Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[HotRod]

And who are you to make that judgement?

Any person with even a lick of good taste can make that assessment. Your opinions border on farcical and your obsession with certain characters is unsettling. A person like you is the absolute last thing Trek, or any franchise needs in any position of authority.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

No.
Thats my humble opinion.

 

[XCV330]

No.
Thats my humble opinion.

thread over.

 

[Daedalus]

We have a window of opportunity to build large orbital habitats, not to mention Venusian cloud colonies. Humanity can begin to partly move off-world. Mars and Luna are not the answers, though Luna may be a stepping stone. Theres no compelling reason to live on Mars, and if it turns out Mars still has its own limited biosphere, there's ethical reasons for not doing so.

As much as I've liked this idea since Zubrin proposed it, it's probably the most energy-intensive way of attempting to colonise the solar system. Materials would be incredibly difficult to transport to Venus unless most of it comes from a lower gravity environment like the asteroid belt. In other words, there's a logistical complexity which has always made the proposal so disappointing, and quite depressingly so. Those Earth-like conditions 50km above the planet's surface seem almost perfect.

The Moon has an near-term ROI, which means it'll see a lot more business over the next century. What Billionaire in their right mind wouldn't want to be a trillionaire? Id say, maybe, half a dozen mining outposts by 2100? It's possible.

The one place I've eyed up over the years is Titan. Abundant Hydrocarbons, mountains of frozen water, Nitrogen in the atmosphere for fertiliser, surface pressure only slightly greater than Earth at sea level. Two significant issues would be the surface temp of 93K and gravity not much different to the Moon. But to be able to walk on the surface of another world without a pressure suit, wouldn't that be a thing? *thermal protection advised*

Edit: I got Zubrin and Landis mixed up, rookie error.

 

[XCV330]

As much as I've a liked this idea since Zubrin proposed it, it's probably the most energy-intensive way of attempting to colonise the solar system. Materials would be incredibly difficult to transport to Venus unless most of it comes from a lower gravity environment like the asteroid belt. In other words, there's a logistical complexity which has always made the proposal so disappointing, and quite depressingly so. Those Earth-like conditions 50km above the planet's surface seem almost perfect.

The Moon has an near-term ROI, which means it'll see a lot more business over the next century. What Billionaire in their right mind wouldn't want to be a trillionaire? Id say, maybe, half a dozen mining outposts by 2100? It's possible.

The one place I've eyed up over the years is Titan. Abundant Hydrocarbons, mountains of frozen water, Nitrogen in the atmosphere for fertiliser, surface pressure only slightly greater than Earth at sea level. Two significant issues would be the surface temp of 93K and gravity not much different to the Moon. But to be able to walk on the surface of another world without a pressure suit, wouldn't that be a thing? *thermal protection advised*

I think any large orbital habitat, or Venus colony, would have to utilize the moon and asteroids and not earth for the reasons you mention. Most of O'Neil's work on that still holds up, even though he didn't have access to information about better materials that we could manufacture today. He was basing it all on lunar glass, lunar o2, asteroidal water and iron. Where O'Neil went wrong was on how easy it would be to build the initial infrastructure. It wasn't his fault. He was getting his information on shuttle launch frequency and costs from NASA and NASA was outright lying to congress about it. They knew better before it flew the first time.

 

[BillJ]

I love the multiverse and eagerly await the day that the Star Trek franchise fully embraces the idea. Since it has always fascinated me since "Mirror, Mirror".

Over the past couple of years, I've been able to experience Superman: The Animated Series, My Adventures with Superman, Superman & Lois and Superman (2025). All great takes on the franchise that each have their own spin on the characters without steamrolling the creative choices of past creators. None of this even counts the comic stories I've read.

 

[fireproof78]

Lucky you!

I must admit that I haven't found much enjoyment in any Star Trek character after season 3 of VOY.
Some decent ones in SNW but not more.

I didn't enjoy Voyager too much save Paris, Torres and Tuvok. But, there was a lot of things to enjoy. Farscape, Stargate, Invisible Man, all were sources of enjoyment going way past Star Trek.

I think that's my biggest thing; as much as Trek was a part of my formative years with science fiction there was the next stage of moving past to something more creative. Owing partially to friends and theater experience, perhaps, but I never saw the need to keep Trek going.

The things I love about Trek still exist, both I'm the old and the new, but there is more to life than just trying to reclaim the "glory days" because no Trek fan could agree on the best TV show, much less what makes Trek good.

 

[BillJ]

The things I love about Trek still exist, both I'm the old and the new, but there is more to life than just trying to reclaim the "glory days" because no Trek fan could agree on the best TV show, much less what makes Trek good.

There's only one Trek show that really matters in the grand scheme of things, the original.

 

[Mage]

Well, if you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.
My opinions are mine and I'm not gonns change them.

Then accept the fact that many people will say that to you, as has been happening in this topic for several pages now. You believe you are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to how people MUST view Star Trek, you consider us all wrong. Yet you keep using the word 'opinion'. You're not argueing a point, you're telling us we're wrong.
That's not a debate.