Hard Star Trek

[fireproof78]

Make a sci-fi series for folks who prefer fantasy over sci-fi? That makes no sense at all.

Well, you want to target as broad a group as possible. If the focus is strictly on hard science fiction fans, then you are gutting off potential viewing audience, and you are setting yourself up for failure.

The idea of targeting just one demographic is not really going to work in this day and age because people have too many options now. I mean, as Warped9 mentioned Star Wars is really space fantasy, that works for a number of demographics, especially children.

Star Trek's fanbase can be very fragmented, so appealing to a much larger audience will be critical to the success of any new show.

Logic failure, as was stated before one of the reasons making trek harder is for appealing to a wider audience.

One of the reasons people love HBO "dark and gritty" shows is that they make sense.

People behavel like people and things tend to have actual consquences.

You're talking two different issues. One is scientific factors and the other is audience appeal. Audiences, generally speaking, do not care if something is scientifically accurate, so long as the world is consistent and the characters believable.

For me, "hard sci-fi" refers to more realistic science, not consistent application. I know the term gets tossed around, but I generally work from a fairly strict definition. I'm sure I missed the current working definition for everyone, but there are different classes to that term.

Also, "dark and gritty" should be not be a requisite to create consequences or believable behavior.

 

[Tim Walker]

Regarding the images on number 7, similar ships appear in the Star Carrier novels by William H. Keith. They are FTL ships that use centrifuge sections to simulate gravity.

The author tries to depict starfish aliens, and tries to give them strange psychologies.

 

[T'Girl]

For me, "hard sci-fi" refers to more realistic science, not consistent application.

A hard science story for me could be something like the movie Apollo Thirteen, a fictionalized story about a actual event. While there were a few errors, it was (mostly) scientifically accurate.

You could also look at the comedy The Big Bang Theory, while not scifi (except in fantasy sequences) when they use scientific terms and refer to science concepts the writers do try to keep it accurate.

And there are shows like CSI, yes they make mistakes, but again they attempt to be scientifically accurate.

A new Star Trek could take this route. While retaining established fantasy elements, keep the real science as accurate as possible.

Logic failure, as was stated before one of the reasons making trek harder is for appealing to a wider audience.

Stripping away the majority of Star Trek's fantasy elements would likely have the opposite effect.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Given we don't see starships with forward facing exhaust ports how do they reverse with a reaction drive that only faces rearward?

I'm not going to try to dig up the reference, because that would be difficult. If it's not in an episode somewhere buried in the technobabble, then it could be from a magazine from 30+ years ago, or maybe some blueprints somewhere or a tech manual.

But the idea is this. The impulse engines are assumed to be "conventional" fusion rockets. The exhaust could be redirected, and even reflected, by deflector shields once it's been ejected from the engines. What matters would be the final trajectory of the impulse engine exhaust. Conservation of momentum is applied with respect to the final trajectory of the exhaust.

So, to reverse with the impulse engines, the deflectors would reflect the exhaust so that it exits into free space towards the bow. The technique would also allow for general steering.

 

[fireproof78]

Given we don't see starships with forward facing exhaust ports how do they reverse with a reaction drive that only faces rearward?

I'm not going to try to dig up the reference, because that would be difficult. If it's not in an episode somewhere buried in the technobabble, then it could be from a magazine from 30+ years ago, or maybe some blueprints somewhere or a tech manual.

But the idea is this. The impulse engines are assumed to be "conventional" fusion rockets. The exhaust could be redirected, and even reflected, by deflector shields once it's been ejected from the engines. What matters would be the final trajectory of the impulse engine exhaust. Conservation of momentum is applied with respect to the final trajectory of the exhaust.

So, to reverse with the impulse engines, the deflectors would reflect the exhaust so that it exits into free space towards the bow. The technique would also allow for general steering.

Not that I'm trying to drown the thread in technobable, but could that become a function of the navigational deflector? Shunting "waste" energy as a normal part of the engine process, resulting in a deflection of smaller debris. As part of maneuvering greater energy is pushed through the deflector for reversing course.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Given we don't see starships with forward facing exhaust ports how do they reverse with a reaction drive that only faces rearward?

I'm not going to try to dig up the reference, because that would be difficult. If it's not in an episode somewhere buried in the technobabble, then it could be from a magazine from 30+ years ago, or maybe some blueprints somewhere or a tech manual.

But the idea is this. The impulse engines are assumed to be "conventional" fusion rockets. The exhaust could be redirected, and even reflected, by deflector shields once it's been ejected from the engines. What matters would be the final trajectory of the impulse engine exhaust. Conservation of momentum is applied with respect to the final trajectory of the exhaust.

So, to reverse with the impulse engines, the deflectors would reflect the exhaust so that it exits into free space towards the bow. The technique would also allow for general steering.

Not that I'm trying to drown the thread in technobable, but could that become a function of the navigational deflector? Shunting "waste" energy as a normal part of the engine process, resulting in a deflection of smaller debris. As part of maneuvering greater energy is pushed through the deflector for reversing course.

As I understand it, the purpose of navigational deflectors is to deflect objects such as meteors and asteroids out of the flight path of the starship. Again as I understand it, that's why the main deflector dish ended up being the parabolic thing on front of the secondary hull. Navigational deflectors are just regular deflectors, but operating at a range away from the ship, to make it possible for the ship to travel through space without blowing up due to high-energy collisions. You see a deflector beam in "The Paradise Syndrome." It wasn't shown emitting from the dish in the original, but it's a plausible source. So, as to your suggestion, I think not. I think it's a difference sense of the adjective "navigational," but that could be just me.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not going to try to dig up the reference, because that would be difficult. If it's not in an episode somewhere buried in the technobabble, then it could be from a magazine from 30+ years ago, or maybe some blueprints somewhere or a tech manual.

But the idea is this. The impulse engines are assumed to be "conventional" fusion rockets. The exhaust could be redirected, and even reflected, by deflector shields once it's been ejected from the engines. What matters would be the final trajectory of the impulse engine exhaust. Conservation of momentum is applied with respect to the final trajectory of the exhaust.

So, to reverse with the impulse engines, the deflectors would reflect the exhaust so that it exits into free space towards the bow. The technique would also allow for general steering.

Not that I'm trying to drown the thread in technobable, but could that become a function of the navigational deflector? Shunting "waste" energy as a normal part of the engine process, resulting in a deflection of smaller debris. As part of maneuvering greater energy is pushed through the deflector for reversing course.

As I understand it, the purpose of navigational deflectors is to deflect objects such as meteors and asteroids out of the flight path of the starship. Again as I understand it, that's why the main deflector dish ended up being the parabolic thing on front of the secondary hull. Navigational deflectors are just regular deflectors, but operating at a range away from the ship, to make it possible for the ship to travel through space without blowing up due to high-energy collisions. You see a deflector beam in "The Paradise Syndrome." It wasn't shown emitting from the dish in the original, but it's a plausible source. So, as to your suggestion, I think not. I think it's a difference sense of the adjective "navigational," but that could be just me.

Fair point, and I was aware of the purpose of the deflector. I was just thinking in terms using energy and that the stardrive often appears to be the point of rotation for thrust.

 

[Tim Walker]

Logic failure, as was stated before one of the reasons making trek harder is for appealing to a wider audience.

Stripping away the majority of Star Trek's fantasy elements would likely have the opposite effect.

Starting with Trek fans.

 

[lpetrich]

My ideas:

Since the characters have to be able to cross interstellar space in their lifetimes and the lifetimes of the people back home, faster-than-light travel is a necessity. Faster-than-light communication is also useful, even if not as necessary as FTL travel.

As to the Transporter, abolishing it would change the character of the series quite a bit. The series characters would have to travel in shuttlecraft quite a lot.

We could abolish cross-species hybrids -- there's be too many genetic and developmental incompatibilities. It's difficult enough for Earthling species.

As to humanlike ET's, it would require a lot of production effort to avoid them, like doing lots of CGI and pasting it into the live action, or else doing a lot of animatronics.

As to computers, the various ST series have the right idea, even if they did not go far enough by present-day standards, like linking computerized devices with a generalized data network like our Internet.

 

[Warped9]

Being a little stricter with the science in Trek wouldn't necessarily have to be a deal breaker depending on how you handle it. Certainly you avoid overlong passages of technical jargon just to prove how smart you are. You simply have to show how things work in a consistent and plausible manner.

I would also suggest having someone on staff as a technical consultant to help keep things consistent.

And as I've said before hard SF isn't restricted simply to things that are factually known (given even some of those can change with new knowledge), but you can also use ideas that are plausible in theory. When you read up on some of these subjects you see that there isn't all that much you have to absolutely rule out in a harder version of Trek.

The existence of Spock or any human/alien hybrid might be one of those things that can't make the cut. The odds of two disparate biologies being compatible are pretty damn long. It's compounded by later Treks indulging in other human/alien or alien/alien hybrids. You're pushing the envelope enough just by having so many humanoid type aliens.

 

[Tim Walker]

Is anybody familiar with the novel Shogun, by James Clavell? It could be described as a first contact novel.

Having arrived in feudal Japan, the English sailor John Blackthorne is confronted by a cultural chasm.

Almost as though he had landed on another planet.

 

[T'Girl]

faster-than-light travel is a necessity.

It wouldn't have to be "Warp Drive," you could have a Jump Drive, or a Worm-hole Engine, or some such.

As to the Transporter, abolishing it would change the character of the series quite a bit. The series characters would have to travel in shuttlecraft quite a lot.

But you wouldn't have to show the shuttlecraft sequence, have a character aboard the ship announce that they're shuttling down to the surface, cut to the next scene where they walking on the surface.

It's like when a cop say he going across town, cut to the next scene, he's knocking on a door across town.

 

[Warped9]

Is anybody familiar with the novel Shogun, by James Clavell? It could be described as a first contact novel.

Having arrived in feudal Japan, the English sailor John Blackthorne is confronted by a cultural chasm.

Almost as though he had landed on another planet.

That sort of thing has always been a decent analogy of alien first contact. The problem is if your series involves meeting a lot of alien races throughout the series you can't afford to get too caught up in this divide for prolonged periods. It would slow the stories down too much for the crew to being going through this onscreen week-after-week or easily several times a season.

You could do it a couple of times to establish the precedent, but you couldn't be doing it all the time.

 

[Tim Walker]

One possibility that occurred to me is an off shoot culture, A colony that starts to develop its own culture. So...not a completely foreign culture, but one with a peculiarity that sets it apart.

Really, the bumpy-forehead-humanoid-of-the-week was a metaphor(s), a way to evade the network censors.

 

[lpetrich]

faster-than-light travel is a necessity.

It wouldn't have to be "Warp Drive," you could have a Jump Drive, or a Worm-hole Engine, or some such.

Yes. I must say that I like to imagine FTL drives working by making lots of small instantaneous jumps. A FTL trajectory is spacelike in special relativity, meaning that one can adjust one's travels relative to it so that it looks instantaneous. I'm familiar with the math of SR, but I don't know who would want to see it.

As to the Transporter, abolishing it would change the character of the series quite a bit. The series characters would have to travel in shuttlecraft quite a lot.

But you wouldn't have to show the shuttlecraft sequence, have a character aboard the ship announce that they're shuttling down to the surface, cut to the next scene where they walking on the surface.

Apparently when planning the series, they thought that they'd have to show the whole sequence. That's my recollection from "The Making of Star Trek". But to expand on what you say, one can even use stock footage for a shuttle leaving the ship or entering it again, sort of like for heading off into interstellar space.

It's like when a cop say he going across town, cut to the next scene, he's knocking on a door across town.

Or the series about interstellar travel -- not showing the whole trip but only interesting parts like its beginning and end.

David Gerrold in "The World of Star Trek" described how the Transporter makes it too easy to get out of a difficult situation. So one has to either block the Transporter's operation or else deprive its users of their communicators so they can't request its use. He noted that both techniques got used repeatedly in TOS episodes, techniques that he considered overused.

Another oddity of TOS is that there often seemed to be only one Transporter on the entire Enterprise. But TNG refers to multiple Transporters at least once, and it also avoided Transporter failure as a story component.

For Transporter-less operation in a Star-Trek-like TV series, I only recall Space:1999 with its Eagle shuttlecraft. Actually, I don't recall much of that series at all, so I went to Wikipedia and found out about it.

 

[Tim Walker]

Collection of essays, Boarding The Enterprise; the essay To Boldly Teach What NO one Has Taught Before by David DeGrath.

"Science fiction can bring the galaxy to life, can inspire the same sense of wonder and awe, that Star Trek gave me. Fresh science fiction can use ideas from the frontiers of science, or even from the other side of the frontiers, what Charles Sheffield called the 'Borderlands of Science.' This is where you find the wildest ideas. Ideas that just might be true, but are too far from any real experiment to be verified, too hypothetical to be called theories. And if it might be true, then it's ripe for a science fiction story."

 

[MantaBase]

I would also suggest having someone on staff as a technical consultant to help keep things consistent.

And as I've said before hard SF isn't restricted simply to things that are factually known (given even some of those can change with new knowledge), but you can also use ideas that are plausible in theory. When you read up on some of these subjects you see that there isn't all that much you have to absolutely rule out in a harder version of Trek.

The existence of Spock or any human/alien hybrid might be one of those things that can't make the cut. The odds of two disparate biologies being compatible are pretty damn long.

So, warp drive is already theoretical in science. You basically create a warp bubble where space in front of the vessel is compressed and negative mass to the rear of the bubble expands space. The ship never moves FTL, but it effectively crosses space FTL. It would look from the outside of the bubble very much like it looks in the more modern ST's - thus I think the writers knew about it.

Transporters are a harder sell. We can transport quantum data now (about 75 feet). But I do not see how that could be used to transport living things (matter in general is pushing it). If you can come up with the tech to make the replicator, then the transporter is just a jump off of it. But still. For me it is a long fetch. More likely that RL tech will be a form of FTL communication one day.

Something to consider - and I think you hint at this - true "hard" fiction is rare - like "The Martian". Most other hard fiction is based on perception - and that changes with time.
I think William Sheehan in one of his books on Mars talks about being at a baseball game in the 50's. They were thinking of Mars and what the plants there might look like. Because at that time it was very much believed there was some kind of life on Mars - including by scientists. Sagan (who was very conservative in his beliefs on ETL) was constantly shooting down papers from the mariner data that descried Mars as void of life - it took Viking (1977?) to really drive it home. And even now there is ongoing investigation into possible life on Mars.

Point being, hard science fiction in the 50's would allow for a Mars teeming with life. Today it would not.

Oh - and Spock. The Progenitor theory. Ever heard of Panspermia? Hit the news again in 2013. What if the 4 main species had a bit more in common than we think?

 

[Autistoid]

My ideas:

Since the characters have to be able to cross interstellar space in their lifetimes and the lifetimes of the people back home, faster-than-light travel is a necessity. Faster-than-light communication is also useful, even if not as necessary as FTL travel.

As to the Transporter, abolishing it would change the character of the series quite a bit. The series characters would have to travel in shuttlecraft quite a lot.

We could abolish cross-species hybrids -- there's be too many genetic and developmental incompatibilities. It's difficult enough for Earthling species.

As to humanlike ET's, it would require a lot of production effort to avoid them, like doing lots of CGI and pasting it into the live action, or else doing a lot of animatronics.

As to computers, the various ST series have the right idea, even if they did not go far enough by present-day standards, like linking computerized devices with a generalized data network like our Internet.

I think it's intensely ironic, that you want to get rid of multiple races of humanoid and then say my ideas will alienate fans.

Lets be dam clear you can get rid of transporters, ftl etc, however you cannot get rid of the federation or the multiple species of humanoids.

Aliens in star trek for all intents and purposes are simply more exotic races of humans.

Either from an ancient split from ancient aliens, or because they are genetically engineered offshoots from our not too distant future.

Vulcan's klingons romulans etc are just as important to trek as anything else.

 

[Autistoid]

faster-than-light travel is a necessity.

It wouldn't have to be "Warp Drive," you could have a Jump Drive, or a Worm-hole Engine, or some such.

As to the Transporter, abolishing it would change the character of the series quite a bit. The series characters would have to travel in shuttlecraft quite a lot.

But you wouldn't have to show the shuttlecraft sequence, have a character aboard the ship announce that they're shuttling down to the surface, cut to the next scene where they walking on the surface.

It's like when a cop say he going across town, cut to the next scene, he's knocking on a door across town.

That's of course ignoring a great deal of episodes that revolve around shuttle craft.

And the fact with modern tv formats there is little value in skipping the transit completely.

 

[Autistoid]

One possibility that occurred to me is an off shoot culture, A colony that starts to develop its own culture. So...not a completely foreign culture, but one with a peculiarity that sets it apart.

Really, the bumpy-forehead-humanoid-of-the-week was a metaphor(s), a way to evade the network censors.

It was also a way to really sell the idea that there are worlds outside our reach. That have as many attractive elements as our own. Similiar music, women, etc etc. If you get to alien it's harder or your general fan to think of getting somewhere far away.

We live on a very small world, the lack of exoticism is something I think we truly miss.

When you start having aliens with odd biologies you start destroying the utopian imagery that there is some exotic paradise just within reach.

Each world is like a missing continent, the lost atlantis etc.