Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hope.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!spock
From: spock@hope.UUCP (Chris Ambler)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: The Enemy Within
Message-ID: <223@hope.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 02:56:59 EST
Article-I.D.: hope.223
Posted: Sat Mar 29 02:56:59 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 01:33:53 EST
References: <1324@cvl.UUCP> <221@hope.UUCP>
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 20

> > 	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..."