Where did all the future tech come from?

[Charles Phipps]

I mean, yes, there's no reason any of it HAS to be explained but in the spirit of fun.

Landru: FUN IS FORBIDDEN IN STAR TREK FANDOM.

 

[Amaris]

In that case, my answer is Section 32. It's like Section 31, but one more. Other sections only go up to 31, this one goes up to 32. It's one higher.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

G

Timeline's fked.

Welcome to star trek

 

[BlueStuff]

It came from production values in 2017 as opposed to production values in the late 1960s.

 

[MPH]

It came from production values in 2017 as opposed to production values in the late 1960s.

I think this is the best answer! Coul;d you imagine Discovery looking like TOS

 

[Mudd]

It came from production values in 2017 as opposed to production values in the late 1960s.

Really, really unimaginatively deployed production values.

 

[BillJ]

It came from production values in 2017 as opposed to production values in the late 1960s.

Site-to-site transport has nothing to do with production values.

 

[BlueStuff]

Site-to-site transport has nothing to do with production values.

Site-to-site transport was seen in the TOS era, what's wrong with it here?

 

[BillJ]

Site-to-site transport was seen in the TOS era, what's wrong with it here?

One time, twelve years later... in an emergency situation. Lorca orders it like it is a normal thing. Burnham doesn't come across as phased at all that it is ordered.

KIRK: We can't get through the Klingon defenses in time, unless. Spock. Intra-ship beaming from one section to another. It's possible?
SPOCK: It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialize inside a solid object, a deck or wall.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Spock's a worry wort. Foster sister and her Captain have more balls.

 

[Albinator]

Spock's a worry wort. Foster sister and her Captain have more balls.

I like this

But frankly, over analyzing these little things like site-to-site transport is what I hate about the fandom. It's one thing if we're just having fun with it, but another if people are using it as a reason to complain about the show.

I enjoy more finding rational justifications for these kinds of continuity glitches. I recall Trek shows used to contradict themselves from episode to episode and it was fun to reconcile them, not use them to hate on the show.

 

[BillJ]

But frankly, over analyzing these little things like site-to-site transport is what I hate about the fandom. It's one thing if we're just having fun with it, but another if people are using it as a reason to complain about the show.

If you're told it is in the Prime timeline, you expect it to line up with the Prime timeline.

 

[Albinator]

Spock's a worry wort. Foster sister and her Captain have more balls.

If a nerd needs a real justification, we can say that the Constitution class's targeting scanners were less precise than on Discovery, which was built some 20 years later. Additionally, being a ship with experimental technology, maybe they're using the latest, most high-tech transporters in the fleet.

 

[Albinator]

If you're told it is in the Prime timeline, you expect it to line up with the Prime timeline.

On every little minute detail? I'm not that nerdy that I care. If it gets the broad things right, that should be good enough for any reasonable person.

 

[OpenMaw]

I think this is the best answer! Coul;d you imagine Discovery looking like TOS

There is the potential for a more happy medium between total redesign and anal retentive conformity to 1960s design.

I would cite the redesigned phaser and communicator as examples of such.

 

[Albinator]

[insert condescending emoji]

 

[Nerys Myk]

One time, twelve years later... in an emergency situation. Lorca orders it like it is a normal thing. Burnham doesn't come across as phased at all that it is ordered.

KIRK: We can't get through the Klingon defenses in time, unless. Spock. Intra-ship beaming from one section to another. It's possible?
SPOCK: It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialize inside a solid object, a deck or wall.

Never understood that. Doesn't every use of the transporter have that risk? There are rocks, trees, buildings, people, animals and objects everywhere on a planet. Every ship they beam over to has walls and decks. If anything beaming within your own ship should be easier, you have the bloody blueprints! Sounds like a half baked idea they came up with in DotD for "teh drama". I've a feeling the first time someone used a transporter it was room to room not ship to ship.

 

[BillJ]

If a nerd needs a real justification, we can say that the Constitution class's targeting scanners were less precise than on Discovery, which was built some 20 years later. Additionally, being a ship with experimental technology, maybe they're using the latest, most high-tech transporters in the fleet.

Something that was never updated more than a decade later, after numerous layovers at various Federation facilities and at least one major refit?

 

[Albinator]

There is the potential for a more happy medium between total redesign and anal retentive conformity to 1960s design.

I would cite the redesigned phaser and communicator as examples of such.

Maybe I don't belong on a discussion board like this, because I'm clearly just not nerdy enough.

Something that was never updated more than a decade later, after numerous layovers at various Federation facilities and at least one major refit?

Did you not see the same episode of Discovery I did? Where it said that the Shenzou uses outdated transporters? Maybe the big E does too.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you're told it is in the Prime timeline, you expect it to line up with the Prime timeline.

Do real realize how many episodes of Star Trek would drop out of "Prime" if that happened? We can start with any references to "James T. Kirk".