Hard Star Trek

[Autistoid]

The premise isn't about physic powers, it's about reacting to unexplained phenom, in an exciting way that makes you think.

At no point are people gonna stop dealing with unknowns.

.

Sounds a little like the X Files.

There was a bit of unexplained phenomena in the first season of Lost. This could be intertwined with drama by being subtle.

Yeah well you don't need absurd physics to create the unexplained.

I think a fundamental issue of Trek is that much of the mystery was removed. A large part of why an actual reboot is needed.

There is so much room for unexplained plots using exobiology theories.

Creating aliens with unique psychological needs or drives.

Creating galactic histories that actually matter.

Going harder is as much about as renewing mystery to the trek verse as anything else.

 

[Autistoid]

I think Trek moved a few ticks away from fantasy and towards hard sci-fi could be great. But I don't see any point in eliminating warp drive, transporters, deflectors, phasers, artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, and subspace. Take those things out, and it just doesn't have the right flavor.

You can keep artificial gravity and make it hard sci-fi by simply not designing the main ship like it's meant to sail on an ocean. You use cylinders, centrifuges or arrange the decks so that "down" is in the direction of the engines' thrust.

As for warp drive and subspace hyperdrive and hyperspace are faster. SG-1 proved it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CentrifugalGravity

Shows the (internal) centrifuge from 2001: A Space Odysey. This was an impressive looking a set. (Basically an enclosed ferris wheel). However, I understand that it was a pain in the ass to film in.

The sequel, 2010, as well as Babylon 5 depicted ships with external sections that rotated. The ships looked very different from any Trek ship.

Simpler, of course, to assume another strategy. As I understand it, real gravity is a side effect, caused by the warping of space-time by the presence of matter. In the Trek shows I would assume that the artificial gravity (warping of space-time) is a spin off of the Warp Drive.

I'll never understand this.

I understand before computers and cgi how hard it was to make a rotating star ship, however this is 2015, this should be basic trope of sci fi at this point.

Again it isn't just about realism but creativity.

There are some wild designs that incorporate artificial gravity.

Ironically when you factor in cabling for counterweights(anchors) and heat dissipation (giant wings/sails) you get something that comes closer to capturing the old sailing ships.

A more sophisticated and yet intriguing design.

 

[JES]

Yeah, but would a ship with rotating modules to create gravity really look like a standard Starfleet vessel.

Besides, artificial gravity doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Close Contact and abductee reports don't mention zero-G, so I assume that if ETs visiting our planet is true, so is the possibility of artificial gravity.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of us inventing it for ourselves in 100 or 200 years.

 

[Tim Walker]

I was reviewing a thread about gritty space opera. It was pointed out that economics has become very constraining. Could you convince The Powers That Be that rotating modules would be cheaper to depict than the old Trek sets?

 

[Autistoid]

I was reviewing a thread about gritty space opera. It was pointed out that economics has become very constraining. Could you convince The Powers That Be that rotating modules would be cheaper to depict than the old Trek sets?

In relative terms it's not a big difference. It's not a hand model cgi can do the rotational work.

Keep in mind with anything PTB, have a keen interest in something that is visually stimulating. That doesn't mean you need explosions, creating an interesting aesthetic very much fits into that category.

Creating Iconic imagery(space station 2001, the x wing, death star, etc are all very important themes in sci fi).

 

[fireproof78]

I was reviewing a thread about gritty space opera. It was pointed out that economics has become very constraining. Could you convince The Powers That Be that rotating modules would be cheaper to depict than the old Trek sets?

In relative terms it's not a big difference. It's not a hand model cgi can do the rotational work.

Keep in mind with anything PTB, have a keen interest in something that is visually stimulating. That doesn't mean you need explosions, creating an interesting aesthetic very much fits into that category.

Creating Iconic imagery(space station 2001, the x wing, death star, etc are all very important themes in sci fi).

The question becomes how do you create an iconic platform without looking like it 2001 or other properties that have come before?

This is not a criticism, but, for me, a legitimate question, and one that PTB must consider in order to be profitable.

I'm all for real science in science fiction, but if iconic imagery does not involve real science, I know that the iconic image will win out.

 

[Tim Walker]

What were mostly advocating is more consistent writing, versus ultra realism in detail. However they coincide so well that it makes sense to do both in a reboot.

I have had some thoughts about detail.

In some cases you could replace magic tech with more realistic options.

For example, the ship could have a grappler (ENT) rather than a tractor beam.

3D printing as a mature technology-think "fabber" rather than a Trek style replicator.

Neither tractor beams nor replicators were truly iconic.

The crew carrying projectile weapons. This has worked well in other science fiction franchises. If the weapons seem modern, but not fantastic, they just become part of the background.

 

[Tim Walker]

Creating Iconic imagery(space station 2001, the x wing, death star, etc are all very important themes in sci fi).

The question becomes how do you create an iconic platform without looking like it 2001 or other properties that have come before?

This is not a criticism, but, for me, a legitimate question, and one that PTB must consider in order to be profitable.

I'm all for real science in science fiction, but if iconic imagery does not involve real science, I know that the iconic image will win out.

Star Trek already has its own brand of iconic star ships. Think saucers-and-nacelles.

 

[Admiral2]

I think Trek moved a few ticks away from fantasy and towards hard sci-fi could be great. But I don't see any point in eliminating warp drive, transporters, deflectors, phasers, artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, and subspace. Take those things out, and it just doesn't have the right flavor.

You can keep artificial gravity and make it hard sci-fi by simply not designing the main ship like it's meant to sail on an ocean. You use cylinders, centrifuges or arrange the decks so that "down" is in the direction of the engines' thrust.

As for warp drive and subspace hyperdrive and hyperspace are faster. SG-1 proved it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CentrifugalGravity

Shows the (internal) centrifuge from 2001: A Space Odysey. This was an impressive looking a set. (Basically an enclosed ferris wheel). However, I understand that it was a pain in the ass to film in.

Yes, I'm sure it was, in 1967-68. As Autisoid has stated repeatedly the 21st century offers several options for achieving the same results.

The sequel, 2010, as well as Babylon 5 depicted ships with external sections that rotated. The ships looked very different from any Trek ship.

That we've seen. The whole sentence should read "The ships look very different from any trek ship that we've seen." Which statement does not preclude them from looking like the next Trek ship we could see.

Simpler, of course, to assume another strategy. As I understand it, real gravity is a side effect, caused by the warping of space-time by the presence of matter. In the Trek shows I would assume that the artificial gravity (warping of space-time) is a spin off of the Warp Drive.

Right. You do understand that you essentially just said "This bullshit is a spin-off of that bullshit?" And yes, adding bullshit to bullshit is simpler, but the goal of hard (or harder) sci-fi is to reduce the amount of bullshit you inflict on your audience.

Real gravity is a side effect of the presence of matter, but you need millions of tons of that matter to create a recognizable effect. You can't do it with a ship the size of a carrier with a single reactor the size of a bus.

You can simulate the effect, however, by standing on the wall of a rotating centrifuge or on a deck perpendicular to the direction of thrust of an engine propelling the ship at 1g...which takes a lot less effort to explain than artificial gravity ever will.

I was reviewing a thread about gritty space opera. It was pointed out that economics has become very constraining. Could you convince The Powers That Be that rotating modules would be cheaper to depict than the old Trek sets?

If you can't, then you simply have to depict the rotating modules used in B5 ships, because the interiors can be filmed in the exact same way as interiors in previous trek ships have been filmed. It's a set of decks, but at one side of a large rotating arm, which still provides the effect you want.

 

[Tim Walker]

I know that Trek's artificial gravity is squishy soft science fiction. However, it permits Trek's iconic saucers-and-nacelles designs.

We are, after all, discussing an old franchise, not a new one.

The people who designed the Omega class destroyers could take their inspiration from 2010, because B5 was a new series at the time.

 

[Autistoid]

I was reviewing a thread about gritty space opera. It was pointed out that economics has become very constraining. Could you convince The Powers That Be that rotating modules would be cheaper to depict than the old Trek sets?

In relative terms it's not a big difference. It's not a hand model cgi can do the rotational work.

Keep in mind with anything PTB, have a keen interest in something that is visually stimulating. That doesn't mean you need explosions, creating an interesting aesthetic very much fits into that category.

Creating Iconic imagery(space station 2001, the x wing, death star, etc are all very important themes in sci fi).

The question becomes how do you create an iconic platform without looking like it 2001 or other properties that have come before?

This is not a criticism, but, for me, a legitimate question, and one that PTB must consider in order to be profitable.

I'm all for real science in science fiction, but if iconic imagery does not involve real science, I know that the iconic image will win out.

There are multiple ways.

For example spock's ship in 2009 scaled up could easily be modified to include a rotating hab section, with wings for heat dissipation.

Ironically the 2001 imagery is in accurate. Kubrick was told that the ship should have wings to maintain temperature control, however decided afterwords that it confuse the audience, as this was a time where the audience didn't understand that wings were not needed in space.

 

[Autistoid]

I know that Trek's artificial gravity is squishy soft science fiction. However, it permits Trek's iconic saucers-and-nacelles designs.

We are, after all, discussing a well established franchise, not a new one.

The people who designed the Omega class destroyers could take their inspiration from 2010, because B5 was a new series at the time.

Something like this I think could maintain the nacels and saucer concepts and push it a little bit farther into the future.

I'm sure with a mild bit of creativity you could easily maintain the saucer as the rotational section.

The biggest issue is the orientation of the nacels towards the actual center of mass and having the cylinder section oriented different.

However I don't think that's a huge concern, as iconic as the idea is, it's also been done to death, something fresh that actually looks futuristic instead of a 1960s version of flying saucers would be an improvement imo.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For example, are there any good stories left to be told with the holodeck?[/B]

No, no there is not.

Glad that was decided

TOS seemed to lack the holodeck, but told some good stories anyway.

An interesting technology, but not iconic.

TOS's version of the holodeck was parallel Earths.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Autistoid, those are some nice pictures.

You might want to check the BBS hotlinking rules, though.

Can you cite sources for who made those, or cold link back to the sites they came from?

 

[Tim Walker]

I agree that nuBSG is not hard SF. However, in terms of space combat, they moved a tick or two from where the classic BSG space combat was, which was pretty much where Star Wars was, towards hard SF. They did this in terms of how the Vipers and other craft maneuvered, and in replacing the blasters with rounds of ammunition. It still wasn't hard, though.

Toward the use of rocket type thrusters for attitude control. That was a nice touch, and seemed a bit more realistic than having spacecraft maneuver like airplanes.

 

[Tim Walker]

I do believe in principle we are agreeing on the matter, but we do disagree on the specific shade of "hard sci-fi" of you understan

Frankly I don't care whether they shoot phazers or more conventional projectile weapons, whether they use transporters or shuttles (though do remember that the transporter can be used for some very profound story ideas) or what exact mechanisms they use to go from star system to star system.

I do think that with a more realistic approach certain variables (such as the amount of stored food/water) could be used for drama and thus storytelling.
.

Or if using projectile weapons, running out of ammunition.

Like, when being overrun.

 

[Autistoid]

Autistoid, those are some nice pictures.

You might want to check the BBS hotlinking rules, though.

Can you cite sources for who made those, or cold link back to the sites they came from?

http://futurewarstories.blogspot.ca/2013/05/fws-topics-science-fiction-space-travel.html
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=61446
does this work?

 

[Autistoid]

I agree that nuBSG is not hard SF. However, in terms of space combat, they moved a tick or two from where the classic BSG space combat was, which was pretty much where Star Wars was, towards hard SF. They did this in terms of how the Vipers and other craft maneuvered, and in replacing the blasters with rounds of ammunition. It still wasn't hard, though.

Toward the use of rocket type thrusters for attitude control. That was a nice touch, and seemed a bit more realistic than having spacecraft maneuver like airplanes.

Yeah I don't like referencing BSG, because all anyway talks about is dramatic aspects.

But the show was brilliant on the technological side.

So much so that it draws little attention from the audience, which is the proper way to do the technology, unless it has a directly functional plot element.

 

[Tim Walker]

Yeah I don't like referencing BSG, because all anyway talks about is dramatic aspects.

But the show was brilliant on the technological side.

So much so that it draws little attention from the audience, which is the proper way to do the technology, unless it has a directly functional plot element.

Yes, good point. Regarding NuBSG, the DVD commentary said that the Galactica should resemble a documentary of an aircraft carrier.

I would like to see 90% of the technobabble written out of the scripts.

BTW, I never again want to hear about Klingon honor.

 

[Tim Walker]

What sort of FTL communication would further a good, character centric story?

If there is none, you get a space opera like Jerry Pournelle's. Messages are carried by couriers, which may result in haphazard communication.

This situation may resemble a Western. If you need to summon the cavalry, you dispatch some brave soul and hope that the bad guys don't get him.

If you do have a method of FTL communication, you should consider how the details may help or hinder the storytelling. How much bandwidth is there? Are there speed or range limitations? Is there voice or video?

If bandwidth is very low, and transmission is slow, you may need to transmit something like Morse code. Messages will tend to be very terse.

I have a vision of Uhura tapping on a telegraph key, though I suppose it would actually be a button.

If range is very broad, and messages are effectively instantaneous, voice-and especially video-communication may permit Starfleet Command to micro-manage a captain in the field.