Ah. Well, good thing that since it's a "reimagining" it will have no bearing on Star Trek nor the technology thereof.
But it's a reimagining, so not a reliable reference to extrapolate about original source material.
Last edited:
Forcefield technology
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
But it's a reimagining, so not a reliable reference to extrapolate about original source material.
What sort of bullshit is that? As far as we can tell so far, DSC does not differ from TNG in concept in any way.
- Both introduce new aesthetics while keeping all the Trek staples like technology, terminology, adversaries and allies, and then adding some.
- Both describe a time period not previously covered in Trek stories.
- Both market themselves as parts of the Star Trek universe.
- Neither considers itself a "reimagining".
If anything, DSC so far has done less to attempt to distance itself from Kirk's old adventures. And we know how badly TNG failed at such distancing, despite the early efforts.
Timo Saloniemi
- Both introduce new aesthetics while keeping all the Trek staples like technology, terminology, adversaries and allies, and then adding some.
- Both describe a time period not previously covered in Trek stories.
- Both market themselves as parts of the Star Trek universe.
- Neither considers itself a "reimagining".
If anything, DSC so far has done less to attempt to distance itself from Kirk's old adventures. And we know how badly TNG failed at such distancing, despite the early efforts.
Timo Saloniemi
Discovery has been stated by its creators to be a reimagining. And yes this time period has been covered in "The Cage."
Using Discovery to analyze Kirk era Star Trek would be like using the TOS-R Enterprise to analyze the original studio model.
In both cases it would be using something only vaguely similar and connected to the original to inform about the original.
So back to topic, we have no evidence for the use of a force field on the hanger deck.
That leaves the unnecessarily magical transporter air mover; pumping all the air in and out; or landing/entry area duo, with the "hanger deck" generally exposed to vacuum, and the smaller entry area having the air pumped in and out.
Force fields could easily serve as air compressors that could rapidly depressurize the hangar bay, by liquefying or solidifying the air, which would suck the remaining air to the sites of compression. The force-field-based compressors would themselves carry the energy of the air's temperature away by their interaction with the air as effective compressors. Reversal of the processor is even simpler: supply heat to evaporate or sublimate.
And denied by others. Just as with TNG.
And the era of DS9 was covered by TNG. Visual dissimilarities turned out to mean zip. The same as with every. single. spinoff. of Star Trek so far. I really doubt TPTB are actually interested in turning down a winning formula.
We aren't analyzing anything dealing with the real world of Star Trek production, though. It's all about the fictional angles. And there it's perfectly valid to compare the TOS-R fictional take with the TOS fictional take of NCC-1701 and see how the two are supposed to be the same.
Quite so.
...The possibility of the use of a force field on the hanger deck. Because there's no evidence against it, either.
Whether we really can eliminate this as an option hinges completely on the spinoffs, because it's only in the spinoffs that the concept of a shuttlebay force field gets introduced. But that doesn't mean the concept would postdate TOS in the fictional sense, because fictional Trek isn't linear.
To discuss TOS in isolation, even on the dedicated TOS forum, is IMHO so utterly uninteresting that there's nothing left to milk there. In the fictional sense, that is - the production anecdotes are a separate matter of continuing great separate interest. But all the fiction today is about the context and the vantage point, which are mostly external to TOS.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
