Just for fun
The wallpaper is animated, too! Too bad you can't get rid of those icons at the top.
How would you re-imagine the TOS Communicators?
- Thread starter Wingsley
- Start date
Just for fun
The wallpaper is animated, too! Too bad you can't get rid of those icons at the top.The only difference is where on the yardstick we happen be at any given time. All of our technological achievements have, at one time, existed only in the realm of fiction/fantasy. We would be deluding ourselves to think we've discovered it all, and that our current science is the "final" science.
Someone always imagines a new idea and are often ridiculed about it, because it sounds crazy or doesn't fit within the parameters of accepted science of that time. Then one day, technology catches up with the idea and fantasy becomes reality. It's always been that way and will probably always be that way...if we live long enough as a species.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying here, based upon this comment.
I don't disagree... at all... with what you've said, but since you seem to think you're providing a counter-argument to my point, I suppose I ought to try to clarify.
First off... there is reality, and then there is science. The two aren't the same thing at all. Science is our best attempt to model, and to comprehend, reality. It's a TOOLBOX, and it's a set of models. It's not reality itself.
I wanted to make this point clear so that the next line would make better sense. See... reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not we know about it or understand it. Science, on the other hand, is always, and inevitably, incomplete and (to one extent or another) inaccurate. But... it allows us to understand, to an extent, the nature of the universe in which we live.
So when I used the term "Science" I was really using shorthand... to be more accurate, I would have said "our current understanding of reality."
The difference between "science fiction" and "fantasy" isn't the setting... space, whatever... but rather, the mindset. Science fiction extrapolates along what seem to be reasonable paths from real science, and our real understanding of the nature of the universe.
Star Trek tends to be more "science fiction," while Star Wars is undeniably pure fantasy (despite being set in space and thus leading many to call it "science fiction").
In Star Wars, it's OK to talk about nonsensical science and technology... to ignore basic laws of physics, etc... to basically make it up as you go. Because it's fantasy, pure and simple. You don't have to be consistent with anything other than the need to make the audience forget to think too hard about that sort of thing.
In Star Trek, on the other hand, it's occasionally slipped into the realm of fantasy, but has generally at least TRIED to stay in the realm of science fiction. It respects science (aka "our current best understanding of the universe within which we live") while extrapolating in ways which do not contradict anything we currently know, and for the most part in ways which fit (to one extent or another) with currently-accepted scientific hypotheses and theorums.
We know that something like Star Wars cannot really exist within the same world we live in. But Star Trek... ideally... should be something that COULD come true, based upon what we know as of today.
You seem to think that when I refer to the difference between science fiction and fantasy, I'm saying that science fiction can only use stuff we already know. But that's not what I was saying at all. I hope that it's a little clearer now.
I think I understand where you are coming from. I'll use the yardstick example again. Say our current science is at the 1 yard mark on the yardstick. Science fiction would be around the 2 yard mark. Beyond our current technology but "within reach" of our imagination. In other words, if our science continues on our current path, it's easy to see our technology reaching the ideas and concepts sitting at the 2 yard mark.
Fantasy would be at the 3 yard mark, in fact it goes off the scale, way beyond the 3 yard mark.
My personal beliefs are that fantasy is just further along the path on the yardstick (which now extends into infinity.) Scotty may say "You canna change the laws of physics!" but I submit that you can. I believe that there are other realities out there with different laws, or no laws but it's far beyond our understanding that even the thought of it is labeled "fantasy" - meaning it can never be reality (or so we believe.)
What is reality any how? I believe that the ultimate or "absolute" reality is far beyond what we can perceive in our 3 dimensional universe. There are theories that the universe is nothing more than a hologram and that what we perceive as reality is really an illusion. I believe that the sum total of everything that exists (of which our perception of reality is only an infinitesimal part) is a single, living, SUPER-INTELLIGENCE, which is capable of EVERYTHING that can be imagined. I think Spock has it right - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
But....I digress...
I understand... but "fantasy" as I see it isn't the same as how you're describing it.
I think I understand where you are coming from. I'll use the yardstick example again. Say our current science is at the 1 yard mark on the yardstick. Science fiction would be around the 2 yard mark. Beyond our current technology but "within reach" of our imagination. In other words, if our science continues on our current path, it's easy to see our technology reaching the ideas and concepts sitting at the 2 yard mark.
Fantasy would be at the 3 yard mark, in fact it goes off the scale, way beyond the 3 yard mark.
My personal beliefs are that fantasy is just further along the path on the yardstick (which now extends into infinity.) Scotty may say "You canna change the laws of physics!" but I submit that you can. I believe that there are other realities out there with different laws, or no laws but it's far beyond our understanding that even the thought of it is labeled "fantasy" - meaning it can never be reality (or so we believe.)
What is reality any how? I believe that the ultimate or "absolute" reality is far beyond what we can perceive in our 3 dimensional universe. There are theories that the universe is nothing more than a hologram and that what we perceive as reality is really an illusion. I believe that the sum total of everything that exists (of which our perception of reality is only an infinitesimal part) is a single, living, SUPER-INTELLIGENCE, which is capable of EVERYTHING that can be imagined. I think Spock has it right - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
But....I digress...
Let's look at the "Death Star attack" in the classic "Star Wars" film. That was pure fantasy, even if set in a "science fiction-ish" setting.
How would you make it into true science fiction?
Well, first off, the design of the X-wing, while wonderfully visually exciting, makes no sense. How does that ship slow down, for instance? What purpose do the "S-foils" serve? Why do the fighters have their weapons locked into a forward-facing firing arc? Well, because that's reminiscent of WWI and WWII dogfighting action, which is what Lucas was trying to evoke.
First off, if Star Wars were science fiction rather than fantasy, the fighters would either be aerodynamically designed (the X-Wing isn't aerodynamic at all) or it would be designed for space combat only (in which case... no "wings").
If it were sci-fi, the ships would be recognized as traveling at extremely high velocities... so either they wouldn't be capable of fast maneuvering, or the pilots would be protected by something far more robust than what they're wearing. Honestly... what possible function did those flight suits and flight helmets serve except to look "cool" and to be reminiscent of WWII-to-vietnam-era fighter-pilot gear? They didn't even have a respirator!
Next, the fighters would have targetable weapons... that seems pretty obvious.
Oh, and in a vacuum, ships don't bank, roll, and so forth... nor go down in flames. Heck, in a real "science fiction" spacecraft, you could cut thrust and coast, turning the ship in any direction. So when flying down the trench, Luke's protectors could have turned around and shot back at their pursuers.... even if they didn't have the ability to turn their weapons around to face aft (or didn't have aft-facing weapons).
See... it's not that "Star Wars" was so far in advance of our current understanding of the nature of the universe. It's that it FLAUNTED it. That's, ultimately, the difference between "science fiction" and "fantasy."
This isn't a criticism of Star Wars... I love that film. But I know I'm not watching anything which is intended to be accepted when viewed from a reasoning, scientifically-inclined perspective. It's there to look cool and be fun. It's FANTASY.
Now... take something like 2001 (or 2010 or 2061 or 3001). Those definitely go further down that path which I think you're attributing to "fantasy" yet I think of them as being science-fiction... they show us things that are waaaaay off the "yardstick" but which in no way really contradict what's on the portion of the yardstick we're familiar with.
It's ok to have the "so advanced we can't comprehend it" thing and still have it be science fiction. You just have to avoid the "well, we don't know or don't care about things that we already know and just want to make a kewl movie with big 'splosions."
Armageddon is one such movie... sort of fun from a pure-entertainment standpoint (Okay, I'll admit... any movie with Liv Tyler in it meets that criteria for me!) but it's HORRIFIC from the standpoint of real science... or "the portion of the yardstick we know so far" as you might describe it. They fell off the yardstick entirely about an inch down its length!
Armageddon is one such movie... sort of fun from a pure-entertainment standpoint (Okay, I'll admit... any movie with Liv Tyler in it meets that criteria for me!) but it's HORRIFIC from the standpoint of real science... or "the portion of the yardstick we know so far" as you might describe it. They fell off the yardstick entirely about an inch down its length!
You mean you can't really get a bunch of oil rig drivers and train them to operate in a 0 g environment in like 3 days and then drill a whole in a monster asteroid and use a nuke to save the world?! [Shatner from Airplane II] "Why the hell aren't I notified about these things!!" [/Shatner from Airplane II]
Although I must agree on the Liv Tyler comment. I still haven't figured out how she shares the same DNA as Steven Tyler. It just don't add up.
Not exactly how I would reimagine it, but it would be amusing if STXI used this Bluetooth device as it's communicator:
I'm gonna do a mock-up of what I'd imagine, about the size of a Razor cell phone.
Less talk, more art! lol
Update:
Here's what I'd imagine:
The button on the left is to open the flap and to talk (it's essentially a walkie-talkie, press the button to open channel.) The buttons on the right are for volume, when closed it adjusts the chirp, when open it adjusts the volume of the speaker. The light blue displays are for power, signal, frequency, and the one at the bottom flashes when you're getting a call (along with chirp). The Green power button is to turn the comm on and off, the red target one if to turn the location signal on and off. The middle gray part is a small "mouse wheel" that adjusts frequency range. Oh, and the dark gray part at the top is the antennae and the black square in the middle is to access it's internal components.
I'm gonna do a mock-up of what I'd imagine, about the size of a Razor cell phone.
Less talk, more art! lol
Update:
Here's what I'd imagine:
The button on the left is to open the flap and to talk (it's essentially a walkie-talkie, press the button to open channel.) The buttons on the right are for volume, when closed it adjusts the chirp, when open it adjusts the volume of the speaker. The light blue displays are for power, signal, frequency, and the one at the bottom flashes when you're getting a call (along with chirp). The Green power button is to turn the comm on and off, the red target one if to turn the location signal on and off. The middle gray part is a small "mouse wheel" that adjusts frequency range. Oh, and the dark gray part at the top is the antennae and the black square in the middle is to access it's internal components.
Last edited:
I thought that was a garage door opener...
I love those cool old flippy TOS commnicators! I even have that sound as a rigntone on my "push-to-talk" walkie talkie network, and next month I want to trade in my model for a black flip phone, so I can pretend it's a TOS com when people walkie-talkie me!
But that being said, I would think a more practical design woul be to replace the hand held communicator with a wrist-communicator, and send all the cool PC/iPhone style functions over to the tricorder. In Nemesis, wasn't the new tricorder just a small flat touch screen now? That would be perfect...
(Only pic I could find: http://thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com/truveo/images/thumbnails/2A/32/2A32825B11EF86.jpg)
In fact, no reason that the tricorder could't *also* have redundant communicator functions built it. You already would want it to send data up to the ship continiously - no reason it couldn't also use teh same uplink stream for voice and *visual* communications.
Oh yeah, speaking of visual comms, no matter what redesighn I went with, if I was going to choose a hand-held version, it would for sure have a screen for face-to-face communications. Like a video-phone. No reason that large speaker looking thing on the original TOS communicator couldn't be replaced with a small sreen - or better yet, as have been suggested, just make to entire front surface into an iPhone style multi-touch screen, and the antenna could just double as a cover.
But then if I did that, I personally would just mesh it with the tricorder.
Though, an idea I had for a uber-fururistic tricorder would be a wrist mounted device, with a display that went to a pair of glasses or tactical contacts (display contacts, which I just reas in a recent PopSci do exist now!) that displayed the data to the user's eyes. (With a 2nd holographic display function so that data could be shown to other people.) That device would also double as a communicator, of course. And a camera sending back live images of the away team/landing party to the ship.
But that being said, I would think a more practical design woul be to replace the hand held communicator with a wrist-communicator, and send all the cool PC/iPhone style functions over to the tricorder. In Nemesis, wasn't the new tricorder just a small flat touch screen now? That would be perfect...
(Only pic I could find: http://thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com/truveo/images/thumbnails/2A/32/2A32825B11EF86.jpg)
In fact, no reason that the tricorder could't *also* have redundant communicator functions built it. You already would want it to send data up to the ship continiously - no reason it couldn't also use teh same uplink stream for voice and *visual* communications.
Oh yeah, speaking of visual comms, no matter what redesighn I went with, if I was going to choose a hand-held version, it would for sure have a screen for face-to-face communications. Like a video-phone. No reason that large speaker looking thing on the original TOS communicator couldn't be replaced with a small sreen - or better yet, as have been suggested, just make to entire front surface into an iPhone style multi-touch screen, and the antenna could just double as a cover.
But then if I did that, I personally would just mesh it with the tricorder.
Though, an idea I had for a uber-fururistic tricorder would be a wrist mounted device, with a display that went to a pair of glasses or tactical contacts (display contacts, which I just reas in a recent PopSci do exist now!) that displayed the data to the user's eyes. (With a 2nd holographic display function so that data could be shown to other people.) That device would also double as a communicator, of course. And a camera sending back live images of the away team/landing party to the ship.
Last edited:
I notice that several of you have posted ideas that a communication device, set ~300 years in our future, would look just like a device you might be carrying in your pocket today.
Consider how different cell phones today look compared to those from just a few years back. Ignore size and complexity, and just consider STYLE and FORMAT. How much of your personal take on things is based upon "wanting it to be just like the thing I'm familiar with?"
But guys, that's going to date your idea far worse than 70's hair does for films done in that time period (hey, 70's hair will, inevitably, make a comeback... everything like that does!)
Instead, consider what the communicator does... and, if applicable, what it OUGHT TO DO.
The communicator needs a serious power source. I keep talking "laws of physics" and this is largely what I'm talking about. Your cell phone has a DINKY power cell... it's useless unless you're talking to a powerful receiver tower only a mile or so from wherever you happen to be. To send a signal powerful enough to reach high-orbit, you simply need more power... and that, inevitably, means a "bigger battery."
The communicator needs basic, easy-to-use controls. You don't want to have to go through a dozen levels of menus to get to what you need, if you're going to be using this thing in a "combat/crisis" sort of situation. The most important controls should be very easy to access and quick to operate.
The "voice dial" feature is perfect for that purpose, of course. And having a couple of "jog-dial/button" controls should be perfectly sufficient to do anything you'd really need to do.
Further, there is always more data in an audio-visual transmission than in a simple audio one. And that means more power to transmit your signal (and... if you're breaking it up into pulsed "packets" rather than broadcasting constantly, a more easily traceable transmission!) So you'd usually choose to go audio-only unless there was reason to do otherwise. BUT... you'd still want the option of visual.
The thing is, the original communicator HAS a video display (and I'll assume it's a video pickup as well). It's just that it normally only shows energy patterns whenever we've been looking at it.
Having "signal and battery strength" indicators, like today's cell phones (even being segmented!) is going to HORRIFICALLY date them if that gets done. Far worse than "70s hair"...
Honestly, all you need to do to this to make it "perfect for today" is to make the circular display a real (multimode) display, and to "tweak" the little jewels into pushbutton/jog-dial devices (which are used in conjunction with indicators on the display screen).
Circular screens make perfect sense in some situations... rectangular screens are just "what you're used to."
Consider how different cell phones today look compared to those from just a few years back. Ignore size and complexity, and just consider STYLE and FORMAT. How much of your personal take on things is based upon "wanting it to be just like the thing I'm familiar with?"
But guys, that's going to date your idea far worse than 70's hair does for films done in that time period (hey, 70's hair will, inevitably, make a comeback... everything like that does!)
Instead, consider what the communicator does... and, if applicable, what it OUGHT TO DO.
The communicator needs a serious power source. I keep talking "laws of physics" and this is largely what I'm talking about. Your cell phone has a DINKY power cell... it's useless unless you're talking to a powerful receiver tower only a mile or so from wherever you happen to be. To send a signal powerful enough to reach high-orbit, you simply need more power... and that, inevitably, means a "bigger battery."
The communicator needs basic, easy-to-use controls. You don't want to have to go through a dozen levels of menus to get to what you need, if you're going to be using this thing in a "combat/crisis" sort of situation. The most important controls should be very easy to access and quick to operate.
The "voice dial" feature is perfect for that purpose, of course. And having a couple of "jog-dial/button" controls should be perfectly sufficient to do anything you'd really need to do.
Further, there is always more data in an audio-visual transmission than in a simple audio one. And that means more power to transmit your signal (and... if you're breaking it up into pulsed "packets" rather than broadcasting constantly, a more easily traceable transmission!) So you'd usually choose to go audio-only unless there was reason to do otherwise. BUT... you'd still want the option of visual.
The thing is, the original communicator HAS a video display (and I'll assume it's a video pickup as well). It's just that it normally only shows energy patterns whenever we've been looking at it.
Having "signal and battery strength" indicators, like today's cell phones (even being segmented!) is going to HORRIFICALLY date them if that gets done. Far worse than "70s hair"...
Honestly, all you need to do to this to make it "perfect for today" is to make the circular display a real (multimode) display, and to "tweak" the little jewels into pushbutton/jog-dial devices (which are used in conjunction with indicators on the display screen).
Circular screens make perfect sense in some situations... rectangular screens are just "what you're used to."
Communicators would be subspace, and subcutaneous, and would allow you to hear the other end of a conversation without everyone in the room hearing it. Speaking back could be done vocally or subvocally. Optical data (what you are looking at) could be optionally included. A tiny hardened key component of the electronics would fit in a tiny socket that extrudes above the flesh (preferrably somewhere it can be hidden by hair or something, to make it unobtrusive both for asthetics and concealment), allowing it to be entirely disabled for privacy (no worrying about it being remotely activated on you) or by an enemy, so they don't need to cut you up to take your communicator away.
But, this lacks the flip-phone charm of the original, and also lacks any need for a nice diagram. Basically, it would just look like a mole or some such. I like the Enterprise iteration of the classic communicator, even if I think my concept is better and more likely.
But, this lacks the flip-phone charm of the original, and also lacks any need for a nice diagram. Basically, it would just look like a mole or some such. I like the Enterprise iteration of the classic communicator, even if I think my concept is better and more likely.
Your concept is sound for a short-range communicator, but you still need somthing big and beefy to transmit over long distances, seeing as away team equipment would need to last quite a long time, and such a communicator would have a tiny battery. In that case, the subcutaneous communicator would link up with the classic-style communicator, rather like a bluetooth device.
Sure, there are communication devices like the commbadge in reality, my mom's job has this new fangled commbadge type thing. But nothing of that size could conceivably be capable of communicating from surface to orbit, or across a star system.
Okay, the discussion that this post just generated resolved which component would be in the surface socket: the same sort of power cell used in a TNG combadge.
If you absolutely insist on a larger unit, then one or more of the landing party could be carrying a relay unit, much like one or more of the party carries a tricorder. That would actually have the advantage of providing something that could be taken from them by any enemy that captures them without having to necessarily mess with their persons at all.
You're ignoring one of the most important of all engineering principles... the "KISS Principle."
("Keep It Simple, Stupid!")
Or, as restated in ST-III... "the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
A straightforward device in a robust one-piece housing is always going to be preferable to a "system" with wireless links and so forth distributed as you describe.
The most central element of good engineering isn't "how cool can we make it?" It's "what does it need to do, and what's the simplest, easiest-to-use way to accomplish what we need it to do?"
Well there you go dating yourself. What's difficult today will be simple tomorrow, so, in star treknology, a local area com field feeding to a central device may be KISS. Simple is in the eye of the beholder and relative to technological level. It is also based on requirements, which we can only guess at.
If you want to come up with a new design, feel free to pick you favorite cellphone. If you want to come up with a new Com system make a list of requirements. Describe what you think would be within reason technology wise, then come up with a your devices that KISS based on these self imposed parameters.
If you want to come up with a new design, feel free to pick you favorite cellphone. If you want to come up with a new Com system make a list of requirements. Describe what you think would be within reason technology wise, then come up with a your devices that KISS based on these self imposed parameters.
Good lord... that's amazing.
"Simple is in the eye of the beholder?"
Your profile says you're in IT. Do you actually know how to program? I'm going to assume so.
Which is simpler... a 100-line non-branching routine or a 100,000 line routine with branching conditional evaluations on every third line?
If it's really "in the eye of the beholder" as you say, then doesn't that mean that if I happen to think that the second one is "simpler," that's a valid perspective?
Of course, that's nonsense, and anyone who said anything that moronic would simply be WRONG. It doesn't matter if the coding is being written in compiled Fortran 77, or in the latest version of C, either... the CONCEPT is the same, regardless of the underlying technology.
Simpler is just that... simpler.
If you code... you've certainly done flow-charts showing how the program should operate, before you've written a single line of real code. (Well, if you're a COMPETENT coder in any case... only the truly incompetent just start writing without having a plan). You come up with the required inputs, the required outputs, and the required functions... not yet worrying about the "how" but only with the functional "flow."
You then come up with the most efficient, and yes, SIMPLEST program that meets the design you've flow-charted.
Same thing applies to real, physical design.
A competently-executed design never implements features which provide no required function but provide additional failure modes. Your idea, while perhaps "seeming uber-kewl" is simply an attempt to be "kewl" and not one that provides any real benefit. But it IS something which provides an additional degree of complexity and many, many additional potential modes of failure.
That is the point of "KISS" and it will never be "outdated."
"Within reason, technology-wise" isn't even something on the table when you're talking about the functional phase of design. You're only talking about "what does it need to do, how must it be interacted with" and so forth.
And you come up with a functional diagram... a "flow chart" normally... to discuss what the interaction of those various functions and requirements happen to be.
Only after you've got your requirements and functions worked out do you start to discuss how to apply currently-available technology to (hopefully) MEET those requirements.
It's ALWAYS the case that a simpler device is less likely to undergo a failure than a more complex one. This isn't dependent on the current level-of-technology in any way. More advanced technology levels will still be subject to this same principle. Unless you live in Bizarro World, it always will be.
In Trek terms... "the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
There are good reasons for not "borg-i-fying" yourself in this fashion.
Perhaps you want to be able to leave it behind and not be traceable. Perhaps there are safety issues with long-term implantation of the device (which would always be emitting some form of energy). Perhaps you only want it with you when you need it (instead of having it with you at all times, regardless of whether or not it's currently something you need). Perhaps you need different versions of the device in different situations (and want to be able to accomplish that without requiring surgery). Perhaps you simply have an objection to mutilation... you want to keep yourself "human," in other words, instead of becoming a "wetware" component of some mechanism.
