That's correct for big jumps, like from one star to another. But small jumps, much less than the average separation between stars, is another story. One has to make several of them, and that approximates ST's continuous FTL.
Hard Star Trek
- Thread starter Autistoid
- Start date
There is another ST-tech issue that we can consider. Non-centrifugal artificial gravity and its relatives, inertial dampeners, force-field shields, deflectors, and (at)tractor beams.
It's rather hard to avoid using artificial gravity, because most movie and TV studios are on the Earth's surface, gravity and all. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey avoided doing so, using only centrifugal artificial gravity and gripper shoes for the zero-gravity parts. That enabled the movie to be filmed without suspending the characters from cables, except for the airlock-entry scene.
Since that movie was filmed, we've sent up some relatively spacious spacecraft: the Shuttles and several space stations. Their inhabitants often "fly" in them. Another difference is that while in 2001, the female flight attendants wore big swimming caps, the more recent female space travelers have not. They often let their hair go loose, sometimes giving a Medusa effect.
Let's see if one can do that with gravity. Using the integral form of Poisson's equation, the required surface density (mass per unit area is
(acceleration) / (2 * pi * (gravitational constant)) = 2.34*10^(10) kg/m^2.
That's far too much.
So one has to use some technology more advanced than ours, like what one has to use for FTL.
The artificial gravity could be permanently fixed, or it could be controllable. If the latter, then it can be used for additional things, like canceling out acceleration (inertial dampers), deflecting objects (deflectors), and bringing objects in (tractor beams). Each application has a separate name, even though they can be implemented with the same sort of technology.
There is an absurdity with Star Trek TOS: how a spaceship being hit by something causes everything inside to get shaken up. David Gerrold in "The World of Star Trek" slammed that as absurdly melodramatic. One would expect the inertial dampeners to perform better, and not be perpetually out of adjustment.
It's rather hard to avoid using artificial gravity, because most movie and TV studios are on the Earth's surface, gravity and all. The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey avoided doing so, using only centrifugal artificial gravity and gripper shoes for the zero-gravity parts. That enabled the movie to be filmed without suspending the characters from cables, except for the airlock-entry scene.
Since that movie was filmed, we've sent up some relatively spacious spacecraft: the Shuttles and several space stations. Their inhabitants often "fly" in them. Another difference is that while in 2001, the female flight attendants wore big swimming caps, the more recent female space travelers have not. They often let their hair go loose, sometimes giving a Medusa effect.
Let's see if one can do that with gravity. Using the integral form of Poisson's equation, the required surface density (mass per unit area is
(acceleration) / (2 * pi * (gravitational constant)) = 2.34*10^(10) kg/m^2.
That's far too much.
So one has to use some technology more advanced than ours, like what one has to use for FTL.
The artificial gravity could be permanently fixed, or it could be controllable. If the latter, then it can be used for additional things, like canceling out acceleration (inertial dampers), deflecting objects (deflectors), and bringing objects in (tractor beams). Each application has a separate name, even though they can be implemented with the same sort of technology.
There is an absurdity with Star Trek TOS: how a spaceship being hit by something causes everything inside to get shaken up. David Gerrold in "The World of Star Trek" slammed that as absurdly melodramatic. One would expect the inertial dampeners to perform better, and not be perpetually out of adjustment.
Yeah well one of my ideas for a less flacid star trek, was the idea that warp speed couldnt exceed the speed of light.
So warp two would mean your going 0.5 C has time on the ship would be warped by a factor of 2 and a 8 year trip would only feel like 4 years.
Warp 9 would mean going 0.91333 the speed of like and so going 9 light years would only feel like 1 year for those on the ship.
It was quite obviously influenced by intersteller, however I think in doing so would bring us back to one of the strongest element of voyager which is the idea of being isolated from earth.
What would be truly interesting is the idea that they are eseentially time traveling into the future as they go out into space.
The pacing would be perfect as well.
With only 10-12 episodes a season, it'd be no problem to go through 2 or 3 star systems. So you'd get 5 or 6 new planets perseason, on top of space station rendezvous etc.
Anywhere to Anywhere regardless of flacidness, this total lack of distance in star trek has to go. It just makes star trek come across as a paraody of itself.
Even if you competely ingored the science aspects of it( which I margely care about).
Its just horrid writing.
It destroys so much of the deep in space aspect of star trek, if everything is a commercial break away.
Relativistic travel doesn't work quite like that. Time dilation becomes an interteresting factor the faster you go particularly above .9c. If you go fast enough a voyage of 10 or 20 years could feel like mere weeks or even days to the crew. The relativistic effect can be that extreme.
The problem with STL travel, even fast STL travel, is that galactic governments become impossible. You simply can't respond to things fast enough. Trade and cultural exchange also becomes a serious problem. The only way I can see around these issues is to change humanity and society as we know it. Perhaps make people have longer life spans and evolve society so we're not so obsessed with having to have things immediately.
None of these ideas are really new as they have already been explored in SF literature for decades.
What are you talking about.
Most real decisions in global politics take decades to work out.
You still have light based communication.
I think the political angle and the driving need for federation ships to plant relay stations all across nearby stars would really give a driving political narrative.
I'd think it'd be increasingly interesting that captain's would have severe time lags, between governance and judgement.
Also remember that star bases would be everywhere.
Bah I don't have time to explain this one right now but I will at some point over the weekend, I thought up some ideas before that I think most people would agree is very trek like.
Last edited:
I don't understand why, personally. FTL and space travel have often treated travel distances as something akin to driving down the street.
I have no problem with expanding the idea that space travel take longer, be more dangerous, and more realistic. But, I see no problem with Trek as it is, much less a "parody of itself."
Unless the SF setting is rock hard, using relativistic travel and torch ships, then I see no problem with expanding upon an FTL concept and using to have intergalactic civilizations in contact with each other.
Perhaps Trek could switch to Slipstream for deep space, and imply that it is experimental and risky, and that the remote destinations themselves are risky..
Why is anywhere-to-anywhere flaccid?
I think that that's an absolute necessity for exploration missions and outer-colony missions and the like. Otherwise, it'll be hard to go to those missions' places. VERY hard, as in slower-than-light hard.
One might have a system that has start portals but no end portals. While one as FTL going out, one has STL returning, unless one can create a start portal at one's destination. But that gets us to FTL from arbitrary location to arbitrary location.
Or one could have both start and end portals, or bidirectional portals, as in the DS9 wormhole. That would confine FTL travel to major Federation worlds and Starfleet bases, with other spacefarers having separate FTL networks. The Klingon one, the Romulan one, the Cardassian one, etc. would all be separate from each other.
That means STL travel outside the networks, the problem that I'd mentioned earlier.
Alternately, one can have fast FTL travel by wormhole network in the Federation and other interstellar empires, but slow FTL outside them.
This is a more interesting concept to me. I have a similar idea for my SF fiction that traveling through another dimension requires power, and knowledge of destination. Not knowing means shorter jumps to map out any potential hazards.
Near instataneous travel is horrid for star trek.
It destroys the idea that the crew is all alone on the edge of known space. Why get caught up in a ship if logically anyone can come in and save the day in an instant.
It makes no sense for captains to have as much power as they do if obviously there must be a admiral in subspace range.
World building of trek has far less value if Klingons vulcans insert species all live directly beside earth. The idea of seeing the undiscovered or the next frontier really has value when no one has ever been to that location.
This doesn't apply because it's sci fi, it applies even if we were talking about something that is strickly fantasy.
Imagine Lord of the Rings if they could of walked to the vulcanoe in an hour.
Peter Jackson still would have milked three movies out of it.
Why? Why is FTL travel "horrid?" What is the alternative and its benefits to the story and/or world building?
I still don't understand the point because Star Trek has always operated at the speed of the plot (Warp 10, anyone?) and simply requires more consistency to make it feel more "real"
Star Trek has not really treated space as "big" so much as it has treated it as complicated. There are political boundaries, various species with their interests, worlds that don't have warp drive, etc. When they travel to a system, there is as much political discussion and considerations as there are speed ones.
Finally, your Lord of the Rings point is an oft lamented facet of the lore that is misunderstood. The Eagles have their own politics and generally remain outside the affairs of me. Secondly, even they could walk the volcano in an hour, there are still armies (i.e. political forces) at work to stop them.
Just because you can get there fast doesn't mean the journey is less interesting or has less obstacles.
FTL is fine I was referring more specifically how distances in star trek get waved from episode to episode.
My issue is mainly with the need to go 1000c.
Sci fi fans are always so greedy for this massive chunk of the galaxy, without ever truly account for the number of stars in a 1000 light year stretch.
Sure, but that's largely due to the fact that people, in general, struggle with the vast size of space and the distances between stars and the like.
SF simplifies it with FTL so that things are not bog down by the technobable of why they can't get to point A from Point B due to how fast they can go.
Do they need to go 1000c? No, probably not. But, the sticking point is the need for a consistent writer's bible to provide those distances. Vulcan's star was established outside of what was said on the show, so we don't know the distance from Vulcan to Earth. We don't know really have a sense of scale of the map of the Galaxy in Trek. So, that's really the problem is a need for consistent distances so that everyone is on the same page.
Or, it would at least simplify things somewhat.
We don't have to over think it.
You can use something as simple as month distance.
Forget light speed or whatever.
Just keep a consistancy.
being 6 months from earth creates consistancy and adds a dramatic element to a show.
Of all the things voyager did wrong, having the ship a signigicant distance from earth was not one of them.
No, VOY did everything else wrong, but that's a different topic
I'm not trying to overthink, at all. I prefer simplicity in space travel because space is huge. Trying to write about people's experiences in space travel is a major challenge in SF. Some do it better and others do it worse.
If the distances are outline (writer's bible or dialog) and those distances are kept consistent, then its fine.
The difficulty is having several different writers, some who may be only hired on for one project who have their own ideas. Like I said, constituency is needed via the writer's bible and world building.
