- 16,940
- 4,844
It is not. Your essentially arguing that even when the landing location isn't in view, they are still going to slow just because the planet was known for literally no reason or purpose. That doesn't make any sense.
I actually don't have to, because the arguments here are made to fit within these standards. Slowing happens only when the location comes into view, so you can discern when to slow after getting that information.
That information, here, doesn't come simply from seeing the planet. They need to see the landing spot on the planet before discerning when to slow. You are not going to slow yourself until you see the place your going to approach. That being the landing spot.
"Many people"
2 regular users (1 being the OP) agreed with this before I brought in the recent arguments. Then you have 1 other staff member here, who fled mid way into this. These points as of late also weren't brought up when they were here, so that makes their vote null.
Sure, appeal to popularity, but one single person (you) disagreeing with this absolutely isn't grounds to dismiss. Especially when another staff sides with me to make this just as equal.
This assumption only exists if you assume they have to accelerate for quite a period of time, which is unfounded and stacking another assumption here. It also doesn't make sense since if slowing was to begin before approaching the planet, the light streak would have dissipated before even getting into the atmosphere, which absolutely isn't depicted.
See above. But to add more to it, the scene shows us that the light streak dissipates when near the ground at the end, showing it leaves when slowing.
