Things Star Trek never did...

GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
edited July 3 in Strange New Worlds
1. So you're telling me in all that time they were getting shot at, consoles frying, systems going offline, nothing ever happened to the artificial gravity? I understand it was a budgetary concern in the shows, but even in the big budget movies, the only example I can remember is Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country - when they beamed aboard the Klingon ship to kill Gorkon. To be fair, Enterprise played around with the idea - they had Archer lose gravity in the shower once, and then they had Trip and Mayweather hang out in the section where the gravity was flipped. Those were two decent moments. The most recent example of it NOT happening would have been Star Trek Beyond, which, yes, I know, is a different canon, but the Enterprise was literally torn to pieces and their gravity still worked. Yes, they were being flung around like rag dolls, but watch closely.

2. They had their share of universal translator problems with new aliens, but we never got to see an episode of DS9 where Kira suddenly couldn't speak to O'Brien, or Garak and Bashir suddenly couldn't understand each other. Even when they were both prisoners of the Dominion. That would have been pretty clever, to remind audiences that these people are all speaking different languages. Not often, but once or twice would have been fun.

3. This one's all my own curiosity, and I don't fault them for not exploring it. But after watching The Expanse, it's hard not to ask questions about how Earth and the Federation's Socialist system works. I'm all for a post-scarcity economy where no one is sick or hungry or impoverished. But certain questions needed to be answered. When interacting with people like Quark, did the Federation just pay all of the bills Starfleet officers racked up? Was there a limit? Could a Starfleet officer go in and say "all drinks are on me for everyone, for the week?"
---- Here's my favorite: Benjamin Sisko's father ran a restaurant in New Orleans. Every day he opened up in the morning, people came from literally all over the world to eat there (Remember, they could transport into the city from other cities.) And no one paid anything for the food. He did it because he wanted to. But here's the thing: What if I want a restaurant too? What if I want his restaurant? Who gets the best pieces of land? What IS ownership in an economy without money? These are all questions I don't mind that they didn't tackle. But the point is, there's no such thing as utopia. Not for humans, anyway.

Comments

  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    1) It is only SEEN in Undiscovered Country but a brief search around you can find more than a handful of references to it happening. Mostly on Enterprise. But even DS9 and Voy had references to it happening off camera. My favorite (and one I actually remembered without looking up) is in Voy- Haunting of Deck 12 one crew member is reported to have bumped his head on the ceiling during one gravity failure

    3) Currently there isn't a Utopian possibility but who knows what can happen if we actually allow ourselves to evolve socially and stop shooting ourselves in the foot?
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 4
    I admit, I've been spoiled by The Expanse, with regards to gravity problems. But obviously the main issue in Star Trek is the budget. Although I still laugh when I think about how they were trained to shake themselves around vigorously in their seats when they were fired upon.

    I'm back in here because I thought of a new one... Well, a new gravity-ish problem:

    So in all the series and movies, they visit HUNDREDS of planets and alien structures. All of them have, for all intents and purposes, the same gravity as Earth. Never once do you hear them talking about being extra "bouncy" in the low gravity of a smaller mass world, or being heavier in the gravity of a larger mass world.

    I think the only time anyone has mentioned a G value other than 1 is when Mayweather said his dad kept the gravity plating on their cargo ship at 0.8 so it "put a spring in his step."

    To be fair, it probably didn't even occur to them back then. But it should have, considering we went to the moon in 1969 and saw astronauts jumping around in 16% of Earth's gravity. To all of you who think maybe class M means the planet is not only similar in atmosphere to Earth, but it's the same mass as well - I humbly disagree. It would be exceedingly unlikely. Perhaps all of them fall within a 10% to 15% margin. Venus is the closest to us in our system, with 91% of our gravity. That's pretty much within the margin of not noticing a difference.

    I'm not trying to bash Star Trek for not including real physics. I'm actually saying something worse...

    Part of why the series eventually got stale were that they felt like more of the same rehash of previous plots. Aliens of the week, random planet, random problem with ship. But it was nothing we hadn't seen before. Voyager's repetitive nature is what doomed Enterprise, if you ask me. But there were so many hilarious problems they could have dealt with if they'd actually incorporated some real science instead of this technobabble stuff.
  • KaiteeKaitee ✭✭✭✭
    I can't find the specific reference on Memory Alpha, but I dimly remember reading somewhere that one of the lines in the loop of 'damage report' voices that played in the bridge background on TOS when they took a hit was someone reporting gravity was down to like 50% or something on deck whatever. Thought it was a cute touch. And hey maybe the gravity's so reliable everywhere else because that one deck gets all the dodgy grav plating.

    I agree there's some cute bits they could've done with language, in just brief bit-of-business ways that wouldn't have eaten up screen time like it did in 'Sanctuary'. For instance Kira (and pretty much all Bajorans) being fluent in Cardassian because of the occupation (I'm sure it was assumed, but I don't recall it actually being stated out loud). Or there could've been a cute scene with a bunch of humans and Garak, where they realise part-way through that their translators are down, and Garak's just been speaking perfect English the whole time with nobody noticing, because of course he can.
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 4
    I neglected a very admirable example of playing with the gravity - the DS9 episode with Ensign Pazlar and Bashir. She was a species from a low-gravity planet, and she had to wear that metal harness to walk in 1G. They had a scene where she got to float around and she invited Bashir to come float with her.

    Although since I'm pedantic I will point out one error - here's a bit of the Memory Alpha article about the Elaysian home planet:
    [The Elaysian physique and neural motor cortex was adapted to cope with a low gravity; on their homeworld, they were virtually able to "fly".]

    This is fantasy, for so many reasons. For one, a species so humanoid would never have looked the same nor had the same skeletal and muscular structure, had it evolved in such a low gravity world. Two, a world so small that humanoids could virtually "fly" would have to be much smaller than our own moon, and even that is a moot point, because they would still have had to evolve somewhere else and then visit that planet. Which is still a moot point, because a world so low in mass could never maintain an atmosphere. Either way, it's not realistic. But I admire the effort.
  • HaBlackHaBlack ✭✭
    1. So you're telling me in all that time they were getting shot at, consoles frying, systems going offline, nothing ever happened to the artificial gravity? I understand it was a budgetary concern in the shows, but even in the big budget movies, the only example I can remember is Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country - when they beamed aboard the Klingon ship to kill Gorkon. To be fair, Enterprise played around with the idea - they had Archer lose gravity in the shower once, and then they had Trip and Mayweather hang out in the section where the gravity was flipped. Those were two decent moments. The most recent example of it NOT happening would have been Star Trek Beyond, which, yes, I know, is a different canon, but the Enterprise was literally torn to pieces and their gravity still worked. Yes, they were being flung around like rag dolls, but watch closely.

    Archer was enough.....

    jnzkmorp3423.jpg

    Can we get some more characters from TAS?
    Character wishlist:
    • Lieutenant M'Ress
    • Amanda Rogers
    • Sarah MacDougal
    • Mirasta Yale
    • Agmar
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Enterprise had gravity problems and not just in the expanse. As for gravity being more or less on other planets, if it varied too much it wouldn’t be a class M planet and they wouldn’t/couldn’t even go there
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    Yes, Enterprise had gravity problems and not just in the expanse. As for gravity being more or less on other planets, if it varied too much it wouldn’t be a class M planet and they wouldn’t/couldn’t even go there

    Oh, no, no. I didn't mean during their foray into the Delphic Expanse. I mean the way the TV show "The Expanse" has handled gravity has shown me how amazing it can look when you do it right.

    Meanwhile no, nowhere was it ever stated that class M had anything to do with gravity. It was atmospheric condition.
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A larger planet isnot solid, it is gaseous. A smaller planet won’t have the gravity to hold an atmosphere. Hence class M and thereabout being the only planets for us
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 5
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    A larger planet isnot solid, it is gaseous. A smaller planet won’t have the gravity to hold an atmosphere. Hence class M and thereabout being the only planets for us

    First of all, ignore the concept of an atmosphere entirely. Let's assume they can also make domes, a la TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" or terraform atmospheres. Who cares, my point is that I'm talking about GRAVITY. I double checked Memory Alpha, they never mention gravity in the M-class descriptions.

    Gravity is a function of mass. A planet twice the size of Earth but half as massive (half as dense) would have the same surface gravity. Similarly, a material as dense as a neutron star is thought to be around the size of a city but be more massive than our Sun. Size matters not. Now, the only reason I bring this up is that you're simplifying it to the point of "too small for atmosphere - Earth sized - Gas Giant" like one changes gears in a car. The reason I say this is to get into my next point...

    In fact, there's a VERY large range of size/mass between, let's say, Mars to Earth to Neptune (our own smallest gas giant.) In fact, scientists in 2014 discovered a rocky planet that's 17 times the mass of Earth. So just to simplify, we're talking about a range of, let's say, 40% of Earth's gravity to 1700%. Let's simplify it. If the planet had 80% of Earth's gravity, you'd notice. And at 2G? I mean how do you think you'd feel if you were suddenly twice as heavy? Pick up an old Sony Trinitron and try to walk around.

    I'm not trying to be a science troll, and my original point wasn't even to bash Star Trek so much as explore so many real world science quandaries that would have made awesome episodes. I love Star Trek, it formed the foundation of most of my social and political beliefs today. But I'm very lucky it didn't form my scientific ones.
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    well ok then, we couldn’t set foot on a planet with a gravity 1700% that of earth. So once again, no one could stand on it and say “Bro. You feeling this gravity?”
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm going to shift gears and add another line item to my list:

    5. Data. - The android who could have been superman, but who only wanted to be a man.

    Of course he always demonstrated brainpower. But it was only on rare occasions he showed true physical superiority. This was a being that could have held Worf down with one hand. Remember that scene in First Contact when he dropped like 40 feet down the missile silo and got shot repeatedly by Lily before he just shrugged? That was so cool!

    It would have been awesome if they really made a common plot point about how he was mentally AND physically superior. Imagine him beaming down to a planet alone and blowing through a battalion of Cardassian soldiers. That would have been HOT. All they ended up doing was focusing on his inferiority complex about not having emotions. Budget again, probably.
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A little chop busting aside, this is a cool post. I’m sure there’s plebty of stuff that could be added to it. Like why do they set phasers on stun, sheath them, then pull them out again once transported. Why don’t they just transport down with phasers at the ready?
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    A little chop busting aside, this is a cool post. I’m sure there’s plebty of stuff that could be added to it. Like why do they set phasers on stun, sheath them, then pull them out again once transported. Why don’t they just transport down with phasers at the ready?

    Actually that probably depends on the situation, I'd guess. You don't want to show up on a new world with guns drawn, because you look like an invader. I'd have to go back and look at how many actual firefights they beamed directly in to.

    Meanwhile, I always thought it was funny how on Stargate SG-1, they'd walk into these primitive towns with massive P90 rifles and military gear, and ask to be treated as friendly explorers. Um, quit pointing that machine gun at me, friend!
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    A little chop busting aside, this is a cool post. I’m sure there’s plebty of stuff that could be added to it. Like why do they set phasers on stun, sheath them, then pull them out again once transported. Why don’t they just transport down with phasers at the ready?

    Actually that probably depends on the situation, I'd guess. You don't want to show up on a new world with guns drawn, because you look like an invader. I'd have to go back and look at how many actual firefights they beamed directly in to.

    Meanwhile, I always thought it was funny how on Stargate SG-1, they'd walk into these primitive towns with massive P90 rifles and military gear, and ask to be treated as friendly explorers. Um, quit pointing that machine gun at me, friend!

    We’re here to talk! With enough firepower to level your entire empire.

  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 6
    I know I've mostly been focused on physics and science stuff, but on a lighter note...

    You know that thing a show will do where they'll take an episode to focus on an ENTIRELY different group of people, with no explanation, and only show a member of the main cast for like 2 seconds at the beginning or end to remind you that this is still the same show?

    That would have been cool. Follow an entirely different ship and crew for 41 minutes, until they die horribly in battle. Cut to the Enterprise D finding their remains in the last minute, solemn look from Picard... End.
  • FlemmingFlemming ✭✭✭
    I know I've mostly been focused on physics and science stuff, but on a lighter note...

    You know that thing a show will do where they'll take an episode to focus on an ENTIRELY different group of people, with no explanation, and only show a member of the main cast for like 2 seconds at the beginning or end to remind you that this is still the same show?

    That would have been cool. Follow an entirely different ship and crew for 41 minutes, until they die horribly in battle. Cut to the Enterprise D finding their remains in the last minute, solemn look from Picard... End.

    One of my favorite TNG episodes, "Lower Decks" did this. The audience POV was the junior officers and the main cast were more supporting cast.
    Intentionally Left Blank
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 7
    Flemming wrote: »
    I know I've mostly been focused on physics and science stuff, but on a lighter note...

    You know that thing a show will do where they'll take an episode to focus on an ENTIRELY different group of people, with no explanation, and only show a member of the main cast for like 2 seconds at the beginning or end to remind you that this is still the same show?

    That would have been cool. Follow an entirely different ship and crew for 41 minutes, until they die horribly in battle. Cut to the Enterprise D finding their remains in the last minute, solemn look from Picard... End.

    One of my favorite TNG episodes, "Lower Decks" did this. The audience POV was the junior officers and the main cast were more supporting cast.

    Oh no, I know exactly what "Lower Decks" did. But I still saw senior staff every other scene. It was obviously an episode of TNG. "Lower Decks" didn't go nearly far enough. Imagine getting 20 minutes into the program and wondering what the heck it is you've tuned into! Different people, different ship. You get exactly 40 minutes to get to know them, and then boom. That would be amazing.
  • XanatharXanathar ✭✭✭
    The Animated Series played around with gravity a few times, eg. The Practical Joker, Once Upon a Planet, The Jihad. There was also a line in Mudd's Passion, there is a line about "Atmosphere at surface, eight hundred millibars, breathable. Gravity one point two. Temperature hot, but within Class M limits."

    There was a line in Sub Rosa about losing gravity on deck 19.
    Also, in Learning Curve, when Tuvok was training the Maquis, he told them he had increased the gravity on the deck by 10% to make their run harder.
    And in Treachery, Faith and The Great River, Sisko asks O'Brien about repairing the gravity on the Defiant, saying "The last time I stepped onto the bridge, I felt ten kilos heavier.
    2. They had their share of universal translator problems with new aliens, but we never got to see an episode of DS9 where Kira suddenly couldn't speak to O'Brien, or Garak and Bashir suddenly couldn't understand each other.

    There was Little Green Men where Quark, Rom and Nog's universal translator malfunctioned and the couldn't understand English (and vice versa).
    Imagine getting 20 minutes into the program and wondering what the heck it is you've tuned into! Different people, different ship. You get exactly 40 minutes to get to know them, and then boom. That would be amazing.

    We kinda got this with Course: Oblivion, if you can count that..?
    And there were a few DS9 episodes that centred around the crew of a Klingon ship.
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 7
    You're right, that Voyager episode "Course:Oblivion" did occur to me, but I decided it was more of a fakeout than an alternate story.

    Listen I need to clarify something - I'm not attempting to put everyone on the defensive, this doesn't have to be one of those situations like politics where you immediately have to take sides and vigorously defend your own. I'm not attacking Star Trek.

    We're on the same side here. The point of this thread isn't to have a bunch of people pop in and pedantically nitpick my ideas with random lines of dialog. The point is to SHARE ideas. Banjo1012 had a good one. Thank you, Banjo.

    I approach this stuff from a scientific and political perspective. There are TONS of things that haven't even occurred to me yet. So I ask everyone... What did YOU wish you had seen?

    EDIT: Wow, talk about coincidence! Look what I just stumbled across:
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-dont-we-have-a-star-trek-show-from-the-aliens-point-1827374825
  • Darth SkippyDarth Skippy ✭✭✭
    edited July 10
    GhostStalker: I completely agree with you and have had many of the same thoughts, especially after watching Beyond. What a chance they had to remove gravity! Instead they just tilted the ship. Of course, similuating Zero-G while still on Earth is pretty tough (airplane drop?), and I imagine time consuming and expensive. Never seen the Expanse, but it sounds interesting.
  • Darth SkippyDarth Skippy ✭✭✭
    GhostStalker "What did YOU wish you had seen?"

    I'd love a series from a non-Starfleet perspective. Remember that TNG episode where Picard's old archaeology professor offered him a chance to join him and chase down that DNA mystery? How cool would it have been if they had the balls to let Picard take that journey over a 3, 4, 5 part story-arc, WITHOUT once showing us the Enterprise, or Starfleet. Just a complete random story exploring the universe from a different perspective.
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    You're right, that Voyager episode "Course:Oblivion" did occur to me, but I decided it was more of a fakeout than an alternate story.

    Listen I need to clarify something - I'm not attempting to put everyone on the defensive, this doesn't have to be one of those situations like politics where you immediately have to take sides and vigorously defend your own. I'm not attacking Star Trek.

    We're on the same side here. The point of this thread isn't to have a bunch of people pop in and pedantically nitpick my ideas with random lines of dialog. The point is to SHARE ideas. Banjo1012 had a good one. Thank you, Banjo.

    I approach this stuff from a scientific and political perspective. There are TONS of things that haven't even occurred to me yet. So I ask everyone... What did YOU wish you had seen?

    EDIT: Wow, talk about coincidence! Look what I just stumbled across:
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-dont-we-have-a-star-trek-show-from-the-aliens-point-1827374825

    That's the thing... it doesn't have to be adversarial, but can be factual.. but that still puts a chunk of your OP kinda out there. Saying "I wish" when in some instances it did happen is kinda like... well... go back and watch some more, lol.

    What I'd like to see? Go forward to Enterprise-J. Tired of looking back.
    I'd like to see what interesting tech they'd speculate on and temporal physics vs temporal morality vs temporal prime directive. They did some wonderful setups with Tribbleations, Futures End and others to make for some real meaningful moral dilemmas from the perpective of the time ship folks (Yeah and I know the novels.... but I'd like to SEE it.)

    What has always moved me with Trek has been not only the moral dilemmas but the capacity for some folks to do different 'right' things. Prime Directive vs Compassion, etc. And the ability to tell a controversial story about real life in a way that is beneficial and not necessarily beating you over the head.
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Stuff

    Let's be clear. Mentioning off screen problems with gravity doesn't count. See? I can nitpick too.
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    Point #3 is a fantastic one that I have given a lot of thought to over the years. Before I go any further, I will say that Roddenberry was a dreamer who wondered about what a human society would look like if we set aside petty differences, unnecessary greed, and focused on self-improvement and discovery. There were of course counter examples sprinkled throughout the years (Admiral Cartwright, Section 31, etc.) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

    However, if we don’t make that kind of revolutionary social leap, the implications for how everyday life in the Federation might work are somewhat concerning. It starts with the very concept of a post-scarcity society...I don’t know that such a thing can exist. Certainly it should be possible to one day be able to say that nobody goes hungry, goes without shelter/clothing, has access to clean water, and has access to necessary medical care - just look at where technology has taken us in the last 25, 50, 100, and 500 years. But some people are okay with the basic necessities, some want a few luxuries, and some want a lot of luxuries. In a government that doesn’t use money but works in a finite universe, not everyone is going to get everything they want. “But you can replicate almost anything!” Multiple sources show that power availability is a huge limiting factor with the replication process, and one of the core concepts of Voyager (among other sources) is that power (by way of antimatter) does not grow on trees.

    The next concern is the level of penetration of the Federation government into daily life. Star Trek almost universally focuses on Starfleet (government) personnel, with only Joseph Sisko, Robert Picard’s family, and a few other glimpses of civilian life on Earth or other safe worlds. What we do see suggests that the government controls all transfer of information, at least some personal transportation, some or all food production, some or all mining, and more. Without Roddenberry’s vision of a new, polite humanity, that looks a lot like a totalitarian government on the level of North Korea.

    The money-free society in itself is a problem. Money exists as a medium of exchange that largely replaces the barter system that can lead to market inefficiency on a large scale. As was already pointed out, how does the Federation government trade with others? Do they barter raw materials or finished goods or do they acquire (or produce) a government supply of latinum (that is withheld from Federation subjects)? On a “personal debts” level, events in DS9 seems to suggest that some Federation citizens acquire currency for dealing with non-Federation businesses, so I am not sure if the government would intervene to pay bar tabs and the like but it may not be unreasonable to say that they might compensate an independent freighter to transport a Federation citizen for some official purpose.

    I’ve given thought to writing a book about civilian life in the Federation. Perhaps a miner prior to being replaced with one of the obsoleted Mark I EMHs? Because what we’ve seen so far is almost exclusively government employees on state-sponsored excursions, with a few vacations and family members thrown in for seasoning rather than a comprehensive look at what the entire society looks like.
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12
    Dirk, I love your post. Although you're not helped by the fact that Star Trek REALLY didn't elaborate on much, did they? You're going to have to fill in a lot of gaps, my friend.

    I often have this discussion, and it boils down to this: Okay, you can replicate anything you want. You can eat healthy food to your heart's content, and you can spend your time doing a job you love, not one that simply pays the rent. The completely free education and training would make so many more options available for people (which is one reason so many modern governments provide it now.) But... there's only so much beach front property.

    What if two people want to live in the same place? What if I want to open a restaurant right next to Joseph Sisko's? What if I want a couple dozen acres of land?

    Obviously, there must be a LOT of government control. Without the market effects of money and big business, there's nothing else that could serve to limit people. As you said, even if most of them adopt the more simple life of only taking enough to be happy, not wanting the big house with lots of land, there are still going to be people who want what someone else has. We're just flawed like that. So what do you do?

    Get a few drinks in me, and I can go on and on about how the biggest problems in society are entitlement, greed, and wealth. Granted, I'm not blind to the fact that wealth is also a great form of rationing. The simple answer here would be "well, they don't need to live on Earth, plenty of planets with lots of land to choose from." But that's not really an answer, so much as an excuse for lazy story telling.

    The questions we would need answered are "do people still own land?" and if yes, "how?"
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was thinking about medical technology - with a couple of exceptions, most of it was "handwavium" - 20 CCs cordrazine, stat! You're cured! but it would be very interesting for them to have elaborated on what diseases were still a problem in the future, what they could do, etc.

    "We found a little cancer in your latest physical, but we took care of it. Meanwhile, you've still got herpes, Will."
  • They always forgot they had shuttlecraft. Data commandeered the Enterprise. Let's get to the bridge. No, shuttlecraft. Separate computer, separate comm, sensors, transporter.

    We need just a little more power. Shuttlecraft have engines.
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    They always forgot they had shuttlecraft. Data commandeered the Enterprise. Let's get to the bridge. No, shuttlecraft. Separate computer, separate comm, sensors, transporter.

    We need just a little more power. Shuttlecraft have engines.

    First of all, thank you so much for reviving my post! I was hoping it wasn't dead.

    You have a great point. Most of the shuttlecraft were entirely self-sufficient enough to do all of that, and they never mentioned overriding their internal controls from the bridge. However, I think I DO remember one episode of one of the series where they used the shuttlecraft's transporters instead of the main ones, which were down. DS9 maybe?
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    They always forgot they had shuttlecraft. Data commandeered the Enterprise. Let's get to the bridge. No, shuttlecraft. Separate computer, separate comm, sensors, transporter.

    We need just a little more power. Shuttlecraft have engines.

    First of all, thank you so much for reviving my post! I was hoping it wasn't dead.

    You have a great point. Most of the shuttlecraft were entirely self-sufficient enough to do all of that, and they never mentioned overriding their internal controls from the bridge. However, I think I DO remember one episode of one of the series where they used the shuttlecraft's transporters instead of the main ones, which were down. DS9 maybe?

    Data and Worf also used it when they rescued Picard from The Borg
  • GhostStalkerGhostStalker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 30
    The most interesting thing about new technological breakthroughs is that people will take them and use them for purposes that the designer didn't specifically intend.

    Enter the transporter. I'm not getting into the debate about whether it actually kills you (it does), or the space requirements for storing a pattern in the buffer. Although, quick note to you physics people - there are two things being stored: The "map" of the precise atoms that make you up as well as the spin of their electrons AND the raw material itself that was broken down in order to be shot through the stream buffer and reconstructed at the other end. This would obviously be required for a site-to-site transport, but it's also a bit of a conceit to say "Well, if you're still made of the same atoms, you didn't die." Personally I would much rather be recreated with new atoms at the destination, simply because I don't trust that 100% of me would survive the trip intact every time!

    But that's the thing: You don't have to be. That "map" I talked about - that's basically a snapshot of you at a particular moment in time. And it's a lot less to store than the raw materials themselves. It's basically a blueprint. The computer could be saving the blueprint of a person every time they went through - in fact I think this MAY have been referenced in an episode or two.

    My point is that absent your own "existing" atoms, you could literally take any atoms from raw materials (the way the replicator does) and create multiple copies of a person using their current model or any of the backups you had on file.

    Here's where it gets crazy. What if we could figure out how to map the current brain patterns on an earlier body backup? You could "transport replicate" a version of yourself at age 30 that has the memories of the 60 year old version of yourself. The only question is, do you dematerialize the original to do so? You wouldn't have to. I could even "transport replicate" a version of myself from childhood or adolescence, if the pattern was backed up, at which point I could raise myself as my own child.

    Truly, the pattern backups would be a form of immortality.

    Where the technology exists, anything is possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.