I can see my blood pressure won't let me come back to this thread again. Especially ridiculous and galling is some people's dismissal of original Trek, of all things, as bad SF, just a space adventure. I'm glad someone rebutted that with a list of things Trek got right, things they didn't have to worry about to make a space adventure. No one else on TV cared what a galaxy or light-year was, or cared about the astronomy. They didn't have to care, but they did and got it right.
I'm sick of this happening: When slamming a show, people will often hold it up to nitpicky, absolutist standards that they don't hold their favorites up to. One technical mistake does not by itself destroy an SF show's value or credibility as SF, even if it's a big mistake.
Take Sp:99 year one. I also wish that the basic premise of the Moon heading for deep space at warp speed was viable. But once you give them a pass on that one issue, you have a brilliantly conceived SF series which we'd never have had, without that basic premise. And I disagree violently about year one not dealing well with character personalities or human issues. They concentrated on humans' experience of the isolation, disempowerment, desperation, etc, of these people in that bizarre and grim situation. People miss it because it's done subtly and with economy. They don't wallow in personal lives and hobbies and careers like Next Gen, but that's part of what makes Sp:99 yr 1 great. They concentrated on the larger picture.
The mysterious forces and episode endings were intentional. They wanted you to think and imagine in response to them. Anything we encounter out there won't be wrapped up and understood completely in an hour, and there are things we won't ever understand.
Someone said that no TV SF can possibly match any written SF. There are many brilliant SF TV episodes, and much horrible written SF. I agree, though, that great, classic, written SF is the standard TV SF should shoot for.