Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign In Sign Up

knlwtchr

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    501

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by knlwtchr

  17. Posted · Report post

    The Motion Picture: Since I haven't seen this movie over and over, like I have the others, I probably don't appreciate it the same. But, I have seen it and it just didn't impress me like the others did.

     

    The Wrath of Kahn: I really liked Kahn, but I dont know if it was my favorite, which seems to be the consensus here. I asked my husband which movie he liked best, and he said Kahn was his favorite, too. There were some good fight scenes and, since I was raised by my father, I like good fight scenes in my sci-fi movies (thought Star Trek is the only sci-fi I watch, besides Enemy Mine).

     

    The Search for Spock: I don't know, I really like Leonard Nimoy and the Actors who played his parents (Mark Lenard, especially), but this movie just didn't do much for me. It was OK.

     

    The Voyage Home: I think Home was my favorite of the TOS line of movies. Nimoy was killing me and I loved the interactions with the people of San Francisco. The other actors were killing me too, especially "Noo-clee-ah We-sselz!" It was just a lot more light hearted and fun, and I loved the ideas of truly saving the world while saving a species from extinction. The music was a lot funner, too.

     

    The Final Frontier: I honestly don't remember Frontier as well, probably because, like TMP, I haven't seen it nearly as many times as the others. Was that the one where they went to the end of the Universe to see God or some entity claiming to be a god? If so, I probably dont remember it because I blocked it out of my memory.

     

    The Undiscovered Country: I wasn't crazy about Country. I dont like Iman, is that her name? Or the idea of going to prison. It just didn't keep me interested.

     

    Generations: I anticipated Generations because I was so sad to see TNG go. I love the saucer crash scene and the ideas of re-writing your past due to regrets. Or just going back in time and staying there forever. What a great thought!

     

    First Contact: Probably my favorite of the TNG movie line. The Queen was just icky and I loved the fight scenes when the fleet arrived. Great flick!

     

    Insurrection: Bleh. Kinda boring. Another one I haven't really seen over and over. But, there's a reason for that.

     

    Nemesis: No, no, no, totally wrong. Too dark, to icky, not enough fighting going on. The idea of Picard's son was just off. We needed more space fight scenes. Definitely not nearly as good as it could have been.

     

    So, there you have it, the Knollwatcher's two cents. =0] (Not worth much, is it?)

  21. Posted · Report post

    The "satellite" in question didn't even separate from the final stage and went splash in the Pacific. Even if it had made it, all it was designed to do was broadcast a signal hailing their "Great Leader".

     

    They still keep saying their rocket made it into space. That Jong Ill is a nut case!

     

    Hey Sorehl, do you know of any way I can figure out the information on Heavens-above.com without going through a year of calculus? Its giving me positional data of certain objects in longitude and latitude, but I still have no idea where that would be relative to my position on the Earth.

  23. Posted · Report post

    To quote Tachyon quoting Douglas Adams, space is mind-bogglingly big. The orbital space above the Earth is, well, larger than the surface of the Earth. Then you have to add that third dimension, up. (But don't fret - even Khan had a problem using it.) Objects can orbit at one of various orientations, called inclination. They can orbit at any height. The orbits can be roughly circular, or wildly elliptical like a Molniya orbit. (For a look at a previous discussion of orbits and what's where, see the topic Ringed Earth.)

     

    You can't actually rear-end someone in the same orbit. An artifact of orbital mechanics is that the geometry, and where you are along the path, determines your speed. If you change your speed or direction, the orbit itself changes.

     

    The key is that, even when orbital paths cross, the satellites aren't there at the same time. We have collisions at intersections on Earth because: 1) We have much more traffic, 2) We're usually limited to two-dimensions (note that overpasses solve this), and 3) we tend to be further restricted to specific trafffic corridors (flight paths or roads) and popular destinations. None of these are true in orbit (although the congregation of GEO satellites comes close).

     

    Neat! I know that as you gradually move away from Earth, things become more and more dimensional. Things are that way now, but, its like you say, its comparable to driving a car (two dimensions) or flying a plane (more than two dimensions).

     

    If there is no air in space, is there also no vacuum? Would it also stand to reason that when a ship or an object flies by something, it doesn't effect it, like it wouldn't cause a gust of wind or any other kind of displacement?

  24. Posted · Report post

    The Earth exerts a gravitational pull on all the objects that orbit it, but these objects are travelling fast enough that instead of falling into the Earth, they fall around it constantly, hence "constant free-fall."

     

    Interesting, but I guess those objects are moving at the same speed in the same direction? Or are there objects moving faster than others, therefore creating a danger of rear ending each other?

     

    2) Not much of the Earth is covered by garages,

     

    I like that! =0]

     

    The Earth is estimated to gain about 40 tons of mass each day in interplanetary material.

     

    40 TONS of mass per day? Holy cow! Is there some sort of exchange? In that I mean, is the atmosphere losing mass in other ways to balance out this accumulation? Incredible!

  25. Posted · Report post

    OK, I think we have the Black hole debate hashed out. How about space debris? I imagine most things burn up in the atmosphere (which I dont really fully understand yet), but what about those things that make it through? Why aren't meteors landing on garages? Or making craters in national parks? Or whatever? Do things bounce off the atmosphere?

     

    Just had a thought, too. When the space shuttles come back and they re-enter the Earths atmosphere, I know they come down on a curve to match rotation (Is that right?), is there a point when, like a piece of space debris, it is no longer flying towards Earth, but being pulled, or is it always being pulled? The velocity and strength/force it must take to slow down any object coming to Earth must be incredible. It messes with your head!