Star Trek technology, how does it compare to our technology?

[Spaceception]

How do you think Star Trek technology compares to our technology?

Warp Drive > Alcubierre drive (Video)

Communicator > Smartphone

Laser weapons > Navy LWS

Tricorder > MRI/Whatever comes out of the Google XPrixe competition

Quote

Quote

Pls ignore this, I clicked the wrong button

 

Computer assistant > Siri/Cortina

Hull plates > Transparent Aluminum/ModuMetal/Carbon Nanotubes & Graphene.

Do you know of any others?

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Spaceception

[RizzoTheRat]

There was a book several years ago called "The Science of Star Trek" or similar, apparently the publishers daughter was a massive trekkie and the author got an early draft back with loads of notes on it about things from the TV show he'd got wrong in the book

On interesting one I heard about, apparently there was an episode (on next gen I think) where the doctor used a laser scalpel.  A company that makes real laser scalpels sent them one for a laugh/publicity and it got used as an alien one in a later episode.

[Spaceception]

13 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

There was a book several years ago called "The Science of Star Trek" or similar, apparently the publishers daughter was a massive trekkie and the author got an early draft back with loads of notes on it about things from the TV show he'd got wrong in the book

On interesting one I heard about, apparently there was an episode (on next gen I think) where the doctor used a laser scalpel.  A company that makes real laser scalpels sent them one for a laugh/publicity and it got used as an alien one in a later episode.

This?

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

[Nikolai]

Part of the difficulty in rating them is that I want to be able to rate how well they operate based on the principles of physics that support them -- with implications that include tolerance before failure, contingency planning, and so on.  In other words, the quality of technology is not just a question of what it can do, but how reliably and elegantly it can do it, especially considering that a good bit of what we've seen is dedicated to keep fragile creatures alive and working in a hostile environment.

Star Trek is written by a collection of writers and doesn't have a very comprehensive bible, so new physics rules tend to be made ad hoc for any new particular plot that wanders along.  This makes technological analysis... difficult.

That said, there are certain aspects of their engineering that seem sub-par by our standards, and engineering is strongly related to technology.  For example, engines that are about to undergo a warp core breach must be actively ejected from a starship.  That's just bad design.  This, sadly, is typical; they don't seem to employ basic engineering concepts in the dangerous bits of technology, like redundancy, isolation, diversity, and failure actuation.  (Every potentially-dangerous thing is run by one critical system, which threatens to destroy the ship if it goes critical.  This critical system is merged with other critical systems, so that one failure can initiate multiple disasters.  And every critical system relies on the ability of the starship to continue running within tight operational parameters.)  And of course, when things fail, they fail catastrophically (we've all seen the exploding control panels).

The show is also the incarnation of the engineering aphorism that "the better is often the enemy of the good".  A new way of doing things often comes with new failure modes that have not yet been discovered or explored adequately -- so especially in hazardous environments, old, basic technology with few and well-mapped failure modes is often to be preferred.  If you have a life form in the brig that could kill the members of your crew (and will, given half a chance), keep him behind a steel wall, not a force field that requires the millisecond-by-millisecond proper operation of the power plant on your starship.  (Often, a low-tech solution is simply more elegant.)  They test brand-new propulsion devices, artificial intelligences, and weapons on fully-crewed starships rather than uncrewed test beds.

Do they have fun stories?  Oh, yeah, absolutely; I'll watch Star Trek any time you have it on.  But is their technology better than ours?  More capable, perhaps, but given their propensity toward bad engineering, calling it "better" seems either callous or foolhardy.

[RizzoTheRat]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

This?

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

Could well be, I've not actually read it, just heard an interview with the author which was interesting.

[Nibb31]

You could pretty much rewrite any Star Trek episode by replacing technology and science with magic. It would work just the same.

[p1t1o]

Are you kidding? WAY better! lets see:

Large (Multi-metric-ton) scale manipulation and production of antimatter.

Direct and perfect matter/energy conversion meaning ultra-efficient energy storage, ultra-abundant energy, industrial capacity to fabricate almost anything (Including material of a biological origin) at very short notice. This also results in the obsolescence of hunger and poverty.

Energy based economy (no money, everybody apparently free to fill their lives with whatever they like, jobs appear optional - not sure if this is canon, but they definitely don't have money, at least in the federation. "Gold pressed latinum" is apparently one version (a substance that cannot be replicated) but it is made clear that federation citizens dont really have much use for it, unless in foreign territory.)

 

"Structural Integrity Fields" + "Inertial Dampers" - These are essentially "Magic".

Computer technology capable of manifesting bona-fide sentience, sometimes by accident.

Also, fully featured time travel (Including Time Police) and transport to/from parallel universes.

 

I think they got us beat for a little while yet!

 

[Spaceception]

3 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You could pretty much rewrite any Star Trek episode by replacing technology and science with magic. It would work just the same.

Maybe, but it inspired countless scientists and engineers to make the technologies a reality, one way or another.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Spaceception

[Nibb31]

6 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Maybe, but it inspired countless scientists and engineers to make the technologies a reality, one way or another.

I don't think it inspired them to make those technologies. Otherwise, we would have teleporters and warp drives.

Things like laser weapons or mobile phones would have happened regardless of Star Trek.

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Things like laser weapons or mobile phones would have happened regardless of Star Trek.

Actually mobile phones were directly inspired by Star Trek, and I doubt thats the only example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicator_(Star_Trek)#Relation_to_current_technology

[Spaceception]

13 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I don't think it inspired them to make those technologies. Otherwise, we would have teleporters and warp drives.

Things like laser weapons or mobile phones would have happened regardless of Star Trek.

 

 

We have the concept of warp drive, but we can't build it because we need lots of negative energy, which we still don't know how to make, and as for Teleporters, we may not be close to teleporting humans, but information may get 'teleported' in the near future.

Plus, mobile phones would've happened with or without Star Trek, yeah, but Star Trek helped accelerate the technology.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Spaceception

[Nibb31]

14 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

We have the concept of warp drive, but we can't build it because we need lots of negative energy, which we still don't know how to make, and as for Teleporters, we may not be close to teleporting humans, but information may get 'teleported' in the near future.

"Information" was teleported with smoke signals and semaphores. Those predated Star Trek by centuries.

The Alcubierre drive has nothing do with the Warp drive as described in Star Trek. It's like saying that we invented CCTV cameras because of Sauron's Eye. It's ridiculous.

Quote

Plus, mobile phones would've happened with or without Star Trek, yeah, but Star Trek helped accelerate the technology.

[Citation needed]

Oh, I guess this is what you're referring to:

15 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Actually mobile phones were directly inspired by Star Trek, and I doubt thats the only example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicator_(Star_Trek)#Relation_to_current_technology

Urban legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cooper_(inventor)

"While it has been stated Cooper's vision for the handheld device was inspired by Captain James T. Kirk using his Communicator on the television show Star Trek,[13] Cooper himself later refuted this, stating that his actual inspiration was Dick Tracy's wrist radio.[14]"

But if Martin Cooper hadn't come up with DynaTAC, somebody else would have eventually. The design just makes sense.

Oh and by the way, Walkie Talkies existed in WWII, way before Star Trek.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Nibb31

[Spaceception]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

"Information" was teleported with smoke signals and semaphores. Those predated Star Trek by centuries.

The Alcubierre drive has nothing do with the Warp drive as described in Star Trek. It's like saying that we invented CCTV cameras because of Sauron's Eye. It's ridiculous.

[Citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Relation_to_Star_Trek_warp_drive

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/cell-phone-maker-martin-cooper-was-influenced-by-star-trek/186148

[Nibb31]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Relation_to_Star_Trek_warp_drive

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/cell-phone-maker-martin-cooper-was-influenced-by-star-trek/186148

Didn't I already counter those ?

[Spaceception]

2 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Didn't I already counter those ?

You edited it after I posted.

[p1t1o]

30 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Urban legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cooper_(inventor)

"While it has been stated Cooper's vision for the handheld device was inspired by Captain James T. Kirk using his Communicator on the television show Star Trek,[13] Cooper himself later refuted this, stating that his actual inspiration was Dick Tracy's wrist radio.[14]"

 

Dangit!!

 

[tater]

I'm (once again) with Nibb31. Star Trek is fantasy, not hard science fiction, and any technologies we have, or will come up with that are anything like ST are strictly coincidental. 

ST TNG technology in a nutshell... add "-genic field" to, well, anything, and you have a new technology. This seems to be the rigorous method writers used to invent these plot devices, 'erm, technologies.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by tater

[Spaceception]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm (once again) with Nibb31. Star Trek is fantasy, not hard science fiction, and any technologies we have, or will come up with that are anything like ST are strictly coincidental. 

ST TNG technology in a nutshell... add "-genic field" to, well, anything, and you have a new technology. This seems to be the rigorous method writers used to invent these plot devices, 'erm, technologies.

 

So I guess any technologies in sci-fi that are made real, is just a coincidence? And absolutely no one is inspired to make it because they saw it on television or books and wanted it to become reality?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Spaceception

[Nibb31]

1 minute ago, Spaceception said:

So I guess any technologies in sci-fi that are made real, is just a coincidence? And absolutely no one is inspired to make it because they saw it on television and wanted it to become reality?

Pretty much, yes.

How many Hollywood screenwriters have filed patents with the USPTO? Did Apple pay royalties to Kubrick for the iPad ? Did NASA credit Jules Verne for Apollo? Would robots exist without Asimov's influence? 

There are probably a couple of exceptions (like the Lexus Hoverboard...) but most of the time where a plot device turns out to ressemble real world technology is either coincidental or the technological evolution was predictable.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Nibb31

[p1t1o]

16 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

So I guess any technologies in sci-fi that are made real, is just a coincidence? And absolutely no one is inspired to make it because they saw it on television and wanted it to become reality?

Its a chicken and egg scenario. Who inspired the writers to come up with such things?

How can you prove what "inspired" what? Its not like "inspiration" is a quantifiable commodity.

Does the argument of "we'd have done it anyway, eventually" reduce all "inspiration" to meaninglessness?

Its not really worth bothering yourself about.

 

I'll tell you one thing, I will eat my hat if there is no one around who didn't watch Star Trek and was "inspired" to become an engineer, or an astronaut, or a pilot, or a scientist of some type.

 

**edit**

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Cultural_impact

The Star Trek franchise inspired some designers of technologies, such as the Palm PDA and the handheld mobile phone.^[81][82] Michael Jones, Chief technologist of Google Earth, has cited thetricorder's mapping capability as one inspiration in the development of Keyhole/Google Earth.^[83]The Tricorder X Prize, a contest to build a medical tricorder device was announced in 2012. Ten finalists have been selected in 2014, and the winner will be selected in January 2016. Star Trek also brought teleportation to popular attention with its depiction of "matter-energy transport", with the famously misquoted phrase "Beam me up, Scotty" entering the vernacular.^[84] The Star Trek replicator is credited in the scientific literature with inspiring the field of diatom nanotechnology.^[85]

 

Some more sources for you to look into Nibbz!

Edited February 2, 2016 by p1t1o
grammare

[tater]

You'd need to demonstrate that no one ever thought of even a precursor before the particular ST you mean.

ST TOS was derivative, as were all the follow on shows---at least to anyone who knows science fiction from reading. 

FTL is a standard SF tool, and nothing about "warp drive" is terribly unique.

Communications? As was shown, Dick Tracy, among others.

Tricorders? Is my phone a tricorder because it gives me information magically? Nothing about the tech itself was fleshed out, so it's just a prop, as are the medical scanners (salt and pepper shakers in TOS).

ST doesn't use lasers, they use phasers, which are not a thing. Note that they shoot under warp drive, so apparently their weapons are FTL as well. Put a name on it that sounds cool, that's the tech.

There were talking/AI computers in books long before ST. Lem had an AI controlling a ship over 10 years before ST.

Carbon nanotubes are not made of Al. Closer would be Aluminium oxynitride. Honestly, when it was mentioned in ST in the 1980s, they likely either made it up, someone was already working on it, or perhaps they reworded sapphire (Al₂O₃).

 

[0111narwhalz]

While Star Trek may or may not have inspired a number of current technologies, I think it's quite likely that a number of techs have originated, at least in part, from Verne's literature. Take for instance the transatlantic pneumatic tubes. We don't have that, specifically, but the Hyperloop is similar. We took a (distinctly) different route to Luna, but the drive to get there was probably increased by Verne's books. Submarines that actually do stuff, heavier-than-air flying machines (including the helicopter)... Now, most of these had been envisioned previously, but Verne popularized them.

Anyway, off topic aside, I think that it's very difficult to compare existing technology with handwavium. You can't compare two things that are that different. It's a bit like comparing science and faith, but I won't get into that.
However, on the surface, the tech seems to be greatly superior, despite the engineering issues previously mentioned.

[p1t1o]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

You'd need to demonstrate that no one ever thought of even a precursor before the particular ST you mean.

 

Well, no you wouldn't. If someone says "I was inspired to invent X because I saw Y." You can't say "No you weren't because something similar was around previously."

No one is claiming that Star Trek actually invented anything...

As explained to us, Indians had smoke signals way before dick tracy had his watch, so who inspired mobile phones?

[tater]

The OP is really neither, it's "how does it compare to our technology?"

The bar for your comment is just to ask the inventor of something if he made it because he saw it on ST. That ignores the counterfactual that would likely have the same thing invented by someone else, anyway, though.

 

[p1t1o]

AUGH