Yes, but it was specifically designed to do so, and even had landing gear.
Not sure what the problem was…they had some shield capability (as seen by surviving an anti matter explosion at close range, and the saucer was deflecting the friction some.
YES!
Oh, come on. Watch the scene again – it’s even dumber than I remembered.. In real life, your inertial compensators (or whatever) don’t fail just enough to fling people picturesquely across rooms but not hard enough to cause multiple fractures and death while a billion ton starship plows its way across a planet’s surface. The scenes with the doctor leading groups of panicked children into a bedroom so they can huddle on a thin cot while the ship is plunging through the atmosphere at hundreds of miles per hour is particularly risible.
:dubious:
Maybe you could share the specs for those “real life” inertial compensators with the rest of us. Which whacky assumptions starting at FTL, artificial gravity, and phasers that make shooty noises in the vacuum of space, the only risible thing here is Comic Book Guying about the made-up fantasy science not meeting the high standards of some random guy on the Internet.
See, the problem here is that we know nothing about the physics of FTL, artificial gravity and phasers “that make shooty noises”. But we know a metric craploadabout what happens whenbig metal things fall out of the sky.
And absolutely nothing about what happens when a big metal thing falls out of the sky while equipped with magical technology. It’s a silly neckbeard argument.
This. It’s glaringly obvious that the sensible way to avoid detection is just stay in orbit, timing the operation for local noon so you’re in the daytime sky, and that the Hunt For Red Enterprise thing was written to “justify” a kewl FX scene.
I think calling someone a “neckbeard” because they actually prefer actual physics in their science fiction is both dismissive and rather insulting. But your mileage obviously varies.
Let’s discuss this without namecalling, shall we?