Forbidden Planet references in Trek Lit?

[JonnyQuest037]

I have a vague memory of at least one of the early ST novels making references to the classic 1956 film Forbidden Planet in a broad-continuity sense. I realize that the universe depicted in FP is incompatible with the Trek universe, but FP inspired enough elements of ST that I could see a version of those events playing out in the Trek universe.

Does anyone recall where this might have been, though? A reference to a starship C-57D, a Commander Adams, a mission to Altair IV, or an alien race called the Krell?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I don't know specifically, but that's ringing a bell with me.

As for a Star Trek version of Forbidden Planet, I like this fan-created cover; it's for Alan Dean Foster's novelization of the episode from an alternate universe.

 

[Relayer1]

I've long considered it part of my personal 'Trek' continuity. Probably a scout ship around the time of Captain April or early in Pike's career. You just have to ignore the ship design.

What's not compatible with Trek ?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

What's not compatible with Trek ?

Well, the opening narration talks about us first reaching the moon in the last decade of the 21st Century, for starters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voyDAXZl6uo

That fake cover is great, Allyn. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm fairly sure the Krell were referenced in at least one Trek novel, though I can't remember which one.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I'm glad it's not just me! The lack of responses for over a day was getting me worried.

 

[Relayer1]

What's not compatible with Trek ?

Well, the opening narration talks about us first reaching the moon in the last decade of the 21st Century, for starters...

Well, it'll probably be that long until we go back...

I'll need to rewatch it - it's been 20 years since I saw it.

When's it out of copyright ? I'd love an official Treklit version - I nominate Greg Cox to write it !

 

[Idran]

What's not compatible with Trek ?

Well, the opening narration talks about us first reaching the moon in the last decade of the 21st Century, for starters...

Well, it'll probably be that long until we go back...

I'll need to rewatch it - it's been 20 years since I saw it.

When's it out of copyright ? I'd love an official Treklit version - I nominate Greg Cox to write it !

You've only got about 30-35 years to wait or so! (Ignoring the fact that Disney will get the time pushed even further before we get anywhere near that point, of course )

 

[Relayer1]

Well, the opening narration talks about us first reaching the moon in the last decade of the 21st Century, for starters...

Well, it'll probably be that long until we go back...

I'll need to rewatch it - it's been 20 years since I saw it.

When's it out of copyright ? I'd love an official Treklit version - I nominate Greg Cox to write it !

You've only got about 30-35 years to wait or so! (Ignoring the fact that Disney will get the time pushed even further before we get anywhere near that point, of course )

Hmm, how old is Greg ?

Pointless question - I probably won't be around to read it anyway...

 

[elric428]

I've always felt that the original series episode "Requiem for Methuselah" shared a lot in common with Forbidden Planet eg. Flint/Morbius and Rayna/Altaira.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ ENT's "Oasis" as well.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I've always felt that the original series episode "Requiem for Methuselah" shared a lot in common with Forbidden Planet eg. Flint/Morbius and Rayna/Altaira.

Yeah, it kinda of plays like, "What if Forbidden Planet sucked?"

 

[Paul Weaver]

What's not compatible with Trek ?

Well, the opening narration talks about us first reaching the moon in the last decade of the 21st Century, for starters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voyDAXZl6uo

That fake cover is great, Allyn. Thanks for sharing!

I'm an optimist, I still hope that we'll be landing on the moon in the 2090s. It didn't say that was the first landing. Other planets by 2200 seems like a reasonable timeframe.

It wasn't until the 60s and the space race that people started thinking expansion would be faster, and while the core timetable of Trek was laid down in the late 60s, it seemed highly likely. Of course since the early 70s we've not got anywhere with human space exploration, and haven't exactly gone quickly with robotic exploration, which sort of throws Trek's timetable off completely. Forbidden Planet, however, seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Christopher]

I'm an optimist, I still hope that we'll be landing on the moon in the 2090s. It didn't say that was the first landing. Other planets by 2200 seems like a reasonable timeframe.

It wasn't until the 60s and the space race that people started thinking expansion would be faster, and while the core timetable of Trek was laid down in the late 60s, it seemed highly likely. Of course since the early 70s we've not got anywhere with human space exploration, and haven't exactly gone quickly with robotic exploration, which sort of throws Trek's timetable off completely. Forbidden Planet, however, seems perfectly reasonable.

Actually, given the rate at which we're using up the Earth's dwindling supply of helium (which is vital for lots of high-tech cryogenic manufacturing processes and supercomputers) and various rare earths, we won't be able to sustain our technological infrastructure at its current level if we don't begin mining the Moon or the asteroids within the next 20 years or so. And there are already multiple private and government plans to do just that.

 

[Relayer1]

^ I feel kind of bad about those party baloons and doing the squeaky voice thing now...

 

[Maurice]

I've always felt that the original series episode "Requiem for Methuselah" shared a lot in common with Forbidden Planet eg. Flint/Morbius and Rayna/Altaira.

^ ENT's "Oasis" as well.

They, and Forbidden Planet, all crib from The Tempest.

 

[Timo]

...But the big question is, where did the Bard originally dig that up from?

Actually, given the rate at which we're using up the Earth's dwindling supply of helium...

It's a fad, is all. Technologies emerge and exploit an available resource to the hilt. Then they die out, often when said resource grows too expensive to competitively exploit. Currently, we burn helium, rhodium, lithium and even phosphorus at a rate that will terminate certain industries soon enough. But we have been doing that for ages already, having to give up certain products and adopt new ones because affordable resources ran out. We aren't in a crisis over that yet - despite the technologies so far abandoned including seemingly crucial and prioritized ones such as titanium hulls for submarines and aircraft, certain types of hardened steel, certain promising III/V semiconductors etc.

So what if helium cooling is lost forever? Technologies can branch to directions where this as such idiotic practice is not needed. Who knows, perhaps high temperature superconductors finally get proper attention...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paul Weaver]

The U.S uses 9000 tons of helium a year. Even if the moon contains enough helium, and we somehow managed to create an automated mining system that can process that moon rock (which may contain helium, we just don't know), we'd still need to lift 9000 tons out of the moon's gravity, which means accelerating it to 1.4km/s, which I believe will take somewhere in the 11000TJ range, or a continuous supply year round of 365kW, not insignificant.

So assuming we can deliver and power a refinery that can process moon rock to extract 9000 tons of helium a year on the moon, which itself means processing about 300 million tons of rock, and package it up as a single solid item which we then fire back (apologies to Heinlein) to earth on a railgun (which we constructed via robot) which operates at 99% efficiency from a few thousand RTGs (or perhaps a 3000 square metre solar plant capturing sunlight at 20% efficiently for an average of 336 hours per lunar day), and assuming that the helium doesn't burn up on re-entry, we should be set. And that's assuming you want helium 4. Helium 3 is far rarer in the luna regolith.

Do you really think that's going to happen in 20 years? Or even 100 years?

In 20 years the U.S. may have the ability to put people in orbit. Commercial companies may be able to lift people into sub-orbit for a brief holiday, and the very rich into orbit (a bit like the Tito and Shuttleworths of the world). China will have a space station, possibly a flag on the moon, but I personally think that's very unlikely. The IIS will have fallen back to earth. Europe may have a few robotic probes. Mankind will have had a few more cheap successes like Rosetta. There certainly won't be any commercial space stations like Bigelow Aerospace were plugging a few years ago (they were going to launch early 2014, their website now sells coats)

This I feel is an optimistic view, where we haven't suffered from irreversable kessler syndrome.

 

[Christopher]

^There are also plenty of asteroids that could be mined for helium.

And optimism is irrelevant. We have to begin mining space within the next few decades if we want to sustain our technological civilization. It's not optimism, it's a recognition that we're operating under a deadline. So we need to stop wasting our energy making excuses for not doing things.

 

[Timo]

If we have to go to outer space to get the raw materials we need for our technology, there's no "sustaining" in sight. Like, ever.

Exploiting what we have down here is a lesson we have to learn first, or space mining is for naught. If we can't make spaceships without lithium, we aren't worthy of spaceships - but we certainly can make automobiles and cell phones without it, if we just bother to try.

Timo Saloniemi