Is trek current terminology holding back it's advancement?

[Johnny]

Does Star Trek's inability to adopt different forms of ftl travel have something to do with not finding the right terminology?
Or is it just to do with people not wanting to advance past what is theoretically possible today?

Like 'Warp 5', or whatever speed, is an accepted term by everyone. it roles happily of the tongue and everyone knows what you mean. When it comes to the Quatum Slipstream Drive, how can you put that in a shortened term? 'QSS-5' doesn't really work and lets not start with 'Stream 5'! If there was a way of putting it across simply and without sounding 'corney' maybe it'd be more likely to be adopted, especially if there was a scale of speed to work to, and parameters to stick to like with warp drive, maybe more writers could have used it?

Putting limits on it like whether you can scan normal space as you pass through slipstream? You put that kind of restriction and it allows quite a few stories that can't be told at warp.

The only exceptions I can be sure of are 'All Good Thing's', with that scanner that scans beyond the subspace barrier, and you see it when they don't have it in the past; and the introduction of quantum phasers and photon torpedos. They're not huge advancements as the Universe advances with it, however space gets smaller the faster you travel.

Waffle waffle, etc. You know what I'm getting at! Anyone think otherwise?

 

[Christopher]

Does Star Trek's inability to adopt different forms of ftl travel have something to do with not finding the right terminology?
Or is it just to do with people not wanting to advance past what is theoretically possible today?

It has to do with there being little need for it. Warp drive operates at the speed of plot; it can get to the center of the galaxy in 15 minutes if the story calls for it (ST V, "The Magicks of Megas-tu"), or it can take 30 years to cover the same distance if the story calls for that instead (Voyager). Alternate names for propulsion systems are just random technobabble (I still can't get over how stupid and meaningless the term "coaxial warp drive" is), used when a story requires something faster than normal.

So the names mean nothing. All Trek propulsion systems are simply plot devices. You could replace "warp" with "slipstream" and it would still work the same from a story standpoint -- i.e. it would be as fast as the story needed and no faster, and if a story required something faster than that standard system, they'd make up some other name for it. (Just as quantum torpedoes, as a rule, are no more effective against enemy ships than photon torpedoes were, because no matter how much you claim they're more powerful, they're still going to be only as potent as the story needs.)

Like 'Warp 5', or whatever speed, is an accepted term by everyone. it roles happily of the tongue and everyone knows what you mean. When it comes to the Quatum Slipstream Drive, how can you put that in a shortened term? 'QSS-5' doesn't really work and lets not start with 'Stream 5'!

"Slip factor?"

If there was a way of putting it across simply and without sounding 'corney' maybe it'd be more likely to be adopted, especially if there was a scale of speed to work to, and parameters to stick to like with warp drive, maybe more writers could have used it?

Quantum slipstream drive was invented in Voyager as a McGuffin, a plot device that could enable Voyager to reach home in a short amount of time. Since the series premise was predicated on Voyager being unable to reach home, they obviously couldn't use slipstream on more than an occasional basis. Terminology had absolutely nothing to do with it. And since there have been no TV series set post-Voyager, there's been no opportunity to use it. The only work of canonical Trek set after VGR is Nemesis, and it was irrelevant to that film what they called the drive system they used.

For what it's worth, the post-NEM Trek novels from Pocket Books have recently introduced the starship Aventine, a prototype vessel equipped with slipstream drive. It's a safe bet we'll be seeing more Starfleet use of slipstream in future novels. It may eventually become standard.

 

[Johnny]

It has to do with there being little need for it. Warp drive operates at the speed of plot; it can get to the center of the galaxy in 15 minutes if the story calls for it (ST V, "The Magicks of Megas-tu"), or it can take 30 years to cover the same distance if the story calls for that instead (Voyager). Alternate names for propulsion systems are just random technobabble (I still can't get over how stupid and meaningless the term "coaxial warp drive" is), used when a story requires something faster than normal.

It's not the names that bother me, and they may be meaningless, and they certainly are plot devices. But I don't believe that they should be JUST plot devices, the suprising moment where the ship can exceed it's maximum speed and no one explains why. The slip stream for example was created within the voyager making it canon, and whatever excuse they said for not using it again, the research and flight data is there and starfleet should be able to recreate it all, at least in time. I think there's a fear within Trek to make advancements, because as soon as you've reached the edge of the galaxy then things get a little complicated past then.

So the names mean nothing. All Trek propulsion systems are simply plot devices. You could replace "warp" with "slipstream" and it would still work the same from a story standpoint -- i.e. it would be as fast as the story needed and no faster, and if a story required something faster than that standard system, they'd make up some other name for it. (Just as quantum torpedoes, as a rule, are no more effective against enemy ships than photon torpedoes were, because no matter how much you claim they're more powerful, they're still going to be only as potent as the story needs.)

As for quantum torpedoes, why create them if they arn't any better than normal torpedoes? They could hold larger yeilds or have a larger internal power source for faster travel.
My point is more to do with that they consistantly invent things that they never use, and by the end of the episode they've got rid of it or found a reason not to use it.
I think bringing in something like slipstream would be one of the defining moments of Star Trek, with the acknowledgement that things DO change and that you can't keep pushing them aside, just because it causes too many questions. The challenge shouldn't be to keep things the same, it should be to question and analyse the new and incorporate it into their lives.

For what it's worth, the post-NEM Trek novels from Pocket Books have recently introduced the starship Aventine, a prototype vessel equipped with slipstream drive. It's a safe bet we'll be seeing more Starfleet use of slipstream in future novels. It may eventually become standard.

As for the books, I'm not too interested. As soon as it appears in a series then I'll start to think about it.

It seems everytime I watch some Trek, the people who make it arn't willing to take on responsibility of changing something in the franchise, and it's why I still commend Abrams for changing it for the new film, no matter whether I think he's gone too far or not.

 

[JoeZhang]

As for quantum torpedoes, why create them if they arn't any better than normal torpedoes? They could hold larger yeilds or have a larger internal power source for faster travel.

I think you've missed Christopher's point - it does not matter how much more power a quantum torpedo is than a photon torpedo because if the plot demands that they can't destroy ship X, they will be unable to destroy ship X - regardless of how much more powerful they are suppose to be.

In the same way, if the story requires the Enterprise to get someone just a moment too late to stop a space station being blown up, then they will get there a moment too late - and they will always be too late, even if their quantum slipstream drive is upgraded to a hyperquantum superslipstream drive.

 

[JNG]

Yes, the plot drives the tech capabilities.

Guess we might as well delete the Trek Tech forum, eh?

Does Star Trek's inability to adopt different forms of ftl travel have something to do with not finding the right terminology?
Or is it just to do with people not wanting to advance past what is theoretically possible today?

None of the drives are theoretically possible today. They all involve fictional continua and particles and such. As such, the terminology used to express the fiction is of a secondary importance. But the surprising level of consistency in the presentation of these concepts, especially considering the time pressures involved in making action-adventure television, has made them a lot more fun to discuss.

 

[Johnny]

I understand Chistopher's point, but that wasn't the point I was trying to get at. I don't think 'because the plot says so' or 'because the plot demands it' is a good enough reason to ignore the fact that Star Trek needs to change to tell more different and varied stories. A lot of crap has happened because Star Trek has remained slightly stagnant...just look at Voyager, it's full of it.
There's only so many times you can approach an unknown planet and not realise it's a copy of a TNG episode.

My point is, to figure out why people are unwilling to change, and I think it's fear of changing something that WAS good and the hope it will be again. I think because of Star trek standing still (obviously in my opinion) a different form of writing and form of ideas need to be integrated to advance the plots.

Sure, if you want ship X to survive then make ship X survive, but because so many things have been done before in the same setting then not being able to defeat ship X becomes boring...chasing it at warp becomes boring...it's all been done before. It needs to change, and I don't mean to bring in technobable about any new drives or weapons theyve got, just dropping in 'fire spheres!' (yes I know that sounds silly), no one knows what they are and it leaves room for expansion and open for discovery.

If the first prototype ship came out with slipstream there's no end to the stories they could tell (well actually about x3 7yr series would do it!). The years it would take to upgrade the rest of the fleet, the test flights, no need to be the nearest ship but the only one that can get there the quickest.

The art of finding out something new has almost died a death on Star Trek because of the lack of change. If engineering had a slipstream drive, all those 'strange radiation leak' episodes would suddenly become viable again, the unknowns of that kind of travel would be explorable, and you can suprise the audience again.

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, the plot drives the tech capabilities.

I don't feel it should; that leads to some sloppy patterns of writing that most of us have come to notice over the years. It's sort of like how Rambo's marksmanship is directly proportional to the plot value of the person he's shooting at; one scene he can carry a twelve year old Afghan kid in one hand while mowing down three dozen Russians with an assault rifle in the other; a moment later he's firing shots over the head of the Russian General because he's not supposed to die until the finale.

I have a sickly reaction to "speed of plot" contrivance; once or twice is forgivable, but if you do it enough times it starts to get distracting.

My thinking is the capabilities of the technology should be spelled out first, then the story setup within the parameters of that technology. So instead of blithely taking for granted that subspace radio can talk to anyone in the Federation instantly without lag, a writer should have to start with how subspace radio apparently works and take those limits into account. Like, say, noting that depending on where the ship is supposed to be in space, Starfleet won't get the message for another twelve hours. Or better yet--and maybe more importantly--set up some limits for how quickly the sensors can and can't scan a planet for something, so instead of having the scan be instantaneous, either drop in an exterior shot to show some time has passed or have the Captain in his quarters reading a book or chatting with first officer when the scan finally finds what it's looking for.

My point is, terminology isn't holding back advancement, just the unwillingness of writers to nail down what the tech actually does, and more importantly, what it does not do. After all, in the real world, you can't exactly whip out a screwdriver and convert a rifle bullet into an armor-piercing configuration; you either pick up a different rifle or you pick up a different bullet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

Simple: set the TECH in stone and force the CHARACTERS to solve the problem without magic. Maybe instead of a throwaway line where, say, Harry and Tuvok come up and say "We can talk to you now because we've boosted the subspace triaxilator with a quantum resonator douche," why not skip the entire technobabble thing and have Tuvok furiously fiddling with the gain controls trying to make out a signal through the static? Actually, that's even a plus for Generations, where Kirk has to climb all the way down to deflector control and reprogram the computer by hand (I suppose the technicians wouldn't arrive until Tuesday...). Plot logic only requires Kirk to climb all the way down there so he can get killed, but once you've established that systems have to be modified by hand, might as well up the drama by having people do it ALL THE TIME so we can actually see what "Modify the subspace triaxilator" looks like.

Technobabble should be a tool of the characters, not a deus-ex machina that does their work for them. Cross-circuiting to B is only interesting when you get to WATCH Spock doing it.

 

[Johnny]

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

Simple: set the TECH in stone and force the CHARACTERS to solve the problem without magic. Maybe instead of a throwaway line where, say, Harry and Tuvok come up and say "We can talk to you now because we've boosted the subspace triaxilator with a quantum resonator douche," why not skip the entire technobabble thing and have Tuvok furiously fiddling with the gain controls trying to make out a signal through the static? Actually, that's even a plus for Generations, where Kirk has to climb all the way down to deflector control and reprogram the computer by hand (I suppose the technicians wouldn't arrive until Tuesday...). Plot logic only requires Kirk to climb all the way down there so he can get killed, but once you've established that systems have to be modified by hand, might as well up the drama by having people do it ALL THE TIME so we can actually see what "Modify the subspace triaxilator" looks like.

Technobabble should be a tool of the characters, not a deus-ex machina that does their work for them. Cross-circuiting to B is only interesting when you get to WATCH Spock doing it.

Yeah, things set in stone is good, it would apply consistancy in the facts presented, and then let the audience get gems of information along the way. Part of what makes a good story is learning information as you go.

I'd get rid of the "Captain's Log: All is well, we're all alive, ship's good too." lines aswell, at the end of some episodes. It's kills a story for me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The whole Captain's log thing was originally a plot device in TOS as a cheap way of adding narration without actually adding narration. Sometimes it works pretty well... for example, "Captain's log, supplemental. Now nine hours motionless in standoff with Romulan vessel..." Since nine hours of waiting is hard to show, you could combine reaction shots of bleary-eyed officers staring intensely at their monitor screens and then add "... the tension on the bridge is palpable. I just hope the Romulans are sweating as hard as we are right now..."

 

[JNG]

Yes, the plot drives the tech capabilities.

I don't feel it should; that leads to some sloppy patterns of writing that most of us have come to notice over the years.

Yes, my face meant I was goofing on how this happens. In fairness, though, many of those sorts of compromises don't happen without writers being aware of them; they are borne of time constraints or meddling from higher-ups and lots of other things. I doubt that any particular guy who wrote for Voyager really thought George and Martha in Peoria were going to be glued to the TV, saying "I bet he's gonna reroute something and get them outta this!" It's more like his original ending got a last-minute no-no from someone who signs his checks for a reason he considers specious and he's got to plug the hole because the script is due tomorrow. Stuff like that.

Of course, in our best work, good drama and good tech can work together, each imposing limitations on one another that aid the suspension of disbelief and help science fiction fulfill its promise.

If the first prototype ship came out with slipstream there's no end to the stories they could tell (well actually about x3 7yr series would do it!). The years it would take to upgrade the rest of the fleet, the test flights, no need to be the nearest ship but the only one that can get there the quickest.

The art of finding out something new has almost died a death on Star Trek because of the lack of change. If engineering had a slipstream drive, all those 'strange radiation leak' episodes would suddenly become viable again, the unknowns of that kind of travel would be explorable, and you can suprise the audience again.

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

The same questions could be asked about a drive tens of thousands of times faster than warp, which is not necessary for Trek; we don't need to view travel times anyway, and can have new planets introduced as often as is necessary with a cut and an exterior view of a new planet, or whatever. Excessively fast speeds would limit story possibilities, as the ship could show up instantly for emergencies, run from virtually any phenomenon imaginable with impunity, and so forth. We'd know the whole political layout of the galaxy with a few years of scouting, and so surprises in that area would have to be extragalactic; the dynamic wouldn't change much overall. My view as a writer is that in later Treks, space already seemed too small and not mysterious enough. I wouldn't want to make it smaller.

Quantum slipstream drive is probably many years beyond the capabilities of the Federation at the latest point in the timeline we saw, and we have no particular reason to assume they will ever get it right. It was just a briefly-encountered superior alien technology, like many other so-called "drives of the week" on Voyager that inevitably failed to get the ship home. Hey, that business Barclay did in "The Nth Degree" seemed pretty great too, but don't expect everyone to start porting around with that any time soon. Novel writers and fanficcers will run with this stuff, but the casual fan doesn't care about the name of the fictional drive a Trek ship is using.

 

[Johnny]

If the first prototype ship came out with slipstream there's no end to the stories they could tell (well actually about x3 7yr series would do it!). The years it would take to upgrade the rest of the fleet, the test flights, no need to be the nearest ship but the only one that can get there the quickest.

The art of finding out something new has almost died a death on Star Trek because of the lack of change. If engineering had a slipstream drive, all those 'strange radiation leak' episodes would suddenly become viable again, the unknowns of that kind of travel would be explorable, and you can suprise the audience again.

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

The same questions could be asked about a drive tens of thousands of times faster than warp, which is not necessary for Trek; we don't need to view travel times anyway, and can have new planets introduced as often as is necessary with a cut and an exterior view of a new planet, or whatever.

Part of the problem with trek too though is that they have too many fix-all solutions (see all captain's log quotes), why not use the drive that takes six days instead of 30, and use those six days to expand the story, use it in a mini-arc with the following three or four episodes.

And it doesn't mean that when they get there, the problem is solved just from their presense. So like you say, if knowing travel times is not necessary then why not add in something new and exciting that changes the way the federation travels, and have those episodes where they discover new things about their new technology.

Excessively fast speeds would limit story possibilities, as the ship could show up instantly for emergencies, run from virtually any phenomenon imaginable with impunity, and so forth.

Running from a phenomenon is a good thing, but to be honest if anything natural can only theoretically move at less than light speed, we've really got no problem there already. And just because we can run from a phenomenon doesn't mean the story losses it's suspense.

Generations; Big star explodes and they can't leave because they have stranded crew on the station. There's the suspense, and they escape at Warp 1, the MINIMUM velocity you can go under warp travel.

Nowhere have I really said get rid of warp drive, it may be theoretically more efficient over shorter distances, which gives you the possibility to keep it in the show. You can then only need to crack out the Federation SlipStream (which doesn't have to be as fast as others we've seen) to go further distances. And if there's limitations on scanning local space while in SlipStream then there's plenty of scope for using the warp drive there, for finding eg. stranded ships.

We'd know the whole political layout of the galaxy with a few years of scouting, and so surprises in that area would have to be extragalactic; the dynamic wouldn't change much overall. My view as a writer is that in later Treks, space already seemed too small and not mysterious enough. I wouldn't want to make it smaller.

Part of my entire point in this thread is that the writing in Star Trek is lax, and there seem to be fears to make things interesting (or from their point of view, complicated). One of the biggest moves I've ever seen the writers make was the federation taking over Cardassia. Big shift in political power there. If we didn't know the political layout of the galaxy things like that could never be written.
I agree with your comment about space being too small though, but only through what I've just said. There must be millions of planets in Federation space that they haven't even scanned, even with their directional sensors. What's wrong with those? Absolutely nothing. You try walking to Alpha Centauri, it's a long way, and that can be portrayed in the writing, in the 3D, in story-arc's which show more travel than, 'Captain's Log: We're here.' That's no fun. I don't think that trek has fantastic writing recently, with the exception of ENT-3&4 which had gotten better, and I think it's because it's commonplace to put in plot-filler comments and not take the time to enjoy the moments. Nothing in writing should ever be rushed.

Quantum slipstream drive is probably many years beyond the capabilities of the Federation at the latest point in the timeline we saw, and we have no particular reason to assume they will ever get it right. It was just a briefly-encountered superior alien technology, like many other so-called "drives of the week" on Voyager that inevitably failed to get the ship home. Hey, that business Barclay did in "The Nth Degree" seemed pretty great too, but don't expect everyone to start porting around with that any time soon. Novel writers and fanficcers will run with this stuff, but the casual fan doesn't care about the name of the fictional drive a Trek ship is using.

I'd have to watch 'Nth Degree' again to see the details, and unfortunatly for the writers, I'm not a casual fan, and to be fair it's not the casual fan thats buying the DVD's.
What was Nemesis? 2385? Call it a round 2400, and it's only 400 years until (yes, in a future that may not be...) we're protecting the integrity of the timeline from people in the past (and don't even get me started on those worms!)...with nothing less than the one fix-all piece of equipment on the ship, the transporter.

Let's move things on, and write stories about the wonders of humanity living in space, the scope of the galaxy, and the awesomeness of no matter how much we expand, compassion is still a driving force!

 

[SupAJ1M]

lol

 

[ancient]

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

Simple: set the TECH in stone and force the CHARACTERS to solve the problem without magic. Maybe instead of a throwaway line where, say, Harry and Tuvok come up and say "We can talk to you now because we've boosted the subspace triaxilator with a quantum resonator douche," why not skip the entire technobabble thing and have Tuvok furiously fiddling with the gain controls trying to make out a signal through the static? Actually, that's even a plus for Generations, where Kirk has to climb all the way down to deflector control and reprogram the computer by hand (I suppose the technicians wouldn't arrive until Tuesday...). Plot logic only requires Kirk to climb all the way down there so he can get killed, but once you've established that systems have to be modified by hand, might as well up the drama by having people do it ALL THE TIME so we can actually see what "Modify the subspace triaxilator" looks like.

Technobabble should be a tool of the characters, not a deus-ex machina that does their work for them. Cross-circuiting to B is only interesting when you get to WATCH Spock doing it.

Unfortunatly, unless you can have everything written by the same guy, 'how it works' will always change - depending on who wrote it.

 

[Christopher]

I think you've missed Christopher's point - it does not matter how much more power a quantum torpedo is than a photon torpedo because if the plot demands that they can't destroy ship X, they will be unable to destroy ship X - regardless of how much more powerful they are suppose to be.

Exactly, and this is part of the response to what Johnny is wishing for. Even when there is a nominal change in-story, say, quantum torpedoes replacing photon torpedoes, it doesn't change the dramatic need to have enemies that are hard to defeat, so the enemies seem to suddenly get stronger shields that cancel out any advantage gained by the new torpedoes. Ultimately, any technology must work only as well as the story requires.

For that matter, the portrayal of photon torpedoes in most of Trek is grossly underplayed from what antimatter warheads should be capable of. These things are supposed to be more powerful than the largest atomic bomb ever built, but usually they're shown to be little more potent than present-day artillery shells. In ST V, you even have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy just meters away from ground zero when a torpedo detonates, and they're just knocked to the ground instead of being flash-vaporized along with much of the surrounding landscape.

I understand Chistopher's point, but that wasn't the point I was trying to get at. I don't think 'because the plot says so' or 'because the plot demands it' is a good enough reason to ignore the fact that Star Trek needs to change to tell more different and varied stories. A lot of crap has happened because Star Trek has remained slightly stagnant...just look at Voyager, it's full of it.

Stories aren't driven by the speed of the drives or the power of the weapons, though. Stories are about characters and ideas. That's where you get the variety.

My point is, to figure out why people are unwilling to change, and I think it's fear of changing something that WAS good and the hope it will be again. I think because of Star trek standing still (obviously in my opinion) a different form of writing and form of ideas need to be integrated to advance the plots.

If that's so, you're looking in completely the wrong place if you're thinking technology is the answer. You want to find fresh storytelling, you need to start with the people, the concepts, the themes, the style of the drama. If anything, one of VGR's greatest weaknesses was that it depended too much on technology to drive its stories.

The art of finding out something new has almost died a death on Star Trek because of the lack of change. If engineering had a slipstream drive, all those 'strange radiation leak' episodes would suddenly become viable again, the unknowns of that kind of travel would be explorable, and you can suprise the audience again.

I don't see that at all. If the same old kinds of stories are "viable again," how is that a surprise? It's just the same story beats with different labels inserted. The difference might be of interest to the 0.05% of viewers who give a flying fig about the technology, but to most people it would still be the same cliched story regardless of whether the drive is called warp, slipstream, or Hubert.

My thinking is the capabilities of the technology should be spelled out first, then the story setup within the parameters of that technology. So instead of blithely taking for granted that subspace radio can talk to anyone in the Federation instantly without lag, a writer should have to start with how subspace radio apparently works and take those limits into account. Like, say, noting that depending on where the ship is supposed to be in space, Starfleet won't get the message for another twelve hours. Or better yet--and maybe more importantly--set up some limits for how quickly the sensors can and can't scan a planet for something, so instead of having the scan be instantaneous, either drop in an exterior shot to show some time has passed or have the Captain in his quarters reading a book or chatting with first officer when the scan finally finds what it's looking for.

My point is, terminology isn't holding back advancement, just the unwillingness of writers to nail down what the tech actually does, and more importantly, what it does not do. After all, in the real world, you can't exactly whip out a screwdriver and convert a rifle bullet into an armor-piercing configuration; you either pick up a different rifle or you pick up a different bullet.

You make an excellent point. It's not a matter of terminology, it's a matter of approach. By treating technology as merely a plot device, the writers don't put any more imagination into it than they have to. A more hard-SF approach, setting definite technological potentials and limits and generating story from them, would be a fresh way of doing things. (When DS9 alumnus Robert Hewitt Wolfe developed Andromeda, this was one of the key things he did -- creating a universe that had a number of technologies Trek didn't use much, like nanotech, genetic engineering, and AI, but also imposing certain limits, like no FTL communication, no forcefields, and a propulsion system with serious drawbacks as well as advantages.)

Part of the problem with trek too though is that they have too many fix-all solutions (see all captain's log quotes), why not use the drive that takes six days instead of 30, and use those six days to expand the story, use it in a mini-arc with the following three or four episodes.

If they want to do a mini-arc, they'll do so by creating a plot that calls for one, as they did on DS9 and in ENT's fourth season. They don't need a different propulsion system.

And it doesn't mean that when they get there, the problem is solved just from their presense. So like you say, if knowing travel times is not necessary then why not add in something new and exciting that changes the way the federation travels, and have those episodes where they discover new things about their new technology.

Maybe, but ultimately they'd still be "techie crisis of the week," and most viewers wouldn't see anything different about that no matter how fresh the technology was. Replacing warp permanently with slipstream and having the ship almost blow up because of some unexpected problem with slipstream is dramatically no different from having the ship almost blow up because of a tech advance of the week like a soliton wave or a space anomaly of the week like a swarm of 2-dimensional beings. Replacing one gadget with another wouldn't bring the kind of changes you're looking for. Adopting a more systematic approach to whatever tech they used, as newtype alpha suggested, would work better from the perspective of those of us who pay attention to the tech, but it would still be secondary to the characters and the drama. You want to improve the storytelling, start with the people, not the machinery.

What was Nemesis? 2385?

2379.

 

[ancient]

"Set course for moonbase 4, Mr. Sulu. Herbert factor 4."

My God it's GENIUS!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you know everything about everything; where's the interest? where's the motivation? what is there to explore?

Simple: set the TECH in stone and force the CHARACTERS to solve the problem without magic. Maybe instead of a throwaway line where, say, Harry and Tuvok come up and say "We can talk to you now because we've boosted the subspace triaxilator with a quantum resonator douche," why not skip the entire technobabble thing and have Tuvok furiously fiddling with the gain controls trying to make out a signal through the static? Actually, that's even a plus for Generations, where Kirk has to climb all the way down to deflector control and reprogram the computer by hand (I suppose the technicians wouldn't arrive until Tuesday...). Plot logic only requires Kirk to climb all the way down there so he can get killed, but once you've established that systems have to be modified by hand, might as well up the drama by having people do it ALL THE TIME so we can actually see what "Modify the subspace triaxilator" looks like.

Technobabble should be a tool of the characters, not a deus-ex machina that does their work for them. Cross-circuiting to B is only interesting when you get to WATCH Spock doing it.

Unfortunatly, unless you can have everything written by the same guy, 'how it works' will always change - depending on who wrote it.

I don't mind that one bit. Just as long as the writers consistently DO it, I don't really care whether their different interpretations of the technology occasionally contradict each other (reconciling them is the job of the fans, not the writers). To use a more down-to-Earth example: I don't care if the writer of one CSI episode thinks teflon-coated bullets are designed for armor penetration while ten episodes later another writer says they're designed for maximum stopping power. The apparent contradiction can be explained away... just as long as we don't have the lab techs analyzing a shattered bullet by "modifying the resonance factor in the electron microscope" or some crap like that.

So I don't care if one writer thinks photon torpedoes are powerful enough to destroy an unshielded ship while another thinks the ship can shrug off at least three direct hits. As long as they make an effort to work within limits instead of using technology as a cureall, you can keep the focus on the characters.

Specific example: in "Q Who", Data observes that "at this range a photon detonation could destroy the Enterprise," is forgivable so long as the POINT is that Picard would rather go down fighting than let the Borg eat the Enterprise for lunch; this desperation, in the end, is what prompts Q to end the confrontation. This is a MUCH better outcome than, say, Q popping up on the bridge and saying "If you modify your photon torpedoes to emit a quantum graviton field, that will trigger the subspace conduit to send you home. Bye now."

 

[TIN_MAN]

I think "Enterprise" had the same problem, but in reverse, the writer/producers/suits were so hung up on conventional treknology and treknobabble that they were afraid to come up with the kinds of interesting stories that a less advanced era would have made possible?