You actually didn't know that Voyager would get home in the last episode ... like the rest of us did?
Trek will probably maintain an internet presence and their will be conventions so long as the actors and writers that are their center remain alive. But nothing lasts forever.
It's not hard to buy though. You just go to this URL, put in your email and a password, and voila. I think I didn't even have to put in my credit card information until after the free week.
Wasn't Apollo 13 a great movie? We all knew how it would end. The intrigue is in watching it unfold, all the nuances and details that are waiting to be enacted. I wouldn't mind a prequel, if they'd just do it right. Pick up where ENT left off. And be very, very sensitive to what didn't work with ENT. I'd love it. Going forward, beyond Voyager? That'll be a hard place to go at this point. There would have to be a completely new premise, something very unexpected and filled with enough potential to take it up to 7+ seasons.
Post Voyager Trek is possible-the technology and money exists. Problem is they don't have the fanbase who has watched 21 seasons and 4 movies of Trek.
If Discovery is a bust, Star Trek goes into stasis for a long time again. Financial failure in the franchise will not promote ideas various fans want; it will convince the suits at CBS that the brand isn't worth investing in for another decade or two.
I agree that's a problem. But so is promoting the fiction that TOS was a golden age that must be recaptured. Nobody watched it, and it limped into a third season, before being cancelled. The last attempt to recapture TOS' alleged magic on TV was Enterprise, and it scarcely fared much better. If I'm not mistaken the only time TV Trek wasn't under constant threat of cancellation was when it was set in the 24th century. It's not luck that 21 of the 28 seasons of TV Trek have been set in the 24th century, and I'm confused by the calcifying opinion in fandom that Trek can only move forward by forgetting this. Please note I'm excluding the 13 feature films from this analysis because in my opinion, as far as Trek is concerned, what works on the big screen is the opposite of what has worked on the small screen.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that the reason TOS and ENT were cancelled and TNG, DS9, and VOY weren't was because the former weren't set in the 24th century and the latter were. I think that's a kind of simplistic hypothesis that ignores a myriad of other more influential factors that contributed to those shows' respective cancellations and successes. I don't think the time period has anything to do with it.
That's certainly not what I meant to say. I'm trying to say that Trek in its 24th century iterations performed well enough on TV that all 3 of those shows lasted 7 seasons with no threats to their existence. Trek set in earlier timeframes did not enjoy this luxury. What I mean is that there's a risk in trying to make every new Trek around the rose-tinted memories of a series that ended 47 years ago because nobody was watching it.
Oh it's totally cool if you want to exclude the movies-though I adore First Contact personally. And your right-TOS wasn't some golden age-a sixties show that even Roddenberry abandoned at the beginning of its third season. Honestly I think the execs and marketeers believe though that's the only Trek that has enough appeal/familiarity in mass consciousness to succeed. They think that breaking from that and doing post-Voyager stuff will result in either failure or continually declining returns(only hardcore fans watch it-not enough general audiences so they are continually pumping money into a losing venture). In the end though Trek has lasted a long time and is well known, it still has a fanbase that debates it's favorite episodes over and over again. So the Trek fandom at least I can see lasting a long time-perhaps in the most optimistic terms-as long as their are fans of Sherlock Holmes.
To be fair though, TOS became very successful in syndication and has enjoyed a critical and viewer reevaluation over the years. There are people born decades after its cancellation who discover it and it becomes their favorite series (i.e., me). Hell, even ENT is getting a little reevaluation these days (not nearly the same extent though). Granted the 24th century shows were more successful by numbers during their initial run, but I'd argue that only TNG has about the same pop culture influence or fixture in public consciousness as TOS. And with the trend of throwbacks and reboots these days, it only makes sense why they want to revisit the TOS era.
If Discovery fails, Trek may be on hiatus for a few years while no new developments are underway but some write/producer/director would someday make a pitch to try a Trek media venture and they'll consider the franchise's history and potential and give it a try. After all if Disney's been able to do it with Star Wars, CBS will figure they can do it with Trek with the write person in charge.
Or Bach. Or Beethoven. Or Shakespeare. Or Jules Verne. Also, Roddenberry abandoned TOS because he didn't see any money in it.