the star treck movies 2009 and forward have belts that "grow" from the chairs around the crew, im guessing its cooler according to someone to have them thrown around the bridge
@@Ettap96 If we had inertial dampeners in cars today, we'd immediately discontinue use of airbags and seatbelts, which carry their own significant risks of concussive and lacerative injury during collisions. Also, the kind of force applied to crew members with seat belts on will at least snap their necks off, and at worst cut up their bodies into chunks. Inertial dampeners are the reason why they are still in one piece, though thrown around the bridge.
@@bermlee I buy your explanation of the inertial dampeners allowing them to get thrown around without being injured more seriously, but most people will probably still ask why you don't have seat belts _in addition_ to the inertial dampeners. If the dampeners fail and you're getting thrown around, you're probably dead either way, so what the seat belts would do without the dampeners is irrelevant. And a deleted scene from the end of Nemesis showed a seat belt system (similar to what @Ettap96 says is in the Kelvin timeline films) in the prime universe, although that was much later than when Discovery's ship was built. The Motion Picture also had a system similar to roller coaster lap restraints, also chronologically later than the Discovery's construction.
With the G-forces at play in starships seatbelts wouldn't do much. Anything that would remove you from you chair would result in you being a thin paste. Then again because Star Trek has inertial dampeners that still allow you to get thrown out of your chair but not to the extent that you pancake, seatbelts would be advisable. (Or they'd just make it so their inertial dampeners aren't, you know, quite so shit. But "drama" I suppose
@@misskit123 yeah, but it's a programmed detail. We don't see her do it. None of the characters really ever come to life. Because 90% of the screen time has to revolve around Burnham and her 3 expressions acting.
@@justanotherasian4395 true, but that seems more to do with the discovery crew remaining professional and solving the problem. Voyager didn’t exactly do much to save itself
@@darena12 probably also the reason everyone died despite voyager remaining relatively well preserved (although I can’t say much for 3 decks getting smooshed together and the nacelles exploding).
It wasn’t nearly identical. Voyager had lost complete control, clipped some mountains, and hit the ground at a steepish angle and a high velocity. Discovery here managed to regain maneuverability, managed to slow down some, and managed to level out shortly before impact and so hit the ground a little more gently. If anything, this crash is more akin to the crash of the Enterprise-D than Voyager.
Lt. Detmer, finest helmswoman in Federation History, not only did she manage to mitigate what should have been total destruction, but she also manages to get the damn thing off the ground and into the space again later on. And I bet the Federation Handbook doesnt have a section on how to do that! lol
That's because all records of the ship and crew have been removed from all records and classified top secret. Now that they are in the future, any accomplishments they make will never be known. In the time they are now, there is no Federation like it was in the 24th Century.
there were seatbelts on my ships. merrill and hewitt, spruance class destroyers commissioned in 1975. i think the federation got a little too proud of itself.
I just realized that according to that episode tooling around on the Defiant on DS9, Saru should have been addressed as Captain while on the bridge because he was the acting captain at this point.
@@linuen34 Why? Because I asked a question? This somehow undermines people's happiness? If that's true, I doubt they were truly happy to begin with. So not much is lost.
How did they burst through an asteroid like that with barely a scratch while a tiny bit (compared to the size of the ship) of space rock or debris causes catastrophic damage to TNG and later era ships!?
It called a deflector dish. There is so many things in space that can go through your hull. And your are traveling over light speed. Any hull breach will fuck your ship up. That is what the deflector dish is for. Don't overthink it.
Well, this clearly doesn't happen in the star trek universe, because the only ships in the known universe that can walk away from a landing like that are voyagers shuttles. ^u^
As an OG trek fan, I can say that this season has been more interesting to me than the first two. Also, slightly off topic, but even though the first episode of Lower Decks tried too hard to cram in references to other Star Trek shows, I loved it by the end of the season and it also had a great crash scene.
Wow, you are a brave soul to throw a question like that towards the OG fans. Many of them seems to dislike/refused to accept anything that don't resemble 60's or 90's star trek episodes.
I grew up on TNG and reruns of TOS, and watched every episode of the other series over the years. I'm enjoying it so far. S1 was... needlessly dark a little too often, and the Klingon war didn't really fit in the timeline. Second season was greatly improved as the crew came together as a team, and they absolutely NAILED Pike's casting. Still had issues... but let's be honest, what Trek series HASN'T had a rough first two seasons while they try and find their groove? This season, despite the fractured future, is fully embracing the optimism and noble utopian ideals that Trek is all about. If it's not one's cup of tea, earl grey, hot, that's fine, but I wonder at a lot of the vitriol thrown at DSC. "It's new! It's different! It's not the same as Trek used to be! The way Trek used to be is the way I want it to remain!" I wonder how many complainers would be just as mad if it was a rehash of 1990s storytelling. I'm glad to see Trek back (and out of the hands of JJ Abrams). I hope years from now we can go, "Yeah, once you get past the first season or two it's as good as the Trek we grew up on." If not better, in its own ways. Always aim for better.
in Sty when the voyager crashed into the gelid planet 3 of the lower decks were crushed by the impact, but this didn't happen to the discovery as it "softened" the ground before the impact. it doesn't seem out of logic to me, as in the last films exactly in beyond the franklin when it exploded the structure wasn't very damaged after it crashed either.
Look at how the asteroids are floating so close to the surface. I would say that it was no where NEAR Earth 1G. So they ship is likely very light on that "planet".
So, not to be a troll cause I'm not...but, a few inconsistencies one may notice after repeated watches. 1) While still in the wormhole sometimes they had that distorted warped image thing happening, next second gone. Maybe just at the entrance and exits of the wormhole? 2) After they come out of it and crash into that big rock...well, poor birds. and maybe evergreens..but why no snow to be found on what looks like a frozen planet? 3) Then Ditmar flips the ship but it lands right side up. How in the hell is the deflector not gonezo after all that dragging. Anyways...cool scene! CBS should spend more on space shots than outfits and such. No offense to the wardrobe department, kudos!
she flips it 180° so the deflectrs act as heat shields, then couple of secs later rolls another 180° to level it, you wont have snow if the planet is too cold for water to evaporate and end up as clouds,in fact you dont see clouds in there. and agreed, cool scene
I still refuse to believe this is before the Mighty E's era of the JJverse. That ship managed to stay inact through all that and it actually has working deflector sheilds. JJverse's ships dont have any sheilds. The captain says sheilds up, the ship gets destroyed anyway.
Funny how a ship that was built in the 2250's can utilize a graviton and deflectors to soften a landing, yet, Enterprise 1701-D wasn't capable of doing that, same with USS Voyager from "Timeless"
The enterprise d saucer lost all of her systems due to the antimatter explosion shockwave coming from the warp core breech and voyager was violently thrown from the slipstream with no time to respond
I mean, the ships are made out of Duranium, and they're like 20 times stronger than a diamond. So Discovery surviving that asteroid seems realistic enough for the.
@@dodgeplow They don't. Gene stated at the beginning of ST that the ship cannot enter the atmosphere, and just looking at it, you can see that. So they needed a transporter, which is indeed way out there, but that far into the future, maybe it could be. Same with the other things. A ship entering the atmosphere contradicts what we know now, and what was set up in ST, unless some excuse is made. None was.
A transporter (breaking your entire body into energy, sending it somewhere that can be thousands of kilometers away, and reconsituting it (usually) without problems) is plausible, but a FTL-capable ship with artificial gravity can't have landing gear? Uh? Granted, most Trek ships aren't meant to actually land, what with being space ships and all. Voyager had landing gear, along with a few others (especially smaller ones). Others, like Discovery, could be salvaged if they were intact-usually if you're 'landing' in one you're probably in trouble to start. As for Roddenberry, the biggest reason for the transporter was to save time and money on boring landing scenes. Same with why we didn't see much of the Galaxy-class saucer separation when it was supposed to be standard procedure going into combat. I don't know that he'd say ANY ship can't land (and it'd be a bit ridiculous if he did), but the original Enterprise certainly couldn't. Or at least, it'd be rather banged up.
Not to worry . . Intersectional Space Jesus will come to save them. "thickness" and "cushion the landing" ? Shouldn't they have asked the planet for CONCENT before crashing into that glacier?
I'm watching the Discovery episode, The Wolf Within now. Discovery is stupid, shallow, and moronic. Poor story lines, terrible acting, lousy cinematography. Discovery STINKS
Season 1 didn’t have me convinced I should watch anymore, so if you’re referring to that, I kinda agree. Have to disagree when it gets to Season 2. The second season is pretty amazing, and I’d put it in the same league as some of the deeper Voyager episodes. Season 3 is really good, too. Maybe not as “Trekkie’ as the original or TNG, but excellent nonetheless.
Wow, I'm going to sound like a troll, but I legitimately dislike this show. My compulsion to watch anything called Star Trek kept me viewing in seasons 1 and 2, but after the finale of season 2, I was just checked-out. I didn't feel any compulsion to watch S3, but some reactions to this scene have piqued my curiosity enough to look it up. In short: much worse than I imagined. It's more of the same ludicrous, over-dense, fantasy VFX obtuseness that we saw in the first two seasons. Floating rocks and crashing throught the ground from underneath and falling... down!? What is this? Do they treat it like a planet from that point on? I dislike the production design, art direction, and direction of photography throughout. It's brash and shamelessly unoriginal - without even the saving grace of making a lick of sense. The ice physics in the end were dumb too. It's certainly still Star Trek Discovery, through and through - and I'm glad I decided not to watch this season.
REALLY?! Man I thought this was the best scene of ANY Star Trek related show or movie! So the physics weren't exact, do you know how much computing power and time it would take to actually make every object in these scenes move with exact physics? A lot, which equals money, which mean less money for cool shit like smashing a ship through a F**king planet! I highly doubt a majority of people are sitting there thinking about the physics of the rocks and other minor objects or even have the brain power to work it out in a moving scene, with unknown variables like gravitational forces, forces created by discovery smashing into everything, unknown velocities and trajectories ect ect. I think most people just want to see something that looks realistic and cool enough that it doesnt for a second look anything but completely seamless with great lighting, shader effects, no aliasing, no hand crafted barely believable models and sprites and excellent, well timed and attention grabbing sounds to go along with it all. I also understand there is no sound in space, but would you really prefer silence to cool explosions, engine sounds and shit ? These sort of shows and scenes like this in particular are made for the WOW and COOLNESS factor, not realism. No one wants to see a realistic and physically accurate version of something like this, that would be boring, low quality, impossible to create accurately anyway and dude no one on earth has ever flown a star ship and crashed landed it onto a planet, in the future, after emerging from a wormhole, in unknown space.... Sooooo at some point you have to say goodbye to "accuracy" and hello to creativity. And of anything in the Star Trek universe, Discovery has some damn creativity for once. The storyline is and epic arc that spans the entire series, and they don't get bogged down by little side stories which take up entire episodes and add little to nothing to the actual main storyline as has been seen in almost every other Star Trek show, I tended to get sick of watching the other shows and every week it's "oh cool we found a planet/trading post/starbase/anomalie WE MUST CHECK OUT or Ohhh we have to take aboard this random character for a while and deal with their little issues like "my quarters isnt big enough waaaaaaah". Discovery is how I'd expect a REAL federation ship and crew to act, not be self consumed and side tracked constantly with stupid little personal problems. Discovery stays on goal, keeps building on the main story arc and literally don't have time to half arse around doing little side missions or episodes where it's like Oh well today we are scanning some stupid anomalie for the Nth time so everyone just relax and lets talk crap about ourselves just to try to add some simple backstory no one even cares about. NO, I want lasers, I want explosions, I want action, I want serious perilous issues, I want people to die, I want space battles, I want characters who care more about their jobs than their damn love interests or other personal issues that take up entire episodes like the older series's. Discovery has depth of storyline that the other series's just don't have. And if you are upset about special effects like seen in this scene then I don't know what to tell you because basically with the currently level of human technology this is the sbsolute best it gets and has ever been. So yeah, if you are watching shows like Star Trek for the physics accuracy, I suggest becoming an astonomer instead, or playing a game like "EVE Online" where you can spreadsheet and math your heart out all day dealing with the effects of physics in space. As for not liking DIscovery, meh thats fine, you're under no obligations to watch it and basically you're probably one of the only people on the planet that saw this and their first thought was "I don't like this because.... Physics!" And I think by thinking about it like that, you have missed the entire point of the scene and how great it actually looks from an artistic and special effects perspective, which was what the creators 100% intended and a vast vast majority of anyone who watches it is going to be focused on. Aint no body got time for physics calculations bro! Come on! Be realistic! - RANT OVER
@@bsmith5574 I've reworded my reply a number of times, but honestly I am blown away by your message... remember that impossible geometric shape Picard and crew were going to boobytrap Hugh with to try to bring down the Collective in "I, Borg"? I now feel like the Collective trying to process that shape after reading your message. Your message, if I'm not mistaken, is "relax bro, don't think about it so much", right? That's entirely why I like Star Trek - it's really interesting to think about. Discovery is so broken and so poorly thought out it actually hurts to think about. I wish I could enjoy it in the way you do, but I can't. Please, keep enjoying the show - I envy you that. I'll stick to re-runs and Lower Decks.
@@bsmith5574 I haven't seen this episode, just this scene and you know what? It might have been interesting if I had reason to believe that the ship or any of the characters were actually in danger. I know the hero ship usually survives everything, it's a no-brainer, but there is an art to this. This is where the writer and director have to set it up to make us forget that it's the hero ship and get us to worry. Just as they used these pods in the beginning of season 2. I knew they would kill off a redshirt and that the main characters would survive before it happened and so the whole acrtion scene was wasted. The same here. If the ship can go through an asteroid that outmasses the ship and does no visible damage, all the other rocks lost any danger they could have presented. And once again, it's cute when the command to 'brace for impact' is given and no one is braced for impact. You know, I've seen the scene of the Galactica's last jump from the new Battlestar Galactica at least two dozen times and yet, it still hurts to see it every time. The Expanse? They sit in the brig of a battleship and one of the most advanced ones to boot and what happens? A shapnell goes through the hull and takes someone's head off. The message? There is no safe place. And more shockingly? The battleship looses and you can see that even the crew (those that are still alive) are shocked about it. Here? A few smudges on the hull. No hull breaches, none of the pylons bend no matter how little, nothing that makes me think that they are in real trouble. And thanks to the cheap shaking camera I can't even see if the crew shows any fear. I'm generous by saying it like this, because from what little I see it looks like they show some worry, but nothing like a fear of death in the next minutes. So why should I worry at all? P.S. These shots from far away do nothing. If you have to do them, copy the technique from Battlestar Galactica. Start with a far away shot and zoom in to enhance the trouble they are in. Or zoon out to show us how they barely miss a big rock, or scrape along one, and then show us how tiny the ship is compared to other rocks. That would have impled some danger, which of course doesn't work as I already said, if they can go through one with no visible damage.
The concept of being thrown around in space with no seatbelt is one thing that I don't quite comprehend till today from all startrek movies/series...
the star treck movies 2009 and forward have belts that "grow" from the chairs around the crew, im guessing its cooler according to someone to have them thrown around the bridge
@@Ettap96 If we had inertial dampeners in cars today, we'd immediately discontinue use of airbags and seatbelts, which carry their own significant risks of concussive and lacerative injury during collisions. Also, the kind of force applied to crew members with seat belts on will at least snap their necks off, and at worst cut up their bodies into chunks. Inertial dampeners are the reason why they are still in one piece, though thrown around the bridge.
@@bermlee I buy your explanation of the inertial dampeners allowing them to get thrown around without being injured more seriously, but most people will probably still ask why you don't have seat belts _in addition_ to the inertial dampeners. If the dampeners fail and you're getting thrown around, you're probably dead either way, so what the seat belts would do without the dampeners is irrelevant.
And a deleted scene from the end of Nemesis showed a seat belt system (similar to what @Ettap96 says is in the Kelvin timeline films) in the prime universe, although that was much later than when Discovery's ship was built. The Motion Picture also had a system similar to roller coaster lap restraints, also chronologically later than the Discovery's construction.
thats the concequence of what I would call star treks version of TIme Travel at High Speed
With the G-forces at play in starships seatbelts wouldn't do much. Anything that would remove you from you chair would result in you being a thin paste.
Then again because Star Trek has inertial dampeners that still allow you to get thrown out of your chair but not to the extent that you pancake, seatbelts would be advisable. (Or they'd just make it so their inertial dampeners aren't, you know, quite so shit. But "drama" I suppose
I'm always drawn to the pilots of Star Trek, I can't imagine the pressure the job puts on them. Detmer is badass.
Detmer is badass?
She goes all "PTSD" for a few episodes only to hear from a medic that she needs to ask for help . . .
Yeah, what a badass XD
@@larsdols3157 Alright, that was badly handled, but I like the character. She got her pilot's licence when she was 12. That's pretty cool.
@@misskit123 yeah, but it's a programmed detail. We don't see her do it.
None of the characters really ever come to life. Because 90% of the screen time has to revolve around Burnham and her 3 expressions acting.
Even experimented pilots, in real life goes to PSTD when something really bad happens, so thats not about being a badass or not, they're humans too.
@@larsdols3157 If you don't suffer from some kind of stress after trauma, that does not make you tough, that implies that you're a psychopath.
HA!!!! They just explained why Kirk and crew were groggy doing the slingshot around a sun in ST4
For a full sized ship, that was probably the best emergancy landing in Star Trek history, at least compared to any of the Enterprise crash landings.
well that was a more controlled crash. The D's saucer took a similar blow without control or shields though, and it still looked like a saucer.
@@Ty-yt3lj i was thinking more like the kelvin enterprise crash from into darkness.
The powers that be sure like to crash starships.
It shows realistic physics they use phasers for deaxlerating
Still no seatbelts though
They cut out the best part... where the whole bridge applauds Lt. Detmer for her efforts. A shame.
Joann: Brace...
Joann & Keyla: BRACE! BRACE!!!
lol I love that moment so much!
Many flight attendants know this situation all too well
Pretty sure the Universal Translator almost translated that out as "Shit...OHH SHIIIIT!"
Emergency landing drill
Lean forward Head Down !
captain to all hands..PLEASE ENGAGE EMERGENCY SAFETY SEAT BELTS
Oh wait never mind,,we don't have any.
Exactly!
Oh that's funny as a comment
They'll be installed on Tuesday...
@@moshegembom5934 I get that reference.
Remember when a nearly identical crash killed the entire crew of voyager?
To be fair, the discovery didn’t ram into a bunch of mountains before hand, and this was much more controlled.
@@justanotherasian4395 true, but that seems more to do with the discovery crew remaining professional and solving the problem. Voyager didn’t exactly do much to save itself
@@darena12 probably also the reason everyone died despite voyager remaining relatively well preserved (although I can’t say much for 3 decks getting smooshed together and the nacelles exploding).
It wasn’t nearly identical. Voyager had lost complete control, clipped some mountains, and hit the ground at a steepish angle and a high velocity. Discovery here managed to regain maneuverability, managed to slow down some, and managed to level out shortly before impact and so hit the ground a little more gently. If anything, this crash is more akin to the crash of the Enterprise-D than Voyager.
Voyager was also going MUCH faster when it crashed.
A warp capable ship with deflector shields, energy weapons, it's state of the art technology....... But not one goddamn seat belt.
Lt. Detmer, finest helmswoman in Federation History, not only did she manage to mitigate what should have been total destruction, but she also manages to get the damn thing off the ground and into the space again later on. And I bet the Federation Handbook doesnt have a section on how to do that! lol
That's because all records of the ship and crew have been removed from all records and classified top secret. Now that they are in the future, any accomplishments they make will never be known. In the time they are now, there is no Federation like it was in the 24th Century.
more like "Crashes into the Future" xD
Any crash you can walk away from is a good one
No seat belts or air bags in the 24th century?? GOSH!
Total lack of forward planning
@@stuart8taylor Total lack of LOGIC!
there were seatbelts on my ships. merrill and hewitt, spruance class destroyers commissioned in 1975. i think the federation got a little too proud of itself.
Inertial dampers are supposed to make such things unnecessary.
Air bags are not effective in such large bridge.
Another Happy Landing
Now the Enterprise D Saucer landing? Yeah that was a landing
Any landing you walk away from is a good landing.
I just realized that according to that episode tooling around on the Defiant on DS9, Saru should have been addressed as Captain while on the bridge because he was the acting captain at this point.
To be fair, DS9 happened far later than where Discovery launched from, so maybe that protocol wasn't established yet.
Detmer, kickass!
This made her my favourite character. No amount of training or simulations would have prepared her for that and she handled it like a pro.
I love her. I'm glad she's getting plot and screen time at the moment! Long may it continue.
Why? Because she went all PTSD for a few episodes, only to hear that she needs to ask for "help".
Yeah . . . what a "badass" XD
@@larsdols3157 Damn, Lars, you really woke up today and said I’m not having happy people today on someone’s comment thread. 😂
@@linuen34 Why? Because I asked a question?
This somehow undermines people's happiness?
If that's true, I doubt they were truly happy to begin with. So not much is lost.
Another happy landing!
How did they burst through an asteroid like that with barely a scratch while a tiny bit (compared to the size of the ship) of space rock or debris causes catastrophic damage to TNG and later era ships!?
Discovery was upgraded with plot armor. No beam can penetrate it.
@@larsdols3157 that plot armor is some level 999 crap.
Simple: plot armor.
It called a deflector dish. There is so many things in space that can go through your hull. And your are traveling over light speed. Any hull breach will fuck your ship up. That is what the deflector dish is for. Don't overthink it.
Because in the mid 23rd century Starfleet had competent engineers who didn’t build starships with the attitude of that will do like the enterprise D
Funny how there is no seat belts in the future.
I'd totally forgotten they actually crash landed!
If the kelvin timeline did one thing right it was having seatbelts
so how many esp are on CBSAA now?
Well, this clearly doesn't happen in the star trek universe, because the only ships in the known universe that can walk away from a landing like that are voyagers shuttles. ^u^
i wonder how the OG trek fans are finding this season so far?
As an OG trek fan, I can say that this season has been more interesting to me than the first two. Also, slightly off topic, but even though the first episode of Lower Decks tried too hard to cram in references to other Star Trek shows, I loved it by the end of the season and it also had a great crash scene.
Wow, you are a brave soul to throw a question like that towards the OG fans. Many of them seems to dislike/refused to accept anything that don't resemble 60's or 90's star trek episodes.
I grew up on TNG and reruns of TOS, and watched every episode of the other series over the years. I'm enjoying it so far. S1 was... needlessly dark a little too often, and the Klingon war didn't really fit in the timeline. Second season was greatly improved as the crew came together as a team, and they absolutely NAILED Pike's casting. Still had issues... but let's be honest, what Trek series HASN'T had a rough first two seasons while they try and find their groove? This season, despite the fractured future, is fully embracing the optimism and noble utopian ideals that Trek is all about.
If it's not one's cup of tea, earl grey, hot, that's fine, but I wonder at a lot of the vitriol thrown at DSC. "It's new! It's different! It's not the same as Trek used to be! The way Trek used to be is the way I want it to remain!" I wonder how many complainers would be just as mad if it was a rehash of 1990s storytelling. I'm glad to see Trek back (and out of the hands of JJ Abrams). I hope years from now we can go, "Yeah, once you get past the first season or two it's as good as the Trek we grew up on." If not better, in its own ways. Always aim for better.
Here’s the biggest complaint about Trek: why are they not seated and strapped in?
James T. Kirk USS Enterprise Arrives To The Future.
Didn't Denzal Washington do this with an aeroplane 🤔🤣
in Sty when the voyager crashed into the gelid planet 3 of the lower decks were crushed by the impact, but this didn't happen to the discovery as it "softened" the ground before the impact. it doesn't seem out of logic to me, as in the last films exactly in beyond the franklin when it exploded the structure wasn't very damaged after it crashed either.
Look at how the asteroids are floating so close to the surface. I would say that it was no where NEAR Earth 1G. So they ship is likely very light on that "planet".
plus they fired graviton beam to cushion their landing
Another happy landing, I would said...
Has Starfleet not heard of seatbelts?
I thought they were all going to die.....damn.
They land that ship in one piece though!
So????
No seat belts in the future if space travel?
Seems like people are coming around on this show, or it's getting better.
Not a Earth 1G place....much lighter.
Remember discovery went through the wormhole at full impulse and that wormhole properly gave them more speed
So, not to be a troll cause I'm not...but, a few inconsistencies one may notice after repeated watches. 1) While still in the wormhole sometimes they had that distorted warped image thing happening, next second gone. Maybe just at the entrance and exits of the wormhole? 2) After they come out of it and crash into that big rock...well, poor birds. and maybe evergreens..but why no snow to be found on what looks like a frozen planet? 3) Then Ditmar flips the ship but it lands right side up. How in the hell is the deflector not gonezo after all that dragging. Anyways...cool scene! CBS should spend more on space shots than outfits and such. No offense to the wardrobe department, kudos!
she flips it 180° so the deflectrs act as heat shields, then couple of secs later rolls another 180° to level it, you wont have snow if the planet is too cold for water to evaporate and end up as clouds,in fact you dont see clouds in there. and agreed, cool scene
my question. why they dont have seatbelts? hehehe
I think seatbelts would still be useless... I mean you can already see at the video why...
It might even break your bones lol...
They did much better than Voyagers glacier landing. Not to shabby for an old starship.
Two completely different accidents.
I still refuse to believe this is before the Mighty E's era of the JJverse. That ship managed to stay inact through all that and it actually has working deflector sheilds. JJverse's ships dont have any sheilds. The captain says sheilds up, the ship gets destroyed anyway.
And what i meant by "That ship" was USS Discovery
You must remember that Discovery is a prototype, an advance science vessel that predated Kirk's time.
@@olindetroit7636 The ship isnt its the spore drive that's the prototype But yeah she was a protype
You had to fuck it all up by adding that useless footage at the end.
Where. Are. Seatbelts.
I don't understand. Why are they hurt? All that diversity should've shielded them from injury.
Funny how a ship that was built in the 2250's can utilize a graviton and deflectors to soften a landing, yet, Enterprise 1701-D wasn't capable of doing that, same with USS Voyager from "Timeless"
The enterprise d saucer lost all of her systems due to the antimatter explosion shockwave coming from the warp core breech and voyager was violently thrown from the slipstream with no time to respond
@@jordanreed3675 Also I think the crew of the discovery are a little more proactive when it comes to quick, out of the box thinking.
Spheretext
One of the FEW good parts in season 3.
What the hell is that inane music for at the end of every Star Treck clip. 🤢
Tidal forces are nastier than g forces huh? Did these writers not have access to any technical material or fuck Wikipedia?
You think that Star Fleet would install seat belts by now.
One word....SEAT BELTS
the outro sucks so hard....
Seatbelts people
all this technology and no seatbelts. fuck sake
This sequence was fantastic... until they crashed through an asteroid and were totally fine
I mean, the ships are made out of Duranium, and they're like 20 times stronger than a diamond. So Discovery surviving that asteroid seems realistic enough for the.
@@RuminatingKiwi927 20 times stronger than a diamond is not very strong. Diamonds break easily.
It is so ridiculous any time I see a starship enter the atmosphere of any planet. It just removes the plausibility of things.
like the teleporters, food generators, shields, etc don't?
@@dodgeplow They don't. Gene stated at the beginning of ST that the ship cannot enter the atmosphere, and just looking at it, you can see that. So they needed a transporter, which is indeed way out there, but that far into the future, maybe it could be. Same with the other things. A ship entering the atmosphere contradicts what we know now, and what was set up in ST, unless some excuse is made. None was.
A transporter (breaking your entire body into energy, sending it somewhere that can be thousands of kilometers away, and reconsituting it (usually) without problems) is plausible, but a FTL-capable ship with artificial gravity can't have landing gear? Uh?
Granted, most Trek ships aren't meant to actually land, what with being space ships and all. Voyager had landing gear, along with a few others (especially smaller ones). Others, like Discovery, could be salvaged if they were intact-usually if you're 'landing' in one you're probably in trouble to start.
As for Roddenberry, the biggest reason for the transporter was to save time and money on boring landing scenes. Same with why we didn't see much of the Galaxy-class saucer separation when it was supposed to be standard procedure going into combat. I don't know that he'd say ANY ship can't land (and it'd be a bit ridiculous if he did), but the original Enterprise certainly couldn't. Or at least, it'd be rather banged up.
@@shmuelgoldstein9020 Pretty sure that was just an excuse to save money
damn...would have been nice if they would have blown up....would have saved a lot of $$$ for the studio with this turd floating show....
Not to worry . . Intersectional Space Jesus will come to save them.
"thickness" and "cushion the landing" ? Shouldn't they have asked the planet for CONCENT before crashing into that glacier?
I'm watching the Discovery episode, The Wolf Within now. Discovery is stupid, shallow, and moronic. Poor story lines, terrible acting, lousy cinematography. Discovery STINKS
Like you.
@@kyt895 thanks for liking me
Season 1 didn’t have me convinced I should watch anymore, so if you’re referring to that, I kinda agree. Have to disagree when it gets to Season 2. The second season is pretty amazing, and I’d put it in the same league as some of the deeper Voyager episodes. Season 3 is really good, too. Maybe not as “Trekkie’ as the original or TNG, but excellent nonetheless.
woke crap ruined startrek
Wow, I'm going to sound like a troll, but I legitimately dislike this show. My compulsion to watch anything called Star Trek kept me viewing in seasons 1 and 2, but after the finale of season 2, I was just checked-out. I didn't feel any compulsion to watch S3, but some reactions to this scene have piqued my curiosity enough to look it up.
In short: much worse than I imagined.
It's more of the same ludicrous, over-dense, fantasy VFX obtuseness that we saw in the first two seasons. Floating rocks and crashing throught the ground from underneath and falling... down!? What is this? Do they treat it like a planet from that point on? I dislike the production design, art direction, and direction of photography throughout. It's brash and shamelessly unoriginal - without even the saving grace of making a lick of sense. The ice physics in the end were dumb too.
It's certainly still Star Trek Discovery, through and through - and I'm glad I decided not to watch this season.
REALLY?! Man I thought this was the best scene of ANY Star Trek related show or movie! So the physics weren't exact, do you know how much computing power and time it would take to actually make every object in these scenes move with exact physics? A lot, which equals money, which mean less money for cool shit like smashing a ship through a F**king planet! I highly doubt a majority of people are sitting there thinking about the physics of the rocks and other minor objects or even have the brain power to work it out in a moving scene, with unknown variables like gravitational forces, forces created by discovery smashing into everything, unknown velocities and trajectories ect ect. I think most people just want to see something that looks realistic and cool enough that it doesnt for a second look anything but completely seamless with great lighting, shader effects, no aliasing, no hand crafted barely believable models and sprites and excellent, well timed and attention grabbing sounds to go along with it all. I also understand there is no sound in space, but would you really prefer silence to cool explosions, engine sounds and shit ? These sort of shows and scenes like this in particular are made for the WOW and COOLNESS factor, not realism. No one wants to see a realistic and physically accurate version of something like this, that would be boring, low quality, impossible to create accurately anyway and dude no one on earth has ever flown a star ship and crashed landed it onto a planet, in the future, after emerging from a wormhole, in unknown space.... Sooooo at some point you have to say goodbye to "accuracy" and hello to creativity. And of anything in the Star Trek universe, Discovery has some damn creativity for once. The storyline is and epic arc that spans the entire series, and they don't get bogged down by little side stories which take up entire episodes and add little to nothing to the actual main storyline as has been seen in almost every other Star Trek show, I tended to get sick of watching the other shows and every week it's "oh cool we found a planet/trading post/starbase/anomalie WE MUST CHECK OUT or Ohhh we have to take aboard this random character for a while and deal with their little issues like "my quarters isnt big enough waaaaaaah". Discovery is how I'd expect a REAL federation ship and crew to act, not be self consumed and side tracked constantly with stupid little personal problems. Discovery stays on goal, keeps building on the main story arc and literally don't have time to half arse around doing little side missions or episodes where it's like Oh well today we are scanning some stupid anomalie for the Nth time so everyone just relax and lets talk crap about ourselves just to try to add some simple backstory no one even cares about. NO, I want lasers, I want explosions, I want action, I want serious perilous issues, I want people to die, I want space battles, I want characters who care more about their jobs than their damn love interests or other personal issues that take up entire episodes like the older series's. Discovery has depth of storyline that the other series's just don't have. And if you are upset about special effects like seen in this scene then I don't know what to tell you because basically with the currently level of human technology this is the sbsolute best it gets and has ever been. So yeah, if you are watching shows like Star Trek for the physics accuracy, I suggest becoming an astonomer instead, or playing a game like "EVE Online" where you can spreadsheet and math your heart out all day dealing with the effects of physics in space. As for not liking DIscovery, meh thats fine, you're under no obligations to watch it and basically you're probably one of the only people on the planet that saw this and their first thought was "I don't like this because.... Physics!" And I think by thinking about it like that, you have missed the entire point of the scene and how great it actually looks from an artistic and special effects perspective, which was what the creators 100% intended and a vast vast majority of anyone who watches it is going to be focused on. Aint no body got time for physics calculations bro! Come on! Be realistic! - RANT OVER
@@bsmith5574 I've reworded my reply a number of times, but honestly I am blown away by your message... remember that impossible geometric shape Picard and crew were going to boobytrap Hugh with to try to bring down the Collective in "I, Borg"?
I now feel like the Collective trying to process that shape after reading your message.
Your message, if I'm not mistaken, is "relax bro, don't think about it so much", right?
That's entirely why I like Star Trek - it's really interesting to think about. Discovery is so broken and so poorly thought out it actually hurts to think about. I wish I could enjoy it in the way you do, but I can't.
Please, keep enjoying the show - I envy you that. I'll stick to re-runs and Lower Decks.
@@bsmith5574 I haven't seen this episode, just this scene and you know what? It might have been interesting if I had reason to believe that the ship or any of the characters were actually in danger. I know the hero ship usually survives everything, it's a no-brainer, but there is an art to this. This is where the writer and director have to set it up to make us forget that it's the hero ship and get us to worry.
Just as they used these pods in the beginning of season 2. I knew they would kill off a redshirt and that the main characters would survive before it happened and so the whole acrtion scene was wasted. The same here. If the ship can go through an asteroid that outmasses the ship and does no visible damage, all the other rocks lost any danger they could have presented.
And once again, it's cute when the command to 'brace for impact' is given and no one is braced for impact.
You know, I've seen the scene of the Galactica's last jump from the new Battlestar Galactica at least two dozen times and yet, it still hurts to see it every time.
The Expanse? They sit in the brig of a battleship and one of the most advanced ones to boot and what happens? A shapnell goes through the hull and takes someone's head off. The message? There is no safe place. And more shockingly? The battleship looses and you can see that even the crew (those that are still alive) are shocked about it.
Here? A few smudges on the hull. No hull breaches, none of the pylons bend no matter how little, nothing that makes me think that they are in real trouble.
And thanks to the cheap shaking camera I can't even see if the crew shows any fear. I'm generous by saying it like this, because from what little I see it looks like they show some worry, but nothing like a fear of death in the next minutes.
So why should I worry at all?
P.S. These shots from far away do nothing. If you have to do them, copy the technique from Battlestar Galactica. Start with a far away shot and zoom in to enhance the trouble they are in. Or zoon out to show us how they barely miss a big rock, or scrape along one, and then show us how tiny the ship is compared to other rocks. That would have impled some danger, which of course doesn't work as I already said, if they can go through one with no visible damage.
Oh good Lord boo-hoo 😂 good thing it’s not real… Like some people seem to think for some reason 😂
I love it now, especially because of Season 2 and the ending. Great stuff. A little different that typical Trek, but pretty awesome in my opinion.
E/(m(c^c))=EB