Science FACT vs Science Fiction

[GentlemanBob]

I was just curious how much science fact went into the science fiction of the Star Trek's? Is some or any of the principles practical and plausible? For example the food replicators. How could they ever carry enough raw materials to suit all of the dietary differences aboard ship? You can't make something from nothing, so is the food simply chemicals that TASTE like the spices and seasonings in the recipes? At least Voyager had an actual kitchen. I was in the Army so I have eaten K rations. They are far better tasting than in wars past, however even they were still real food. I would be interested in what some of you more Trek Tech savvy individuals have to say.

 

[T'Girl]

The show mentioned dark matter when it was still a relatively new idea and not part of the general public awareness.

The replicator is a good idea for people in a isolated (or semi-isolated) situation. The 1000 plus people on the Enterprise Dee are going to be eating over a million meals a year, carrying or growing that much food on board would be difficult or time consuming. Figure in a possible multi-year mission and it gets to be ridiculous.

As long as the food was nutritious and didn't taste too bad it would work.

The shows technical advisers said the replicated food and drink could be recycled at about 88% recovery, so while the base material would slowly run out, it would take time.

 

[Captain Nebula]

The Original Series had consultants from NASA and JPL to try to keep it realistic.

 

[Maurice]

Very little. They play a good game of using current lingo to make things sound plausible or thought out, but much of the science on all the shows is rubbish. The transporter is a fantasy contraption. The way they frequently treat DNA is nonsense. Chronotrometric and many other made-up particles are effectively magic invented to do something specific.

 

[Spider]

And there's the problem of FTL in any science fiction, let alone Star Trek. We'll have to discover new laws of physics for that.

 

[T'Girl]

but much of the science on all the shows is rubbish

It's a few centuries in the future, plenty of time for many of today's cherished scientific theories to be disproven and all new (half assed) theories to be adoringly embrace by the scientific community.

 

[publiusr]

Now I learned the difference between star-systems and galaxies from trek, how it took a long time to get the Kelvins to Andromeda, etc. They got that and consumer electronics right (flip-phone inspired by the communicator).

When I was younger, I somehow knew that the electronics would be available before the level of spaceflight.

These two books will help
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Fiction-Peter-Nicholls/dp/0394530101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405884380&sr=1-1&keywords=%22The+science+of+science+fiction%22
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Ficti...1-2&keywords="The+science+of+science+fiction"

One of the things I've noted recently is that some sci-fi tropes are do-able--but only in small scale. "Tractor beams" "solid light" Quantum something or other.

It seems that some of that Saturday morning cartoon stuff might be real after all--but it is only good for computer chips.

Rats!

 

[Maurice]

but much of the science on all the shows is rubbish

It's a few centuries in the future, plenty of time for many of today's cherished scientific theories to be disproven and all new (half assed) theories to be adoringly embrace by the scientific community.

As the topic is "Science FACT vs Science Fiction" we can only operate from what is known right now. "It might be possible in the future" basically dismisses anything that seems non-factual to modern eyes, doesn't it? "It's ALL factual (maybe) because future!" isn't a compelling argument.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

but much of the science on all the shows is rubbish

It's a few centuries in the future, plenty of time for many of today's cherished scientific theories to be disproven and all new (half assed) theories to be adoringly embrace by the scientific community.

Which, while true, doesn't change the fact that 99% of the science in Star Trek is fictional and not at all fact-based.

 

[DarthTom]

I was just curious how much science fact went into the science fiction of the Star Trek's? Is some or any of the principles practical and plausible? For example the food replicators. How could they ever carry enough raw materials to suit all of the dietary differences aboard ship? You can't make something from nothing, so is the food simply chemicals that TASTE like the spices and seasonings in the recipes? At least Voyager had an actual kitchen. I was in the Army so I have eaten K rations. They are far better tasting than in wars past, however even they were still real food. I would be interested in what some of you more Trek Tech savvy individuals have to say.

While food replicators as seen on Trek likely will never be a reality - we have something today that comes some what close - 3d printers. In fact, NASA is sending a 3d printer for testing to the ISS

 

[Timewalker]

These two books will help
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Fiction-Peter-Nicholls/dp/0394530101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405884380&sr=1-1&keywords=%22The+science+of+science+fiction%22
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Ficti...1-2&keywords="The+science+of+science+fiction"

I read one of Peter Nicholls' SF encyclopedias. Apparently Tom Baker (the Fourth Doctor) died many years ago, of a drug overdose. So I guess it was an imposter who was in the 50th Anniversary Doctor Who episode last year as the Curator...

 

[publiusr]

Oops!