More than once on Star Trek we've seen the crew happen upon the home of a long-dead alien race whose technology somehow still operates after being left unattended for thousands of years. This strains credulity a little bit, if for no other reason that these planets always have oxygen atmospheres, and stuff left unattended in an oxygen atmosphere will inevitably decay to some extent. But suppose you took a starship, vented the atmosphere, dumped the antimatter and the torpedoes, powered everything down, and then left it somewhere in space where it wouldn't be pulled into the gravity well of a star or planet and would be reasonably safe from meteor or cometary impacts? If you came back say, 5,000 years later and "jumpstarted" the ship could you reasonably expect everything to still work for the most part? Obviously the durability of imaginary technology mostly depends upon the demands of whatever story it appears in, but I'm wondering if this is at all credible.
I'd rather argue that ultimately, technology that survives for millions of years will become not only available but also predominant, because there's no good reason not to make it that durable. If a civilization ever gets past the stage we're on now, and obtains infinite energy resources (say, puts a few solar collector satellites in orbit), it will either self-destruct or grow out of consumerism and scarcity. Somewhat unrealistically, the Federation doesn't appear to have gotten past this stage yet, but it probably will, soon enough. Protecting against oxidation should appear trivial. Just use pre-oxidized materials (ceramics) where atmospheric contact is expected. And if you can't avoid decay, you can always build self-repairing structures. A touch of rust there? The nanites will yank out the nasty electrons and restore chemical balance, as long as they don't run out of power - and why should they, when they require so little and the universe has so much to offer? On a somewhat different note, some of the Ancients might be quite motivated to create technology that survives eternally and is easy to operate by strange aliens who have evolved in place of the life the Ancients themselves knew before they died out / ascended / got bored and left / whatever. Others might make damn sure that anybody who tries to understand their secrets or utilize their machines not only dies horribly, but condemns his, her or its entire species to horrible death as well. But Angels probably win over Berserkers in the long run: while the latter have an easier task, the former have more means available. They can fight fire with fire, destroying the booby-trapped handiwork of evil cultures, while simultaneously spreading their own benign technology for everybody to enjoy. The Berserkers won't do the latter. Timo Saloniemi
I agree very much with what Timo said. One basic assumption we can make about advanced alien societies in the STAR TREK universe, still living or long dead, is that they have mastered advanced technologies that make interstellar travel (maybe even miracles like intergalactic travel, plus others such as planet-building or Dyson Sphere building) practical. Societies on that technological level presumably command powers and technical abilities far beyond our own. They can, by definition, exceed the speed of light. Why should we assume that their technology deteriorates with age? Preventing oxidation from being an issue would simply be a matter of chemistry and engineering/design. In the case of the Kalaandans in "That Which Survives", their planet has breathable atmosphere, but negligible moisture. Things do tend to last longer in a desert climate. (Let's also not forget that the Kaladan outpost was shielded in a cave that looked like a controlled environment) The Preservers ("The Paradise Syndrome") had interstellar travel ability, managed to transplant humans from Earth to other worlds, and also placed an asteroid deflector on at least another of those worlds. (And said deflector was composed of an alloy that could effectively block scanning probes.) In these scenarios, if an aging piece of technology begins to malfunction, it could be due to a variety of circumstances. But assuming that ancient technology would be expected to decay and fail automatically because of exposure to a Class M planet does not make sense when you're talking about a spacefaring civilization. And yes, if a space vessel, such as a Federation starship, were to be deactivated and purged to be left dormant, there's every reason to believe that a properly equipped and trained team could arrive many years or even millennia later to re-activate said craft. (Of course, said craft is likely to be considered obsolete if its builders managed to continue steady advancement in the meantime, so the ship would likely be boarded for scientific/archaeological reasons rather than salvage ones.)
Actually, the main reason why technology breaks down in the first place is because its DESIGNED to break down. We intentionally use monetarily cheap materials as opposed to superior synthetic materials that can be made in sustainable abundance (which we had the ability to do for decades). Money and profits are the main reason why planned obsolescence exists in real life... and people who don't know any better accept this as something that is 'natural'... except... its not. Technology today can already be self-maintaining as well as work continuously if a proper power source is provided and is designed from the get go to be self-maintaining (metamaterials and various combinations of synthetic derivatives can acomplish this). In space... there is no shortage of energy available... whether from stars or other suitable environments. The Feds were initially portrayed as having fantastic abilities... ones that are far more in line with a much more automated society... but this premise was shunned to the side to not distance the viewers too much from what they saw in consumer based society in real life... hence hierarchical command structures as well as putting people with little experience into menial positions, even though we ALREADY have the technology in real life where everything and anythign could conceivably be automated. The Federation would easily exceed those capabilities by immesurable amounts. In short... Trek was dumbed down severely.
...Before the airing of the first episode, that is. The hierarchy and the menial jobs were there already in the first pilot. And the slope seems to grow steeper. Books from the 17th century could be considered eternal if properly kept on a standard household shelf; books from the 19th are thrash that will decay in a matter of decades; books from the mid-20th century may be good and durable paper or then material specifically designed not to stand the test of time; magnetic tapes and disks from the 1970s-80s are somewhat sensitive to the environment; and CDs from the 1990s and beyond will corrode in no time flat if they haven't been scratched to uselessness before that. Since then, data has gone media-free, but that only introduces a new set of problems, as data may become unusable in anything ranging from years to seconds if the software doesn't get properly supported and perpetuated. And the "years" part doesn't seem to exceed five nowadays. Heck, five years ago, I couldn't be bothered to print out my digital photographs; now I have to, as no reliable storage media exist any more. ...Supposedly weren't more "ancient" than, say, Ben Franklin, so their equipment surviving till the 2260s isn't necessarily a statement for longevity. But they seem to come from that user-friendly lot of Ancients who make their gear easily operable and include engraved instructions - very similar to the folks that built the Stargates for That Other Show. Timo Saloniemi
Indeed... though Rodenberry DID have ideas about 'new Humans' in the 23rd century which suspiciously represented the types of Humans (and other races?) that might emerge on a large scale by living in a 'Resource Based Economy' (The Venus Project). This was conveniently pushed aside. He actually wanted the Federation in the 24th century to explore other galaxies (which is FAR more in line with exponential development in technology - though with multiple species working together, the Feds by the 24th century would be even MORE advanced than that). Lack of reliable storage is a fault of the monetary system. Any system in which you have money and ultimately profits for continued existence will continue to FORCE planned obsolescence because the businesses will want to make profits in the long run. But as such, planned obsolescence is insanely wasteful... and on top of that, we DON'T get state of the art technology to boot... we get derivatives of derivatives based on 'existing' materials and methodologies for no other reason but because they are 'cost efficient' (seeing how transitioning to new methods of production and superior synthetic materials and state of the art science - which would incidentally generate technology that would for all intense and purposes to most seem like 'magic' - is perceived as 'too expensive', regardless that we had the resources and the knowledge and the know how to do it for a long time). The Federation (supposedly) doesn't limit itself artificially like this... hence what we barely got to saw was likely but a fraction of their full scope which was never realized on TV. Agreed... the Federation also follows a similar principle on user friendliness and instruction manuals. I guess the novels can more or less easily remove the planned obsolescence aspect from Federation tech. I think they do have a tendency to expand vastly on their technical capabilities.
Starfleet and the Klingon Empire, in the late 24th century are still using hundred year old starships that don't seem to be slowing down, just getting regulated to lesser jobs. In the 23rd century it seemed like starships had a much smaller expected lifespan (25 - 40 years). Some of the freighter designs might be two hundred or more years old and perfectly fine for moving cargo.
Good point. The Feds and Klingons DO seem to be using over 80 year old ships (not really 100 year old ones) such as the Miranda class and Excelsior. This does give an indication that they design their star-ships to be highly modular from the get go... allowing new upgrades to be installed in their old ships (why waste a working star-ship that just has to undergo a refit to bring it up to par with other modern ships? Though realistically, those ships would be undergoing regular refits during the service anyway as technology evolved in the first place - I find it rather implausible SF would leave 80 year old ships in service without any upgrades, even if they were on long term exploratory missions - the crews could do upgrades in space itself and the rest would be done either in pit stops or upon return to a drydock). Plus... if those ships ever become old enough to the point where new technology would be fundamentally incompatible (though not really since you could conceivably just gut out the old, harvest its resources and build the new, then replace it in the old frame), then they would simply harvest the ships for their resources and built 2 or more new ships out of 1 old (the process of technical efficiency allowing to do more by doing less - something which the writers conveniently forget).
...Or then a ship that turns forty in the 2280s is still perfectly fine and good for another forty or eighty years - but if said ship gets damaged, it's not worth the effort to repair her. Building an all-new ship would cost the same and give an additional 40 years of life, and perhaps a few additional capabilities that can't be retrofitted to older designs. OTOH, it might be economical never to upgrade older ships, because the demand will always be there for "lesser" designs as well (Starfleet and its threatening neighbors may evolve, but the universe on the average does not). Better to build new ships when new capabilities are needed, but not retire the older ones. OTTH (Hi there, Arex, give us a wave!), Starfleet does appear chronically short on ships. Something precludes them from manufacturing a sufficient number, or keeping a sufficient number operational simultaneously. If it's the latter, if for example there's only so much dilithium to share between the fleet, then scrapping old ships and building new ones would make good sense. But Starfleet doesn't do that - we see the old designs still in use, despite the overall ship shortage. So the bottleneck might be in construction. But how can that be, in a replicator-equipped culture? Timo Saloniemi
Maybe they just need some FASA writers to do their fleet numbers. Worked for the Klingon Imperial Navy...
You mean the Imperial Navy with well over 400 D7 battlecruisers at a time when Starfleet has 13 Constitutions and about 200 other modern (and yet entirely outclassed) ships. This is without counting the hundreds of other Klingon warships. Just the D7 which are superior to everything Starfleet has aside from the Constitutions? Yea, the Four Years War is like that in FASA. They make up for it when the phasers come out and dominate the Klingons...but simple numbers favor the Klingons...unless Starfleet had a lot of older ships that are just not coverd because they were built before the technological revolution that was the Constitution-class starship. Star Trek: Axanar helps to fill the gap with at least something...even if the Kelvin style ships are inferior to the Klingon ships...at least they might have something in numbers to stand up to the Klingons.
Well, they very visibly follow a simple and classic registry scheme, with 1400 and 1500 range numbers before the Ares with 1650 and the Constitution with 1700 enter the picture. That doesn't really allow for hundreds upon hundreds of ships. Although it does allow for hundreds... Timo Saloniemi
The 23rd century did not possessed (or so it seems) replicator technology. Given the size of the Federation, using non-replicator methods should have filled the sky with Connies. So why not? It would make sense that it was a material bottle neck somewhere. Either that or the Federation possessed a philosophical restriction on build too large a fleet.
Material restriction seems unlikely even without replicators. Technical efficiency allows us (Humans in real life today) to do more by using less. For instance, there's enough raw material on the landfills alone so we can generate 10 times more compared to what we do now, using 3 times less resources (and we already generate abundance - more than enough for every person on the planet in every field). Extraction of new materials from the Earth is entirely unnecessary at this point... seeing how using the landfills would also spend less power compared to extraction and transportation of raw materials which then have to be taken for processing. Recycling could conceivably be done on the spot. A philosophical restriction seems like a more logical description because the Federation is supposedly not an empire that wages wars with other cultures (though I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more ships which would be able to respond faster inside Federation space)... seeing how the Federation technical efficiency would easily trump our own by thousands of orders of magnitude by the 23rd century (most likely - that is, if you take into account exponential rise in automation and technology into account). In SOL alone, the asteroid field could be easily used for the purpose of harvesting raw materials and creating starships from that using computerized automation. Upgrading ships would probably be done by harvesting their own components and whatever else needs upgrading for their raw materials and synthesizing anywhere between 2 and 10 new components (or hull panels) from the harvested materials (figuring if the upgrades in question come after every 6 months or a year) - because with multiple races working together and focusing on technical efficiency (which is what Federation likes to do), they'd be more than able to create far more with less like we can.
The philosophical restriction thing sounds a bit iffy: Starfleet as shown is short on ships and often arrives (almost) too late to aid in humanitarian crises or other disasters or to obtain scientific results on time-critical phenomena - yet even this number of ships is sufficient for waging major wars (at least after a couple of years of amassing forces). The two arguments on ship numbers don't appear to meet: too little is already too much. Then again, philosophy doesn't need to make sense. It just needs to appear to make sense until the PhD is secured... Timo Saloniemi
It could indicate that while SF might have 'enough' ships, most of them could be engaged in exploratory missions with a certain/sizeable number being left behind. But space is big... and even though the Feds SHOULD have equivalent speeds of Quantum Slipstream V2 by the mid/late 24th century through Warp alone, taking into consideration what we saw on-screen... most of the time, drama trumps the number of ships at SF disposal and of course space is pretty big. Realistically, it doesn't make sense why Humanitarian missions would be necessarily required because every single colony, etc. would have more than enough resources and technology for self-sufficiency and contingency plans that would kick in during emergencies.
Well one thing to note is that Federation starships use parts made from odd alloys that might be difficult to create, or take time to create, thus slowing down construction while the metals and compounds are produced to the quality required for warp capable starships. Also there might be a lot of rare and exotic materials used for components (aside from dilithium) that reduce the ability to produce certain things on starships. It might be easier to build certain styles of ships and civilian ships that might not require some of the more exotic materials for the improved sensor systems, shield systems, and weapons on larger starships, and the larger and faster warp cores of Federation starships. Some of these materials might be able to survive a thousand years with minimal wear.
In the Trek reality, an interstellar colony isn't much different from a boy scout camp. It takes almost zero resources to pitch a tent on a Class M world; once you have been dropped off the ship, it might be that you have no technology whatsoever at your disposal, let alone what you would need after a devastating earthquake, forest fire, or outbreak of disease. This goes for esoteric agrarian colonies and profit-churning mines alike: they have it way too easy with the Earth-like environments, and would be wasting their money if equipping for true self-sufficiency. Better to have outsiders bail them out of the once-in-a-century calamities. Also, there's always the danger of raiders: the defensive resources of a colony would be known, and the attacker could scale his to be sufficiently greater. Even a single starship rushing to help might be enough to restore the balance, as most raiders would shy away from expensive overkill. Networking and counting on Starfleet sounds like a valid stratagem in this environment. That Starfleet is underequipped to cope is something of a mystery, perhaps best explained by constant and unexpected expansion of the UFP due to random alliances and annexations. A violently conquering empire would have better control over the speed at which it expands! Timo Saloniemi