Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihlts.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe From: rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: Re: Spock's not so smart Message-ID: <323@ihlts.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Jan-84 11:45:42 EST Article-I.D.: ihlts.323 Posted: Mon Jan 23 11:45:42 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 05:26:52 EST References: <3160@utcsrgv.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 25 I made the following comment a while back: > ... he illogically takes the gamble of jettisonning > and igniting the remainder of the shuttlecraft's fuel as a signal flare to > attract the attention of the Enterprise should it be nearby. The response: > I've heard this criticism hundreds of times (including in the show itself), >and I'm surprised that nobody has noticed that it's completely mistaken. > The only logical choice (by any laws of logic I know) was exactly the >one that Spock took. First off, it is NOT criticism of Spock that he made the choice he did. The action was laudable and shows us that Spock is capable of such thinking. There was more than ZERO probability that the Galileo 7 and those aboard would be saved had he done nothing. The reason is that the engines would operate LONGER that way. If the Enterprise were nearby, there would be that much more time (and hence greater probability) for its sensors to detect the shuttlecraft. By jettisonning fuel and igniting it, Spock is hoping that someone on the Enterprise is nearby AND watching at that particular instant. As soon as all the fuel is gone (matter of seconds, rather than minutes had he not ignited it) the orbit immediately starts to decay and there is no longer any chance of being saved. If anyone can really estimate the relative probabilities of the two courses of action in light of these points, I'd be very interested in reading your analysis. Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe