• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dark Matter, SyFy's new space show, premieres June 12th

Cost of the International Space Station for a crew of 6: $150,000,000,000
Cost for a 4 bedroom house, custom build: $200,000

For us today, sure. But once there's an established, permanent presence in space, it'll be enormously cheaper to get raw materials from asteroids than to haul them out of Earth's gravity well. And if you broke up all the asteroids in the Main Belt alone and converted them into megastructures, you'd have hundreds of Earths' worth of habitable area. A civilization relying exclusively on planets would need to perfect interstellar travel (just imagine how costly that would be) and spend generations searching through thousands of star systems to find a hundred relatively habitable Earthlike planets to settle on -- and that's assuming they didn't have hidden, unforeseen dangers lying in wait. A civilization that built megastructures could create hundreds or thousands of times Earth's habitable area without even needing to leave the Solar System, and could tailor-make those habitats to be ideal for human life. It's far more energy-efficient and reliable in the long run.

Indeed, that's one possible answer to the Fermi paradox, the question of why aliens haven't colonized Earth already. Maybe most species don't need to develop interstellar travel because they can sustain their populations better within their own systems. You could have a whole Federation-sized multiworld civilization within the Oort cloud of a single star.
 
Cost of the International Space Station for a crew of 6: $150,000,000,000
Cost for a 4 bedroom house, custom build: $200,000

For us today, sure. But once there's an established, permanent presence in space, it'll be enormously cheaper to get raw materials from asteroids than to haul them out of Earth's gravity well. And if you broke up all the asteroids in the Main Belt alone and converted them into megastructures, you'd have hundreds of Earths' worth of habitable area. A civilization relying exclusively on planets would need to perfect interstellar travel (just imagine how costly that would be) and spend generations searching through thousands of star systems to find a hundred relatively habitable Earthlike planets to settle on -- and that's assuming they didn't have hidden, unforeseen dangers lying in wait. A civilization that built megastructures could create hundreds or thousands of times Earth's habitable area without even needing to leave the Solar System, and could tailor-make those habitats to be ideal for human life. It's far more energy-efficient and reliable in the long run.

Indeed, that's one possible answer to the Fermi paradox, the question of why aliens haven't colonized Earth already. Maybe most species don't need to develop interstellar travel because they can sustain their populations better within their own systems. You could have a whole Federation-sized multiworld civilization within the Oort cloud of a single star.
I take your point, and there are also economies of scale with my example; building a space station for 20 wouldn't be 20* the cost. Still, if you have a temperate oxygen-nitrogen planet that is available, you are going to save billons building there.
 
True, but would you not still spend billions getting all your stuff THERE in the first place? Most of the ISS cost is associated with lifting everything to orbit.

Anyway, given that the planets we've seen in DM so far tend to be backwater nowheres with tiny populations (and therefore a LOT of space), there is obviously no shortage of habitable worlds here. And yet, both major space stations we've seen seem to have large populations, to the point that at least one has its own complement of homeless urchins to pickpocket everyone else - and not all of that population would be transient, as we didn't see either surrounded by dozens of ships coming or going. There may be more to living in a station than meets the eye in this universe.

Mark
 
True, but would you not still spend billions getting all your stuff THERE in the first place? Most of the ISS cost is associated with lifting everything to orbit.

Yes. Sci-fi makes the idea of interstellar travel seem far easier than it really would be. The amount of energy required to travel between stars would dwarf anything we can imagine. Heck, we'd need a viable and thriving interplanetary economy before we could ever afford large-scale interstellar travel, because the resources and energies involved would be so immense that the effort would bankrupt an economy limited to a single planet, and the technology might require a large space-based infrastructure -- say, if it relied on a lightsail driven by a massive space-based laser, or on an artificial black hole or wormhole that would have to be made far from Earth due to the destructive energies involved, or with a warp drive fueled by antimatter harvested from the radiation belts around Jupiter and Saturn or manufactured by solar-powered plants on Mercury.

And then you have to find a planet in an alien system that's habitable for humans. Again, sci-fi embraces the conceit that the galaxy is full of planets that look like Bronson Canyon or the Vancouver forest, but life-bearing planets in other systems might well have two or three times Earth's gravity or be unsuitably hot for humans or have excessively dense atmospheres. Even a more Earthlike planet might have a native biochemistry that would be toxic to us, or at least provide us with no nourishment. And if we could eat the native food, then the native microbes could eat us. Not to mention the ethical questions involved in colonizing a planet with indigenous life.

So you'd have to establish a permanent, thriving, self-sustaining interplanetary civilization and infrastructure in the Solar system before you could even attempt interstellar colonization, but once you've reached that point, it would be vastly cheaper and more of a sure thing just to continue the settlement of the Solar system. Interstellar travel would be more of an indulgence at that point. The main benefits of it would be the scientific value of exploration (though that could be achieved with robotic probes) and the guarantee of humanity's long-term survival in the event of some kind of system-wide cataclysm.
 
Basically, Wagon Train to the Stars seems to imply....the Western frontier! That multitude of Class M planets (ready for immediate settlement) are a substitute for the Old West.

But maybe with some local color! :vulcan:
 
Last edited:
Basically, Wagon Train to the Stars seems to imply....the Western frontier! That multitude of Class M planets (ready for immediate settlement) are a substitute for the Old West.

Is this in reference to the discussion in post #495 about the defining themes or premises of space series' universes? The thing is, half the shows on TV in the '60s were Westerns. That was no more a distinctive hook than making a present-day show a police procedural.

Besides, Roddenberry's "Wagon Train to the stars" pitch wasn't just about being a "space Western." We assume that today because we've forgotten the TV series Wagon Train, which was a long-running, successful drama series at the time Roddenberry was pitching Star Trek to the networks. It's the same kind of elevator-pitch shorthand you still see today, like, say, "It's Veronica Mars with zombies!" or "It's The Wire with superheroes!" By invoking Wagon Train, Roddenberry was saying to network execs that he intended to employ a similar storytelling style -- a sophisticated adult drama (rather than a kids' show like most science fiction on TV had been to that point) with a pseudo-anthology format focusing strongly on guest stars of the week. Yes, the frontier element was part of it too, but that was the water that '60s TV producers swam in. Heck, even Kung Fu, a show about martial arts, pacifism, and Eastern philosophy, was done as a Western, probably because that was the only way you could get such an unusual show on the air at the time (just like most of the more eccentric and creative show concepts today are done as crime procedurals, or at least start out with the pretense of being crime procedurals).
 
Actually, I was referring to post 524. Regarding the abundance of Class M planets, I think "M" stands for Modified-as in terraforming.

The abundance of Class M planets is convenient for story telling, but I think very unrealistic. I suspect that the Rare Earth hypothesis is much more likely.
 
No, silly! It means Minshara! MINSHARA!! :P

Rare Earth is certainly the most realistic, but I'm sure Sci-Fi TV would rather avoid it in the name of cheaper storytelling. OTOH, if and when real-world technology becomes good enough to detect an Earth-size planet with an Earth-type atmosphere and an Earth-type temperature, and with water, we may be in for the next readjustment of how we view the universe...

Mark
 
Yes, certainly it is cheaper to assume many Earth like planets, and film in the Vancouver area.:cool:

Exceptions include Babylon 5 station, and the space habitat at the end of Interstellar. And the "drifts"-space cities-of Andromeda.
 
Joe Mallozzi has posted a deleted scene from the script, that unfortunately had to be cut (and not filmed) from episode 13.

It sheds a little light on events that occurred before the memory wipe.
 
The Rare Earth hypothesis is way behind the times. Given how many exoplanets we've found since that hypothesis was formulated, we know now that planets are likely to be found around most stars and that rocky planets in habitable zones are common, which totally demolishes one of Rare Earth's key assumptions. New research has suggested that habitable zones may be much wider than we've assumed and that life is far more resilient and adaptable than we've assumed. We've found evidence that liquid water might be found beneath the ice on Europa, Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, maybe even Pluto, and plenty of similar bodies. It is now known to be overwhelmingly likely that the conditions for life can be found almost anywhere in the galaxy, although most of it would not be in that narrow range of environments where humans can walk around comfortably in shirtsleeves (red or otherwise).

Frankly, I always found Rare Earth to be a rubbish idea, based on deliberately favoring unrealistically pessimistic ideas in order to cook the books to explain our failure to find alien life to date. For instance, the exaggerated notion of a galactic habitable zone. Ward and Brownlee made a valid case that stars closer to the center of the galaxy would be subjected to more cosmic hazards and stars further toward the rim would have fewer heavy metals, and would thus be less likely to support life as we know it, but that just means there would be relatively fewer habitable worlds in those regions, while they misrepresented it to mean that there would be effectively none. It's really more a galactic temperate zone than a "habitable zone." (After all, stars don't stay at a constant distance from the galactic center; higher-metallicity stars formed closer to the core could easily migrate out toward the rim, for example.)

I also disagree with the assumption that the higher radiation closer to the core would make life impossible. There are microbes on Earth that thrive in radiation. The reason most Earthly life can't survive high radiation is because it hasn't needed to evolve resistance. Life evolving in conditions of higher radiation would probably evolve resistance, as some microbes have. It's narrow-minded, self-centered reasoning to assume that the limitations that apply to Earthly life must apply to all life everywhere -- especially when it's already a documented fact that some Earthly life is not subject to those limits.
 
M doesn't stand for anything. It's an alphabet letter assigned sequentially to a planet type, after Class L and before Class N. That's all it ever was, barring some dippy fanboy retcon.
 
^The retcon is canonical; Enterprise established that it originally stood for the Vulcan term Minshara class. We may surmise that the broader letter classification scheme was built around that beginning, or that Earthlike planets were assigned to M in that scheme because of the Vulcan usage.
 
Is it? The Vulcans called it Minshara class on screen, but is there any moment in the show when anyone clearly stated that starfleet was adopting "Minshara Class" and translating it to "Class M" officially? I only remember them saying Minshara, then the internet nerd community exploding with "OH! That must be where Class M comes from!" I don't remember anyone on screen then saying we were going to use that as the basis for our new system.
 
Well, surely this is the sort of thing that doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out, because the intent is self-evident. It's not a good thing if a show assumes the viewers are too stupid to realize anything that isn't shouted in their faces. Implication is a very real and important storytelling device.

I mean, heck, when Archer said that someday Starfleet should figure out some sort of directive for how to deal with cultural interference, they never actually came out and said that it was connected to the Prime Directive, because it was so obvious that they didn't have to. Same as they never actually said that tactical alert became red alert, that phase pistols and photonic torpedoes and hand scanners were the antecedents of phasers and photon torpedoes and tricorders, etc. We were expected to be smart enough to make the connections for ourselves.
 
Everything you mentioned, when I saw/heard it on Enterprise, came across to me like some 10-year-old trying to connect his fanfic to the real Star Trek, thinking he was being clever, but just being sophomoric.

I guess YMMV.
:shrug:
 
Whether you like their terminology choices or not is beside the point. Subjective opinion should not override objective understanding of reality, and it is objectively obvious that the writers who coined "Minshara class" intended it to be the ancestor of "M class." You don't have to like something to recognize that it's real.
 
Joe Mallozzi has posted a deleted scene from the script, that unfortunately had to be cut (and not filmed) from episode 13.

It sheds a little light on events that occurred before the memory wipe.
Thanks for the link, interesting. This solves another little mystery of S1, one of the little ones still open is the question who fired the missiles in the pilot episode (though the Raza undoubtedly doesn't lack enemies and thus candidates). It also seems to point toward one as the target in the pre-mind wipe discussion between two and four; he just didn't manage to fit in, unlike six.

I'm have recently watched the episodes of S1 in a relatively short period of time, and all in all I have to say I like the show, especially considering the budget is limited for this kind of effects-heavy show.

The twist at the end, for example, is in my book a good twist as I didn't see it coming (on the one hand) and yet one can see little hints when rewatching S1 (on the other hand). Like many viewers, I did not consider the possibility that 6 always may have been a GA agent, which explains all his actions nicely. The writing was actually excellent, in this regard, certainly better than the rather non-sensical twists that we sometimes got in BSG.

The show also, in my view, seems to succeed rather well in making you root for what are violent criminals, for the most part. But they have just enough likable elements in them that a large part of the audience probably sympathises with most of the crew.



In the first episode, three asked six who he thought would be considered the most dangerous of the crew (and of course, placed himself at the top). Now that we know some things about them, I'd place them like this:

Out-of-category: six is not a concern for the GA or the general public, if he indeed was an undercover agent all the time (though with memory loss, like the others - no wonder he was often the voice of reason). But from the POV of the rest of the crew, he certainly proved an extremely dangerous opponent, defeating all the others at once while never being suspected (at least not after the mind wipe - and I suspect one, rather than six, was the assassination target before that).

For the rest, I feel 3 characters are very dangerous in their own way:
-Two can be extremely violent (though post mind-wipe at least, she does require some amount of provocation to go to this level and she has proven capable of showing empathy) and she is/was the leader and the brains of the group. Her apparent change in attitude after the mind wipe may indicate that the circumstances of her creation and escape drove her to this life.

-Four is very cold and seems willing to go to any length to reach his goal; and given that this is no less than taking command of stereotypical and anachronistic samurai world (presumably with a lot of inhabitants) the potential for people to die in very large numbers is easily there. That he is sort of in the right in his goal (though aspiring to be an absolute monarch, in an otherwise modern world, is not a lofty goal in itself; it's just that he is the actual heir) does not make him any less frightening.

-One seems like the goody two-shoes of the crew, but not only was he the great proponent of doing Mikkei's bidding re: the "white hole" device, the biography of Derrick Moss states that as CEO of a galactic multicorp, he "regularly fired 10% of his work force" while giving the top 20% bonuses. Given how large such an organisation must be, and what those tactics would do to the atmosphere between the workers of that company, I suspect he may have caused more terror than four could ever hope to even if the latter would cause a full-on war in and around his home world(s). I doubt that there is much of a future for people who have been fired by one of the multi-corps, and I certainly wouldn't want to work in such a company. On the other hand, we don't know his entire story yet, if the company policy was really his idea or not, for example.


For the rest, five caused the mindwipe and is still rather mysterious (we don't know anything of her past, other than that she was living like Oliver Twist shortly before DM started). Three may actually be the least dangerous, as some suspected right after he brought this up. He seems to be exactly what he is, "cause for concern" rather than a menace like two or a potential/actual tyrant like four and one. And the Android (also an interesting character in her own right) seems to be better in combat than he is.




As for next season, for meta-reasons (like the existing sets of the ship, coupled with the low budget of the show) I would expect the Raza to return and probably with mostly the same crew (given some possible additions and/or subtractions). But how could that happen, after they have all been taken by the GA?

Well, there are probably multiple ways out of their situation. I think this depends on what the actual state of the GA is; it seems toothless against the multicorps and possibly is even complicit in letting them run amok (like the operation against the mining colony; where was the GA, other than six, to protect them?).

If the GA leadership, or part of it, doesn't like the status quo (either because they want to be the power themselves, rather than some multicorps, or because they are some sincerely idealist people within GA), they could use the Raza and crew as an asset.

A GA without scruples could act just as a megacorps would; use mercenaries for dirty jobs it doesn't want to be associated with openly.

A morally sound GA (or splinter group within GA) would have reason to gather proof about the misdeeds of the various corporations, maybe Traugott most of all. And the Raza crew knows a lot of things that would be damning to the corps. Proposing a deal, or even letting them go (under some form of supervision - which could get six back on board) in order to gather more proof against the multicorps, would be a seemingly logical move. Six could testify that at least some on the Raza showed signs of a conscience, after the mind wipe.

The options above would lead to a more or less "dirty dozen" like scenario, convicts given a chance to win their freedom by doing a dirty but necessary job.

Other options are an escape - for example, if the GA continues to ignore the crimes of the multicorps, as witnessed by six, he might become disillusioned and come to regret his actions. If it is true that the GA would dissect two, that's also a possible cause for six to re-turn his cloak (and maybe a number of his colleagues). And I guess that some corps could also be interested in getting the Raza crew indebted to them, or evil Wil Wheaton could end up accidentally getting the crew to escape in an attempt to kill them in while in GA custody.

How do you all think the story may continue? Do you feel there is a possibility that the scope of the show will widen and some of the S1 characters may go different ways (while continuing to get screentime, opening a "second front", so to speak).
 
Last edited:
They need to get David Hewitt full time on the show. An easy was to do that is to have someone threaten his life and he has to take refuge with the Raza's crew. Could be a lot of fun.
 
They need to get David Hewitt full time on the show. An easy was to do that is to have someone threaten his life and he has to take refuge with the Raza's crew. Could be a lot of fun.

God no.

Well maybe if he gets the cattle prod more times than the Android.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top