Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x03 - "People of Earth"

[DaveyNY]

Chekov and Terrell seem aware of the Ceti Alpha system and the number of planets in the system. They beamed down to what they think is Ceti Alpha VI and Chekov makes jokes about it's nature. You'd think sensors would have told them a planet was missing when they arrived. Especially if the planet is the sixth of six planets but there are only five.
I think the Reliant had a list of potential planets for use in the Genesis Project and Ceti Alpha VI was on the list. Probably based on previous explorations. Spock knew that Ceti Alpha V was habitable , if a bit savage in Space Seed, so it goes to reckon that there was information on the other planets as well.

As I said, the Reliant's Star Charts were most likely inaccurate due to intervention by Kirk and Spock.
Ceti ALpha V and its inhabitants were most likely removed from the official charts to avoid anybody going to look for it.
The system was likely picked in the first place, to hold Khan and his followers due to the fact that it held nothing of significant value and was off the beaten path.
Thus no one would have any reason to go there.

The Reliant may have just happened to pick the system because long range scans showed planets that might fit Dr. Marcus' requirements of no life forms.
It was just extremely bad luck and a massive coincidence that Khan was there.

(which, I might add, is a Star Trek staple)

 

[eschaton]

I think TOS could do that but didn't always succeed, largely because it was focused on the characters and didn't worry as much about technical explanations.

I think TOS tried very hard at first, and then became more willingly to be in its own world. Which I liked but it relied less on the harder science and more on what it was building in regards to the characters. I do think that Trek, despite becoming more self-referential, was still largely about the human condition, even if the science was not as concrete.

I said literary science fiction for a reason. Trek didn't really get that many contributions from what passed as "hard science fiction" at the time. But it did have contributions from genuinely well-known writers like Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, George Clayton Johnson, Richard Matheson, Robert Bloch, and Fredric Brown. Only the first two are well-known today, but that is in large part because SF has switched from being focused on short stories to doorstoppers, meaning a lot of authors who worked more in the short form have been forgotten. Regardless, TOS was unique in that published authors were involved in the writing process. This is part of what gave the series such immediate "cred" within the already established SF community - it wasn't just aiming for "B movie" level scripts, but to actively engage with talented writers.

Later Trek series exclusively relied on scriptwriters (with Chabon being the recent partial exception). I think this is actually to the series detriment. I would have loved to see what say Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, or David Brin could have come up with for TNG. Or see Stephen Baxter or Iain Banks put in a spec script for DS9.

But if they use anti-gravity (or some other means) to keep their ships stationary in a point in space above a planet rather than needing to actually orbit the planet, then if something is dropped from those ships, it will fall straight down to the planet below.

Still doesn't quite work. Even if you presume this is possible, the initial movement of a bomb toward the planetary surface would be quite gentle, because the pull of gravity is comparably low at high altitudes. This is the whole reason why if you are in a plane at high altitudes you experience microgravity.

TOS was rarely, if ever about “science fiction concepts”. It was about exploring humanity in a science fiction setting.

Lots of science fiction is as well. I mean, there's not much of anything involving science in The Left Hand of Darkness. It's using a SF setting to examine a social possibility (a world effectively without gender) that cannot exist in our reality.

Even then not all literary science fiction was also 'hard' science fiction. IE - A lot of literary sci fi still posited things that were technically impossible by the science we know today.

Star Trek has never been 'hard' science fiction...ever.

Well yeah, I agree. Again, when did I say "hard science fiction?"

 

[daedalus5]

Anyone else expecting to see Boothby under that tree?

highlight was the Trek fanfare and some Roddenberryish writing about collaborating together. Nice. I also liked seeing The Swede from Hell on Wheels.

disappointments were that 900 years worth of extra technology can’t blow up a ship. Kinda like using a Tomohawk missile vs Captain Cooks ship! Plus, we can’t scan as far as Titan.

 

[fireproof78]

I said literary science fiction for a reason. Trek didn't really get that many contributions from what passed as "hard science fiction" at the time. But it did have contributions from genuinely well-known writers like Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, George Clayton Johnson, Richard Matheson, Robert Bloch, and Fredric Brown. Only the first two are well-known today, but that is in large part because SF has switched from being focused on short stories to doorstoppers, meaning a lot of authors who worked more in the short form have been forgotten. Regardless, TOS was unique in that published authors were involved in the writing process. This is part of what gave the series such immediate "cred" within the already established SF community - it wasn't just aiming for "B movie" level scripts, but to actively engage with talented writers.

Later Trek series exclusively relied on scriptwriters (with Chabon being the recent partial exception). I think this is actually to the series detriment. I would have loved to see what say Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, or David Brin could have come up with for TNG. Or see Stephen Baxter or Iain Banks put in a spec script for DS9.

I guess I don't see that as a huge detriment because of the two different types of fiction in terms of presentation. I enjoy literary science fiction but that wasn't what I wanted in Star Trek. Maybe I'm too compartmentalized with my science fiction but Trek was always TV for me and I had other literary SF that I preferred to Trek's novels. I didn't feel the worlds needed to overlap, though they obviously did.

Maybe I'm missing the point...I don't know. I just never had Star Trek in the same class as literary SF.

 

[BillJ]

I guess I don't see that as a huge detriment because of the two different types of fiction in terms of presentation. I enjoy literary science fiction but that wasn't what I wanted in Star Trek. Maybe I'm too compartmentalized with my science fiction but Trek was always TV for me and I had other literary SF that I preferred to Trek's novels. I didn't feel the worlds needed to overlap, though they obviously did.

Maybe I'm missing the point...I don't know. I just never had Star Trek in the same class as literary SF.

It doesn't have to be hard sci-fi for it the things they use to make sense within the context of the universe the story takes place in. Yes, I know, Trek has screwed up before on this count, it doesn't mean that people should be happy they continue to screw it up.

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn't have to be hard sci-fi for it the things they use to make sense within the context of the universe the story takes place in. Yes, I know, Trek has screwed up before on this count, it doesn't mean that people should be happy they continue to screw it up.

I don't expect Trek fans to be happy. It seems kind of the ground state

That said, I think its more a matter of how much weight I'm going to put behind the screwup. Something like sensors not detecting something or the cause of a catastrophe don't even bump my disbelief meter because it's something has happened before.

Mileage will vary because suspension of disbelief is such an interesting concept. Mine is much more flexible than a lot of others I've seen around.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

ST and SW fans will always have their quarrels, yet I think they'll be united watching this commercial starring their respective leading men from the 1980s

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 enjoy this parody crossover

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

Oh those uber eats ads are fun

 

[BillJ]

That said, I think its more a matter of how much weight I'm going to put behind the screwup. Something like sensors not detecting something or the cause of a catastrophe don't even bump my disbelief meter because it's something has happened before.

The Titan colony is a pretty big piece of the story. So, they should've put more thought into it.

 

[fireproof78]

The Titan colony is a pretty big piece of the story. So, they should've put more thought into it.

Yeah, they probably should have. And it clearly impacts individuals ability to enjoy the story.

I don't see it getting any better for people not currently enjoying it. That's just me.

 

[NCC-73515]

EDIT TO ADD: That's also why a heat shield might not be necessary for star wars. Our real-life spacecraft require heat shields because they are moving at 17,000 mph while they orbit (or 25,000 mph when they returned from the moon). So, when they hit that atmosphere at those speeds, there is plenty of friction.

Most of the heat is a result of compression, not friction.

 

[eschaton]

I guess I don't see that as a huge detriment because of the two different types of fiction in terms of presentation. I enjoy literary science fiction but that wasn't what I wanted in Star Trek. Maybe I'm too compartmentalized with my science fiction but Trek was always TV for me and I had other literary SF that I preferred to Trek's novels. I didn't feel the worlds needed to overlap, though they obviously did.

Maybe I'm missing the point...I don't know. I just never had Star Trek in the same class as literary SF.

My point is just there was a lot of cross-fertilization between TOS and "respectable" science fiction in the 1960s. It didn't have that vaguely disrespectable, slipstream "skiffy" reputation that sci-fi TV/film generally speaking has.

Again, this is entirely separate from the point about whether Star Trek should "do their homework" when it comes to science. But I do feel like if there was someone in the room who wasn't just "a fan" and actually knew a little bit about SF tropes outside of visual media some of this stuff would be more thought out.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Still doesn't quite work. Even if you presume this is possible, the initial movement of a bomb toward the planetary surface would be quite gentle, because the pull of gravity is comparably low at high altitudes. This is the whole reason why if you are in a plane at high altitudes you experience microgravity.

Earth's gravitational pull on (for example) the space station at 250 miles up is not much less than the gravitational pull on us people on the ground. There's still 90%+ of the gravity acting on it. It and everything in it are still falling; but the way the fall is what we call an orbit.

The reason things are in orbit is not a lack of gravity, but because of gravity. That is, gravity defines what an orbit is.

Take the space station again for example. Gravity is still pulling on it, so the space station is still falling to Earth. However, it also has a sideways movement of about 17,000 mph ("sideways" relative Earth's surface). Therefore, because it is moving so fast sideways as it falls, it never actually hits the Earth's surface. That's because the Earth's surface curves away from the falling space station before it can hit that surface

Things in orbit are still falling, but they also move sideways (parallel to the surface) at a rate that matches the curvature of the thing they are orbiting

Check out "Newton's Cannonball" thought experiment in which Newton imagined a cannon shooting a ball across the surface of the Earth. The speed of the cannonball is what determines whether it falls to the ground, keeps going into space, or the in-between state of falling around the Earth in an orbital path.

Here's a nice infographic that sums it up:
http://sbt.blob.core.windows.net/storyboards/oliversmith/newton-s-canon.png

Here is a Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cannonball

Most of the heat is a result of compression, not friction.

Thanks for the correction.

But the point still stands. I was just pointing out that it is the speed at which a spacecraft hits the atmosphere that causes it to heat up on entry, NOT just the actual act of hitting the atmosphere itself. If a spacecraft can slow down to only a few hundred mph (or less) relative to the atmosphere, then there would be little re-entry heat and no need for a heat shield.

Of course, that's a huge "if" because we currently have no way of doing that.

 

[fireproof78]

My point is just there was a lot of cross-fertilization between TOS and "respectable" science fiction in the 1960s. It didn't have that vaguely disrespectable, slipstream "skiffy" reputation that sci-fi TV/film generally speaking has.

Again, this is entirely separate from the point about whether Star Trek should "do their homework" when it comes to science. But I do feel like if there was someone in the room who wasn't just "a fan" and actually knew a little bit about SF tropes outside of visual media some of this stuff would be more thought out.

Honestly, I think it would be more thought out if there was the time to think it out like we do here. And some times the writers room works in that regard. But, at this point, Trek is no longer that "respectable" scifi and I don't any reason to change it. I think it stands as its own thing, for good or for ill.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Yeah in Star Wars isn't it possible for a ship to come to a stop over a planet and slowly descend to land at speeds where there is almost no friction as you said because they have crazy anti gravity tech that makes all that possible.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah in Star Wars isn't it possible for a ship to come to a stop over a planet and slowly descend to land at speeds where there is almost no friction as you said because they have crazy anti gravity tech that makes all that possible.

It's actually just a Gonk Droid.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

It's actually just a Gonk Droid.

Our lord and saviour

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Episode 4 looks good. Seen some preview shots and it's looking good.. Love the dinner scene

 

[Sarcastic Vulcan Salute]

TOS was weekly episodic television but the only villains who appeared more than once over 80 episodes including "The Cage" were Harry Mudd and the Keeper of the Talosians, and by the time of "The Menagerie, Part II" he was no longer a villain. Even in TNG the only recurring villains were Q, Tomalak and DaiMon Bok.

You forget Lore, Sela, Duras, Lursa and Betor, possibly others.

 

[cooleddie74]

Fair enough. But TOS relied almost entirely on new adversaries from week to week and TNG largely did.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't think even for a second that DSC will start following the TOS Format, nor do I want it to (that's what SNW is for), and I prefer to give DSC Season 3 the space to develop the 32nd Century. They'll have recurring characters, recurring enemies, and things like that. It's been that way since the TOS Movies, TNG to an extent, and especially DS9. It's just a question of who those characters will be.

We've never had a Star Trek series retool itself this radically before, completely jettisoning the series' previous surroundings and making Burnham feel like she's in such a different place in her life. So I treat this more like it's a spin-off of a previous version of Discovery.