As a lot of Trek tech is getting old and stale, one might imagine that the Trek-universe scientists are getting as bored by it as we geeks are. It got me to thinking about technical advancements that we could imagine livening up future incarnations of Trek in film and tv particularly. Here are some I thought of:
1. High-efficiency replicators - this basically means that, with a low enough energy requirement, you could replicate starships or space stations or similar structures such as the Sovereign-class in a matter of hours instead of years in a drydock. What would be the most immediate result of this? Cheaper, more widespread access to more advanced craft and technology by civilians throughout the galaxy. Space would fill up rapidly. Yet, there is a more significant result I can foresee, taking into account the human desire to do things bigger and better. Why just take hours to replicate an existing ship (saving years in construction time) when you can use the same technology to build a ship 100 times its size and complexity taking the same time to replicate as the 1/100th size ship did to manufacture the old way. Talk about an intimidation factor against foes like the Borg, Species 8472, the Romulans, and the Dominion.
2. Instantaneous short-range transporters - These much-larger vessels (30,000 meters long +) would not be practically traversed from stem to stern via corridors and turbolifts. To cross those huge distances, transporters would be used. Beaming from the bridge to engineering would become a common, workaday part of the job. All this beaming around calls for a dedicated m/ara, separate from the two powering the warp nacelles and the 2 providing general power to the ship.
3. Trans-trans-warp drive - The galaxy is becoming too small a stage for Trek, or at least it's being presented that way. They've got to wow the audience. Take us someplace noone has ever imagined before. Take us to Andromeda, or another member of the Local Group. It's about time. Make the galaxy as busy as the SW galaxy. Make the core so bustling and sprawled that Deep Space Nine is now a suburb. Put it 1000 years into the future if you have to. Just surprise us with what we haven't really imagined. Make it real, but make it optimistic.
Any ideas?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: As a lot of Trek tech is getting old and stale, one might imagine that the Trek-universe scientists are getting as bored by it as we geeks are. It got me to thinking about technical advancements that we could imagine livening up future incarnations of Trek in film and tv particularly. Here are some I thought of:
Right from the start you're operating under a false premise: that the tech shown in the films and TV has anything to do with declining ratings and receipts. There was plenty of new tech introduced in Voyager but it didn't do anything for the show. And Enterprise's troubles have nothing to do with the fact they haven't any replicators at all.
quote:1. High-efficiency replicators - this basically means that, with a low enough energy requirement, you could replicate starships or space stations or similar structures such as the Sovereign-class in a matter of hours instead of years in a drydock. What would be the most immediate result of this? Cheaper, more widespread access to more advanced craft and technology by civilians throughout the galaxy. Space would fill up rapidly. Yet, there is a more significant result I can foresee, taking into account the human desire to do things bigger and better. Why just take hours to replicate an existing ship (saving years in construction time) when you can use the same technology to build a ship 100 times its size and complexity taking the same time to replicate as the 1/100th size ship did to manufacture the old way. Talk about an intimidation factor against foes like the Borg, Species 8472, the Romulans, and the Dominion.
So basically you want to see lots more ships? *BEEP BEEP BEEP* Damn! I must remember to switch off my fanboy alarm before I come anywhere near this particular Forum. . . The ease of making ships or how many there are has nothing to do with Trek's problems either. And where's the thrill factor in knowing the goodies can just make more ships whenever they need them?
quote:2. Instantaneous short-range transporters - These much-larger vessels (30,000 meters long +) would not be practically traversed from stem to stern via corridors and turbolifts. To cross those huge distances, transporters would be used. Beaming from the bridge to engineering would become a common, workaday part of the job. All this beaming around calls for a dedicated m/ara, separate from the two powering the warp nacelles and the 2 providing general power to the ship.
Do your research. They once considered putting a transporter pad directly on the bridge but decided against it because the walk to the transporter room gave time for character interaction & exposition. And so do all the other corridors. By your logic they needn't show any ships at all, just show them on whatever planet they're going to. It's not the destination that's important in the great journey that is Trek, it's how they get there. Think how much they used the pad in Ops on DS9 - not a lot, hmm?
quote:3. Trans-trans-warp drive - The galaxy is becoming too small a stage for Trek, or at least it's being presented that way. They've got to wow the audience. Take us someplace noone has ever imagined before. Take us to Andromeda, or another member of the Local Group. It's about time. Make the galaxy as busy as the SW galaxy. Make the core so bustling and sprawled that Deep Space Nine is now a suburb. Put it 1000 years into the future if you have to. Just surprise us with what we haven't really imagined. Make it real, but make it optimistic.
Again, you had seven years with a ship farther away than any had been before. TOS and TNG and DS9 still managed to elicit plenty of drama from discovering new life and new civilisations that weren't that far from home. Space is big and there's plenty more to be found where you least expect it. You might be better off watching Stargate: Atlantis if all you're interested in is how many miles they put on the odometer each week!
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
Or we can just see how much the ratings jump by shoving an Irishman out the airlock without a space suit and have the crew and the audience at home poll in and see how long he can last without air. Closest one wins a trip to Paramount studios to be cast as an extra on the next show.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:1. High-efficiency replicators - this basically means that, with a low enough energy requirement, you could replicate starships or space stations or similar structures such as the Sovereign-class in a matter of hours instead of years in a drydock. What would be the most immediate result of this? Cheaper, more widespread access to more advanced craft and technology by civilians throughout the galaxy. Space would fill up rapidly. Yet, there is a more significant result I can foresee, taking into account the human desire to do things bigger and better. Why just take hours to replicate an existing ship (saving years in construction time) when you can use the same technology to build a ship 100 times its size and complexity taking the same time to replicate as the 1/100th size ship did to manufacture the old way. Talk about an intimidation factor against foes like the Borg, Species 8472, the Romulans, and the Dominion.
Does that include the replicated crew you need for those big ships?
Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
IMHO, it's just not worth it to speculate along these lines.
Forget Star Trek for the moment. Think of the advancement of technology we're observing today. It's extremely likely that within the next 100 years (I'm betting close to 50) we'll hit what SF author Vernor Vinge calls a technological singularity. Google on "vinge singularity" and pick the definition and discussion which suits you best.
Short definition: At any point in time there is a horizon past which any reasonable prediction of the future is pointless. One might argue, for example, that circa 1000 CE the horizon was unbounded. Circa 1900 CE, the horizon might be 2000 CE - someone alive in 1900 would be on the edge of being unable to cope if dropped into modern society. They'd probably do fine - after all, we're still all human. For now.
As the rate of technologically driven change increases, the distance between now and the horizon drops. I'd say that at the outside, and barring any catastrophe that takes devastates the developed world (nuclear war, dramatic climate change, disease, nanotech gray-goo, etc), what the world will be like in 100 years is effectively unpredictable.
The singularity concept points out that at some point the horizon shrinks until it's literally *now* - the rate of change is so fast that a transition point is hit and everything is effectively swept away by the change. Common SF thoughts on this are that self-replicating, self-improving AI develops which nearly instantly surpasses human intelligence and replaces humans; or human interconnectedness and ability increases and the result is radically different behavior (e.g. 10 billion people plugged directly into the Internet).
Whether or not you think any particular outcome is likely, if you're serious about thinking about the progression of technology and society you have to come to the conclusion that either (1) advancement continues at a frantic pace, (2) advancement stops/plateaus, or (3) advancement regresses.
(3) is unpalatable; we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, or go luddite and smash the machines, or starve ourselves, etc. Depressing but either over fast or just a temporary setback before the same point is reached again.
I don't believe that (2) is stable, but it's an interesting fiction. And i think it's the premise that SF worlds like Star Wars and Star Trek *must* make; the technology has plateaued at some point and it requires a very dramatic shift to advance to the next level. You could use that excuse in Star Trek, since they love to show humanoids turning into energy beings. Star Wars has potential here - imagine that the technology seen in the movies was the most advanced that could be built: that R2-D2 is the epitome of machine intelligence, that an X-Wing is the best fighter achievable within the laws of physics. Alas, Lucas *and* the fan-boys like to depict technological advancement (same as Star Trek geeks, as this thread shows!) so it's unlikely.
(As an aside: in the Foundation's Triumph sequel to Asimov's Foundation books by Brin, Brin rationalizes the 10k years of stagnation of galactic society by having a conspiracy of robots stomping out any technology advancement!)
Which leaves (1). And I think both DS9 and Voyager - more than TNG - showed continued technological development at a fast pace.
This is where the TNG:TM comment "if you could replicate a starship, you wouldn't need to" makes sense. If you grant the Federation powers like replicators, memory engram recorders, and androids, you will invariably have to think, "why not put a copy of Data, with uploaded people along for the ride, into a self-replicating starship and have it replicate its way through the galaxy exploring and spreading the Federation?" In the TNG era we could come up with excuses like "Data can't be quantum replicated" - so the minute you allow any technology advancement these objections go away.
Summary: since I think we're already (2004 CE) less than 50 years from a singularity with our measly 21st Century technology, it's impossible to speculate on any sort of progression of the 24th Century technology shown in TNG/DS9/Voy for many more years without having to cripple the speculation and throw logic out the window in the name of dramatic necessity.
Whew! After spending time on the phone with my DSL provider arguing about who�s fault it was that their router configuration sucked, I had to get that off my chest. Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
Sorry, that all comes across as cold water. Okay, what should you do as a Starfleet engineer with time on your hands?
Building on the site-to-site transport concept, why bother materializing at the destination? Just stay phased out as energy. Then take the transporter with you. Now you're one of those sparkly energy beings which poke lesser species with force fields for fun. Add a subspace generator for FTL travel. Tap one of the various trekoton particle fields for endless supplies of energy. Add a chronoton generator and you're time travelling. Crank up the replicator and use Voyager's transwarp drive and you're at every point in the universe. Boom - you're Q in less than 10 easy steps.
Damn singularity.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, I've ben thinking recently that a lot of the tech you see on Trek these days is old hat - and not just because it's a prequel! If you read any modern hard SF you'll see all kinds of exotic space drives and weaponry being postulated. Iain M Banks, Greg Egan, Robert Reed, Stephen Baxter, people like that.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Who reads SF?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"It's extremely likely that within the next 100 years (I'm betting close to 50) we'll hit what SF author Vernor Vinge calls a technological singularity."
This is really neither here nor there, but Vinge wasn't the first to propose the idea. Toffler's 1970 Future Shock (which, funnily enough, was published just as the microchip revolution was kicking into full gear) also dealt with a super-industrial society that was changing at such rapid pace that people were overwhelmed, disoriented, disconnected, whathaveyou, and that was crumbling under the social problems brought about by it. Which is an argument in favor of Asimov's Foundation: without the occasional plateau we'd all go bonkers. If we haven't already.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'm already way past bonkers.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Back to Point 1... Replicating starships.
In DS-9, Rom had the revolutionary breakthrough that allowed self replicating mines. That's a lot of replication power and they where treating it like a nobel prize level breakthrough. That was really, just a few years prior to the 'present' as given in NEMISIS.
Look at the whole topic in another way. In ALL GOOD THINGS, Picard is in three time periods at the same time, over a span of about 30-ish years. When he asks Data about some device, the 'season 1' data responds that it's an experimental device he's heard of. In 'season 7' Data respnds that they can cobble one up, fairly easily, and in 'the future' data responds that it's standard equipment.
Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
Hmmm, thinking along the plateau thing, another idea. One that'll make Roddenberry roll over in his grave.
Notice how we only ever see technological development involving our favorite crew? Perhaps the effectively communal "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" Federation is effectively stagnant. Those Starfleet engineers back on earth couldn't ever come up with anything more than the NX-01 and by the 24rd Century could hardly join two boards together without a *self-sealing* stem-bolt. The average, and even above average Federation citizen just can't be bothered to turn on the creative or logical parts of their brain in the morning.
It takes throwing these crews out into the unknown to develop any new technologies. And once they're brought back, the dulled minds of the Federation can't make heads or tails of the new gizmos.
It would explain why we will almost never have a major technological innovation in the Star Trek universe without a camera rolling.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I feel like noone understood much of what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that all of Trek's ills or even most of them are due to stagnant technology. I'm saying, I'm tired of seeing the same technology over and over again. I want to see something new that expands the rules of the game, so to speak. Shake things up...the way Starfleet was shaken up when the zombie-like Borg were introduced. But don't make it something that the only way we experience it is in a slightly different dialogue between captain and weapons officer. Having Lt. Commander Worf fire quantum torpedoes instead of having him fire photon torpedoes is not the kind of change I'm talking about.
Irishman
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, the problem is, if the franchise continues to move along in the same era, they can't just jump ahead in technological development... it wouldn't be realistic. Unless they use the Voyager tech... but let's not think about that.
The only way to explore radically new technology would be to create a series that takes place farther in the future, say the 26th or 27th century. And I cringe at the thought of a series created solely for the purpose of exploring the tech from that time period.
Posted by Defiantly Running About (Member # 1216) on :
I think, frankly, it'd be kick-ass to see a ship with replicating ablative armour, regenerative enhanced metaphasic shielding, transwarp drive, chronotorpedoes, folded-space transport, etc. ...If we have enemies that are on the same level, that is. Otherwise it's gods and ants.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
*yawn*
OK, say the goodies had a ship with all those technologies. And say the baddies also had a ship with all those technologies. Then what? How the fuck would a story be told any differently from the ones that were told without them? The extent of their influence would be that ships could travel faster and shoot harder. Nothing would really be different about anything except the SFX. And that novelty would wear off in a week. So.
Posted by Chase Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"you can use the same technology to build a ship 100 times its size and complexity taking the same time to replicate as the 1/100th size ship did to manufacture the old way. Talk about an intimidation factor against foes like the Borg, Species 8472, the Romulans, and the Dominion."
The Borg, Species 8472, the Romulans, and the Dominion, they would not have this technology? Why not? And why not?
Posted by Defiantly Running About (Member # 1216) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: *yawn*
OK, say the goodies had a ship with all those technologies. And say the baddies also had a ship with all those technologies. Then what? How the fuck would a story be told any differently from the ones that were told without them? The extent of their influence would be that ships could travel faster and shoot harder. Nothing would really be different about anything except the SFX. And that novelty would wear off in a week. So.
Alright, so lets say the baddies DON'T have the tech. Turn the Federation into the Q-Continuum and follow their adventures as they interfere whilst not interfering with lower species.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
How about just not turning the Federation into anything and leaving the fanboy masturbatory fantasies at home?
Posted by Defiantly Running About (Member # 1216) on :
What's up your ass?
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Irishman, I do indeed see your point - you are wondering if there are any fresh new plot developments and story archs available with the addition of these new technologies.
Actually, I think it's possible that lieutenant time traveller on NX-01 (name escapes me at present) comes from a world/era very similar to that which you are describing.
He's not just talking fanboy 'faster/bigger is better' drivel folks - although I can see why the knee-jerk reaction, since we all see it so often here. Just a warp drive opened up more stories that a Trek with only slower-than-light would possess, he's wondering if raising the capabilites another quantum level would do the same.
Let's try to contain our pavlovian reflexes, shall we?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Daniels. And I don't think he was a lieutenant originally, he just had the pips of one last time we saw him in a Starfleet uniform.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Lack of technological progression has never been due to a lack of imagination on the writers part. Rather, it's because it would effectively make stories untellable.
Look at TNG. The number of times the crew had to have technoamnesia in order to make the story work was staggering. "Oh no, someone has stolen something and they are somehow out of tractor beam range even though only 5 seconds have passed", "Oh no, the main computer isn't working and we can't use the transporters. And for some reason we've forgotten about those on the shuttles", "Oh no, the biofilters used to filter out evil viruses haven't worked, for UNEXPLAINED REASONS", "Oh no, we desperatly need some item which the replicator can't replicate, for UNEXPLAINED REASONS", and so on and so forth.
I don't think they treated Rom's self-replicating mines as a "nobel prize" idea. It was more "yeah, that's a good idea...we'll do that." The same as every other "what if we reroute power from the primary doowicky to the main transwasits thing to create an antiblippitybloop weapon" idea that Geordie or O'Brien or Torres ever had. And the way Rom spoke, it wasn't as if he was overcoming some technological problem...it was as if no-one had ever considered getting a replicator to replicate itself before. He came up with the idea, not the execution.
The self-replicating mines were, in my opinion, a huge mistake. They've essentially created a perpetual power-source, and that's a MASSIVE technological leap. Those mines are likely to be matter/antimatter, which means that they can replicate matter, which means that all starships now have unlimited energy to use forever and ever and ever. At the very least, why not spit out a load of those self-replicating mines whenever the ship gets attacked, set them on "attack Cardassians", and sit back?
Lee's right when he points out a lot of written stuff has much "harder" sci-fi. But Star Trek has never been "hard" in that respect. It's about recognisable humans wandering around the galaxy being human and nice and human and all lovely and stuff.
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
Well isnt that what warfare is all about. Building bigger and better weapons before your enemies do. The CSA built the submarine first, the Germans invented mustard gas first, the Japanese built the shallow torpedo, the US built the Atom bomb. The idea for steam catapults to launch airplanes from carriers came from the British and used by the US. The US built nuclear powered ships first. The Russians launched the first man into space. Thats what its all about. Getting better stuff out to the front lines before your foes.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Daniels. And I don't think he was a lieutenant originally, he just had the pips of one last time we saw him in a Starfleet uniform.
It'd be interesting if we saw Daniels 'caught' in a TNG uniform or a TOS uniform or something one time... showing he's been sneaking around other time-periods
The number of uniforms Starfleet has had and accessory changes - you probably could work out which day he was visiting. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I've also thought that Daniels should appear in some other series' clothes. And it also occurred to me when I re-watched "Zero Hour" that his usual ribbed outfit looked kinda Reman. . . I can't really see it as any kind of uniform Starfleet or the Federation would ever wear - not that we know he's from either, really.
quote:Originally posted by Intruder1701: Well isnt that what warfare is all about. Building bigger and better weapons before your enemies do. The CSA built the submarine first, the Germans invented mustard gas first, the Japanese built the shallow torpedo, the US built the Atom bomb. The idea for steam catapults to launch airplanes from carriers came from the British and used by the US. The US built nuclear powered ships first. The Russians launched the first man into space. Thats what its all about. Getting better stuff out to the front lines before your foes.
But Trek isn't about warfare. Next!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Those mines are likely to be matter/antimatter, which means that they can replicate [anti]matter, which means that all starships now have unlimited energy to use forever and ever and ever."
Yeah, but when was the last time a starship had fuel problems? Did the Voyager crew ever even mention being worried about running out of antimatter?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The CSA was not the first with the sub. It was even earlier than that. I believe the US (or pre-US Americans) had them back in the mid to late 18th century.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chase Ultra Magnus: Who reads SF?
I do! For fuck's sake- Trek is NOT about the technology. Tech (in Trek) is a means to an end but is rarely the motivation for the characters.
Something to consider with those magic replicators: they dont just make matter up from the quantum level: they take stored matter and re-form it into other- computer stored- patterns.
You still would'nt be able to just whip up a Sovvie in "a matter of hours" (even in daniels' future I imagine)because you'd have to have the raw materials and a power source to go in the ship. Even by replicating Antimatter/Anti-M, you'd have to insert that power from somewhere.
Besides, Trek rarely uses it's tech half as much as they could: we just asw the FIRST time someone disabled a starship via transporter fuckery this past season. Why not just knock down an opponent's shields and beam out all the air? Or just beam them into space or de-materialize them into your ship's raw materials recycler and have a nice steak dinner-at their expense? Why not just convert half a enemy ship to Antimatter and watch the fireworks from a safe distance?
Why no FTL weaponry? Even the torpedos they DO are far less yield than today's nukes (I blame Mayer and his submarine fetish for this).
If you want amazing, mind- expanding tech- read Greg Bear or Dan Simmons. Bear even wrote one old TOS novel (The Rift?) expanding
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Why not have them beam the enemy crew over as Soylent Green?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Because they'd still be (wait for it)...... PEOPLE!!!! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
(also required)
Mmm. . . Soylent Green. . .
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The self-replicating mines were, in my opinion, a huge mistake. They've essentially created a perpetual power-source, and that's a MASSIVE technological leap.
Er... wrong... the self-replicating mines were powered by the gases around the wormhole... just like bussard collectors.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Uh, they were? That in the DS9TM or something?
"What's up your ass?"
A colon. What's up yours?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote: []...or de-materialize them into your ship's raw materials recycler and have a nice steak dinner-at their expense?
Like, ew...
Originally posted by Chase Ultra Magnus:
quote: Who reads SF?
You! Out of the gene pool!
Marian
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by J:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The self-replicating mines were, in my opinion, a huge mistake. They've essentially created a perpetual power-source, and that's a MASSIVE technological leap.
Er... wrong... the self-replicating mines were powered by the gases around the wormhole... just like bussard collectors.
I thought they were magic mines too, but this would make more sense. Where did you here about the wormhole gases? (not that wormhole gasses make much more sense...)
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"If you want amazing, mind- expanding tech- read Greg Bear or Dan Simmons."
If you aren't familiar with their works, you're not a science-fiction fan, just a Trekkie.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Pat Cadigan Octavia Butler David Gerrold (he's come a long way since "Trouble With Tribbles") John Barnes & John Varley--I know Treknophyle already mentioned them, but they're worth mentioning twice.
Marian
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
UM said:
"Who reads SF?"
Other people said:
[various comments about how UM is wrong]
I say: Surely you all know better by now.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by TSN:
quote: I say: Surely you all know better by now.
Who can keep all the participants on this board straight?
Marian
PS: "Farmers call them nature's dominoes"? What does "them" refer to? Trailer parks?
[ June 13, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: MarianLH ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Getting back to the subject at hand, what does some new tech give you from a practical storytelling point of view? Right now Trek has devices that allow instantaneous transport across short distances, shooting acoss the galaxy like it was a big neighborhood, the ability to travel through time (sun slingshots, Guardian of Forever, chronometric particles, Q, and whatever other excuse they come with this week), intelligent machines, star bursting weapons, etc.
Most of these technologies just allow us to circumvent situations rather than actually generate them. For instance, time-dialation-free space travel means we don't have to deal with what it would be like for space travellers to have different perspectives on the passage of time than those who live on planets. Transporters are magic doors that allow us to step from our home to some other place without a voyage to get there.
What I want to see is a practical example of tech that CHANGES something about Star Trek other than the eye candy and technobabble aspect, and actually provides real opportunities for dramatic storytelling that can't be done with what's gone before. If it doesn't do that, it literally is just a facade.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: "If you want amazing, mind- expanding tech- read Greg Bear or Dan Simmons."
If you aren't familiar with their works, you're not a science-fiction fan, just a Trekkie.
I cant say that asimov ever blew me away with tech. Great stories though. Card and Niven are good for far-out tech ideas though. Cant get through Herbert's style....his narrative just dores'nt work for me, so I'm stucj with the Dune Movies.
Never read Barnes: what did he write?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neutrino 123: I thought they were magic mines too, but this would make more sense. Where did you here about the wormhole gases? (not that wormhole gasses make much more sense...)
I haven't a clue now. That's what I remember from the episode, that the mines would collect gases from around the wormhole [of which those gases would also be naturally sucked towards the wormhole due to gravity]. These gases would be added to the fuel tank and the replicator reserve across the system.
The DS9 TM indicates that instead of a bussard collection setup, the system uses ZPE to manufacture new particles. I'm not certain if I'm right anymore.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: I haven't a clue now. That's what I remember from the episode, that the mines would collect gases from around the wormhole [of which those gases would also be naturally sucked towards the wormhole due to gravity]. These gases would be added to the fuel tank and the replicator reserve across the system.
I don't recall hearing anything like that in the show at all, to be honest. It's going to require a pretty decent explanation to convince me.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
If you want REAL science...see the Killer B's
Gregory Benford Greg Bear David Brin
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
If you want real science, read Nature.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
or Science!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If you want real Nature, read Health & Efficiency.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
If you want real health and efficiency - connect to your nearest collective. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If you want real nature, go to a nudist beach. B)
Posted by JC Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Nature is a gathering of middle-aged male tourists looking for naked women?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
KILLJOY.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by JC Ultra Magnus: Nature is a gathering of middle-aged male tourists looking for naked women?
Correct.
Although the "middle-aged" and "tourists" parts are superfluous.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(Suggestion for way-out gizmology: Karl Schroeder's Ventus. Not a perfect novel by any means, but neat to the max. Also a first novel, or at least first solo novel, if I recall correctly. His second, Permenance is even way-outer, I hear, but I haven't read it.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Star Wars has potential here - imagine that the technology seen in the movies was the most advanced that could be built: that R2-D2 is the epitome of machine intelligence, that an X-Wing is the best fighter achievable within the laws of physics. Alas, Lucas *and* the fan-boys like to depict technological advancement (same as Star Trek geeks, as this thread shows!) so it's unlikely.