Nostalgia was the big catalyst behind Picard. Because nostalgia sells. At the same time, I'm sure they noticed the criticisms and compliments coming from Discovery and used them as a guide for what to do and not do in the next show(s).
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
Nostalgia was the big catalyst behind Picard. Because nostalgia sells. At the same time, I'm sure they noticed the criticisms and compliments coming from Discovery and used them as a guide for what to do and not do in the next show(s).
OK, let me revise. It was a big catalyst behind why Picard looks the way it does. I'm sure if Discovery had faced a smaller backlash the Romulans would all have horns and three penises.
They didn't alter the Vulcans, so they wouldn't have altered the Romulans.
Why not? TNG altered the Romulans, leaving the Vulcans alone.
'Magic crystals' are macguffin and not even directly involved in the propulsion, merely in channelling the power from the antimatter reaction to it. It is just a fancy conduit. FTL is most likely impossible in practice, but it is not in theory. The only known theoretically possible methods of FTL involve bending of space and warp (Alcubierre) drive and wormholes are the two known theoretically possible methods of utilising it. Not that I'm claiming that either the warp drive or wormholes were presented in Trek in particularly realistic matter, in a TV show certain liberties need to be taken. But comparing warp drive to spore drive shows pretty drastic lack of scientific understanding.
This is the same sort of thing like demanding that Trek goes to another galaxy. It really doesn't add anything, the interesting location can be placed anywhere the plot demands, making it another galaxy doesn't make it inherently any different. Al that the instant travel does is destroys the concept of distance, which in turn makes a lot of plots impossible.
I seriously doubt that. Spore drive is no more or less fantastic in its basic assumptions, and if realistic portrayal is not relevant, then it can't be discriminated against on that basis, either.
"The geometry of spacetime can be made to bend for FTL" is as much charlatanspeak as "the basic structure of the universe allows for random points to be directly connected", be that by wormholes or conduits of other sorts. There's no evidence that any of this would work in practice - nor that it wouldn't. And what allows one to access "direct connections" is not known today, even in the most general sense. Might be tachyon bursts, spores, or magic words for all we care (and probably the real answer always will be "nothing at all").'
Timo Saloniemi
Yes, but not crazily like suggested. There's still a great resemblance.
I think you just accidentally reinforced my point.
Not really. They're both nonsense.
I'm sure you know better than all the highly trained scientists and people at NASA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp-field_experiments
I read this article and I didn't find the section which proves that FTL is possible and that warp drive is any more realistic than mushroom drive, which part are you referring to?
It is theoretically possible, as in laws of physics do not directly prevent it. Now for it to be actually possible would require existence of such things as 'negative mass' which may or may not exist. But it is actually something real scientists theorise about and experiments are being planned an conducted. None of this is true for spore drive, which is pure fairy dust. There is no Wkipedia article on mushroom based space travel, no theory about it, nor experiments being conducted. It is fantasy. How can't you see the difference?
Really, pouring money into the work of one charlatan is no different from pouring it to another. NASA may have chosen Alcubierre, but perhaps there could also be a Stamets out there (say, the real one - have you read any of his stuff?!!) that could get funding as well. With similar results...
That Einstein is not considered a village idiot (any longer) is due to him coming up with ideas that could be easily tested early on. It's not possible to test anything of that sort with "warp fields" even as per the linked article, so we really can't tell - all of Alcubierre's stuff is just fairy tales at this point. Perhaps Russia will get antigravity first, by funding Podkletnov's gravity masking. These things really are shots into the dark. (And most science is wrong, until tested to destruction. Which is the very point of science.)
Timo Saloniemi
That Einstein is not considered a village idiot (any longer) is due to him coming up with ideas that could be easily tested early on. It's not possible to test anything of that sort with "warp fields" even as per the linked article, so we really can't tell - all of Alcubierre's stuff is just fairy tales at this point. Perhaps Russia will get antigravity first, by funding Podkletnov's gravity masking. These things really are shots into the dark. (And most science is wrong, until tested to destruction. Which is the very point of science.)
Timo Saloniemi
As a side note, and late into the discussion on the E-E..
It would seem she at least survived until Picard left *the Enterprise* to command the rescue armada.
Now the question of if she's still around in the 15 year gap is a different matter. Assuming a rough commission date of 2372 (going off of the "we've been out in space a year now" line from First Contact taking place in 2373..)..Enterprise would only be around 30 years old. I would assume that starships would have service lives of at least the same as modern aircraft carriers (roughly 45-50 years)..so really all the E-E would need is a refit/mid-life update.
If it's not the E-E currently in service, I echo the hopes that she would simply have been put into the museum, or end up an Academy training vessel like the original Enterprise was in TWOK when she was obviously nearly the end of her service life.
It would seem she at least survived until Picard left *the Enterprise* to command the rescue armada.
Now the question of if she's still around in the 15 year gap is a different matter. Assuming a rough commission date of 2372 (going off of the "we've been out in space a year now" line from First Contact taking place in 2373..)..Enterprise would only be around 30 years old. I would assume that starships would have service lives of at least the same as modern aircraft carriers (roughly 45-50 years)..so really all the E-E would need is a refit/mid-life update.
If it's not the E-E currently in service, I echo the hopes that she would simply have been put into the museum, or end up an Academy training vessel like the original Enterprise was in TWOK when she was obviously nearly the end of her service life.
So now you're calling accomplished scientists charlatans. Good job.
I know of it, and it has absolutely nothing to do with space travel.
Your ignorance and dismissal of important scientific work is really offensive. A sound scientific theory is several steps above 'fairy tales.' And the math is solid, we already know that whether or not it will actually ever work in practice.
Awesome!
