4 ms·
I can sort of buy this. In Gravity things are probably a lot more robust than they actually should be, but collisions with debris or other objects tend to be i
by spease 5y ago
I can sort of buy this.
In Gravity things are probably a lot more robust than they actually should be, but collisions with debris or other objects tend to be immediately fatal for the vehicles involved. Debris at high velocity goes straight through stuff.
Similarly, in For All Mankind, most stuff is pretty fragile and volatile, as you’d expect for Apollo-era tech. It’s only the later stuff that the show makes up which starts to show much resilience.
In the Expanse, technology is considerably more advanced, but still vastly inferior to any Star Trek or Star Wars vehicle. And in the Expanse we see the hulls of ships routinely get punctured, and a single torpedo or rail gun hit is often fairly decisive. Even the Donnager is forced to shut down its reactor due to a torpedo hit.
And even in non-Abrams Trek, in an alternate timeline Voyager still survives a hard crash on a planet reasonably intact, even if it was fatal to everybody on board. Possibly only because the inertial dampeners were offline.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago> in an alternate timeline Voyager still survives a hard crash on a planet reasonably intact, even if it was fatal to everybody on board Similarly, in the prime timeline, Enterprise-D ends its life with is engine section exploding, and the saucer section crash-landing into a forest. Externally, it looked pretty salvageable, but the insides were completely smashed. The crew survived, possibly because inertial dampeners still worked somewhat (I don't remember now), or maybe just because it flew on almost flat trajectory and used the aforementioned forest to slow itself down.