the simple reason that the visuals are constrained by budget and motivated by "what looks cool" rather than "what it would really look like.
What was the nomenclature for astronomical bodies in the sixties? Would Spock's terminology have been correct at the time? Could we, under the principle of charity, consider his terminology to be "good enough"?A Moon-sized asteroid? Is it Moon-sized? Can it still be called an asteroid? Why doesn't Spock properly calling it a "rogue planet"?
Was the terminology incorrect for the era? Should FX ever win out?Is Spock, for the sake of saving time using hyperbole to get his point across to the overly emotional, and space sciences illiterate McCoy? If you place more stock in the author, then the FX are wrong and they should have shown a big spherical planet-like thing. But the author uses incorrect terminology for such a large body, and so isn't she wrong, and therefore the FX wins out?
The only way I can see a piece of visual evidence overriding a piece of dialogue is if - from the meta perspective - the purpose of the visual evidence is to demonstrate to the audience that said piece of dialogue was wrong.
I would say that the analogous situation would be the one in "The Masterpiece Society," not "Deja Q."And how do you reconcile this with the more powerful E-D being unable to push an asteroidal moon in "Deja Q"? Same universe and timeline and all.
In both cases, the ship is pushed to its absolute limit. In both cases, the ship practically falls apart in the process. In The Masterpiece Society, we almost certainly have a power output in the thousands of yottawatts. In The Paradise Syndrome, we probably have a power output in the high zettawatts or low yottawatts. Interestingly, in both cases, the ship is a fairly safe distance from the risk planet.
In Deja Q, we almost certainly have a power output well into the zettawatts, which is at least worth comparing to TPS. But, again, interestingly, it is necessarily in orbit of the planet at the time of the operation. Perhaps they don't want to risk pushing the warp core to its absolute limit while within spitting distance of an inhabitable world? After all, a warp core breach on the much smaller Delta Flyer had a minimum safe distance of some million kilometers, one can only presume that a warp core breach on the Enterprise D would be far more dangerous, and certainly worth comparing to the impact of the moon. "Brute Forcing" the moon into a new orbit would, on any view, be very dangerous to the ship and, by extension, very dangerous to anybody within a million kilometers.
Well, for STID, we can always say that Sulu meant "the crew" by "we." Without power, the ship may survive those temperatures fine, but there's nothing to stop the crew from getting cooked. As for TNT, I stick by my previous statement: while the Enterprise wasn't far into the "burning up" thing when Uhura delivered her temperature line, if the Enterprise had gotten much farther into the stratosphere, it would indeed have burnt up. If you insist that there should have been some sort of marking on the Enterprise prior to it entering the mid/deep stratosphere, then I'd probably chalk it up to another VFX error. Those happen a lot: just look at the Defiant or the Klingon BOP!We never saw the outside hull of the Enterprise in "The Naked Time", but we do see that red-hot plasma does form around the leading edges of starships at a few thousand degrees C in "The Arsenal of Freedom", "Deja Q", and "ST: Generations". But getting back to the point, the Enterprise at the end of TNN is just fine, as if nothing had ever happened.Moff Tarquin wrote:And yet, a mere century later, temperatures ten thousand degrees higher won't even cause a starship hull to glow.
Exactly my point. Why would the ship ever be in danger of burning up? Wouldn't it just crash into the planet, like in Generations, or STID? The characters were wrong. Kirk in TNN and Sulu in STID. There's just nothing to say or do about it. And that gets to the next point...Moff Tarquin wrote:Why would we expect one when we know that starship hull materials are capable of withstanding many thousands of degrees without even glowing? This isn't steel, carbon, or anything like that. This is duranium, tritanium, or something comparably durable - in short, something far beyond current materials science.
We actually see bits of the hull smoking, glowing, and flaking off. When the Enterprise comes up through the clouds, you can still see the holes smoking. How exactly is this inconsistent with the "we'll burn up" view?No need. By the power of YouTube I give you this. He says it around 1:37.Moff Tarquin wrote:I'd have to see that movie again, and hear Sulu's lines again, to be able to come up with any kind of explanation.
I'll be the first to admit that the Enterprise made it deeper into the atmosphere than I would have expected, but we can easily chalk this up to the "seeing the Enterprise come up through the clouds on thruster power would be KEWL!!!" factor.
I don't think that we can infer that the asteroid is rotating from the visuals, but they are consistent with the hypothesis, so if rotation is necessary to explain how an asteroid can both be oblate and almost the size of of Earth's moon, then we have that option.We see it that way largely because of changing camera angles, and what little, if any rotation there is is over many hours.Moff Tarquin wrote:It's at a different position every shot, we never see it for more than five seconds before cutting to the next shot, and in at least one shot, it looks to me like we can see it changing orientation.
-Mike