Not for nothing, but there were a few issues I had with the latter part of the season--nitpicky ones.
1. Traveling to the future. In the real world, time travel, based on the theory of relativity, is possible--at least to the future. If Discovery needed a one way trip to the future, why not just turn off the warp part of things and just travel as close to the speed of light as possible, until they went far enough into the future to satisfy them? Then when they hit 930 years, they go full stop, and that's that.
2. In Star Trek terms, 930 years later, assuming Starfleet still exists, there will be better ships, better technology, and it wouldn't be hard to send the crew home. Only the SHIP needs to be in the future, not the people. Unless they want to disassociate from Starfleet and don't even bother checking on Earth, which there would be no reason for them to do, then they have a place to go. In theory, if Starfleet still exists, they would be the good guys. Either they dump the data somewhere in the future where it is safe and Starfleet sends Discovery back home, or they leave Discovery in Starfleet's capable hands, and they send them back home.
The only exception would be if Starfleet is evil, and that would be a lame turn of events. Also, given how technology works, the data would probably rather be stored in a better computer, which of course would exist so far in the future.
If Starfleet doesn't exist anymore, that would also be lame, as it would take away the premise of Star Trek, which is that the future is optimistic.
3. The whole "they couldn't destroy Discovery" thing was really weak. Why? Because it put up shields? Are the shields so powerful that Enterprise--a Constitution class ship and the most advanced in the fleet--couldn't destroy the ship? Given that shields weaken as the attacks continue, just keep firing. Eventually the ship would be destroyed. You can't say that the supercomputer improved the shields, because in the battle, that didn't happen.
1. Traveling to the future. In the real world, time travel, based on the theory of relativity, is possible--at least to the future. If Discovery needed a one way trip to the future, why not just turn off the warp part of things and just travel as close to the speed of light as possible, until they went far enough into the future to satisfy them? Then when they hit 930 years, they go full stop, and that's that.
2. In Star Trek terms, 930 years later, assuming Starfleet still exists, there will be better ships, better technology, and it wouldn't be hard to send the crew home. Only the SHIP needs to be in the future, not the people. Unless they want to disassociate from Starfleet and don't even bother checking on Earth, which there would be no reason for them to do, then they have a place to go. In theory, if Starfleet still exists, they would be the good guys. Either they dump the data somewhere in the future where it is safe and Starfleet sends Discovery back home, or they leave Discovery in Starfleet's capable hands, and they send them back home.
The only exception would be if Starfleet is evil, and that would be a lame turn of events. Also, given how technology works, the data would probably rather be stored in a better computer, which of course would exist so far in the future.
If Starfleet doesn't exist anymore, that would also be lame, as it would take away the premise of Star Trek, which is that the future is optimistic.
3. The whole "they couldn't destroy Discovery" thing was really weak. Why? Because it put up shields? Are the shields so powerful that Enterprise--a Constitution class ship and the most advanced in the fleet--couldn't destroy the ship? Given that shields weaken as the attacks continue, just keep firing. Eventually the ship would be destroyed. You can't say that the supercomputer improved the shields, because in the battle, that didn't happen.
