Star Trek technology is severely underutilised.

[BillKerman123]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and it really bugs me. In the various TV series and movies, we see a whole host of technologies being utilized for one thing or another, but when you take a look at the whole picture, it seems the guys who designed them had no idea what they were doing.

Take transporters for instance. They can be used to 'teleport' (actually they just move the object very fast) a person down to the surface of a planet. Do you know what they can also do? Beam 10,000 photon torpedos right next to an enemy ship in 0.1 seconds (even if you cant transport them inside shield grids, this ability is still very useful). Think about how many battles would have gone differently if they had just swarmed the enemy with torpedos, with no way of them being evaded. Imagine huge carriers, carrying not fighters or bombers, but torpedos waiting to be 'launched' at the enemy. It would be game-changing.

Or another example - warp drives. What if you were to project a warp field in front of you and stretch it hundreds of km outwards? Anything in your path will be stretched and warped beyond recognition.

And it's not the tech that's native to Star Trek. A Dyson Swarm could be built in weeks with the replicators and transporters that Star Trek has, but when the Enterprise finds one (technically Scotty found it) they act as if it's this huge deal. And what about other things like pure beam-core antimatter drives for sublight propulsion, planet-cracking relativistic weapons, etc? They have the ability to scan, disassemble and reassemble people in seconds (transporters), but no one thought to try uploading themselves to a computer. They have had genetic manipulation tech since the 1990s but never use it. They have power sources more energetic than one could ever imagine, but the best weapons they can come up with are directed plasma beams and antimatter torpedos. And don't get me started on how everyone always forgets that the wide-beam setting on phasers is a thing.

These are just a few examples. Can you think of any other technologies that Star Trek could have but doesn't implement for some reason?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Most ships don't carry that many Photon Torpedoes because the cost to manufacture Anti-Matter is energy intensive. Ergo the limit on the number of Photon Torpedoes vs using the Anti-Matter for fuel in your Matter/Anti-Matter reactor AKA Warp Core.

The Constitution class carried in the hundreds only.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Deflector_shield
A Constitution-class starship's shields could take the equivalent of ninety photon torpedoes at once. They could do so a total of five times before shattering completely. (TOS: "The Changeling")

Torpedoes are best used to finish a target once the shields are down.

And if you beam a torpedo next to a target, the target can move / warp away or disrupt the transport / detonate the transport / anti-matter mid beam.

Harry Kim made best use of beaming a Photon Torpedo onto a Borg Scout vessel in between shield adaptations and detonating it.

Most ships don't stretch their Warp Fields out more because of energy cost, it isn't a linear cost usually since the Shape of a Warp field is 3 Dimensional.
Look up the Square-Cube law.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw
If you expand in any direction, it's going to have a exponential energy cost. There's no reason to waste energy for minimal / miniscule gain.

And most ships aren't getting that close to their targets in space.

Space is vast, and being that close to your opponents is a fools errand.

A Dyson Sphere is a VERY BIG deal. Especially since the structure of the Dyson Sphere was made out of Neutronium.

They already have very good STL engines with Impulse Drives.

Planet Cracking / Relativistic Weapons? The Federation / StarFleet aren't in the business of Planetary Destruction.

Not everybody in the 24th century are escapists and want to try to live forever. And even if you do upload your brain, it'll only be a copy of you. It'll never be the actual you.

Genetic Manipulation was banned due to the Eugenics War. They only have limited use for correcting defects.

Directed Plasma is primarily a Klingon / Romulan way of using Directed Energy Weapons and it's effective. When it comes to weapon design, the KISS principle matters. Look up most military weapons and how they design things. They prefer to keep things as simple as possible and as reliable as possible.

Anti-Matter torpedoes are efficient. Matter + Anti-Matter = Maximum efficient reaction / explosion.

Any other method has to go through some complicated ass means to explode. You better get one hell of a result to justify it's existence.

While Wide Beam is great and everything, spreading beam energy over a wider area consumes significantly more energy.
Look up the Inverse Square Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

IRL, we don't use Shotguns for every solution. Most of the time we use either pistols, rifles, or other single shot, precision targeting projectiles.

Precision Damage, minimal collatoral means alot to many people.

 

[BillKerman123]

1. If you had a Dyson swam anti-matter would be super easy to make

2. Good point, but even then when used correctly (ie in surprise attacks) photon beaming could be quite useful. Plus, you could just beam the antimatter really close to the enemy ship so even if they disrupt the transport it won't matter.

3. A Dyson swarm is surprisingly easy to make. And you don't need to make it of neutronium. A mining station on mercury weighing a few million tons could pump out a swarm in 10 years.

4. No, they don't. Impulse drives are good, but they can be better. There still fusion-based, and antimatter beam-drives are way more efficient.

5. I said Star Trek, not the Federation. That means every race. Can you think of a good reason why not one of them chose to develop a relativistic planet-cracker? (Also, I should point out that the weapons on a Constitution-class ship can burn a planet to its crust in a few minutes).

6. No one. Not a single one. Of the trillions of humans. Also, they wouldn't be copies. You're using the same tech as the transporters here, and it's pretty clear that they don't copy people (at least normally). All you have to do is have a swarm of nanobots (another technology that Star Trek doesn't use much for some reason) Slowly replace your brain, so slowly you cant tell when you stop being organic and start being artificial. Or you could use a transporter to isolate the electrons in your neurons and physically beam them into a neural net. Hell, Elon Musk is close to doing something like this and it's the 2020s, do you seriously think that tech wouldn't have advanced by the 24th century.

7. Its been 200 years. Other races use genetic manipulation all the time. How long is it going to take the Federation to move on?

8. You can make better weapons that are simple. Take kinetics, for example, people often forget about them but a railgun shooting tungsten rods at 99.99999% the speed of light could crack a ship in half, with shields raised. Or a planet in half, for that matter.

9. Actually there not. Antimatter reactions are sloppy as hell, (see this: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php - Also, check out some of the other things on that site, it's awesome). There are far more efficient ways of messing up your enemy's day. What about shooting a mini-black hole for instance?

10. Not necessarily.

11. Yes, but we have several canonical scenes that show it working. In TOS no less! (Albeit it was only on stun). And what about that time Riker said a phaser set on full power could "take out half of this building"? How many times would that have been useful? A lot. Rember that time in DS9 when they were pinned down and ended up losing quite a few people? That's just one example.

 

[at Quark's]

Yeah, that's what you get when you create a show where technology features prominently, but ultimately is only window dressing in order to tell stories.

And even in real life it doesn't work. When the computer was just invented serious futurologists probably failed to anticipate all the uses we would be having for them right now. Same story when (the ancestor of the internet) was conceived. Or the radio.

Technology application is often unpredictable and it often even takes new generations to reap the full potential of a new invention.

 

[Timo]

And conversely, most of the potential of the computer or the radio or, say, the hot air balloon has not been realized yet, and never will, as the markets grow past it...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

1. If you had a Dyson swam anti-matter would be super easy to make

Yet nobody has Dyson Swarms and the Dyson Sphere is something they found.

2. Good point, but even then when used correctly (ie in surprise attacks) photon beaming could be quite useful. Plus, you could just beam the antimatter really close to the enemy ship so even if they disrupt the transport it won't matter.

Yes, Photon Torpedo beaming into the ship and detonating it works. Harry Kim proves it. But if you can beam really close, it can be evaded. If you beam into the ship, it's FAR more effective.

3. A Dyson swarm is surprisingly easy to make. And you don't need to make it of neutronium. A mining station on mercury weighing a few million tons could pump out a swarm in 10 years.

And yet most people prefer living Planet-side, on a StarBase orbiting a planet, or on a StarShip.

4. No, they don't. Impulse drives are good, but they can be better. There still fusion-based, and antimatter beam-drives are way more efficient.

That's your supposition, you're entitled to it.

5. I said Star Trek, not the Federation. That means every race. Can you think of a good reason why not one of them chose to develop a relativistic planet-cracker? (Also, I should point out that the weapons on a Constitution-class ship can burn a planet to its crust in a few minutes).

Other than Species 8472 where it combines it's multiple beams from multiple ships into one more deadly beam to wreck a Borg planet. Nobody in their right mind seems to find the need for one.

6. No one. Not a single one. Of the trillions of humans. Also, they wouldn't be copies. You're using the same tech as the transporters here, and it's pretty clear that they don't copy people (at least normally). All you have to do is have a swarm of nanobots (another technology that Star Trek doesn't use much for some reason) Slowly replace your brain, so slowly you cant tell when you stop being organic and start being artificial. Or you could use a transporter to isolate the electrons in your neurons and physically beam them into a neural net. Hell, Elon Musk is close to doing something like this and it's the 2020s, do you seriously think that tech wouldn't have advanced by the 24th century.

Nanobots are only recently used in the late 24th century. At least the complex versions like the Borg Nanobots. A neural net isn't what you think it is, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to use it in the sentence thinking it is what you wanted it to be and not what it really is. LOL at Elon Musk being close. If you really believe that, I have Beach Front property in Iowa to sell you. Trying to move your consciousness into something non-organic based is the stuff of fantasy.

7. Its been 200 years. Other races use genetic manipulation all the time. How long is it going to take the Federation to move on?

I agree, Genetic Engineering should be used more, but with caution and some limits.

8. You can make better weapons that are simple. Take kinetics, for example, people often forget about them but a railgun shooting tungsten rods at 99.99999% the speed of light could crack a ship in half, with shields raised. Or a planet in half, for that matter.

Ships already have FTL sensors that can see stuff coming that are faster than light, dodging anything STL is very much possible if used by a crew that aren't stupid to get close and give themselves enough room to dodge. What's with you and planetary destruction?

9. Actually there not. Antimatter reactions are sloppy as hell, (see this: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php - Also, check out some of the other things on that site, it's awesome). There are far more efficient ways of messing up your enemy's day. What about shooting a mini-black hole for instance?

I agree, having a diversity of projectile war heads is what makes it interesting. Ergo the Quantum Torpedo, Trans-Phasic Torpedo, Tri-Cobalt War Heads, with the new "Star Trek" film, Black Hole war heads can be made. Etc.

11. Yes, but we have several canonical scenes that show it working. In TOS no less! (Albeit it was only on stun). And what about that time Riker said a phaser set on full power could "take out half of this building"? How many times would that have been useful? A lot. Rember that time in DS9 when they were pinned down and ended up losing quite a few people? That's just one example.

I agree they should use wide beam when applicable more often. Sadly they do not.

 

[Danja]

Trying to move your consciousness into something non-organic based is the stuff of fantasy.

Max Headroom, anyone? They tried it back in the 1980's.

 

[Unicron]

Yeah, that's what you get when you create a show where technology features prominently, but ultimately is only window dressing in order to tell stories.

And even in real life it doesn't work. When the computer was just invented serious futurologists probably failed to anticipate all the uses we would be having for them right now. Same story when (the ancestor of the internet) was conceived. Or the radio.

Technology application is often unpredictable and it often even takes new generations to reap the full potential of a new invention.

Sometimes it's also possible to draw the wrong conclusions based on how technology evolves. After WWII, with the advent of jet propulsion, nuclear weaponry, and fire control for missiles. it was assumed that future pilots wouldn't need to mount guns in their aircraft or need to dogfight at closer ranges, because the improved propulsion and smarter missiles would eliminate the need to do so. The main role of a fighter would be to intercept (at range) bombers or missiles, and this theory was based on a number of logical factors.

But the wars in both Korea and Vietnam proved it was inaccurate, as many American pilots ran into trouble using aircraft armed solely with missiles, whose systems weren't always reliable, and not being trained to dogfight. They were going up against cannon armed MIGs with pilots trained by the Chinese and Russians. If they ran out of missiles or the system didn't work correctly, they could get into real trouble. So most modern fighters retain a cannon and the government established a flight program (Top Gun) designed specifically to teach dogfighting tactics.

The same principle is common with ground troops. A modern soldier with a reliable, automatic/semi rifle is far less likely to need his pistol or knife compared to his historical counterparts, but he still trains on their proficiency anyway. He wants every possible tool in the event he needs it.

 

[BillKerman123]

Yet nobody has Dyson Swarms and the Dyson Sphere is something they found.

Refer to point 3.

Yes, Photon Torpedo beaming into the ship and detonating it works. Harry Kim proves it. But if you can beam really close, it can be evaded. If you beam into the ship, it's FAR more effective.

By "close", I meant it literally touching the shields of the enemy ship. You cant evade that.

And yet most people prefer living Planet-side, on a StarBase orbiting a planet, or on a StarShip.

See:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

and

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That's your supposition, you're entitled to it.

It's not supposition. Any aerospace engineer worth his salt (or anyone who's looked through the atomic rockets website) knows antimatters better than fusion.

Other than Species 8472 where it combines it's multiple beams from multiple ships into one more deadly beam to wreck a Borg planet. Nobody in their right mind seems to find the need for one.

I find that hard to believe. Especially considering how easy they are to make. A team of 10 or so people could make one if they had access to replicators.

Nanobots are only recently used in the late 24th century. At least the complex versions like the Borg Nanobots. A neural net isn't what you think it is, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to use it in the sentence thinking it is what you wanted it to be and not what it really is. LOL at Elon Musk being close. If you really believe that, I have Beach Front property in Iowa to sell you. Trying to move your consciousness into something non-organic based is the stuff of fantasy.

Okay, the nanobot thing I get, since it is really hard to coordinate their movements when there are trillions of them. A neural net, in this case, is the thing Data has in his artificial skull. I know the word has a real-world meaning, but in this case, I'm using it to refer to a custom-designed inhabitation for the electrons that mimics the layout of a human brain.

I agree, Genetic Engineering should be used more, but with caution and some limits.

Why limits? I get taking caution, but drawing the line somewhere seems unnatural.

Ships already have FTL sensors that can see stuff coming that are faster than light, dodging anything STL is very much possible if used by a crew that aren't stupid to get close and give themselves enough room to dodge. What's with you and planetary destruction?

Almost every space battle we've seen in Star Trek has been at unrealistically close ranges. And besides, you can guide those projectiles quite easily. Fit them with a warp sustainer drive like the ones on photon torpedos, and bend space to make sure they hit. For god's sake, read atomic rockets once in a while. They explain all of this stuff.

I agree, having a diversity of projectile war heads is what makes it interesting. Ergo the Quantum Torpedo, Trans-Phasic Torpedo, Tri-Cobalt War Heads, with the new "Star Trek" film, Black Hole war heads can be made. Etc.

Why is Star Trek in quotes?

I agree they should use wide beam when applicable more often. Sadly they do not.

I concur.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Refer to point 3.

Yet nobody has still bothered to build them in the Star Trek Universe other than that one species who are long dead who built the Dyson Sphere.

By "close", I meant it literally touching the shields of the enemy ship. You cant evade that.

There are plenty of ways to disrupt a transporter beam into space. Or you can just beam it into the ship since that would make it more effective.

It's not supposition. Any aerospace engineer worth his salt (or anyone who's looked through the atomic rockets website) knows antimatters better than fusion.

We all know Anti-Matter is better than Fusion, it's your application of Anti-Matter as the propellant that I'm questioning. Why waste Anti-Matter on STL when you can go FTL.

I find that hard to believe. Especially considering how easy they are to make. A team of 10 or so people could make one if they had access to replicators.

Most people aren't into destroying planets. I don't know why you're so obsessed with that idea.

Okay, the nanobot thing I get, since it is really hard to coordinate their movements when there are trillions of them. A neural net, in this case, is the thing Data has in his artificial skull. I know the word has a real-world meaning, but in this case, I'm using it to refer to a custom-designed inhabitation for the electrons that mimics the layout of a human brain.

Data's Neural Net was just a customized computer. It was not biological in any way. You'd have a easier time figuring out how aliens can grow a younger clone body and move over the synapses from the older body to the younger one.

Why limits? I get taking caution, but drawing the line somewhere seems unnatural.

The Khan Noonien Singh issue. You don't need Endless Aggression / Ambition. Some things you should modify. Intelligence, Strength, Breathing efficiency, etc. But there are certain traits of a person that you don't need to tune or improve upon. Greed, Arrogance, Aggression is one of them. That's what helped lead Khan to become a despot. We don't need those factors to be enhanced.

Almost every space battle we've seen in Star Trek has been at unrealistically close ranges. And besides, you can guide those projectiles quite easily. Fit them with a warp sustainer drive like the ones on photon torpedos, and bend space to make sure they hit. For god's sake, read atomic rockets once in a while. They explain all of this stuff.

I agree, the ranges should be much further apart along with guided dodging projectiles. Having a mini Warp Drive in Photon Torpedoes should be a common thing in the future. As far as reading your preferred sources, no thanks, I have enough crap to do with my time.

Why is Star Trek in quotes?

Because there are two films that use the name "Star Trek" by itself.

 

[fireproof78]

There are plenty of ways to disrupt a transporter beam into space. Or you can just beam it into the ship since that would make it more effective.

Especially since it is an energy beam, and can be intercepted. Plus, if the enemy knows that beaming warheads on to a ship is a tactic, I have a feeling that other internal countermeasures could be put in to place to scatter the beam, i.e. use of the structural integrity field to disrupt the transporter effect. Transporters are shown to be temperamental, at best, so I can't imagine it would take m

The Khan Noonien Singh issue. You don't need Endless Aggression / Ambition. Some things you should modify. Intelligence, Strength, Breathing efficiency, etc. But there are certain traits of a person that you don't need to tune or improve upon. Greed, Arrogance, Aggression is one of them. That's what helped lead Khan to become a despot. We don't need those factors to be enhanced.

Exactly. Limitless experimentation in genetic engineering is unethical, and would warrant many safeguards to ensure safety of patients, as well as those around.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Especially since it is an energy beam, and can be intercepted. Plus, if the enemy knows that beaming warheads on to a ship is a tactic, I have a feeling that other internal countermeasures could be put in to place to scatter the beam, i.e. use of the structural integrity field to disrupt the transporter effect. Transporters are shown to be temperamental, at best, so I can't imagine it would take m

That's why Harry Kim only used it when the Borg Shields were adapting and they were down for a split second. It's not a common tactic, nor should it be.

 

[fireproof78]

That's why Harry Kim only used it when the Borg Shields were adapting and they were down for a split second. It's not a common tactic, nor should it be.

Exactly so.

Also, quick follow up:

Most people aren't into destroying planets. I don't know why you're so obsessed with that idea.

This is a curiosity of mine. The ability to completely annihilate an entire planet is rather odd as a goal for interplanetary species. The Klingons come from resource poor worlds, so why would destroying entire planets benefit them. That's just one example.

It's not a matter of ability. We see a planet eating machine in both TOS and TNG, but neither are beneficial. So why pursue such a goal?

 

[David cgc]

This is a curiosity of mine. The ability to completely annihilate an entire planet is rather odd as a goal for interplanetary species. The Klingons come from resource poor worlds, so why would destroying entire planets benefit them. That's just one example.

If they need minerals, cracking a planet open could be effective. The rarest elements are also the heaviest, so they'd be concentrated near the center of planets where no one can get to them. If you don't particularly care about the planet and can blast it into rubble, you could collect orders of magnitude more gold, platinum, uranium, and so on than by digging out the thin dusting lacing the planet's crust at your leisure before the debris coalesces into a new planet over thousands or millions of years.

 

[fireproof78]

If they need minerals, cracking a planet open could be effective. The rarest elements are also the heaviest, so they'd be concentrated near the center of planets where no one can get to them. If you don't particularly care about the planet and can blast it into rubble, you could collect orders of magnitude more gold, platinum, uranium, and so on than by digging out the thin dusting lacing the planet's crust at your leisure before the debris coalesces into a new planet over thousands or millions of years.

But, habitable worlds are also a resource.

 

[David cgc]

But, habitable worlds are also a resource.

I thought about that, but I started to go down a rabbit hole about how uninhabitable planets would still outnumber habitable ones, and resources like water are, conversely, fairly easy to find just floating around in space because of how light they are, so not only could you blow up any uninhabitable planets with impunity, unless you drastically needed living space and wildlife, the inhabitable ones might not be worth their (literal) weight in gold, either.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I thought about that, but I started to go down a rabbit hole about how uninhabitable planets would still outnumber habitable ones, and resources like water are, conversely, fairly easy to find just floating around in space because of how light they are, so not only could you blow up any uninhabitable planets with impunity, unless you drastically needed living space and wildlife, the inhabitable ones might not be worth their (literal) weight in gold, either.

I would argue AGAINST blowing up planets because we have enough random asteroids in space that habitatble planets that naturally take millions of years to form is truly a rare resource, including the fact that you need to consider the short life span of most humanoid life forms against the amount of time it takes for a planet to naturally form.

 

[publiusr]

Now, I would say a good Mirror Universe story would have Mirror Kirk using all the tech we saw in TOS--weapons he encountered along the way. Flint's device might be the Tantalus weapon

 

[Pauln6]

Energy consumption is the main limiter. Why else do ships only implement full shielding when a threat is detected?

The real Pandora's Box was opened in NuTrek with the ability to beam across light years. In order to beam across light years you would need scanners capable of detecting the landing site across light years. Terrorist attacks could come from deep space. You could beam mines in the path of approaching ships before their shields were up. You can just beam the bridge crew into space before they had any clue there was any danger.

 

[David cgc]

Energy consumption is the main limiter. Why else do ships only implement full shielding when a threat is detected?

Shields block transporters. They could interfere with all sorts of other systems in ways that are not particularly relevant when something is trying to kill you. If shields, say, reduced long-range sensor resolution, that wouldn't matter a lot in combat, since you'd only need detailed information for the dangerous things that were in the immediate vicinity, and you'd only need to see bright, noisy objects like starships at a great distance, and not a twitch of a positronic relay from three systems away like a Starfleet ship could detect while cruising with shields down. And there's the efficiency argument, which is a cousin of what you're proposing; even if a ship could, on paper, keep their shields up indefinitely, it'd take more power and exhaust their fuel faster than if they didn't, so why not just keep as much shields as you need at the moment and let the computer raise and lower them as needed if anything more dangerous is detected.