Post-TOS Remake Trek-Tech Thread

[CuttingEdge100]

I was thinking of an idea at the very least of creating a series of ST-based fanfic, with a more ultimate idea of developing a machinema based on a soft-reboot rather than the extremely hard reboot that J.J. Abrams did. The idea would be for the reboot to start Post TOS and effectively start from that point in a new direction.

I already started a brainstorming projected along those lines on the fanfic forum, but I feel that the technological aspects shouldn't be discussed there to excess and the focus should be on characters and plot.

There are a couple of technical issues of note that I felt like discussing. The first issue is the fact that in Star Trek and other science-fiction series, I've noticed all too many times that there is this weird desire for every space-ship operated by a given species to always have certain design characteristics.

In regards to the Federation in Star Trek, it's extreme modularity, often twin-hulls, saucer shaped hulls and so forth; In regards to the Klingons, the vessels have wings and a long neck like a bird with a "head" mounted on the front; with the Romulans (TOS), the ship had wing-like pylons but otherwise featured a combination of Federation features and indigenous design features (which is unclear which is which).

Now if you look at real ships, submarines, and aircraft, of which Star-Trek ships have characteristics of all of these being that they have multiple decks like ships, the whole vessel is operating in 3D space and is entirely sealed from the outside: You'll find that without a trained eye, many surface-ships look very similar to each other; most submarines (especially attack subs) are basically tear-dropped shapes with a conning-tower/sail up-top; aircraft designs vary a bit depending on mission even among the same nations (they don't all look the same), and while certain nations tend to have certain design proclivities, they aren't necessarily absolute (especially at various points in our history)

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Well, obviously the differences in configuration must infer some kind of advantage...

Weapons placement, manuverability, and thrust dynamics could determine this, as well as tractor beam placement and general role. Now, the idea of "warp dynamics" (which I believe Sternbach came up with for the TNGTM, correct me if I'm wrong) could play into this a bit, but then ships ought to look more similar, much like how modern day cars look a bit samey, and jet fighters have the same basic characteristics.

One thing that comes to mind, without a trained eye, is that many ship designs in Trek have a similar modular structure of sorts. The D-7, Constitution, D'Deridex, and Galor all share a basic seperation of command and habitation/service and power/engines. IMO, this is a pretty clear commonality, aside from the occasional design that omits one of these aspects (Rom and Klink BoPs, USS Defiant).

So, they use these same basic characteristics, but Fed ships are designed to be jacks of all trades, Romulan ships are laid out to make the best use of the cloaking device, Klink ships are maneuverable, with primarily-forward facing weapons arcs, Cardassian ships are cheap and sturdy, but cut out a lot of the fancy "warp dynamics" hull sculpting to cut down on production costs, and so forth.

YMMV.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Herkimer Jitty

One thing that comes to mind, without a trained eye, is that many ship designs in Trek have a similar modular structure of sorts.

That is true, however the degree of differences are kind of extreme.

 

[sojourner]

Well, we know the real world reason for this. They had to be easy to tell apart on small tv screens.

In-universe it's harder to explain away.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

sojourner

In-universe it's harder to explain away.

Look, there's real technology which the idea is to keep to as much as possible for the most part. But there's certain technology in Star Trek which I call "fiat tech" which means it's technology in the storyline out of the fact that it was in the plot.

Examples would include

Transporters: While there actually are ways to do quantum teleportation, they always seem to be about copying every detail about one item, then sending that data somewhere else, destroying the first and making a copy. Also there's no rule that says shields would stop it. So we just assume however the fuck it works, it doesn't kill a person and make a copy (maybe it makes a copy and lets both live sometimes by accident) is stoppable by shields and doesn't consume excessive energy otherwise it wouldn't work in the story.

Navigational Deflectors: If used as described they would have to be incomprehensively powerful, possibly more powerful than the warp engines and would have to project it's energy field out faster than the speed of light. Yet, it's part of the show.

Life-sign Detection Scanners: Humans do produce bio-electric fields, but the ability to detect it thousands of miles away even through all sorts of other conditions including the bulkheads, the hull-plating, the electrical systems onboard the ship would be a feat in and of itself, but when you factor in the forcefields which are extremely powerful too is even a greater feat than the former.

Subspace Communications & Sensors: Basically it works along some mechanism of sending and receiving transmissions through another universe where the speed of light is somehow faster. For scanning purposes it's much like radar except way way way faster. For communications purposes it's similar to radio but way way way faster. It's not really certain if there are any parallel universes at all, let alone one with a substantially higher speed of light. Still, if they couldn't detect anything in front of them or send signals to anybody without waiting thousands of years, the show wouldn't work out.

Warp Drive: In the most basic conceptual terms the idea works out, but to actually do it the energy levels would be off the charts and possibly more than the whole universe could provide. Of course it would make long range travel in the story impossible so it's allowed.

Clearly it's unrealistic but when watching or reading about it, we sort of "ignore" the finer facts because it's basically a TV show and isn't real.

Well, we know the real world reason for this. They had to be easy to tell apart on small tv screens.

True, but in real life many ships and submarines, even an aircraft or two (B-1/Tu-160) look similar to each other and we manage just fine.

I was thinking of creating a star-ship evolutionary concept, but it would be very basic and would go right back to the fundamentals of Star Trek and then build back up from there.

 

[Sandoval]

Why doesn't Cutting Edge just quote people the normal way?

Why go to the trouble of altering the formatting?

 

[sojourner]

Well, we know the real world reason for this. They had to be easy to tell apart on small tv screens.

True, but in real life many ships and submarines, even an aircraft or two (B-1/Tu-160) look similar to each other and we manage just fine.

No, No we don't. If you had a show about submarines - which have virtually no markings - Any pitched battle between them would confuse the audience. I dare you to find an average person that can describe the physical differences between a Los Angeles class sub and an Akula. It's pretty well established that fed, klingon, and romulan ships were given distinctive styles to make them easier to tell apart.

I'm not sure what your essay on "fiat technology" has to do with why race's ships looked different "in-universe". That seems to have no bearing on the matter at all. In-universe there is no good explanation why ships that all use warpdrive and thus are confined by "warp dynamics" would look so radically different.

It's actually kind of bizarre. You're arguing that the "real world" reason for different designs (to help the audience) makes no real sense, while the "in-universe" reason (which there isn't) is a "fiat", which it isn't. You've managed to be wrong on both counts.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

sojourner

No, No we don't. If you had a show about submarines - which have virtually no markings - Any pitched battle between them would confuse the audience. I dare you to find an average person that can describe the physical differences between a Los Angeles class sub and an Akula.

Uh, I did okay when I watched "The Hunt for Red October" back in 1990.

In-universe there is no good explanation why ships that all use warpdrive and thus are confined by "warp dynamics" would look so radically different.

Actually warp dynamics were elaborated on in TNG. In TOS and TMP there wasn't much specification on the matter.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner

No, No we don't. If you had a show about submarines - which have virtually no markings - Any pitched battle between them would confuse the audience. I dare you to find an average person that can describe the physical differences between a Los Angeles class sub and an Akula.

Uh, I did okay when I watched "The Hunt for Red October" back in 1990.

Yes, the movie spent the first hour showing you the October and made sure you were familiar with it before another sub was introduced. Even then the movie rarely showed the other subs in the same shot.

BTW, was that a remake of the Sean Connery version from 1984?

In-universe there is no good explanation why ships that all use warpdrive and thus are confined by "warp dynamics" would look so radically different.

Actually warp dynamics were elaborated on in TNG. In TOS and TMP there wasn't much specification on the matter.

Um, YES, correct. So we know warp dynamics are canon. Why don't other race's ships look similar to federation ships then? They should evolve similarly if they face similar design constraints. Yet they don't.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Red October came out in 1990. It was set in '84.

 

[sojourner]

^Ah, well, it feels like a Reagan Era movie.

 

[USS KG5]

Yes, the movie spent the first hour showing you the October and made sure you were familiar with it before another sub was introduced. Even then the movie rarely showed the other subs in the same shot.

It uses all kinds of tricks in editing too, so you will note a model shot of the Dallas is followed by a Dallas scene, the Alfa/Akula by a scene with Komorov (or whatever he name is) and also each ship is shot differently and the interiors lit differently. When we see the inside of the Akula it is not the same as Red October. They also make different noises.

I've often heard the complaint from non-fans that it is very difficult to tell who is where and on what ship even in sci-fi where the ships are deliberately made to look different. Not every viewer looks at things in the detail Trek fans do. I would never have noticed unless told that the Ent-E in Nemesis is quite different, or that there are supposed to be two types of Klingon Battle Cruiser.

 

[T'Girl]

Cardassian ships are cheap and sturdy, but cut out a lot of the fancy "warp dynamics" hull sculpting to cut down on production costs, and so forth.

It would seem that the Galor Class was designed to visually resemble the Cardassian Union's political emblem.

The novel The Final Reflection said that one of the reason Klingon ships are designed the way they are is separate the officers in the forward "bulb," from the (at one time) radiation in the engineering section, That long thin neck might also be useful in the event of a mutiny. Helping to keep a attacking crew away from the bridge.

There might be philosophical reasons for the design of Starfleet vessels, not just practical ones. It is often pointed out that the bridge is quite exposed, this might have to do with the captain "leading from the front," as opposed to leading from a heavily protected bunker deep in the ship. Even the Battle Bridge on the Enterprise Dee, after the saucer would separate, would be out in the open and exposed on the top of the neck.

This also places the bridge psychologically "upstairs" or at the top of the ship. An executive position, with the general crew on the lower decks.

The Cardassians did something similar with the arrangement of DS9's operations and the commander office, it was above the main area, you had to look up the see it, climb up to get to it. Psychology.

 

[Starlock]

The novel The Final Reflection said that one of the reason Klingon ships are designed the way they are is separate the officers in the forward "bulb," from the (at one time) radiation in the engineering section, That long thin neck might also be useful in the event of a mutiny. Helping to keep a attacking crew away from the bridge.

And naturally, since later generations of Klingon ships no longer had issues with radiation, it soon passed that a second bridge would be located in the engineering hull.

This had at least two known benefits:

1. In case the forward bulb was destroyed in battle - automatically sending the crew to paradise - it would be possible to maintain control of the ship.

2. In case it became necessary to make sure the forward bulb was destroyed in battle (or otherwise) - usually against the wishes of the crew there - it became that much easier.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

USS KG5

It uses all kinds of tricks in editing too, so you will note a model shot of the Dallas is followed by a Dallas scene, the Alfa/Akula by a scene with Komorov (or whatever he name is) and also each ship is shot differently and the interiors lit differently. When we see the inside of the Akula it is not the same as Red October. They also make different noises.

Regardless, with these tricks employed you can tell the difference. I see no reason why this wouldn't work in a Trek Machinema…


T'Girl

The novel The Final Reflection said that one of the reason Klingon ships are designed the way they are is separate the officers in the forward "bulb," from the (at one time) radiation in the engineering section, That long thin neck might also be useful in the event of a mutiny. Helping to keep a attacking crew away from the bridge.

Well radiation shielding exists modern day -- that seems unnecessary

 

[sojourner]

Regardless, with these tricks employed you can tell the difference. I see no reason why this wouldn't work in a Trek Machinema…

OK, try to visualize one of the space battles from DS9 if all the ships looked basically the same. utter confusion.

Well radiation shielding exists modern day -- that seems unnecessary

Assuming radiation shielding works for what ever the klingon engines are emitting. Who's to know what's necessary? Maybe the Klingons are using radiation shielding? Maybe it's just not good enough to block everything?

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Sojourner

OK, try to visualize one of the space battles from DS9 if all the ships looked basically the same. utter confusion.

Okay, not exactly the same. But there have been 3D renderings of WW2 aerial battles and yet still you can tell the German planes from the US ones.

Assuming radiation shielding works for what ever the klingon engines are emitting. Who's to know what's necessary? Maybe the Klingons are using radiation shielding? Maybe it's just not good enough to block everything?

Sounds like a pretty weak argument. They would have had to had an extensive knowledge of dealing with various forms of radiation that would have occurred with their inevitable technological development from conventional power to nuclear fission, from fission to fusion, and from fusion to matter/anti-matter.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, not exactly the same. But there have been 3D renderings of WW2 aerial battles and yet still you can tell the German planes from the US ones.

Yep, because if you changed the shape of the planes it wouldn't be historically accurate would it? That doesn't change the fact that given the option the producers would have for the sake of clarity.

Sounds like a pretty weak argument. They would have had to had an extensive knowledge of dealing with various forms of radiation that would have occurred with their inevitable technological development from conventional power to nuclear fission, from fission to fusion, and from fusion to matter/anti-matter.

Maybe the Klingons just weren't good at the science of shielding? It's already been shown that Klingon technology is not the best and they tend to take a brute force approach. It might be easier and even have more practical benefits for them to use a boom instead of shielding. Klingons aren't human. Quit making assumptions about how they would do things as if they were human.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

One idea I was thinking of was some kind of scientific or at least pseudoscientific explanation for the shapes of the vessels in the show.

Until TNG Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix was never shown canonically as far as I know. Since I'm largely operating under the premise of remaking everything post-TOS (excepting the TMP Enterprise), I was thinking of having the Phoenix be a type of ring-ship. Not all that big, but after all that's probably the simplest design for a technology that involves warping space. Other early earth-ships are ring-ships.

 

[USS KG5]

USS KG5

It uses all kinds of tricks in editing too, so you will note a model shot of the Dallas is followed by a Dallas scene, the Alfa/Akula by a scene with Komorov (or whatever he name is) and also each ship is shot differently and the interiors lit differently. When we see the inside of the Akula it is not the same as Red October. They also make different noises.

Regardless, with these tricks employed you can tell the difference. I see no reason why this wouldn't work in a Trek Machinema…

Oh I don't see a reason either - I was agreeing with you!

You will actually notice they do this in any case in Trek, and of course if you look at Red Letter Media's excellent dissection of the opening scene of episode IV, it is pretty common in sci-fi.