Gene Roddenberry always wanted Star Trek
to be grounded and plausible. In developing the show, he consulted with multiple scientists, engineers, researchers, and think tanks, when most SFTV producers would've been content just to make up a bunch of random nonsense. For Star Trek: The Motion Picture
, he used technical consultants including Isaac Asimov, NASA rocket scientist Dr. Jesco von Puttkamer, and astronaut Rusty Schweickart for the spacewalk scenes. It's true that he still took poetic license when it fit the story, as any creator of fiction should, but he still tried to keep one foot in credible territory as much as he could. He didn't always live up to that aspiration, and most of his successors haven't made much of an effort to try, but his intent was for Star Trek
to be a reasonably plausible franchise, and I try to be true to that intent.
Besides, it's a mistake to think that all Trek literature has to be written with the same style or approach. Different authors bring their own distinctive voices and mindsets, focusing on different facets of the whole. Part of the enduring appeal of ST is that it has the breadth and depth to support such a wide range of storytelling styles, and can offer something for everyone. There can be ST fiction that appeals to fans of military SF, fans of political intrigue tales, fans of high adventure, fans of intimate, character-driven stories, fans of comedy, fans of horror, etc. So there's certainly no reason there can't be Trek Lit written for fans of hard science fiction. Due to the plausible grounding Roddenberry tried to give it, there's room in the franchise for tales with a hard-SF idiom. And I'm certainly not the first writer of hard-SF Star Trek
; I'm following in the footsteps of authors like David Gerrold (in his Bantam novel The Galactic Whirlpool
), Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens, Jerry Oltion, Pamela Sargent, and George Zebrowski.