Star Trek is Already Steampunk

[Unicron]

Let's not get personal, shall we?

 

[NCC15025A]

The basic story of Star Trek is that a bunch of people are in a spaceship that travels from place to place and adventures happen at these places. You let me know when the human race invents a ship that can travel faster than light and i'll agree that Star Trek has become outdated.

 

[MacLeod]

The Enterprise has a crew of 430, in the orginal pilot it was something like 200. So perhaps 200 is the minium number required to man necessary posts for 24. I.e 50 in 6hr shifts. or around 70 in 80hr shifts. The rest of the crew being scientists in various disciplines.

Which is a ton of people.

Whilst the 1701 had phaser crews in S1, they appeared to have been replaced in later seasons by direct fire control from the bridge.

It should have been direct fire control the whole time. How hard is it to move the "fire" button from the phaser room to the bridge?

Also, see my analysis where I establish that oral fire control would put one at a great disadvantage in an actual battle.

EXAMPLE BELOW: TWOK

Kirk - does not go by the book with Reliant. He get's fooled by a simple ruse. The more machine-like Saavik tells him what to do, but she gets shut down by Spock (bro's before ho's).

KIRK: This is damned peculiar. ...Yellow Alert.
SAAVIK: Energise defence fields.

---People on the bridge push buttons and we see gadgets activating. It takes about 6 seconds after Saavik gives the order for that order to be implemented.----

UHURA: I'm getting a voice message. They say their Chambers coil is overloading their Comm system.
KIRK: Spock?
SPOCK: Scanning. Their coil emissions are normal.

[Reliant bridge]
JOACHIM: They still haven't raised their shields.
KHAN: Raise ours.
JOACHIM: Their shields are going up
KHAN: Lock phasers on target.
JOACHIM: Locking phasers on target.

[Enterprise bridge]
SPOCK: They're locking phasers!
KIRK: Raise shields!

---Too late Kirk! You had ten seconds after Reliant started raising her shields to deliver this order. You had nearly 4 seconds after Reliant locked phasers!-----

If Data were in command and directly wired to the ship's control systems, this would have turned out differently. Remember First Contact?

DATA: Zero point six eight seconds, sir. For an android ...that is nearly an eternity.

Losing the first engagement with Khan put him at an advantage throughout the film. Capt. Data - hardwired into the ship would not have lost that engagement.




Everything in Trek seems to be semi-automated. Whether or not you need people depends on the needs of the plot.

What matters for my argument is that at NO time should we see people manually running out the guns (pulling up deck-grates etc.) on a Starship.



Doesn't matter. The old stuff has it and is thus Steampunk. The new stuff claims continuity with it and is implicated with it. And there is plenty of the new stuff which is Steampunk on its own.



At the point that an automated system empirically has a safety and overall performance record that matches or exceeds that of human operators, I have NO rational reason to say no.

EX: Elevators work fine without human operators. There was a time when elevators had pilots because they needed them and later, because it made old-timers feel good to have an authority figure with them pushing the buttons. Today, elevators are automated.

We're at the point with aircraft where they can fly themselves, but where the public isn't ready to hop into a pilotless plane yet. In 50 years, no one will care. And right now no one cares that planes without passengers don't have pilots (RC and automated drones) aboard.



Fortunately, computers can be programmed to learn, just like people. Computers can be programmed to make probabilistic guesses with limited info, just like people working from their gut instinct.




As an autonomous agent.



Behold! And Behold!




Can you operate your body? It's under mind control.



LOL, it would be more comfortable to maximize space. Those who have been in space modules on the ground and in micro-gravity report that the spaces are much bigger when you can access them more than just one location (i.e., the arbitrarily assigned floor).

This is the future. People have been off terra for hundreds of years. They've been in space for a while. They can handle it. They haven't just scooped your great grandmother off the deck of a sailing ship.

2.>Artifical gravity could in theroy fail. (the reason why we don't see it on the show that often is that it isn't feseable to do it on a TV budget)

Don't make me get Timo on this point. He is relentless on this one. Artificial gravity is the last system to fail.

And so what? When artificial gravity fails you float. BFD.

Whilst space is 3 dimensional you could in theory draw an imginary place running through the centre plane of our galaxy and use that as referrance for up being up and down being down. For all we know half the time the hips fly upside down so to speak. So if you are stadning on the ship looking out you wouldn't have the sense of flying upside down due to gravity pulling you up rather than down as would occur if you tried walking on a celling. As for exterior shots we are viewing through a camera (for lack of a better term) if that is also upside down we wouldn't see something as being upside down.

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that they wouldn't be able to navigate if they didn't have a fixed line-of-sight to surrounding stars?

Kirk did do something, he ordered Yellow Alert. In ST termionology. this is more or less bring weapons and defenses to a state of readiness but to not activate them. So from Green to Red it might take a several seconds to fully go from green to red, however Yellow to Red might be a couple of seconds.

Now I admit it's been a while since I watched ST, but where did this 10 second time come from. Is that the length of the scene? If it is your assuming a liner sequence of events, instead of a concurrent series events.

And I think you meant a disadvantge.

As has already been mentioned it is not steampunk but more akin to Zeerust.

No one is saying that automated systems aren't safe or less prone to mistakes than humans but if an automated system fails what happens then?

I would imagine in fifty years time we might have hypersonic jets capable of flying from London to Sydney in a few years.

So whilst people might be willing to accept automation on technology that has proven it'sself over several decades. It might not be the case with newer technology.

Whilst computers can be programmed to learn and make great tools. The best computer is still the human brain.

Yes very nice sat phones, what's the distance on them. Given that satelites can be anwhere from a few hundred to tens of thousands of Km in space.

So far the biggest structure we've build in space is a few hundred metre's long. In a micro gravity enviroment, whilst i agree somwhat that using all sapce in that situation is beneifical. Micro gravity does have it's disadvantages. So when you are dealing with ships that operate at a gravity more similar to Earth. What benefit do you gain from using say space in the celling, as the deck plates would have to be thicker to accomadate this use of space.

And I said in THEORY artifical gravity could fail, I then went on to point out the reason we don't see it is due to budgetary reasons for a TV show. If cost wasn't an issue I suspect we might have seen it more often.

 

[MANT!]

Star Trek Steampunk..the mind boggles..
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y39gHihP74[/yt]

 

[YARN]

Kirk did do something, he ordered Yellow Alert. In ST termionology. this is more or less bring weapons and defenses to a state of readiness but to not activate them. So from Green to Red it might take a several seconds to fully go from green to red, however Yellow to Red might be a couple of seconds.

He ordered it after a palpable delay.

He should have raised the shields.

Now I admit it's been a while since I watched ST, but where did this 10 second time come from. Is that the length of the scene?

It comes from a stopwatch and me timing the scene.

If it is your assuming a liner sequence of events, instead of a concurrent series events.

We cut from ship to ship and this may be concurrent, but what happens on the Enterprise bridge while Kirk hems and haws and remarks about how peculiar this all is STILL TAKES SEVERAL SECONDS.

Capt. Data hardwired into the computer taking would have gone through all of Kirk's mental moves almost instantaneously (trillions of computations per second - the bandwidth of human consciousness is closer to a Nintendo 64).

Starfleet would get it's clocked cleaned by roboships. Remember M4 mopping up an entire Federation battlegroup commanded by muggles?

As has already been mentioned it is not steampunk but more akin to Zeerust.

Give it a name.

No one is saying that automated systems aren't safe or less prone to mistakes than humans but if an automated system fails what happens then?

Then another automated system (also more reliable than a human) should kick in.

I would imagine in fifty years time we might have hypersonic jets capable of flying from London to Sydney in a few years.

Why would it take a hypersonic jet a few years to reach Syndey? LOL.

So whilst people might be willing to accept automation on technology that has proven it'sself over several decades. It might not be the case with newer technology.

Why not?

Whilst computers can be programmed to learn and make great tools. The best computer is still the human brain.

This is a speciesist remark.

Research suggests that the human brain is maxed out in terms of evolutionary capacity.

Computers, on the other hand, keep growing in processing power and shrinking in size at an exponential rate.

Your home computer has more power than the room size computers which sent people to the moon.

You use the word "still" as if the computer world is standing still.

Yes very nice sat phones, what's the distance on them. Given that satelites can be anwhere from a few hundred to tens of thousands of Km in space.

Raising the bar now that you realize that the old "size" argument no longer applies to sat phones?

And I said in THEORY artifical gravity could fail, I then went on to point out the reason we don't see it is due to budgetary reasons for a TV show. If cost wasn't an issue I suspect we might have seen it more often.

Don't do this. Timo is going to smell blood in water soon and start breaking down the necessity of reliable artificial gravity.

 

[MacLeod]

^No I remember the M5 doing that, I also recall a Human Commander deciding not to fire on the helpless Enterprise when the crew managed to disable the M5. The logical thing to do would have been to blow the Enterprise out of space. Which a cold logical computer would mostly likely have done. Fortunantly for Kirk and co, a Human decided not do.

 

[Christopher]

^It's a myth that a sentient computer would be cold and logical. We don't know that. Human neural synapses are basically binary on-off switches at the most basic level, not so different from the circuits at the basic level of a computer, but conscious thought is so many emergent levels higher up that the simple logic of the substrate level isn't binding. The same may be true of an artificial intelligence. Something as complex as an intelligent mind is going to have all sorts of dynamic, unpredictable forces at play inside it, and would probably be just as volatile and flexible regardless of whether its substrate is made of neural tissue or graphene sheets or optical switches. Logic would probably have to be a learned behavior for an AI just as it is for a human.

(Which is why it bugged the hell out of me when TNG started imposing the "logical, emotionless machine" cliche on Data by the start of the third season. It was just such a lazy stereotype.)

 

[22 Stars]

^ I agree, it all comes down to programming and the ability for the mechanism to execute that program in a way that the programmer desires or predicts, and adjust to when the software and/or hardware runs into issues. Anomalies always creep in, it is how the system reacts and adjusts.

They could have taken Data many directions, and I wish they were still making film/shows to explore that. I think even Brent Spiner's impression that he is too old to play Data anymore, shows a limited imagination in how Data could evolve.

 

[YARN]

^No I remember the M5 doing that, I also recall a Human Commander deciding not to fire on the helpless Enterprise when the crew managed to disable the M5. The logical thing to do would have been to blow the Enterprise out of space. Which a cold logical computer would mostly likely have done. Fortunantly for Kirk and co, a Human decided not do.

Machines are logical.

Humans are not logical.

Not following the logical course of action led to a good result once a fictional space drama.

Therefore, machines should not control spaceships.

NOTE: Computers can be programmed to take calculated risks given additional information about the behavioral dispositions of particular agents.

 

[Pavonis]

From which perspective are trying to argue, YARN? From a fictional perspective, or from what you consider reality? It's already been pointed out to you that the needs of drama are different from what will happen in reality.

 

[YARN]

From which perspective are trying to argue, YARN? From a fictional perspective, or from what you consider reality? It's already been pointed out to you that the needs of drama are different from what will happen in reality.

That's kind of the point the entire thread. In Trek we tend to invoke the reality criterion to regulate our discussions, especially in this sub-forum. Calling Trek steampunk just highlights the increasing pointlessness of trying to square 1960's TV SciFi with today.

Those arguing "it's just fiction" are really on my side. It's not only just fiction, it's increasingly dated fiction.

Science fiction, when it is fresh, however, is not just mere fiction (i.e., fantasy), but a reasoned projection of the implications of the future of our advancements.

 

[GalacticWierdo]

Illogicality is merely a logical system far to vast and detailed to easily make sense of.

Eventually, if a computer is made that is large enough and complex enough, not just a large brute-force machine, it will think very similar to a human. It may not have the same self-preservation predispositions as similar programming, but it will be as unpredictable, or as predictable, as us.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^No I remember the M5 doing that, I also recall a Human Commander deciding not to fire on the helpless Enterprise when the crew managed to disable the M5. The logical thing to do would have been to blow the Enterprise out of space. Which a cold logical computer would mostly likely have done. Fortunantly for Kirk and co, a Human decided not do.

Machines are logical.

Humans are not logical.

Not following the logical course of action led to a good result once a fictional space drama.

Therefore, machines should not control spaceships.

"Machines are logical" is one of the most misunderstood phrases of the technology era, considering that most people (ironically, thanks to Star Trek) don't really understand what "logical" means.

Spockly-logical is really a form of rigid empiricism and philosophical pragmatism. It's called "logical," but it's really just a form of rigid self-methodology applied to every possible aspect of life.

Machines are logical in the way that there is a limited number of ways they can evaluate a problem: if A then B; if Not-A then C; if Not-A and Not-D then E, and so on. The more number of choices you give it, the more the machine can be said to be "smart."

An artificial intelligence programmed to eliminate possible responses until it finds the best one (Siri, for example) can be said to be "logical" insofar as how it operates, but that has nothing to do with the decision it finally picks. You can PROGRAM a machine to exercise compassion if you assign a high enough logical value to actions that engender it. The interesting thing is to assign humanlike (or even animal-like) motives to a machine that is ultimately driven by logic anyway. In Wall-E, for example, you have one robot--Eve--that is programmed to do nothing else except find evidence of life and return it to the ship's computer for analysis. She is apparently pogramed with enough operational flexibility that she is willing to participate in a military coup de tat against the ship's equally single-minded autopilot if it means accomplishing that one simple task.

Single mindedness isn't a bad thing, and neither is logical thinking. Computers become interesting from a character standpoint when you allow them to take alternate and sometimes bizzare paths to carrying out what should be a perfectly simple program. It's like if you asked a 24th century Roomba to vacuum your house; you come back twenty minutes later and find the roomba sitting on the couch watching TV, having paid your children five dollars to vacuum the house for you.

 

[Manticore]

^No I remember the M5 doing that, I also recall a Human Commander deciding not to fire on the helpless Enterprise when the crew managed to disable the M5. The logical thing to do would have been to blow the Enterprise out of space. Which a cold logical computer would mostly likely have done. Fortunantly for Kirk and co, a Human decided not do.

Machines are logical.

Humans are not logical.

Not following the logical course of action led to a good result once a fictional space drama.

Therefore, machines should not control spaceships.

"Machines are logical" is one of the most misunderstood phrases of the technology era, considering that most people (ironically, thanks to Star Trek) don't really understand what "logical" means.

Spockly-logical is really a form of rigid empiricism and philosophical pragmatism. It's called "logical," but it's really just a form of rigid self-methodology applied to every possible aspect of life.

Machines are logical in the way that there is a limited number of ways they can evaluate a problem: if A then B; if Not-A then C; if Not-A and Not-D then E, and so on. The more number of choices you give it, the more the machine can be said to be "smart."

An artificial intelligence programmed to eliminate possible responses until it finds the best one (Siri, for example) can be said to be "logical" insofar as how it operates, but that has nothing to do with the decision it finally picks. You can PROGRAM a machine to exercise compassion if you assign a high enough logical value to actions that engender it. The interesting thing is to assign humanlike (or even animal-like) motives to a machine that is ultimately driven by logic anyway. In Wall-E, for example, you have one robot--Eve--that is programmed to do nothing else except find evidence of life and return it to the ship's computer for analysis. She is apparently pogramed with enough operational flexibility that she is willing to participate in a military coup de tat against the ship's equally single-minded autopilot if it means accomplishing that one simple task.

Single mindedness isn't a bad thing, and neither is logical thinking. Computers become interesting from a character standpoint when you allow them to take alternate and sometimes bizzare paths to carrying out what should be a perfectly simple program. It's like if you asked a 24th century Roomba to vacuum your house; you come back twenty minutes later and find the roomba sitting on the couch watching TV, having paid your children five dollars to vacuum the house for you.

...I want my roomba too do that now. Too bad my roommate and I only have cats.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Science fiction, when it is fresh, however, is not just mere fiction (i.e., fantasy), but a reasoned projection of the implications of the future of our advancements.

Bzzt. Sometimes it's about the implications of current technology, or potential implications that were missed (such as The Difference Engine, an actual steampunk work). Sometimes it's not about us. And sometimes it's good despite totally screwing up the science. And sometimes it's not a reasonable projection, but one fueled by satire, or paranoia, or criticism. An unreasonable projection designed to stir or unnerve us.

Your definition of science-fiction is rigid and really only accomplishes an artificial aggrandizing of your arguments.

 

[YARN]

Science fiction, when it is fresh, however, is not just mere fiction (i.e., fantasy), but a reasoned projection of the implications of the future of our advancements.

Bzzt. Sometimes it's about the implications of current technology, or potential implications that were missed (such as The Difference Engine, an actual steampunk work). Sometimes it's not about us. And sometimes it's good despite totally screwing up the science. And sometimes it's not a reasonable projection, but one fueled by satire, or paranoia, or criticism. An unreasonable projection designed to stir or unnerve us.

Your definition of science-fiction is rigid and really only accomplishes an artificial aggrandizing of your arguments.

Verne invented the genre. His vision for speculative science-based fiction. Wells showed up second wrote fantastic tales of adventure.

Both are considered fathers of the genre and both define two poles toward which fictional tales of the future can tend.

At the far end of the hardest imaginable science fiction, one would labor so heavily under the reality criterion that one would not be writing fiction anymore. At the other end the spectrum is mere fantasy. Science fantasy can be great and it has its place. Star Wars, for example, is science fantasy; it has hooded wizards, swords, lovable rogues, and malevolent baddies.

To say that science fiction has no necessary concern with either "science" or "fiction" is to tear the two terms which define the genre apart. You can do this, but if you do, you are doing something else.

So yes, a concern with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science) is a necessary aspect of science fiction.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Verne and Wells don't continue to define the genre, much like how the Constitution isn't the sole document the United States is built around (if we only used the Constitution, this country would be too ill-defined to function).

Having crap science doesn't make something science fantasy. It just makes it a scifi story with crap science. Sci fi is NOT a genre about futurism, period. It's about using the consequences of technology on the human condition to tell a story. Like I said, that can happen in stories set in times other than the future, something you've failed to address. I could write a scifi story about Leonardo friggin DaVanci or a caveman, and it would definitley be scifi unless you invent a new genre name to seperate my short story from what you rigidly define as scifi. "Oh no, that's speculative fantastic".

You've totally evaded my argument, and pasted this glib idea into my quoted post that I was somehow seperating the "sci" from the "fi".

 

[YARN]

Verne and Wells don't continue to define the genre,

I didn't say that they define the genre, but rather that they define two asymptotes between which we find the genre.

Again, without the science and without the fiction, you have something, but it ain't "science fiction."

You can define the genre any way you please, but there is not much sense in calling it science fiction if it does not include both science and fiction.

much like how the Constitution isn't the sole document the United States is built around (if we only used the Constitution, this country would be too ill-defined to function).

It isn't the sole document, but the core document. It is a founding document of the nation. When people join the armed forces they swear an oath to protect the Constitution (not the congress, or the president, or any state book of statutes).

The Constitution creates a space within which acceptable laws will be found and without which unacceptable laws are excluded, much like Verne and Wells offer book ends within which we will find the genre.

Having crap science doesn't make something science fantasy. It just makes it a scifi story with crap science.

Depends on the focus of the story. If it sincerely, but badly attempts to imagine a future (or alternate history) projected
from past technologies, then it is science fiction, albeit bad science fiction. If the story merely uses science-sounding terms to tell a fantasy story (e.g., Star Wars), then it is science fantasy.

Sci fi is NOT a genre about futurism, period.

LOL, screaming it doesn't make it an argument. (COMMA!)

It's about using the consequences of technology on the human condition to tell a story.

No, a story could examine the technological consequences of factory automation on human workers on in 1930's England (e.g., despair, underemployment, alcoholism, an uptick in Communist ideas), but this would not make it "science" fiction.

Like I said, that can happen in stories set in times other than the future, something you've failed to address.

It can be set in an alternate history (Steampunk, duh), but without the presence of non-existent or anachronistic technologies in the timeline it isn't science fiction (see above). This is a flaw of your view which you have failed to address.

I could write a scifi story about Leonardo friggin DaVanci or a caveman, and it would definitley be scifi unless you invent a new genre name to seperate my short story from what you rigidly define as scifi. "Oh no, that's speculative fantastic".

This is silly. Your preferred definition is so wide that "science fiction" is indistinguishable from "fiction." Unfortunately, it is so poor that it cannot "aggrandize" your argument.

An historical biopic on "Leonardo friggin Davinci" would NOT be a science fiction story.

And a story about a caveman (e.g., Quest for Fire) is just a story about a caveman (i.e., fiction).

You've totally evaded my argument, and pasted this glib idea into my quoted post that I was somehow seperating the "sci" from the "fi".

I haven't evaded anything. And you are trying to separate the science from the fiction. If, as you say, sometimes "it" is not set in the future and may function as a satire, "it" is not necessarily science fiction.

You have failed to articulate necessary conditions for defining the term. I have provided an account of the necessary conditions for something being science fiction. We can quibble about whether it is both necessary and sufficient, but you have done neither.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Science fiction, when it is fresh, however, is not just mere fiction (i.e., fantasy), but a reasoned projection of the implications of the future of our advancements.

Bzzt. Sometimes it's about the implications of current technology, or potential implications that were missed (such as The Difference Engine, an actual steampunk work). Sometimes it's not about us. And sometimes it's good despite totally screwing up the science. And sometimes it's not a reasonable projection, but one fueled by satire, or paranoia, or criticism. An unreasonable projection designed to stir or unnerve us.

Your definition of science-fiction is rigid and really only accomplishes an artificial aggrandizing of your arguments.

Verne invented the genre. His vision for speculative science-based fiction. Wells showed up second wrote fantastic tales of adventure.

Both are considered fathers of the genre and both define two poles toward which fictional tales of the future can tend.

And then a bunch of other writers came along and both expanded and redefined the genre a dozen different ways over the past century with a dozen sub-genres and categories and trends along the way.

In the end, the line between science fiction and fantasy isn't as clear as you would like to believe and it has to be acknowledged that some fantasy is unusually scientific and some sci-fi is unusually fantastical.

And yet there is no such thing as "science fantasy." Just soft/hard science fiction. If you ever doubt this, ask an editor of a major (or even a minor) publishing house if they would ever consider publishing a "science fantasy" novel. Their response will usually be something like "Don't you mean science fiction/fantasy?"

To say that science fiction has no necessary concern with either "science" or "fiction" is to tear the two terms which define the genre apart. You can do this, but if you do, you are doing something else.

The thing you're not really getting is that it doesn't have to be REAL science to be considered science fiction. It can just as easily be some brand of bullshit "I made it up because it sounds cool" science that supposedly defies our puny understanding of modern physics and the universe as we know it. This is considered "soft sci-fi" because the science isn't meant to be realistic, it is only a backdrop for character and plot development.

So yes, a concern with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science) is a necessary aspect of science fiction.

No it isn't. It's an aspect of SPECULATIVE science fiction. Not all sci-fi is speculative, and not all speculative fiction is sci-fi.

 

[YARN]

And then a bunch of other writers came along and both expanded and redefined the genre a dozen different ways over the past century with a dozen sub-genres and categories and trends along the way.

So you're saying that science fiction doesn't mean anything? We must embrace pluralistic babble of a horde of faceless writers?

What's your definition of science fiction?

Will it serve this conversation better?

Is it better than mine?

My definition is pretty simple. I have argued that it must involve both science and fiction. It is concerned with the implications of our future advancements (i.e., science). If set in an alternate history, it still requires the presence of non-existent or anachronistic technologies in the timeline.

In the end, the line between science fiction and fantasy isn't as clear as you would like to believe

It's clear enough.

and it has to be acknowledged that some fantasy is unusually scientific and some sci-fi is unusually fantastical.

There are always some tough borderline cases. As Sam Harris explains, there are sometimes tough borderline cases which challenge our definition of death (e.g., respiration, heartbeat, brain function), but strangely enough we are able to tell the difference between alive and dead well enough that we don't have a crisis of definition every time we find a corpse. The mere fact that there are borderline cases is no proof of any pressing crisis of definition (and there are always borderline cases).

And yet there is no such thing as "science fantasy."

I say there is. You can call it "soft" science fiction if you wish (give it a name) but what matters is the conceptual space we're mapping.

Just soft/hard science fiction. If you ever doubt this, ask an editor of a major (or even a minor) publishing house if they would ever consider publishing a "science fantasy" novel. Their response will usually be something like "Don't you mean science fiction/fantasy?"

We can define the tension as hard/soft, if you wish, but the underlying tension between the poles of Verne (hard) and Wells (soft) remains.

The thing you're not really getting is that it doesn't have to be REAL science to be considered science fiction.

How am I not getting that? Speculative future-oriented fiction, by definition, has to make creative guesses beyond "real science."

What matters, crucially, is the nature of the guesswork. Is it a careful, considered, and reasonable speculation based on current scientific and other historical trends? If so, it is what you would call hard science fiction.

If it is based on certain pre-negotiated literary conventions (e.g., ray guns, FTL flight, artificial gravity), it is mainstream science fiction. It has it's conceits (established conventions), but will still labor to minimally justify suspension of disbelief in a lay audience (getting enough of the pop-science right that the audience invest).

If it shows little to no regard for building suspension of disbelief and simply offers a fantastical romp (the film Wild Wild West comes to mind), it's what I would call science fantasy. You might call it soft or very soft science fiction.

As science fiction ages, its conventions wear to the point that the audience no longer takes them as a given. We no longer accept chemical rocket ships with fins, jet packs, and clumsy metal robots as plausible. Old Buck Rogers shows were terribly dated when Star Trek was on the air. If one were to make a faithful remake of Buck Rogers (as it was in 1939), it would look about as steampunk-ish as Wild Wild West did in 1999. Heck, I can remember watching these on television when I was a kid and thinking that it looked goofy and out-of-date. Well, guess what? Star Trek is in the same boat. Indeed, the styling cues of the JJ-Prise (the fins, the styling cues from 1950's automobiles, the rocket-looking nacelles) admit the (now) retro-nature of Trek.

No it isn't. It's an aspect of SPECULATIVE science fiction. Not all sci-fi is speculative, and not all speculative fiction is sci-fi.

Again, if it isn't really concerned with science it ain't science fiction.