Scientific weirdness in Star Trek

[Mres_was_framed!]

While Field Effect suits from TAS are considered a bit cheesy, would not something like that not be needed for planetary exploration?

In Spock's Brain, Kirk may mention "suit temperatures," but the line is unclear. If we wanted to press it, this could a live-action use of the "life support belts" of TAS, but, (like the deflector shields, which are not seen in TOS but are sometimes visible in TNG) the field is not visible in live action TOS.

It would have made far more sense for Spock to have beamed Kirk to the brig with an escort (Yeoman Rand step up please!) with the intention of using the base's communications array to get warnings out (the Enterprise's communications being damaged). Kirk meets Spock Prime on the base, learns about Nero and then Kirk has to use his command skills to persuade, through inspiration rather than insubordination, that he should be released so that this crucial info that the Enterprise needs badly reaches the ship. Since the ship's communications are down the only way is to transport.

Agreed that the script could have been better. I fancy that instead of the super duper transporter, the Enterprise was "slowed" due to its battle damage, and that Scotty had a souped up shuttle that could over take the limping Enterprise. Land in shuttlebay and get taken into custody, which avoids the comedic water tube ride and brewery tour high jinks. (Characters should be serious to reflect the danger and threats.) Scotty then helps fix the warp drive off screen then off they go at super warp speed. Same end result with same screen time.

Both these plans could have happened...if there had not been a writers strike during filming of the '09 movie, then maybe some of these jumps would have been worked out.

I don't hate the water pipe thing, though. I'm sure the "inert reactant" label is a joke, but I could imagine that it means this water (inert in the sense that no chemical reaction is taking palce) is actually "heavy" water containing deuterium ("reactant" in the matter-anti-mater reaction.) If they used water pies and tanks to store and move the deuterium around, that would make it easy and simple/safe to construct the ship, and actually then the brewery equipment would have some reason to exist...

 

[MAGolding]

...Kirk did bend or break the rules sometimes but usually when in command, based on his past experience. If he'd behaved that way before he had experience, I don't imagine he would have been promoted in TOS as quickly, or at all. Remember how his mistake as an ensign still haunted him years later? NuKirk didn't seem to be that self-aware. His rapid promotion rankled because of that...

What mistake did prime Kirk make as an ensign? I don't remember any, nor much else about Ensign Kirk.

"Obsession"

In "Obsession":

KIRK: Ensign Garrovick is a ship-command decision. You're straying out of your field, Doctor.
(He returns to his bed.)
MCCOY: Am I? I was speaking of Lieutenant James T. Kirk of the starship Farragut. Eleven years ago, you were the young officer at the phaser station when something attacked. According to the tapes, this young Lieutenant Kirk insisted upon blaming himself.
KIRK: Because I delayed in firing at it.
MCCOY: You had a normal emotion. You were startled. You delayed firing for a grand total of perhaps two seconds.
KIRK: If I hadn't delayed, it would have been killed.
MCCOY: The ship's exec didn't seem to think so. His log entry was quite clear on the subject. Lieutenant Kirk is a fine young officer who performed with uncommon bravery.

http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/47.htm

 

[fireproof78]

Both these plans could have happened...if there had not been a writers strike during filming of the '09 movie, then maybe some of these jumps would have been worked out.

Honestly, this is why I am far more lenient with the film than perhaps I should be. I think the script needed one more go over to tighten it up but couldn't happen.

 

[Commishsleer]

Honestly, this is why I am far more lenient with the film than perhaps I should be. I think the script needed one more go over to tighten it up but couldn't happen.

You know not one of the movies makes much sense (Original Series, TNG, Reboot). Same as most other scifi movies. However the issue for me is that I don't really like Kirk all that much. I don't feel he deserves his position and doesn't get my undersranding for the whole I'm bored with my life aboard the Enterprise in the last movie. I wish they made me like him. I want to like him. Make another movie so I like him. Now when I see Pine in other movies I don't like him either (except the movie with his lost half-sister)

 

[Warped9]

I loathed Pine’s Kirk in the JJ films. He was someone deserving to get punched in the face. Still Pine was playing the role as directed so the blame really belongs to Abrams.

I was fine with Pine in the Wonder Woman films although WW1984 was a huge disappointment compared to the first film. Thats not Pine’s fault.

 

[fireproof78]

However the issue for me is that I don't really like Kirk all that much. I don't feel he deserves his position and doesn't get my undersranding for the whole I'm bored with my life aboard the Enterprise in the last movie. I wish they made me like him.

I don't know if anyone can make you like him, at least in my experience, but I'll offer my own perspective. For me, I didn't like Kirk in the first film save for about 4 moments where I saw the Kirk from TOS and that potential pop up. His willingness to dive and save Sulu, his moment with Spock Prime, his interaction with Chekov and his peace offering with Nero. None of those made him a likable character, but I could see that raw potential in there which I appreciated.

Into Darkness is all about demonstrating how Kirk doesn't deserve command and he has to earn it. And he does, through sacrifice and leadership. We see that wrestling with himself, very similar to TOS Kirk wrestling with his own conscience. Finally, I think that saying he is "bored" misses the point of the film. Kirk isn't bored; he's depressed. His purpose for living until that point was living up to an ideal in his hero father, and he did that. He didn't see what else was beyond that at that point in time. By the end he has found value in being a leader not because of a dare but because of what he believes in.

That's for me. I didn't fully like Pine Kirk until Into Darkness, but that's because all along the way I saw small glimmers of the man he could become. Which is why Kelvin Trek has such value to me; it shows that glimmer of hope even in the most annoying of people in their becoming more than what they already are. It inspires me as I work with young people daily who struggle with a sense of purpose. I don't have to like them in order to find value in them.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Noname Given]

I don't know if anyone can make you like him, at least in my experience, but I'll offer my own perspective. For me, I didn't like Kirk in the first film save for about 4 moments where I saw the Kirk from TOS and that potential pop up. His willingness to dive and save Sulu, his moment with Spock Prime, his interaction with Chekov and his peace offering with Nero. None of those made him a likable character, but I could see that raw potential in there which I appreciated.

Into Darkness is all about demonstrating how Kirk doesn't deserve command and he has to earn it. And he does, through sacrifice and leadership. We see that wrestling with himself, very similar to TOS Kirk wrestling with his own conscience. Finally, I think that saying he is "bored" misses the point of the film. Kirk isn't bored; he's depressed. His purpose for living until that point was living up to an ideal in his hero father, and he did that. He didn't see what else was beyond that at that point in time. By the end he has found value in being a leader not because of a dare but because of what he believes in.

That's for me. I didn't fully like Pine Kirk until Into Darkness, but that's because all along the way I saw small glimmers of the man he could become. Which is why Kelvin Trek has such value to me; it shows that glimmer of hope even in the most annoying of people in their becoming more than what they already are. It inspires me as I work with young people daily who struggle with a sense of purpose. I don't have to like them in order to find value in them.

Mileage will vary.

He was definitely depressed. Why? It was around his birthday and one of the characters points for Kirk in the film - ST:B (which he stated) was - "I'm now one year older than my father got to be..." <--- and that was weighing heavily on him.

 

[fireproof78]

He was definitely depressed. Why? It was around his birthday and one of the characters points for Kirk in the film - ST:B (which he stated) was - "I'm now one year older than my father got to be..." <--- and that was weighing heavily on him.

Indeed. His dad and his dad's legacy has always weighed heavily on him. It's clear from 09 forward.

 

[Pauln6]

The writers strike is something I had not considered for the first movie, which was still a hugely enjoyable movie with a great cast, but Into Darkness was similarly flawed.

I would not say I dislike Pine's Kirk - flawed heroes are great characters. What I disliked was the way the other characters treated his shortcomings. I'm sure an element of his popularity is because a fair chunk of a sci fi movie like to say, 'Oh look, an arrogant, sexist, idiot can succeed in life through badly considered choices. That's how I want to live my life', especially given how vocal some people are about modern Trek being too 'woke'. I prefer morality tales to have some morality and making the villain a gurning madman with no redeeming features doesn't make other badly behaved characters moral, just because they are more moral than the bad guy.

To be honest, the dodgy science in ST09 put me on edge and possibly made me less tolerant of some of the movie's other indiscretions, even if I did admire the premise as a clever way to reboot.

What do people think of the astrobiology in TOS? I don't get the impression that our knowledge has moved on that far. Even an ant-matter amoeba was pretty groovy. I always felt that an astrobiologist character would have been essential to many landing parties and fertile ground for stories, but the profession s oddly absent from almost every iteration of Trek (Mulhall is in an episode where she uses engineering skills more, Wildman's job was just an excuse to feature her in mummy stories, Data is more prominently an engineer and seemed to focus on odd intelligent life forms as a way of understanding his place in the world, so the closest we get is Dax, who was more of a generalist).

So is it that the writers were scared of the subject for fear of doing something silly (lolz), scared that the subject might put off viewers, or just that they didn't know enough to work with? I think Devil in the Dark was a great piece of sci fi with a grounding in science.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm sure an element of his popularity is because a fair chunk of a sci fi movie like to say, 'Oh look, an arrogant, sexist, idiot can succeed in life through badly considered choices. That's how I want to live my life', especially given how vocal some people are about modern Trek being too 'woke'. I prefer morality tales to have some morality and making the villain a gurning madman with no redeeming features doesn't make other badly behaved characters moral, just because they are more moral than the bad guy.

If people walk away from the film thinking that then I think they missed the point of the rest of the film and the following films. But, then, people admired Gul Dukat so what do I know.

So is it that the writers were scared of the subject for fear of doing something silly (lolz), scared that the subject might put off viewers, or just that they didn't know enough to work with?

I think they just didn't know enough to work with it and were scared of putting of viewers. I would love more astrobiology exploration but it either ends up being too weird to be produced or too out there for general audience members to really connect with. I think the Horta is probably the best example of this actually working, but unfortunately relied upon Spock and McCoy to make sense of it.

 

[Neopeius]

What do people think of the astrobiology in TOS? I don't get the impression that our knowledge has moved on that far. Even an ant-matter amoeba was pretty groovy. I always felt that an astrobiologist character would have been essential to many landing parties and fertile ground for stories, but the profession s oddly absent from almost every iteration of Trek (Mulhall is in an episode where she uses engineering skills more, Wildman's job was just an excuse to feature her in mummy stories, Data is more prominently an engineer and seemed to focus on odd intelligent life forms as a way of understanding his place in the world, so the closest we get is Dax, who was more of a generalist).

So is it that the writers were scared of the subject for fear of doing something silly (lolz), scared that the subject might put off viewers, or just that they didn't know enough to work with? I think Devil in the Dark was a great piece of sci fi with a grounding in science.

As it turns out, I'm going to be speaking at Georgia Tech this May about the state of astrobiology in the 60s...

"Devil in the Dark" was cool, although my understanding (and that of scientists at the time the show was written) is that you can't actually have silicon-based life, even at the higher temperatures required to make it act similarly to carbon.

Trek gave up on astrobiology quite early. You see a bit of it with Sulu ("Man Trap" and "Shore Leave" -- in the latter, McCoy seems surprised that Sulu would want to go to all that trouble to collect samples; so much for him being "Head of Life Sciences"!), and Spock grinning as he fondled the chime plants in "The Cage", but otherwise, it's absent or, at best, an afterthought.

There wasn't much interest in making Trek a Wild Kingdom in Space, and even had they wanted to make it such, they had literally nothing to go on but imagination. In the 60s, we were beaming messages to nearby stars and renting time on radio dishes in the predecessor to Project SETI (which has turned up nothing, the most probable result). Mariners 2 and 4 had dispelled any notion that there might be life in the solar system.

So Trek was ultimately a show about people interacting with people (even if the people were sometimes aliens). Trek subscribed to the idea that there would be tons of aliens, many of them at similar levels to humans. This is a direct offshoot of contemporary literary science fiction, which ran the bell curve from no aliens to lots. But as far as astronomers knew, we were all alone in the universe.

That's still the case. We currently know nothing more about life on other planets than we did then. What we do know more now is about biology in general, and also what a life signature might look like as viewed from a distance. And we are finally launching the kind of spacecraft that might be able to detect such signatures. The next decade or two should be interesting.

(For the record, I think we're alone in the galaxy as far as sentient life is concerned. Maybe in the universe. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.)

 

[Tenacity]

It's pretty clear that GR and whoever else took a swing at that script had no interest in Rand being anything more that a Space Waitress and then no interest in the character at all.

Rand was qualified to take the helm.

 

[dupersuper]

Question: Is the "bad science" in Trek an error, or is it just how things work in the fictitious Star Trek universe?

I think it's the latter when dealing with the made up tech of the show like transporters and warp drive, but the former when dealing with actual science like black holes and known physics. It can go from the latter to the former, however, when it's internally inconsistent.

if you are blowing up the whole planet it seems silly not to include the leader of that planet

As influential as she was, I never got the impression that T'pau was the leader (president? prime minister? chancellor?) of Vulcan. She seemed more like a high priestess.

(For the record, I think we're alone in the galaxy as far as sentient life is concerned. Maybe in the universe. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.)

That's a mind boggling amount of empty space. I see no reason to believe Earth is so unique.

 

[Neopeius]

That's a mind boggling amount of empty space. I see no reason to believe Earth is so unique.

Why not? You are.

 

[dupersuper]

Why not? You are.

Not biochemically.

 

[Neopeius]

Not biochemically.

For now, it's a matter of faith. I look forward to evidence.

 

[dupersuper]

For now, it's a matter of faith.

Somewhat (the only way it will ever be confirmed is with a positive), but it's also a matter of math...

 

[Neopeius]

Somewhat (the only way it will ever be confirmed is with a positive), but it's also a matter of math...

Mostly faith. We have a data set of one.

But even if we assume that all biochemistry tends toward life, and that there are millions of life-bearing planets in the galaxy, and that all life tends toward complexity, and all complex life tends toward sentience....

The sum total of human existence is as a dime on the Empire State Building of the age of the universe. Modern civilization is the thin patina on top of the dime. The odds of a sentient race being at our level is essentially zero. Intelligent aliens, if they exist, are either too primitive to contact us, or too advanced to bother with us.

In any event, all the evidence is negative.

 

[fireproof78]

Not biochemically.

You cloned yourself?

 

[MAGolding]

Mostly faith. We have a data set of one.

But even if we assume that all biochemistry tends toward life, and that there are millions of life-bearing planets in the galaxy, and that all life tends toward complexity, and all complex life tends toward sentience....

The sum total of human existence is as a dime on the Empire State Building of the age of the universe. Modern civilization is the thin patina on top of the dime. The odds of a sentient race being at our level is essentially zero. Intelligent aliens, if they exist, are either too primitive to contact us, or too advanced to bother with us.

In any event, all the evidence is negative.

I may point out that there are a number of species on Earth whose intelligence ranges may overlap very considerably with that of humans and who might need to be reclassified as people. At least 4 species of apes, 3 species of proboscideans, and 80 or 90 species of cetaceans. Plus a number of now extinct ancestors and relatives of Homo sapiens were clearly intelligent beings and people.

So intelligent primates have existed on Earth for a few million years, while intelligent proboscideans and cetaceans may have existed for a few tens of millions of years, even though only one species is known to have developed civillization and high technology.

There is also the idea that the rows of ichthysaur vertibrae found at one site might have been arranged by some giant cephalopod to resemble the rows of suckers on its arms. If so, that cephalopod might have been an intelligent being with artistic emotions. Thus if that idea is correct there would have been intelligent life on Earth on and off for over two hundred million years.

Thus it is possible that intelligent life is common, even if civilization is much rarer.