- OrderedComa
- |
- Noble Member
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Pointless argument. The only thing the PoA has ever done in an atmosphere is crash. Sure, manuevering it may be possible but I doubt flying it is.
Alpha Halo is a completely different scenario than landing a ship such as the Autumn on a UNSC controlled planet under normal circumstances. It would be hard because they don't have any equipment to help it land. And the landing in CE was hardly a crash, it was glided in, which (to me) implies that it can fly in the atmosphere, it was simply out of the ordinary circumstances and a proper landing was out of the question, so it they had to make a crash landing, much like a a plane having to land in a large, empty field.
Except for The Flood stating it can't, and the fact that you don't "fly" in space. Space is closer to water than air.
Except the Flood didn't say anything of the sort. I'd consider space more of a mix between the two really, but w/e, this is kind of irrelevant :P
Check again, the ship was never in the atmosphere. You are seeing them drop INTO the atmosphere and the sky begins to turn blue as they do, which makes it appear that the Enterprise is in atmosphere. If the part I am assuming isn't the same Star Trek movie (aka J.J. Abrams version) then please tell me which one and what part so that I may go grab it and check for myself. But I can absolutely gaurantee that pretty much no Federation starships the size of the Enterprise are rated for flight within large gravity wells just as the book The Flood states it isn't rated for the same.
Keep in mind that the phrase "in atmosphere" has nothing to do with the atmosphere itself, but the gravity well of the planet being strong enough to move the object significantly. It is just usual that the atmosphere of a planet marks where that gravity well becomes significant enough for worry.
I'm talking about the J.J. Abrams version. And I distinctly remember the Enterprise being inside the atmosphere of the Vulcan's planet.
I thought it was fine. The Fall of Reach was not just about Reach. Many books are not necessarily going to include their title right away or even significantly. Hell, I just read Ben Bova's Moonwar and 90% of the book was talking, political negotiations and the like. Only a fraction of it even included any war and most of it was very subdued.
Well I didn't think it was fine, the flow into the Battle of Reach was executed rather poorly, imo. No, but with most books I've read the title figures a lot into the plot even if a specific event it mentions does not occur 'til later. And I'm pretty sure that's the norm for the majority of books. TFoR, it just didn't do that, and I think it suffered a bit for that.
And from the sounds of the book you are mentioning it sounds like what I was talking about earlier, there would be mentions of preventing a moon war or events that inevitably, and obviously, bring the war about. But I really can't say for certain since I haven't read it.
It isn't explained. Read the journal or stop referencing it.
I can reference it all I want or need. As I said, sources I trust, both people I know, and reading the summary of the Journal on Halopedia, which corelates with what I've learned from people I know, are what have led to that conclusion and claim. It's not the same as reading the Journal, no, but that does not make your opinion more valid because you were already biased against Reach. I may be biased toward the opinion that Reach didn't break canon, but I didn't start that way, I was willing to explore options and see how things still fit together (if they did) and I know that they can and do fit.