What is the least likely StarTrek technologies to be developed?

What's the least likely (to ever possibly be developed) of the Star Trek technologies


  • Total voters
    49

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
What do think is/are the least likely of star trek technologies to be developed in the future; say oh about 300 years..?

1-Transporter
2-Warp Drive
3-Sensor Array
4-Universal Translator
5-Holodeck
6-EMH (doctor from Voyager series)
7-Tricorder
8-Shields
9-Photons and Phasers
10-Deflector dish techologies (graviton beams and so forth)
11-Subspace communications
12-Communicator (remember this has a billion mile range with no relays!)
13-Force Fields
14-Artificial gravity deck plating
15-Structural integrity field
16-Medical scanners

Have I forgotten anything?
 

doggie015

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What do think is/are the least likely of star trek technologies to be developed in the future; say oh about 300 years..?

1-Transporter
2-Warp Drive
3-Sensor Array
4-Universal Translator
5-Holodeck
6-EMH (doctor from Voyager series)
7-Tricorder
8-Shields
9-Photons and Phasers
10-Deflector dish techologies (graviton beams and so forth)
11-Subspace communications
12-Communicator (remember this has a billion mile range with no relays!)
13-Force Fields
14-Artificial gravity deck plating
15-Structural integrity field
16-Medical scanners

Have I forgotten anything?

You have forgotten one thing: The Armour technology from the Star Trek Voyager episode "Endgame"; and I would vote that as the LEAST likely technology to be developed; well; that AND the Universal translator (If the Copenhagen "CopenFlop" confrence is anything to go by...)

---------- Post added at 07:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 AM ----------

...
And to be honest, I lol'ed a little when I read Photons.
I think he meant "Photon Torpedoes"?
 

tori

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm gonna go with #10, the mighty Deflector Dish, and quote Voltaire (no, not that one) as my reference. They really use that as a dumb plot device that can do anything they wish. Want a wormhole to the other side of a galaxy? To a different universe? A hot latte? Just route something through the main deflector dish. That's the only issue, they don't have any real description of that.

The rest is more or less just a matter of know-how. A transporter in the ST sense (as in matter de/reconstructor) is possible. Warp drive is also mathematically possible. Sensors, med scanners, sure. Universal translator... well, that's another deflector dish. Holodeck... sure. EMH, that's just a holodeck crossed with wikipedia. Sensors, sure. Tricorder - another deflector dish. Shields, force fields, possible (see my post in the reentry blowtorch thread).

Gravity plating - not a clue. Structural integrity field - never got that one, how do they think it works? Bulkheads held together by solenoids? :D
 

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
I don't think that photons can be uninvented so they fit into that category.
And to be honest, I lol'ed a little when I read Photons.

Photons is a generic slang term used in trek; referring to the photon torpedo. You are thinking of them as particles.

Picard would tell Mr. Worf to "Fire the Photons".
Or somesuch character would say, "Photons armed and ready.."

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

Gravity plating - not a clue. Structural integrity field - never got that one, how do they think it works? Bulkheads held together by solenoids? :D

Applying some sort of energy field to a structure or framework makes it really stiff and hard.

The closest analogy I can imagine would be magnetohydrodynamic fluid. It's a fluid, but when you apply the 'force field' it gets all hard and stiff. Like a ferrofluid or something. Or like a magnetorheological clutch.

--but done with magical forcefields and not a physical fluid.
 
Last edited:

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
7
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
Warp drive is also mathematically possible. Sensors, med scanners, sure.

No it's not. Einstein says so, and no one has proven him wrong, yet.

The transporter and artificial gravity are, as far as I know, equally as unlikely as faster-than-light travel, but FTL is the one thing every sci-fi writer and fan likes to believe in, even if Einstein says no way, Jose. The two problems with any FTL are the light barrier, and even more important, causality.

FTL is time travel, and time travel makes kittens cry!

So I call this poll a 3-way tie between warp drive, transporter, and non-accelerating artificial gravity.
 

PhantomCruiser

Wanderer
Moderator
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,607
Reaction score
171
Points
153
Location
Cleveland
My favorite laugh in "Trek" (at least TNG/DS9/Voyager) was to "invert the pattern buffers" anytime something was broke with the transporter, the phasers, the holographic emitters (and so on), seemed to always do the trick. I'd often wondered, that if pattern buffers work better inverted, why not install the damb things that way to begin with...
 

Turbinator

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tellurian
No it's not. Einstein says so, and no one has proven him wrong, yet.

The transporter and artificial gravity are, as far as I know, equally as unlikely as faster-than-light travel, but FTL is the one thing every sci-fi writer and fan likes to believe in, even if Einstein says no way, Jose. The two problems with any FTL are the light barrier, and even more important, causality.

FTL is time travel, and time travel makes kittens cry!

So I call this poll a 3-way tie between warp drive, transporter, and non-accelerating artificial gravity.

First off, the warp drive and other methods of FTL are backed up by math as possible. I don't like how sometimes people bring the relativity theory in to a FTL discussion, when they dont actualy know the theory, only what they heard in passing. Relativity, when in regards to physical thrust like using normal thrust to accelerate a rocket to the speed of light; This is so far as we know, for now, is impossible. Therefore, FTL works on another level, it uses the fabric of spacetime itself as means of movement, therefore never actualy going at the speed of light. It would be possible to create an Alcubierre drive (warp drive), in which a ship would be enclosed in a "warp bubble" where the space at the front of the bubble is rapidly contracting and the space at the back is rapidly expanding, with the result that the bubble can reach a distant destination much faster than a light beam moving outside the bubble, but without objects inside the bubble locally traveling faster than light. Yet relative to the outside observer it goes faster than light, due to its manipulation of spacetime fabric. And not by generating thrust. This is mathematically possible.

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/embed.diag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

You can also have a Battlestar Galactica type of FTL, a possibility predicted by general relativity is the traversable wormhole, which could create a shortcut between arbitrarily distant points in space. As with the Alcubierre drive, travelers moving through the wormhole would not locally move faster than light which travels through the wormhole alongside them, but they would be able to reach their destination (and return to their starting location) faster than light traveling outside the wormhole.

Einsteins theory of relativity has been proven not to apply to everything, there are particles of matter that actually travel faster then the speed of light they are called Tachyons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Transporters are quite likely to exist in the future, however most likely only being able to transport inanimate simple non organic matter (basic elements). Like a rock, or a titanium bulkhead. We already have a super early "alpha" build of a transporter. Using quantum entanglement. Scientists in Europe where able to transport a single atom from one side of the room to the other. By taking one atom, and applying quantum entanglement to another to create an exact duplicate in every way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Artificial gravity for now remains an impossibility, unless we come across some new discovery, and actually observe Gravitons. As for know they only remain a theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
 
Last edited:

ThatGuy

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My favorite laugh in "Trek" (at least TNG/DS9/Voyager) was to "invert the pattern buffers" anytime something was broke with the transporter, the phasers, the holographic emitters (and so on), seemed to always do the trick. I'd often wondered, that if pattern buffers work better inverted, why not install the damb things that way to begin with...

If inverting the pattern buffers didn't work, they could always reverse...the...polarity.
 

Turbinator

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tellurian
Bigger than any one of those, was my huge dislike of their holodeck problems. The fact that they can't shut them down when something goes wrong. I mean really? They don't have power switches in the future? You can't simply unplug things from "the wall" in the future?

And the other is the exploding control consoles. They don't have circuit breakers in the future? My God... :rofl:
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
7
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
For starters: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html

So many people can't seem to let go of the idea of a warp drive, but it can't happen.

If we ever do find a way around the speed of light, it won't look like Star Trek.

---------- Post added at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ----------

And the other is the exploding control consoles. They don't have circuit breakers in the future? My God... :rofl:

That always cracked me up, too. Given that the bridge was at the top of the hull, I always wondered why the roof didn't get ripped open during combat.

And I love the fact that no matter what else breaks on the ship or shuts down, the artificial gravity always works!

(Except for one throwaway scene from one of the movies where a Klingon ship loses gravity as a plot gimmick)
 

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
And I love the fact that no matter what else breaks on the ship or shuts down, the artificial gravity always works!


Yeh what is with that. There are many episodes where the crew goes on an away mission to a damaged ship and find injured folks pinned beneath a fallen I-beam or a ton of girders and debris. The rescue party strains and struggles to get them free.. What is wrong with that?!?!?!? Just turn off the gravity plating - everyone floats free! Or use wesley's micro-sized tractor beam he made in one of the first stng episodes.

That is the problem with star trek, 2 things. Common sense does not always prevail and much of the tech is inexplicable. But I love the show and own every eposide and movie.
 

Turbinator

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tellurian
Well the gravity thing is understandable, the amount of logistics, manpower, and equipment, and the fact that the set would have to be designed for wires, would be quite expensive, money that can go towards better uniforms, props, and effects. However, they should have had at least one episode in the entire Star Trek history. At least we got that in the movie.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"All of the above".

I do, however, see certain technologies being developed that resemble their fictional counterparts, such as the tricorder and the cellphone.

Alcubierre drives and wormholes are (AFAIK) mathamatically possible, but they run into little problems such as requiring masses more then that of the entire universe to power them. They are not "FTL" in the strictest sense, but they allow far faster travel through space then would be allowed otherwise.
 

tori

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Exactly what I ment by warp drives being mathematically possible.
 

Sky Captain

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
945
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I`d say most unlikely to be developed are those Star trek technologies that require new physics to function like shields, force fields, FTL, transporters, artificial gravity.
 

the.punk

Advanced Orbinaut
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And I love the fact that no matter what else breaks on the ship or shuts down, the artificial gravity always works!

Yes. I also always wondered about this.
The ship has holes and all is burning and they haven't enough power for minimum live support...but gravity works.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,745
Reaction score
2,489
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Warp drive is also mathematically possible.

Mathematically possible is not the same as physically possible. AFAIR, the Albuquierre paper assumed the existence of a material that has a negative distortion of space-time, roughly equivalent to negative mass.

Physically, this is unobtainium and a violation of thermodynamics in many places (basically you gain negative entropy by it).
 

Notebook

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
11,822
Reaction score
644
Points
188
Applying some sort of energy field to a structure or framework makes it really stiff and hard.

The closest analogy I can imagine would be magnetohydrodynamic fluid. It's a fluid, but when you apply the 'force field' it gets all hard and stiff. Like a ferrofluid or something. Or like a magnetorheological clutch.

--but done with magical forcefields and not a physical fluid.

I can remember a UK car (Hillman) with an automatic transmisson using that system. Did some searching, this is the most useful so far:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ths+electric+powder+clutch&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Enter the Eaton Yale company of the United States. Eaton Yale manufactured industrial equipment-specifically conveyor systems. They had developed an electric clutch using iron powder. A magnet around the powder caused the powder to align on the magnetic lines of force (remember those experiments and demonstrations in Junior High School?). This clutch had been very successful in factories and Eaton Yale developed it further into an automatic transmission. However, in the mid-nineteen fifties they could find no takers in the US auto industry. This was due to several factors-the first being the “Not Invented Here” philosophy of the Big Three aut makers-they would not accept any idea that did not come from inside the American auto industry, second was the fact that the Big Three all had already developed automatic transmissions and saw no reason to spend money on a new and untried idea that they felt they really did not need. Finally, the entire American auto industry was aware of the disaster that had occurred at Packard in 1955 when an electrically operated automatic transmission was a major failure and virtually destroyed the company over night. The American auto industry was so fearful of any type of electrical equipment that Chrysler actually developed a manually operated push button control system for their automatic transmissions!

So, Eaton Yale offered their unique automatic transmission to manufacturers in Europe. Smiths electrical equipment of England bought all of the rights and patents and developed the idea further. The thing that made the electric transmission so desirable in Europe was that it did not require a powerful engine and produced fuel economy almost equal to a manual transmission. Rootes, always with an eye to what customers wanted, saw in the Smith’s transmission a unique opportunity to introduce an automatic transmission into England and Europe and to have a “compact” fighter to sell in the United States.

The Easidrive had all the elements of success in it except two things- the American fear of anything new and different and the fact that Americans bought a lot of the little foreign cars on their “sports car” appeal. Cars such as the Saab and Volvo for example sold as four passenger sports cars-along with Rootes own Sunbeam Rapier.

The failure of the Easidrive to make the impact on sales in the United States spelled the beginning of the end of Rootes in the United States. I have a letter from Ian Garrard (the man behind the Sunbeam Tiger) that when he took over the West Coast operations of Rootes in 1960, he had hundreds of unsold Hillman Easidrive cars sitting in storage unsold. He first job was to get rid of all those Hillmans and Singers.

The situation, however, got worse. The Easidrive depended on many mechanical relays to handle the switching. When those relays got old, they corroded and failed to function. There were not many mechanics in the United States trained on or familiar with the Easidrive so repairs were a problem. As with most Rootes products, there was a Series II Easidrive that substituted transistors for the mechanical relays and was more reliable. However, by the time the Series II Easidrive rolled out in 1962 the damage had been done and Easidrive equipped cars were very hard to sell as new cars and as used cars. In 1965 I bought a 1960 Special with Easidrive for $125. I drove it for about a year before I replaced the Easidrive with a manual clutch and transmission.

When the Special had an Easidrive installed it got an ammeter on the dash and got a black starter button replacing the pull switch on the dashboard. Part of the Easidrive installation included a larger, more powerful generator and a different regulator. Even with this, driving at night with the headlights on, wipers on, radio on and heater blower on would kill the battery! I know, I got stuck one night and had to crank the car started by hand and then drove with just the lights and wipers on.

N.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top