More Realistic Era for Star Trek?

[FatherRob]

I've been wondering a lot of late about the timeline of Star Trek. Originally, as I recall, the operative assumption was not to tack a date down, but to leave it broad enough that it could take place in 100 or 1000 years. Of course, over time, and especially with the rise of TNG, a fixed 'canonical' timeline was developed.

Looking back, though, I think we can all agree that there are some issues with the timeline. For a long time, I have felt that the timeframe of the adventures is far too optimistic, even given our currently speedy rate of technological advancement.

If you were placing Star Trek (and, for the sake of it, let's use TOS as our base-point) in a specific era, where would you put it?

Rob+

 

[JarodRussell]

I think 300 years is a pretty good estimate, just look back where we were 300 years ago. But it all depends on real world factors. Are there aliens in our neighborhood? Is FTL travel possible? But socially and politically, with that one world united in peace, no greed, no energy problems, etc... why not?

 

[plynch]

The rate of computer power and miniaturization and the ability to use the universe as a computer itself will void the need for travelling corporially long before them.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I would place TOS in the 33rd-Century. While I think there will be enormous scientific and technological advances by the 23rd-Century, I don't think warp drive will be one of them. I believe the next one thousand years will be spent exploring and colonizing our own solar system myself.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"Realism" is problematic because there's no way to determine whether FTL travel will ever be possible, in 300 years or 300,000.

There are other ways to accomplish space travel without FTL. Expand the human lifespan by cybernetics, genetics or both so that sublight travel "works." Send robotic ships at near-lightspeed that send back images to jacked-in human brains, who experience space exploration just the same as if they were there (all perception happens inside the brain anyway). These strike me as more plausible options than actual FTL technology, and 300 years seems like enough time for them to happen.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Alas, I don't see FTL travel being developed within the next 50 years that's for sure.

So yes, you have to factor that in first and for the technology to still be in its infancy a century later.

Humanity have not got particularly far. Given the Moon landing still stands as our greatest achievement. We're probably looking at some spectacular fail getting to the nearest inhabitable system. Then nothing after that for a long time. Not wanting to take the risk.

How's that for realistic? It'll take a global catastrophe or a war to give us an incentive. Usually the way.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Erm... never?

 

[RAMA]

The idea of humans exploring the galaxy with others may be stated as the basic idea of Star Trek...in this sense...whatever form it takes, I don't find 300-500 years totally unlikey a timeline for this.

RAMA

 

[Harvey]

Interestellar travel by the time of the 23rd century? Unlikely. Many of the other technologies presented in the original Star Trek, however, will likely appear outdated in the 23rd century -- hell, some of them are outdated now (i.e. Spock's bulky computer discs).

 

[Shazam!]

It could be set next week and I'd buy it. It's only fiction.

 

[RAMA]

Interestellar travel by the time of the 23rd century? Unlikely. Many of the other technologies presented in the original Star Trek, however, will likely appear outdated in the 23rd century -- hell, some of them are outdated now (i.e. Spock's bulky computer discs).

Depends on what extent you expect it to take...would there be laser driven solar sails, fusion ships, antimatter drives that reach relativistic speeds, making a short radius of stellar exploration possible? Possibly. Worm holes to extend the range? A local Federation, possibly much smaller than the televsed one might come into existence.

RAMA

 

[T'Girl]

I have felt that the timeframe of the adventures is far too optimistic

I rewatched the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey recently, which is contemporary to TOS. The audience of that movie had no problem with giant space stations, commercial shuttle flights, moon bases, archeology on the moon, manned missions to the outer planets, all happening in 33 years, so Star Trek (TOS) being set 300 year in the future was reasonable.

I think 300 years is a pretty good estimate

The main problem I personally have with the 300 year time period is the series Enterprise, all the things Humanity is supposed to achieve over the course of 300 years, a lot of it is now compressed into 100 years. Exploration , wars, colonies, etc.. So maybe setting the show in the 25th or 26th centuries would have been better, more room for the back story that would be established.

FTL travel method (if possible) could be discovered or invented literally today, with a FTL spacecraft available in a few decades.

I mentioned 2001: A Space Odyssey previously, so a quote from Arthur C. Clarke ...

"A faster than light engine will not be invented by anyone who thinks that it's impossible."

 

[SchwEnt]

What really messes the whole thing up is TOS showing humans star-traveling at a point in time when humans had gone from first-flight to Moon-landing in 66 years.

So how long from Moon-landing to stellar voyages? Couple of centuries sounds about right.

--except harsh reality has shown that decades later not only has progress not been made, humans have ended up further behind than where we were in TOS time.
Who the hell would have thought of *that* realism?

 

[RAMA]

What really messes the whole thing up is TOS showing humans star-traveling at a point in time when humans had gone from first-flight to Moon-landing in 66 years.

So how long from Moon-landing to stellar voyages? Couple of centuries sounds about right.

--except harsh reality has shown that decades later not only has progress not been made, humans have ended up further behind than where we were in TOS time.
Who the hell would have thought of *that* realism?

Actually it has more to do with will than technological capability...can we go to Mars in 10 years? Absolutely. Will ia spacecraft have a rudimentary (by human standards) but advanced AI on the journey? Likely. Could a ship that goes to Mars or beyond have an ion drive in 20-30yrs? 100% certain. We just have to want to and see the far ranging reasons for it. I have no doubt once certain levels of technological developments happen the results can be exponential...see the "singularity". A couple of centuries from now, ST's tech may be child's play in that scenerio.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/signs-of-the-singularity

Edit: Of course an alien ship appearing in 2061, without a prime directive could negate or enhance all that.

RAMA

 

[Paradon]

That's one thing I have a problem with Trek optimism... It seems to be on moral soap box and seem unrealistic to me. The message I got is if you have fate in your heart and comrade anything is possible. Anything is possible? Can dog be as smart as humans? Can we escape old age and eventually death? I supposed anything is possible? DS9 is the only one that didn't really show this kind of delusion. The Federation on DS9 didn't when against all the improbabilities using their superior way of thinking, but the Prophets intervene and with a little help from our warrior friends manage to cripple the Dominion ability to wage war effectively.

 

[RAMA]

That's one thing I have a problem with Trek optimism... It seems to be on moral soap box and seem unrealistic to me. The message I got is if you have fate in your heart and comrade anything is possible. Anything is possible? Can dog be as smart as humans? Can we escape old age and eventually death? I supposed anything is possible? DS9 is the only one that didn't really show this kind of delusion. The Federation on DS9 didn't when against all the improbabilities using their superior way of thinking, but the Prophets intervene and with a little help from our warrior friends manage to cripple the Dominion ability to wage war effectively.

Interesting that you ask that...a natural dog will prob never be as intelligent as a human, but an "enhanced" one might. Nanotech and the aforementioned "singularity" scenerio may mean you could live indefinitely, transferring mind to body, then replacing body as time goes on...so the definitions we use now prob have little meaning in the future. Quantum mechanics as we understand them now could mean many improbabilities (while self-evidently unlikely) may not be impossible.

In terms of Trek...well doesn't it mean that the UFP's more "accepting/friendly" nature is what won the wormhole aliens over?? This is NOT always the case, there are still enemies to fight, but I think the Trek ideal of going to a situation open minded, and open handed is probably a good way to approach things.

RAMA

 

[ChristopherPike]

There must have been much more of a sense of optimism, even during darker days than this. That there were always being possiblities somehow, back in the 60's, for Star Trek to be able to take root. Or maybe just a desire to believe in a better world. A counterculture that disappeared when people got closer to their idealistic goals and found fewer great injustices to rage against. There's just a malaise, where people don't believe a difference can be made. Not in politics. Not in social differences at home. Or relationships with the rest of the world. Decades on and shows are often more about a type of humanity that often doesn't deserve to survive. They're ultimately the cause of whatever it is that comes back to bite them. While Star Trek itself, gave our worst aspects to aliens... to test a somewhat superior future humanity. To see how far they might fall when push came to shove.

 

[Paradon]

I think there is a difference between possibilities, impossibilities and improbabilities. That's what got the U.S. in trouble with so many other countries and the current sad state of our economy. Some problems are out of our control, at least at present time, and there are no quick easy fix foreign political and societal affairs. And certain getting involve, sending our troops over there, isn't going to win the locals over there. You can't achieve peace by start another war...

I think back then they did as much horrible things as they did today and the kids today are the ones that have to pay the ultimate price...cleaning after our grandfathers and fathers.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Advanced in some areas but not enough in others. The need for people to manually operate stations or even have anyone aboard a ship to fight especially if it can be done remotely.

And it's fiction since there aren't going to be 1000s of bumpy forehead humanoid aliens everywhere who conveniently have the same level of technology and weapons as us at the time.

 

[T'Girl]

And certain getting involve, sending our troops over there, isn't going to win the locals over there.

I'm not sure the little girls in Afghanistan who can now go to school would agree with you.

You can't achieve peace by start another war...

But you can achieve peace, by successfully fighting a war that's been delivered to your doorstep.