Scientific weirdness in Star Trek

[Mres_was_framed!]

Roddenberry feeling it necessary to rewrite “Shore Leave”

Can you direct me to an article on this?

 

[Warped9]

On the broader subject of science fiction and Star Trek, writers/producers are more likely to date their work by attempting to ground it with current technology. This is best illustrated by the evolution (or more accurately, de-evolution) of the Enterprise since TOS.

The first big step backwards being putting reaction control thrusters all over the refit in TMP. While this was a valid solution for 70's spacecraft, it shouldn't have been applied to a starship from hundreds of years in the future. This got even more ridiculous with the Kelvin Enterprise being covered with rockets.

The best way to get a feel for how to approach the subject would be to take something like our current submarines/carriers and ask how someone of the 18th century would have explained their functionality using the science of that period. Would someone from that era call what we take for granted science fiction or fantasy? To them we move ships the size of cities at unimaginable speeds for years on a few pounds of a magic rock. They didn't have the science to explain what we do... just like we shouldn't have the science to explain what happens in Star Trek. Trying to shoehorn in current tech into Star Trek (like the aforementioned reaction control thrusters) is like adding sails to a carrier.

In my opinion, good science fiction in Star Trek comes from internal consistency of the functionality of the technology, not trying to provide how it is possible.

This! THIS is freakin’ gold!

It summarizes everything I’ve had an issue with in Trek (tech wise) from TMP onward. As much as I like the TMP refit design I have always felt they went too far in trying to make it more “real” so to speak.

Now back to the subject at hand.

 

[Maurice]

Can you direct me to an article on this?

Inside Star Trek p. 209.

Robert Sparr directed “Shore Leave,” a wildly imaginative story by Theodore Sturgeon, at that time “the most anthologized” science-fiction writer of his generation. The script, which was originally titled “Finagle’s Planet,” was so filled with difficult transitions and special effects that Gene Roddenberry had to go out to the location and rewrite as it was being shot. Needless to say, “Shore Leave” went importantly over schedule. But it wasn’t the fault of Robert Sparr.

BOB: That episode had everything: Japanese Samurai warriors leaping in from out of nowhere; Alice in Wonderland and a human-sized rabbit; a “tame” wild tiger; a diving, strafing World War II fighter aircraft; an evil knight in armor mounted on a huge horse; and a knock-down, drag-out fistfight between Captain Kirk and a laughing ex-Academy classmate played to the hilt by actor Bruce Mars.​

Sparr was terrific. He handled every revision that Gene threw at him. But certain cast regulars didn’t like working with him because the immense amount of work he had to complete kept him from giving them individual attention. They prevailed upon Gene Roddenberry not to rehire him.​

 

[Ssosmcin]

Space 1999 suffered a similar fate, although that was made for a UK audience.

Space:1999 was always made primarily for the American audience, but with the idea of it going worldwide. ITC repeatedly tried to land US network slots for their shows and Space: 1999 was supposed to be an easy sell. Nobody was interested, so Lew Grade and his people went to the individual syndication markets, many of whom pre-empted network provided broadcasts in favor of 1999. It was a solid hit here at first, but lost ratings ground as it went on. ITC greenlit a second year on the condition that it be more specifically "Americanized" to bring the ratings back up.

Voyage was mostly the relationship between Lee and the Admiral. Morton and Sparks were there, but mostly nonentities.

You're forgetting Chief Sharkey who joined in season 2 and quickly became practically a third lead. By the third season, he was as important to the series as DeForest Kelley was to Star Trek. Nelson and Sharkey developed a quirky relationship which mirrored the relationship between the actors.

Voyage wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it did if not for that cast.

 

[publiusr]

Some black holes might be “fuzzy” as per space.com…others may still have a tiny physical “nugget”.

 

[Neopeius]

You're forgetting Chief Sharkey who joined in season 2 and quickly became practically a third lead. By the third season, he was as important to the series as DeForest Kelley was to Star Trek. Nelson and Sharkey developed a quirky relationship which mirrored the relationship between the actors.

Voyage wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it did if not for that cast.

You're right. I just saw a third season episode that was mostly Nelson and Sharkey. I just stopped watching very often after it went to color so I missed his introduction.

 

[Pauln6]

I think mixed storytelling works best, with hard sci fi stories mixed in with character pieces, allegories, and action adventure. Modern shows also use ongoing plot arcs, including character arcs to good effect. But clearly it is an engaging cast that gives a show longevity. I never imagined that Stargate SG1 would be able to keep the ball bouncing for as long as they did.

 

[Commishsleer]

Maybe. But I doubt people in the Trek production offices were telling these writers the flat truth about the reasons for their decisions.


The show was sold to NBC as an action adventure, and NBC didn't like it when they got episodes that were not the show the were promised.

Mind, you, it wasn't NBC who was griping about the story submissions, it was Roddenberry, Fontana, Justman, et al. "Action" doesn't necessarily mean fistfights and phaser beams, it means the characters taking action in an attempt to solve the problem. Many of the scripts and stories they got had Kirk standing around and talking with the guest star of the week and not actually taking action.

Let me give you a silly example. Had Roddenberry or Coon in 1967 gotten Niven's "The Soft/Slaver Weapon" story submitted, I can just about guarantee they would have complained that the heroes were just observers and not active in the story, nor affecting the climax. They'd probably have suggested that the lead (probably Kirk) manipulate the Kzitini captain into finding the self destruct setting, because then they would be taking action in the story, not just waiting inertly [Filmation joke here] to see what happened.

I loved the Slaver Weapon. I know some people did not - probably because it didn't have Kirk but I thought it was great science fiction but from your analysis I realise that you're right and the Enterprise crew were just trying to survive and stop a weapon getting into the wrong hands. They weren't controlling the situation, they were just players. And I think thats alright for some episodes. I didn't like it it in Assignment Earth though but here the story made sense.

 

[Maurice]

I loved the Slaver Weapon. I know some people did not - probably because it didn't have Kirk but I thought it was great science fiction but from your analysis I realise that you're right and the Enterprise crew were just trying to survive and stop a weapon getting into the wrong hands. They weren't controlling the situation, they were just players. And I think thats alright for some episodes. I didn't like it it in Assignment Earth though but here the story made sense.

The problem is they're just observers. That's not drama.

In the short story the protagonists are somewhat more active. Notably, once the Kzinti get what they think is the total-conversion setting but which Jason realizes is the self-destruct, he tells Anne-Marie to spit in the Kzin pilot's ear, and they do, which angers him so he switches the police web to full power, which results in them being immobilized instead of splattered against the walls (as the pilot is) when the self-destruct explosion flings the Kzinti ship into the air and it subsequently crashes back on the surface. So even though trapped at the climax, they take some action to save themselves.

 

[GeorgeKirk]

Something that always struck me as weird was the "planetary compaction" of Psi 2000 in "The Naked Time". Was that an actual scientific theory back then?

 

[Maurice]

Something that always struck me as weird was the "planetary compaction" of Psi 2000 in "The Naked Time". Was that an actual scientific theory back then?

I doubt it. I’ll look to see if there any deForest Research notes on this.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Something that always struck me as weird was the "planetary compaction" of Psi 2000 in "The Naked Time". Was that an actual scientific theory back then?

I have trouble explaining how Psi 2000's gravity could have those sudden spikes toward the end, given that the planet's mass should not be increasing. But I don't consider this a big bad transgression. "The Naked Time" is relatively plausible science-wise, compared to some episodes.

Quasi-related: in Star Trek: Generations, I used to wonder why a star's gravity would disappear when Soren's missile shut down nuclear fusion. Turns out the appropriate double-talk is that the missile shuts down gravity, and that is what shuts down fusion. So of course Generations is solid science. I should have had more faith.

 

[Warped9]

Apparently planets can shrink as their metallic cores cool, but this a process occurring over billions of years. Mercury is said to be a shrinking planet.

But I’ve seen nothing where a planet could shrink rapidly over a period of hours or days. Perhaps if it was artificially induced somehow? Maybe the scientists on Psi 2000 as well as the Enterprise crew didn’t realize they were studying an alien race’s scientific experiment?

 

[MAGolding]

I could be wrong, but it's possible there was not a scientific consensus on just what quasars were or how far away they were, at the time. Of course Trek has never really been on the forefront of such things and has done better by just inventing its own universe of space storms, giant wormholes, gravity flooring, etc.

As I reamember, I read about quasers being billions of light years distant in 1964. Thus in 1966 I thought that "the Galileo 7" was taking a big scientiific risk in depicting Murisaki 312 as being a quaser like object in our galaxy.

And as the years passed there was more and more evidence that quasers are billions of light years away, and it became more and more obvious that murisaki 312 must be an object in our galaxy different from a quaser but resembling one in some ways.

Apparently planets can shrink as their metallic cores cool, but this a process occurring over billions of years. Mercury is said to be a shrinking planet.

But I’ve seen nothing where a planet could shrink rapidly over a period of hours or days. Perhaps if it was artificially induced somehow? Maybe the scientists on Psi 2000 as well as the Enterprise crew didn’t realize they were studying an alien race’s scientific experiment?

I wonder whether I wrote about that in a post somewhere. A planet dying dramatically like a star might is not very plausible.

Possibly the planet PSI 2000 captured a mini black whole which has been eating up the interior of the planet every since. As the event horizon expands and the black hole gains mass, matters falls in at faster and faster rates. So possibly PSI 2000 is near the final stages when the rate of matter falling into the black hole will increase exponentially.

A Lunar mascon is a region of dense material beneath the surface of the Moon. The orbits of satellites around the Moon are preturbed by the mascons and so the satellites are likely to crash into the Moon's surface unless their orbits are selected to avoid passing over mascons.

Lunar mascons alter the local gravity above and around them sufficiently that low and uncorrected satellite orbits around the Moon are unstable on a timescale of months or years. The small perturbations in the orbits accumulate and eventually distort the orbit enough that the satellite impacts the surface.

Because of its mascons, the Moon has only four "frozen orbit" inclination zones where a lunar satellite can stay in a low orbit indefinitely. Lunar subsatellites were released on two of the last three Apollo manned lunar landing missions in 1971 and 1972; the subsatellite PFS-2 released from Apollo 16 was expected to stay in orbit for one and a half years, but lasted only 35 days before crashing into the lunar surface. It was only in 2001 that the mascons were mapped and the frozen orbits were discovered.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...)#Effect_of_lunar_mascons_on_satellite_orbits

Theoretically the gravity of PSI 2000 should be mathematically equivalent to an object with all its mass at a central point. Since it is evolving toward a black hole will all of its mass in a central point, the changes in mass distrubution should't affect the orbit. But possibly there is some process which causes more mass to fall into the black hole from one side of the planet, and that side changes rapidly, thus giving an uneven gravity field and the need for course corrections.

Possibly the black hole orbits the center of the planet instead of being stuck at the center. Possibly there are two black holes which orbit each other around the center of the planet, and thus swing closer and farther from the position of the orbiting Enterprise.

I note that the TNG episode "Pen Pals" also has a problem with exploding planets.

 

[Ssosmcin]

They left themselves an out by stating from the beginning that it was a "quasar-like formation." So it may not have been a quasar, but was similar enough for them to be interested and why it's so important for starships to investigate. For all the reasons why there shouldn't have been one.

That's good enough for me...

 

[BK613]

I like to think that the Murasaki 312 is a "yet" to be discovered quasar-like formation. Being so rare a phenomena, Starfleet has standing orders to study them.

I have no issue with that; I was just pointing out that modern astronomical knowledge gives us a out, albeit an imperfect one, for have a 'quasar' within the MW. Here's a somewhat more technical but still mostly math-free write-up discussing quasars and microquasars:
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Mirabel/Mirabel1.html

 

[Noname Given]

When you consider that some of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, including the Cage, were light on the action-adventure elements, it's a shame if this mindset existed at the time. I think Trek was made for US audience so this was likely true to the general family audience they were aiming for. I actually think that sticking to this formula is what led to Trek becoming a bit stale by season 3, albeit the high cost of sci fi was not helping its case.

Out of interest, there were other, much longer running shows at the time, what story-telling formulas were they using to keep the ball bouncing?

I don't think it was that The Cage was necessarily light on action adventure; it was that there was no action/adventure sequence at the end of the episode as part of its resolution. The Action was mostly in the middle of the episode and the ending of the episode was a long intellectual like soliloquy.

Networks wanted the action properly spaced out and they always felt that an action sequence at the end of the episode was best, and it was better if the entire episode led up to that action sequence as the story resolution (which is probably why in the second pilot you have the big physical confrontation between Kirk and Gary Mitchell as GR realized how the network suits wanted the story action structured to keep an audience's attention/interest for the full 55 minutes and not turn that dial before the end.)

I mean if you really look at it Where No Man Has Gone Before is mostly a lot of talking up until the end fight between Kirk and Gary Mitchell; but with the action at the end, that's the last thing the network suits saw and remembered about the episode.

 

[Qonundrum]

Just to be clear on this, you reviewed popular entry-level astronomy books of the late 50's and early 60's and the previous decade ('56-'66) worth of Scientific American and National Geographic articles to get an idea of what a non-professional astronomer/astrophysicist would have had access to in the public library at this time... right?

I grew up pre-internet, so I remember what it was like back then. Heck, when I was a double major in math and physics I still had professors studying Steady State Theory... and that was in the 80's.

Someone from 2022 trying to put themselves into the minds of people of 1967 really needs to recognize the limitations of that time.

Agreed.

Slightly off subject...

On the broader subject of science fiction and Star Trek, writers/producers are more likely to date their work by attempting to ground it with current technology. This is best illustrated by the evolution (or more accurately, de-evolution) of the Enterprise since TOS.

Fascinating! I thought that a slight grounding, but still making it theoretically plausible, would be better than making something completely outlandish - which would be hinging on outright fantasy. In either case, grounded or not, giving it a specific purpose - one that isn't a do-all or panacea - with limitations might help keep drama tighter and avoid cheap narrative shortcuts?

The first big step backwards being putting reaction control thrusters all over the refit in TMP. While this was a valid solution for 70's spacecraft, it shouldn't have been applied to a starship from hundreds of years in the future. This got even more ridiculous with the Kelvin Enterprise being covered with rockets.

That's a good point, but even modern tools stem from thousands of years of evolution and some are based on the same principles.

I'd have to see the Kelvin rockets scene again. Maybe as a tertiary propulsion system for when warp or impulse would do harm - wasn't the rocket system used to get the ship off the planet (Earth, wasn't it?) into orbit? And being in a parallel universe, maybe their developed the ability of ships to be built and launched from the ground, something that VOY was the first to do.

The best way to get a feel for how to approach the subject would be to take something like our current submarines/carriers and ask how someone of the 18th century would have explained their functionality using the science of that period. Would someone from that era call what we take for granted science fiction or fantasy? To them we move ships the size of cities at unimaginable speeds for years on a few pounds of a magic rock. They didn't have the science to explain what we do... just like we shouldn't have the science to explain what happens in Star Trek. Trying to shoehorn in current tech into Star Trek (like the aforementioned reaction control thrusters) is like adding sails to a carrier.

You largely won me with that, and TOS did have more items without grounding to technology. For the most part. Tapes that looked like 3.5" floppy disks, viewscreens being 4:3 LCD sets in visage, and walkie talkie communicators still were grounded in contemporary technology but embellished upon. Though the etchasaketch prop was a prototype PADD... Also, TOS did get a lot of people interested in STEM, which led to such advancements in technology and so on...

Still, a big carrier - for minute and precise maneuvering - might still benefit from a sail and an oar over a giant engine capable of doing 30 zillion knots per hour or whatnot.

In my opinion, good science fiction in Star Trek comes from internal consistency of the functionality of the technology, not trying to provide how it is possible.

Sorry for the off subject rambling.

No need to be sorry, the tangent is still grounded to the original post's subject line.

The internal consistency is always a huge plus. Consistency, functionality, and not being a plot panacea. How it is said to work definitely becomes a harder issue. Even in TNG, the treknobabble was still not so harshly or overly done compared to VOY's overuse and the resultant "plot generator" memes and other jokes that came about during that time. (Never mind the biopacks and torpedoes couldn't be replaced yet there was never a problem anyway.)

 

[Captrek]

My favorite bit of “scientific weirdness” in Trek is when Voyager gets trapped inside a black hole, and escapes by blasting a hole in the event horizon.

Anybody else have a favorite bit of “scientific weirdness”?

 

[dupersuper]

My favorite bit of “scientific weirdness” in Trek is when Voyager gets trapped inside a black hole, and escapes by blasting a hole in the event horizon.

Ah yes. The second episode. They were at least up front about their horrible science on Voyager...