Why Is Star Trek Tech so Believable?

Star Trek technology varies from Warp drives, based on the Alcubierre drive concept, to transporters and spore drives. A lot of it gets rather far fetched, so what makes it believable and allows for immersion into the universe of Star Trek and its many worlds?
Star Trek Online developed by Cryptic Studios and Perfect World.
Star Trek Picard/Strange New Worlds/Lower Decks/Enterprise/Voyager/Deep Space Nine/Discovery and The Next Generation are all owned by Paramount Pictures/CBS and distributed by CBS.
This Video is for critical purposes with commentary.

[@FutureSoap]

The most important part is have it be just realistic enough, and also being very VERY consistent between several series Edit: And to clarify my use of "consistent" i meant that every star trek series has a jeffries tube, a warp core, a replicator, and another big factor is that you can see how the tech evolves between eras.

[@tslay7928]

Agreed!

[@DrewLSsix]

But.... its not. Not even a little bit. It's not even consistent within any of the series themselves.

[@diosnelfrica590]

@@DrewLSsixit is more consistent than many shows and movies.

[@sardonicspartan9343]

​@DrewLSsix it's definitely consistent with most of the shows. There were mistakes of course but it wasn't until NuTrek that the writers didn't even try to be consistent. They admitted that's why they jumped STD into the future.

[@Watcher1134]

@@DrewLSsixi think that 22nd century shuttlepods use only impulse thrusters. 23rd century shuttles have an ftl system that can generate a warp field using warp plasma but no dedicated core capable of creating it, so TOS SNW and DISCO shuttles need fual from their home starship or starbase giving them a decent but limited range. 24th century shuttles and runabouts have miniaturised warp cores and can be refueled on-mission assuming they find a source of deuterium and anti-deuterium.

[@ReverendMuncle]

You were so incredibly diplomatic and restrained when you said "this is why I have such a hard time.. with the spoor drive". Bravo

[@ReverendMuncle]

I wouldn't have been able to hold back a rant in your shoes. Something along the lines of "the spoor drive makes no sense in the context of the Star Trek universe, and don't get me started on the fact that Spock never ONCE mentioned a human foster sibling during ANY of his observations on human peculiarities with his closest friends at any point in..." etc.

[@shocktnc]

agreed

[@raw6668]

I think it's due to multiple reasons. The main reason is, as you said, partly due to what you said about having it behind layers, but I also believe it has two other factors that are just as important. One is due to the fact they do pull from real-world science. When people hear it's a thing people are actually studying, it makes it sound more believable, for it has a base in reality. The second reason I want to add is how they treat lore and technology. They are applications of concepts that people know or are information more than one person knows. I think we have a harder time believing in, say, Marvel or Star Wars because only one person knows how certain technology works, the only one that uses certain technology, and has to give technological dumps. However, in Star Trek, it is usually done in three ways. One is to explain how, by using a concept all of them know or have knowledge of (which is shown on screen) or someone done before (even if off-screen) and applying it in a way the crew and the audience can follow. Second, showing how incoperated the technology is and how quickly people not even trained to operate such technology can use it makes it more believable. Finally, having multiple people explain a subject to the more ignorant crew members to show that while it's not common knowledge, it is knowledge people would have heard about and applied in their lives. The crew accepting the explanation and asking specific questions to get more details on how it works on terms they understand just adds to the believability. The skeleton locks through the VOY transporters and the TNG Dyson Sphere.

[@enisra_bowman]

Sidenote: the First Hyperdrive in Star Wars basicly powered by The Force until the Corellians build one that replaced the Spacemagic parts with "mechanical" ones, sooo ist was at some point really driven by Space Magic And well, with telepathie and ESP you REALLY notice when Star Wars was written

[@Corbomite_Meatballs]

Wait, really? I'd never heard that...do you have somewhere I could go read up on that? I've never understood completely how hyderdrives work in SW, except for them running them on what seems like TRS-80 level tech (in that they can't deviate from set "lanes" and such), unlike Trek which you can go to warp in space at almost anytime, for any reason, and not get smooshed.

[@enisra_bowman]

​@@Corbomite_Meatballs must have been one of the Essential Guides and in Parts KotOR 1 where it was mentioned and Hyperlanes are more fairways and that you can "jump to lightspeed" outside them but the navigation is more complex or unsafe since the Hyperdrive is way faster than Warp, it's like steaming Fullspeed ahead though the Northsea, that begs to run aground on a Sandbank or a Rock.

[@neodigremo]

I am glad you mentioned consistency. The idea is so key. Once we know what a piece of tech does and more importantly DOES NOT do you need to stay within those established rules. When that happens the audience can understand the limits of your ship and characters in every situation and buy into the worldbuilding.

[@jameslynch2399]

I think part of the reason the explanation for the spore drive doesn't work for a lot of people is because it feels too small. Matter/antimatter reactions, we get it, that generates a lot of power, makes a big ship go fast, etc. But "the ship inhales magic mushroom dust and now it can teleport" feels too far out there. A ship teleporting feels like too big a thing to happen because of mushroom spores (honestly anything teleporting because of mushroom spores feels absurd unless maybe you're in a Super Mario game).

[@GSBarlev]

Haha. I would love a fan-edit of _Discovery_ where they replace the Spore Jump effect with an animation and sound effect of the ship passing through a Warp Pipe.

[@shocktnc]

Agreed, its just a plot device instead of its own interesting concept to be explored.

[@wmlukepriest8012]

Love this video. I had never thought about your layers of technobable explaination, but that makes a lot of sense.

[@rellett1]

I thought the spore drive is just a massive transporter, and they use the spore network to send the signal threw as it all over the universe, but can be confusing when they can go halfway into the network when saving tilly

[@GSBarlev]

Hot take: they've actually done a *really good job* _not_ explaining the Spore drive. The way it's presented is: - Stamets knows how it works - Tilly knows how it works - Adira knows how it works - Burnham, Ariam and Nielsen know _vaguely_ how it works But the physics is *so complex* that without any of them staying behind in the 23rd century, there was *zero chance* of anyone implementing it again.

[@oldylad]

@@GSBarlevstarfleet would know, if they don’t that’s its own inconsistency

[@frankhaugen]

Even voy which has trechnobable in 60% of its dialog, (it feels like it at least), is just consistent enough and uses enough real-world science to make it believable

[@DjRenect]

Haven’t played it myself, but a lot of ships I’ve seen in Star Citizen convey this super convincing and almost tactile impression. I think they look even more real than what Star Trek delivers, but it also feels much close to out time than the golden age of Trek.

[@pyramidsinegypt]

Apart from fictional technologies, what is often left under-explained is that many FTL ways of travel is only mathmatically FTL, ie. divide distance by time, instead of an object (spaceship) physically moving faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement, as you briefly touched on, together with folding space, are perhaps the best examples of this.

[@kaimamoonfury1335]

Watching Skallagrim? He did a video on verisimilitude himself earlier. I love verisimilitude in my sci-fi, that small amount of realism act as a bridge that brings you into the world

[@CertifiablyIngame]

I have watched him before yeah! But have not recently, no

[@Grizabeebles]

There really should have been a shout-out in the video for James Doohan bugging the first season TOS writers to start from a place where "this specific part of the engine is broken" rather than just "it will take six hours to get engines back".

[@samaraclark]

That's why I love Star trek so much because the do there best to explain how the technology works and make it as believable as possible.

[@krisgonynor689]

I love that the tech behind Star Trek has all of those layers, if you look into the tech manuals and other sources, as well as what we see on screen. It does make it more believable to me. But I still have the same question about warp drive: How did Zeph get antimatter to power the Phoenix? Or di-lithium crystals, for that matter. Did he find it in Montana? Did that missile that he converted into a space ship have an antimatter warhead? If so, the earth would have been in pieces if they used such weapons in WW3. My guess is that warp drive can be powered in different ways, from something as old fashion as a fission power plant (which he could have built from the warhead, and also explains the radiation that killed all of those people in the launch tube), fusion power, though I doubt we'd have a mini fusion plant in 2063, and, of course, antimatter. As well as the Romulans who use a artificial singularity to generate power (and gives proof you don't need antimatter in canon). The Phoenix probably had a fission power pack system similar to the ones we put on long range space probes. Which is one of the reasons it could just make warp one, the other being less advanced warp coils, plus no di-lithium. Once humanity teamed up with the Vulcans, they got advanced power plants - though why the Vulcans would give earth antimatter tech is something I don't understand, unless they figured we would make a good ally in the long term.

[@danpage6907]

Good analysis, Rick. The layers of comprehension apply not only to the fictional realm of Star Trek, but to the average person's knowledge of how basic devices function in the real world. For example, devices such as cars, microwave ovens, and ball point pens require specialized knowledge to create, but only a superficial knowledge to operate; in each of these examples, most people who could use the device wouldn't be tasked with repairing it, even if their knowledge extends to the second layer of "how does that work?" Not only do the layers of Trek technology mimic our understanding of the real world, but also characters in Trek are, by definition, often experts in some aspect of the technology, allowing for the drip-feeding effect of explaining in-universe to other characters who are not conversant with the minutiae. Thus the characters' acceptance of the explanations given encourages the audience's credulity to extend to the plot point in a reasonable manner.

[@ColeHomestead]

I interviewed for a job as a service technician at a very young 3D Printer company 26 years ago, and during the interview with the CTO he asked me where I thought this company & technology would be in the future, well, lets just say the Star Trek Fan in me spoke up without thinking with "well sir, in the future when the Captian asked for a cup of Earl Grey Hot at the replicator I hope it will have our company logo". I then thought I blew the interview once my brain kicked in and thought "WTF did you just say?". well the CTO sat there for what seemed like an eternity before saying "I ask that question to every candidate and your answer was the most positive & futuristic answer I ever got, I like your vision, when can you start?" I'm still working for them today and with our Direct metal printing and now biological printing we are still a long way off from replicators but much closer.

[@alastairlong4444]

I always appreciated that Star Trek at least tries to explain things. It actually makes it more believable for me when something doesn’t have an explanation. How does telepathy work? “We don’t know”, is a perfectly reasonable answer to that. If enough things have an answer than it is more believable when something doesn’t. They don’t know everything and that’s ok. At least the audience knows that they’re trying to find out.

[@skippy2987]

I like that it's "like real life unless noted". Another good example is Gundam and the Minovsky particle. What is the Minovsky particle? It's a byproduct of nuclear fusion that expands in a lattice and disrupts electromagnetic waves, preventing long range radio communication, constantly giving an emp-like effect to circuits, and eventually dissipating visible light. You can shield against it, but it's relatively heavy. So long range guided missiles don't work, lasers eventually dissipate, long distance targeting is basically impossible, and it also has some implications for beam weapons being possible (apparently). Sure seams like a good excuse as to why giant robots that carry big guns and energy swords are feasibly dogfighting in universe rather than just laser, railgun, or missiling people from the opposite orbit. Except G-Gundam. I mean it's awesome, but it's whole reason for existence is "what if giant fighting robots had mystical kung-fu magic?"

[@samfowler2073]

Reminds me of Sanderson’s Laws of Magic, just replace magic with technology. An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic / technology is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic/ technology.

[@Taliesin-xd7ke]

As well as your reasons Rick, I always thought that the tech was also loosely supported by current established theories in Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum physics. Great subject to discuss.👏💯

[@ThanksIfYourReadIt]

For me Star Trek always throw something at the crew that they cannot deal with immidietly or have no idea what the hell is going on. A percived futuristic crew with gadgets find something they cannot comprehend always moves the science team itself into a kinship with you. As they just as stumped at an event then you are so their approach looks as good as yours and this way you feel leveled with them and don't question their methods as in such case you would questino yourself. So yeah I just feels like an Ensign that pokes around them and pretend I know everything so they don't get suspicios haha.

[@gmradio2436]

I would like to add a point or two. Parallels and Technological Evolution. The first, Parallels is that on a simple level, most of Trek's tech is rarely ground breaking in universe while having clear relationships to know things, and treated as common. On of my favorite examples of this is the humble data pad(TNG). Now we look at the data pad and see a proto tablet, but at publication and in universe it is treated as common paper work and books. Most likely everyone reading this comment knows the feeling of a coworker showing up with a stack of forms in triplicate that need to be filled. Well so do Picard and Sisko. The next is Technological Evolution. Rarely is the technology in Star Trek static or in its ultimate incarnation. The obvious example is the communicator, but I want to use the torpedo as an example. Humanity starts with the spacial torpedo, techs up to I believe photonic torpedos, then photons, quantums, and finally stealing transphasic torpedos from themselves. Time travel and Janeway were involved in that last one.

[@Stormcrow_1]

I do want to know why the Federation seem to make all their tech out of pure Explodium. :)

[@xp8969]

It's only half explodium.... Just like concrete the other half is rocks

[@Stormcrow_1]

@@xp8969 In the case of Fed tech, I think that would be called shrapnel :)

[@ponyperson7513]

It's actually a very complex explodium-detonite alloy with concrete for structural reinforcement

[@asahearts1]

Okay, at least the consoles exploding is somewhat believable, imo. There's a concept called "battle short," where normal safety measures such as fuses and breakers are bypassed because a system shutting down is more dangerous than it exploding or catching fire. On battleships, sometimes fuses were taken out and replaced with copper bars prior to battle because in normal operation you would want the fuse for a turret or something to blow, even if it's still safe, while in a battle you might want to push that turret beyond its limit, even if the turret is currently on fire, or at the risk of the turret breaking or electrocuting someone. As for the consoles themselves having that much energy going through them, well, that could be the product of being hit with a directed energy weapon which could basically turn a circuit into plasma in an instant

[@Stormcrow_1]

@@asahearts1 I don't know what navy you're talking about. But I've served for many years in the RN as an electrical engineer, but at no point have I ever seen or heard of replacing fuses with solid metal bars or by passing breakers. The closest you might come would be an over ride on a starter panel that locks out over temp protection, but even so the fuses and breakers are still there and will operate as normal. If you did what your suggesting you'd cause far bigger problems than you'd prevent.

[@shinygoldenpotion1587]

I think the most accurate tech is the sublight impulse engine since it is basically a fusion engine and something very similar to an impulse engine has plans to make a debut in 2027

[@Oriansenshi]

I think you brought up a lot of good points and your tips are very helpful for anyone creating their own sci-fi universes to craft stories within.

[@NooOneSpecial]

It probably helps that real world technologies have been created since star trek came out that hints to or beats technology in star trek. Communicators, mobile phones. Medical tri-quarters are smaller handheld devices of a range of medical equipment today. Even transportation has been done on the particle level, just computing power limits us.

[@ChairmanMeow1]

Nothing touches The Expanse for being believable. But Star Trek has always been close behind, just because of how consistent it is throughout the canon.

[@stevenclark2188]

See 'Sanderson's First Law'. I think of it as real world technologies have limitations, advantages, disadvantages, resources, tools, etc. So your fictional technology should have as much of that as possible for people to believe it.

[@pixelomega3042]

I think a big reason that Trek tech is so believable is because a lot of the devices are actual solutions to rather large problems we face today. Replicators can prvode an infinite supply of food, and transporters solve short range movement rather easily

[@ianfletcher6039]

I think that *some* of Star Trek’s tech is believable, and as you’ve observed, the multiple layers of explanation helps an inquiring mind accept it. As well, some of it just piggybacks on common cultural tropes that were established even before Star Trek, even if they were largely popularized by `Trek. Warp speed, teleporters, ray guns were all science fiction tropes when TOS was aired in the 1960s, so adding on some gradual explanations and reasoning of how they worked gave the show an air of being a more serious treatment of sci-fi (even if that serious story was set against something more fantastic). It also helps that in TOS, and TNG in particular, “godlike powers” were almost always revealed to be advanced technology. This helps build the paradigm of understanding that our current level of technology and understanding of the universe is incomplete, therefore anything that might come off as vaguely far fetched falls under that same lens. It’s all just advanced tech, including how transports function, etc. What doesn’t work is when that technology is applied inconsistently. My parents were casual Star Trek fans, and there were episodes of TNG where they would become confused by a rule being bent, or misused. Or even a solution to a problem applying technology in a way that should reshape the application of that technology going forward. This is where the veil is lifted, unintentionally, and that “well, it’s a show” always comes back up. And really, that’s fine. But I can say that I think many fans have short lists of episodes where the solution (usually the transporter) should have been something else to make the show feel more grounded. Good video Rick!

[@Shatterverse]

Really, lateral thinking is preferable with tech (or magic or really powers of any kind). I have technology/spell/power X, so what _else_ can I do with it? Transporters: make food, remove waste, surgery, suspended animation, weapon deployment, remote retrieval, sanitation, that kickass sniper rifle in DS9, pathogen filtration, weapon disabling, mass transit, etc. All plausible and usable with just that one tech. Oh, pro tip, don't set up transporters between worlds ore you could end up with a _Mutineer's Moon_ situation where an engineered super plague exterminated nearly all human life in the galaxy.

[@kevinhorschaart228]

What I don’t understand is how the Voyager warp core and the TNG/Defiant can live side by side. With higher warp, the TNG style warp core looks like it is pushing plasma? trough rings at an ever faster rate, but the Voyager core looks like a canister with ever faster whirlwinds in it. How does on tie that in together?

[@disky01]

I just wish that time travel wasn't so prevalent and easy to achieve. It's a far-too-common plot device, and the methods/technology used to achieve it feel way too easy to acquire, given how often it is used in Star Trek stories. Sometimes it feels like the show is actually about time travel, and not space exploration, honestly.

[@gabegu5102]

Let's not forget how much star trek tech has become reality. The tablets I'm typing on now being one

[@barrywhite6060]

There are scientists saying that in theory a warp drive is possible, it's just at current technology the scale and power required aren't possible.

[@Peregrine57]

Sometimes I feel like Star Trek can be more believable than harder sci-fi like The Expanse largely because the audience has done the work of suspending disbelief. When you realize that a perfectly airtight pressure vessel is pretty much impossible in real life, and anything we do have, whether it's the ISS or a submersible, can only be built to acceptable tolerances, building something like a colony or a large interstellar space craft meant to support a human crew that can survive long term in space becomes harder to get a handle on. I'm not an engineer, so there's probably plenty of ways to do it that I'm just not familiar with. But the closer a sci-fi property tries to edge toward real life, the sooner some stuff just starts to fall apart. When Prax was explaining simple/complex systems after the Ganymede incident, I found it harder to get a handle on just how colonizing the solar system like this was even feasible. If you have a hull breach on the Rocinante, you can seal off that section, and try to keep what's left. But any oxygen you lost is just… gone. All you can do is hold it together until you have a chance to resupply. Where do their suppliers get their oxygen from? Or for that matter, where does all the atmosphere on Mars, Ganymede, or Tycho come from? Well, they can probably get some from spaceborn ice, and recycle it with onboard botanical systems, but if you trace the roots back far enough, it mostly comes from Earth. …With whom they have constantly tense diplomatic relations. So try not to breath too deeply. Don't they ever run out? No, they film in Toronto. There's plenty of air there. If you have a hull breach on the Enterprise, forcefields go up to keep the atmosphere contained, then they get to work on repairing the hull. Any oxygen that was lost gets replaced by the life support system. Where does the oxygen come from? Replicators, I guess. Try not to think about it too hard. Look! Tribble! Cute!

[@compmanio36]

Remember that you breathe out CO2. O2 is part of that. We've been doing that for a long time and gotten very efficient at it, even now in the 21st century. I imagine by the time the Expanse is set in, it's even better. But they do address this in the prep before fighting the stealth ship around the spin station earlier in the series. They purge all their O2 into tanks and go into suits to prevent just what you describe; being shot up meaning you lose all your O2. Of course, if your O2 tank gets hit, you're in trouble but it's still a smaller target than the whole ship. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGLHcoWHfKathKM

[@adpirtle]

I found Trek tech a lot more believable when I was a kid, and for just this reason. If I wondered how something worked, there was always at least some attempt at an explanation. As I got older and read more real science, these explanations made less and less sense. However, I am always pleased when I stumble upon a concept in Trek that is more well thought out.

[@ryanmeakins2993]

There were a few great posts from tumblr i saw once that had similar conclusions to explain away plot hole in ttrpg settings or fantasy stories, they also came to the three layers but also added a recussion Why dont the vampires use the sewers to travel in the day ? Holy alligators Why are the alligators holy? A sect of nuns feed and bless the alligators Why do they do that ? To stop the vampires from travelling the sewers

[@bonusbaby801]

I never really thought about it because Star Trek is a Science Fiction TV show. But Star Trek tech seems pretty reasonable & realistic. HOWEVER...While I believe that time travel does or will at some point exist...I don't think you can slingshot around the sun to time travel😂

[@John-fk2ky]

You might have found it believable. I only ever found it able to fit under “suspension of disbelief” and been happy to see some level of internal consistency. Other than that, almost everything in Star Trek is magic + technobabble. Transporters, impossible in our current understanding of physics (and frankly a horrible idea in terms of worldbuilding because it can fix a lot of problems too easily). Replicators literally break physics because of the insane power demands of turning energy into matter. Despite some interesting rants in the comments, warp drive is purely theoretical, and the power demands are still insane. Inertial dampeners don’t even get an explanation despite being a secondary requirement to FTL or even high sunlight speeds. Simply changing direction would kill everyone aboard a ship without it. Forcefields, as used, even if you could make them possible, are a shiny disaster waiting to happen without Star Wars’s reasoning of allowing small craft to launch. Having a barrier that requires energy flow is a horrible idea for windows and sealing hull breaches. And the less said about holodecks the better (despite it featuring prominently in some of my favorite episodes) Short version: no I don’t find almost any of the tech all that believable. Fun, yes. Internally consistent, usually. Actually doable? Not so much.

[@pills-]

Going along with your layers idea: it helps that Star Trek usually devotes episodes to explore a particular technology in each series. Something goes wrong with the warp engine, or the replicators, or the... holodeck 😑 that requires the characters to explain the details of that technology in order to resolve the story. So the viewer gets to learn how it does work, but (more importantly?) how it DOESN'T work.

[@acarrillo8277]

I think another reason Star Trek tech is inherently believable has to to with the reciprocal relationship real world technology has with Star Trek. Think of how many pieces of technology were inspired by the shows that are now common place. Society has almost been conditioned the if it shows up in Star Trek we will develop it eventually.

[@Nichodo]

yeah take the Communicators which we had developed into Smartphones of today and TNG's PADD's which we developed into our Tablets

[@gabelogan5877]

“Not conditioned” inspired. Just like people have been inspired to go into the sciences, Trek has inspired viewers to create the tech

[@polarisukyc1204]

I think it’s more inspirational that conditioning, does anyone remember Alcubierre? Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m fairly certain he was a Star Trek fan before he published his FTL travel theory

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@polarisukyc1204yeah he specifically set out to see if there were a valid solution to the relativity equations which resembled a “warp bubble” (as Star Trek had already used the term)

[@polarisukyc1204]

@@kaitlyn__L it’s still being researched as well, the last paper I read on the subject was probably around 5 years ago by Erik Lentz

[@blackonblack...9244]

It's actually so believable that even Stargate SG-1 took a page from it to explain their their technobabble.

[@Atheos-1]

Col. O'Neill was right. They should've named the first ship, the Enterprise.

[@masterhypnos6783]

Indeed. It was also nice of them to literally reference that on screen in dialogue from time to time as well.

[@MatthewCobalt]

​@@masterhypnos6783I see you are a fan of Teal'c as well

[@Nova_Astral]

Stargate is one of the best for it because you can almost always see some technology Earth has, and then go back and watch the episode they discovered it in. Even technology that wasn't explained much, like the Asgard Plasma Beams from the last episode of SG-1, it's a plasma beam, and plasma is generally very very hot, so it would make a good weapon, probably initially controlled with powerful magnetic fields.

[@travisschneider3011]

Indeed

[@josephmassaro]

I think I'd add one more element to the mix: conviction. The technobabble is delivered with such serious conviction that it lends to it's credibility and thus it's believability.

[@shocktnc]

And then you get those clips from discovery.....

[@josephmassaro]

@@shocktnc I wouldn't know. ; )

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

Internal consistency is the most important aspect imo. The instances that get criticized the most about Star Trek are those where this consistency is broken - but I'd argue that those only stand out so much because they're generally good about upholding it. Every ship has a visible propulsion system. The few times they don't, it's explicitly called out in-universe. Warp speeds exist on a certain scale. A slower ship can't catch up to a faster one. Only exception is when the difference is very small and there are some temporary enhancements that can be made - usually at risk of failure or by damaging the system. FTL tech uses subspace. Be that warp drive, communications or scanners. Same basis for the same effect. etc.

[@ZeroSpawn47]

I think it helps that everything keeps breaking, not working right, and needing maintenance all the time. Deep Space 9 did such a good job of making the station feel lived in.

[@Corbomite_Meatballs]

You see the that in TNG too, where someone's running a "Level 3 diagnostic" constant, or the starboard power coupling always breaks and the ship turns off. I don't remember if VOY had that...except for them always keeping the ship pristine, even when tech that got added to it would give them an advantage.

[@edmaldonado8207]

This is so true. It's why having an engineering division in either your ship or station is crucial.

[@raptor050]

I remember back when they were making episodes for ST: TNG. The Producers would consult with scientific advisors from NASA to help with the storyline and a US Navy advisor on the military structure aboard a Vessel.

[@control4230]

I've always found trek tech believeable when it's got a nugget of actual science in it, warp drive works because antimatter power is possible, photon torpedos work because antimatter would make a powerful weapon. Subspace works because extra dimensions are a real thing. Transporters work because they address the Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. It all makes it easy to suspend diebelief and go along with it. Not to mention a good bit of technobabble with some real science words thrown in, heavy lepton interference, inverse tachyon beams, ion storms, temporal flux....it just sounds like it makes perfect sense. It's when they out right make things up that I find it hard to believe, the spore drive being the most obvious example closely followed by the explanation for the burn.

[@warwolf88]

the burn always seemed odd to me u would think they would of moved beyond dilithium faster than light drives and developed something more sustainable

[@firstname9954]

you are wrong on the warp core actually,and on the "extra dimensions existing" isn't that just a theory in our world?

[@ManabiLT]

I can accept the explanation for The Burn, although I don't like it at all and wish they hadn't made that part of canon. It's explained reasonably well given what we know of science in the world of Star Trek. However, the spore drive makes no sense whatsoever, including the silly spinning thing the ship does when activating it. It's basically hand-wavium explanations from the top down, instead of something sounding possible. Notably there's no real mycelial network in space, nor even any theories that one exists.

[@ManabiLT]

@@firstname9954 Antimatter annihilation would release a lot of energy, that part is accurate. Extra dimensions is indeed just a theory at the moment.

[@GSBarlev]

​@@warwolf88I actually look to our *decades-long struggle* to move off of fossil fuel and see parallels to the lead-up to The Burn. Booker lays out in Episode One all the alternatives to Warp-slipstream requires boromite, transwarp conduits are highly unstable, solar sails are slow as balls (and unsaid, it probably pretty hard to get your hands on the protostar)-and given how _tried and true_ Warp has been across millennia (and it having been invented independently across thousands of worlds) and across cultures, I totally get it.

[@clearcutter74]

Deanna Troi's telepathy always seemed overpowered to me. Detecting emotions while talking to someone is one thing, but she could detect emotions down on the surface of a planet that the ship was orbiting, like long-range sensors.

[@vegeta002]

Hence, the episodes always make her an idiot or take her out of action.

[@anlumo1]

Yeah, especially when she could sense emotions through the viewscreen for the speaker on a different ship some AUs away.

[@ManabiLT]

Betazoid telepathy was a super power, Vulcan telepathy was much more grounded, since it required physical contact for the most part. (Spock mind-melding with V'ger being one notable exception.)

[@kaseyboles30]

@@ManabiLT V'ger was an unusual entity. Also Spock was well past contact with and was in a sense inside V'ger. sorta/kinda/from a certain point of view.

[@marvelboy74]

TNG wanted to have things that borrowed from TOS but still make it different. The mind meld was potentially over-used in TOS but it was a tool. Roddenberry didn't want to put another Vulcan in the main crew. Someone probably figured out standard telepathy usually breaks plots, so they downgraded Deanna to only being able to sense emotions, a lesser version of telepathy. Anyone who's read X-men comics knows that telepaths can be problematic for storytelling, so you have to either find a way to take them out of the game (being too sensitive and getting telepathy backlashes) or you put them against people who were immune to TP.

[@r4venprogr4m77]

For me it seems believable primarily because of the consistency of the rules, I think it comes from my love for games where everything you can do in a game has a more or less rigid set of conditions

[@TobyDeshane]

You nailed it, I think. I'd like to note that the 'new guard' (Trek'09 onwards) sometimes has trouble considering the long-term ramifications of the changes/additions they make to the technology canon: teleporting from Earth to Kronos (why use starships? or why not beam starships?), magic augment blood that cures death (why die?), spore drives that can go anywhere instantly (like Starfleet would have _actually_ stopped researching this).

[@GSBarlev]

On the other hand, the "new guard" are -all- mostly _Trek fanatics_ who've been pondering the lore for decades. For the Roddenberry years, the writers were just trying to draw a paycheck. For the Piller years, it was a passion. For the Kurtzman generation, it's a _religion._

[@Whiskey61]

@@GSBarlev What? This couldn't be more wrong. They don't care about Star Trek at all, they just want to use it to push their agenda.

[@MysteriousMose]

I think this is a good third principle of why it was believable: They didn't overreach. Real-world tech advances, but on a generational scale. The starships of TNG are faster, more powerful and more comfortable than the TOS era, but not unbelievably so. TNG's replicators and com-badges were a believable advancement over tech we'd seen before. When they introduced tech that could do something shockingly powerful there was usually a terrible downside to explain why everybody wasn't already using it. That's what killed Discovery's spore drive for me. If such a thing existed, everybody would use it all the time It was too big a leap in tech, especially for a prequel.

[@eXcommunicate1979]

​@@GSBarlev I seriously doubt the showrunners if Disco were star trek fanatics

[@GSBarlev]

@@eXcommunicate1979 First off: I was talking about the *writers and technical consultants,* not the showrunners. Second, I have nothing for you if you don't believe that Olatunde Osunsanmi and Michelle Paradise have shown _phenomenal_ reverence for _Trek._

[@builder396]

There is a third component. Established procedures. BSG does this well. Nobody ever explains how the jump drive works, just that it has many limitations due to needing jumps to be calculated, low range per jump and needing Tylium fuel. Other than that it has even less explanation than the Spore Drive, which does much the same thing. But all the procedures leading up to the jump, like the calculation, like retracting the flight pods, like preparing all the systems for it, like counting down for it, all make it feel like a very real thing, that was very complicated and needed a lot of training to use. And it clued into some elements of its operation over time. For Star Trek I guess a good example is the transporters. The operation always has this very specific moving of these three sliders, even in TOS, that is always prominently shown and connected to the process in a relevant way, and gets retained all the way to ENT at least. It really grounded the technology as something that was very touchable. You could almost consider those things rituals. Repeated patterns of actions with a clear significance. A step by step process that clearly leads to things happening every time that its done.

[@nicktechnubyte1184]

The tech is believable, but their limited use of it and their lack of safety and security is not!

[@kutter_ttl6786]

Yeah, I mean, I can't see it being very safe to put rocks inside the consoles.

[@-epistemus]

If OSHA survived until the 2300's they would implode the moment an agent stepped on a Federation ship.

[@masterhypnos6783]

@@-epistemusIndeed. Worf’s spinal cord injury certainly comes to mind.

[@Corbomite_Meatballs]

@@masterhypnos6783 Hey, those empty barrels aren't going to just NOT hit someone!

[@dannileigh6426]

To OP's point: Why aren't they just transporting cargo to secure spots instead of manually handled cargo, or using gravity plating as a means of anchoring them?@@Corbomite_Meatballs

[@williamkeogh710]

I've been a Trekkie since I was a kid in the 80s. Watched everything up thru Enterprise. As well as All the TOS and TNG movies and several books. In one of the later seasons of Voyager Belanna Torres speaks a ton of technobabble to Capt. Janeway. I turned to my mom who was sitting next to me and said ' Belanna just spoke about 3 paragraphs of pure techno babble and I understood everything she said.'

[@kfcroc18]

A lot of the high tech stuff in Star Trek feels like it's there because it sounds or looks high tech.

[@ShasLaMontyr]

This is an element of why I feel new Trek has some consistency issues. Discovery had the psychic space child tantrum near magic rocks kill millions of people and the Turbo Lift void. Though I think I'm bugged more by how large rocks are an issue for Discovery's shields in one episode of Disovery, and then shields in an episode of Strange New Worlds can handle putting the ship inside a brown dwarf without a slight issue with the air conditioning. I'm still bugged by S2 of Picard having Wesley Crusher say that the Universe is constantly nudged onto a timeline of his groups preference, and even more so that the time line they preferred is the one with the Burn :/

[@GSBarlev]

The Travelers / Watchers probably had to adhere to the terms of the Temporal Accords, so influencing events after the Temporal Wars would have been off the table.

[@SampoPaalanen]

another thing I think helps is that for the most parts the characters treat these as tech that's well known in universe so you don't get (often) get info-dumped on things the characters should already know nor do the characters really "speak to the audience" when they explain things. Some franchises fail on this account (and Star Trek does sometimes too, nobody is perfect after all) and over explain things in a way that sounds unnatural or sounds like they're breaking the 4th wall to explain things to audience that in-universe characters know, Star Trek avoids this for the most part.

[@GoodOldGamer]

I think another factor is Trek usually has science consultants as well, to extrapolate where current tech could end up in the future. It's how the communicators in TOS become flip phones irl eventually, and the touch screen tech from TNG eventually hits irl too. They generally don't go too far beyond the possible for most things.

[@Nova_Astral]

Touch screens were actually invented before even TOS, many of the screens in the TNG era shows were real touch screens and actually did things when you touched them.

[@brookatkins8111]

Absolutely they did - when they did TNG they actually consulted with NASA for speculative opinions as to how the tech would work & even what kind of tech.

[@jeffgaboury3157]

This was excellent Rick. I love your videos and I'm always excited to see you have another Star Trek video delving into ships and technologies.

[@DanielSolis]

That internal consistency is the key for me. So, if someone says "Chronotons" you know there's some time stuff going on. Also the best episodes don't rely on technobabble as a solution. It's fine if technobabble instigates the plot, as long as it doesn't *resolve* the problem.

[@GSBarlev]

Too bad "Tachyons" are such a catch-all, though...

[@Prepare2Prosper]

It's fine that most saifi don't dive too deeply into how things work. Most people don't know how the internal combustion engine in their car works and they're okay with that

[@skywise001]

Long ago in the TOS times I asked similar questions. I found out Gene actually talked to NASA and other scientists asking them what might be possible. Since then I have always kept that thought that - who knows it might happen. After all look at cell phones and tablets :D

[@kristofbe1]

The techno-babble in ST is often more consistent than the hacker talk in regular movies or TV shows.

[@dominic.h.3363]

Let's not get too wild here. The season seven TNG episodes with the element of the week and Voyager's triaxilating everything once 7 of 9 joined did plenty to do their damnedest to test our suspension of disbelief.

[@ponyperson7513]

The spore drive always gave me an nosebleed, but i could never articulate why, you did that now, thanks mate

[@Stormcrow_1]

Big problem with the spore drive is why did no other race discover and develop it? it has too great of a tactical advantage to not use it. And there are plenty of very old and advanced races whom would have had more than enough time to do so.

[@kendrakirai]

@@Stormcrow_1 simple answer; They did. That's how there are so many godlike beings to whom distance and time is just a suggestion.

[@shocktnc]

​@@kendrakiraiexcept they don't use spore drives

[@kendrakirai]

@shocktnc How do you know? Just because it doesn't look like the ones the Federation uses doesn't mean they don't use a form of it, or used it in the past.

[@Deltarious]

Honestly I do really 'buy in' to trek's tech and a lot of the comments have good reasons why too, but the least believable thing that remains in trek as a whole, at least for me, are the bridges on ships, their location and being so exposed. There isn't really a good reason or explanation for it. I *have* however played a game before that took all of it's inspiration for ships and tech from trek and the way they did it there seemed to make more sense- main bridges were deck one, top front of the ship for ceremonial, historical reasons and *also* because on either side of the bridge was the captain's ready room and a conference room both of which had real actual windows to look forward out of, which is just about the only practical reason I can think of why you'd want a bridge there specifically- we do get quite sentimental about seeing stuff 'for real'. The rest of the time we had a battle bridge that was located literally in the centre of the ship which was the primary bridge used for anything non exploration or ceremony based, and it was just as large as the 'main bridge'. Having that feeling of going to the 'top' of the ship to "deck one" and it being directly connected to the turbo lifts for convenience does seem to make sense from a 'feelings' point of view, but not from a practical one. Thus it always made the most sense to me that the 'battle bridge' should be just as big as the 'main' one, if not bigger, just like CICs are on ships today but to an even bigger extreme since there is even less use for seeing visually.

[@BNuts]

Beyond consistency and having a layered explanation, I believe it's important that the characters come across as understanding how things work as they use them. Because if it looks like _they_ believe that it can happen, it's much easier for the watching audience to believe it can too. I have no problem believing something can and will happen when someone like Scotty or Data say that they can make it happen. And I have grown a strong dislike for any 'a Q did it' type of handwaving. If there's any tech in _Trek_ I don't like, it's the 'do anything, anywhere, any time sort' that sucks any tension out of any scene where such is readily accessible. Which is the ultimate failure of _DISCO_ in its recent seasons. There are no stakes because there's no reason to believe Michael Burnham can't do whatever's needed instantly.

[@Daniel-Strain]

What's missing from this is the time range from today's level of technology in which this speculation takes place. For example, take (a) the Expanse, (b) Star Trek, and (c) Star Wars. There is a REASON Expanse seems the most grounded, Star Trek a little less so, and Star Wars even moreso - and it is entirely correct and appropriate in each case. The further the time period is from our time (or equivalent if another universe apart from earth), the more detached, incomprehensible, and 'magical' the tech should feel. The likes of Star Wars and Dune are tens of thousands of years more advanced than our time - not a few hundred as in Trek. They SHOULD feel almost magical. Their tech would be based on so many counter-intuitive understandings for one thing. For another, the tech is so complex, that you need for more extreme levels and extreme specializations of people working on it, so that what is known and explainable by one person, to a common person, too huge to handle. Consider how much more difficult it would be to explain the internet to someone from ancient Rome than it would be to explain it to someone from the 1950s.

[@ThisCanBePronounced]

This is a big reason why I never liked the term technobabble - even though it's pretty much a set term and I have to use it myself - since it always felt to me like a casual viewer's dismissal of critical elements of the show carefully thought up - or at least developed over time - by the writers. They are not meaningless terms to fake the existence of a system of rationale for some tech - that system DOES exist, and it's built up on and fairly consistently maintained over all of classic Trek. You do have lots of off one-off tech and (especially) events, but there's an effort to at least rationalize their existence and revisit them when a workable story comes up. Unfortunately, trying to air a collection of interesting stories is most important, so making sure something significant is revisited can't always happen.

[@tba113]

"Believable" and "consistent" are not terms I would use to describe Star Trek technology. The term "technobabble" emerged from TNG for a reason. I don't consider that to be a deal-breaker when it comes to enjoying the stories. A given episode is generally internally consistent enough for whatever magic governs a phaser or transporter this time around to make sense in the context of that episode, and having whizbang sci-fi tech like teleporters and brightly colored beam guns is part of the aesthetic. The fact that those systems will rely on similar but different rules a couple plot arcs from now (and they worked a bit differently last season) doesn't really change the characters, and those are where Trek really shines anyway. Seeing the clever captain and brave crew facing interesting villains and dangerous phenomena is what makes Trek compelling; the photon torpedoes and warp cores are almost incidental. Trek deserves its place as a trendsetter in sci-fi. But the tech the characters use is... Not what I'd bank on to sell the setting.

[@pauls478]

Trek-Tech works because it doesn't just reply on the "space magic" principle to make it happen. There is some grounding (no matter how limited or slight) in real-world science, and there is marvellous consistency between episodes and series when it comes to technobabble and the development/evolution of the tech.

[@razvanmazilu6284]

Well when it comes to in universe believability and abilities like telepathy, Star Trek already introduced the idea that omnipotent or nearly omnipotent, god like beings exist in universe early in its existence as a series, as well as the idea that it's possible for more "ordinary" beings to somehow ascend to or reach such levels of power. So if such beings exist in the Star Trek universe and you, as a viewer, are willing to accept it, then it's not really a stretch to accept that there also beings or races that poses certain more limited abilities that nevertheless go beyond what you'd associate with what "normal" humans/humanoids should be capable of. I guess they're the ones who, in some way or another, have started bridging the gap between a, let's say, physically bound existence and one that transcends it. Honestly, I haven't really thought that much about it, but I'd say some form of undefined telepathy, as you've put it, is probably easier to handwave than the existence of beings that can pretty much do anything at the snap of a finger. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if someone like Q doesn't break your suspension of disbelief, then I guess telepathy shouldn't either. Personally I don't think I've ever had a problem suspending my disbelief when it comes to science fiction or fantasy for that matter. What I care much more about is internal consistency. If you've set an expectation of what is or isn't possible or of how certain things are supposed to work and then, at some latter point, you break that... that's when it starts bothering me.

[@chemputer]

6:50 I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Quantum Entanglement in real life or in science fiction? Because IRL we *know* it doesn't facilitate the transfer of _information_ faster than the speed of light. In scifi sometimes it does for some reason or another which is fine, I'm just curious which you're talking about.

[@Moonbeam143]

If you're getting too worried about how they eat, and breath just repeat to yourself it's just a show. You should really just relax.

[@MysteriousMose]

This layering is one of my favorite things about Trek. It's always disappointing to peel back the layers and find nonsense. But when you peel back the layers of Trek you find lovingly-crafted technical manuals and beautiful schematics. The great designers like Sternbach, Probert and Eaves clearly designed their ships, props and sets with the fictional science and design lineages in mind. The ships didn't just have to look cool or scary, they had to look RIGHT in the technological and cultural context already established. That kind of passion and craftsmanship is a rare thing. As a visual person, that's why the tech feels believable to me.

[@DARTHMARC0720]

As a writer I’ve realized what draws people in and pushes them away from universes like Lotr, Star Trek, Warcraft, etc. The biggest things are consistency and grounding. When a story follows consistent rules and behaviors, the suspension of disbelief stays low and the IP is enjoyable; when an orphan with no training can best a sith knight with years of training over the course of a minute, people leave your work by the millions. Grounding is what draws us in: why is it relatable? The environment, the struggle, the people? The better explained and detailed it is, the easier it is to stay connected, and when those elements are called into question during the story, the audience is as eager to resolve it as the characters. This is why overpowered characters are almost always boring and uninteresting, as are characters that never make mistakes or do anything wrong. Star Trek grounds itself in an above average capacity and has average consistency. It was higher but thanks to the constant push to produce content for the universe those values keep dropping over the last 20 years. This is only my opinion, of course. Spectacle is not an appropriate compensator for story-accurate story development. Case-in-point: Discovery season 2 end battle versus DS9 fight to defend mine-laying at wormhole, season 5 ending. Discovery felt lazy, too much was on screen, along with an unlikely response to the situation. An AI is trying to take over and they’re sending several ships to hunt us down? Don’t contact Starfleet or other ships for help, of which, canonically, there are thousands in the territory by this point. No, better to clutter the screen with easily targeted and destroyed minor vehicles that distract from the importance of what’s happening. DS9: when’s Starfleet sending help? Oh they’re busy with something important and can’t spare ships, that sounds unlikely but at least it’s addressed. So we can defend the Defiant on our own? Maybe, but if we don’t, the entire quadrant is at risk. We do have improved shields that the Dominion and Cardassians don’t realize we’ve developed, and the Rotarran is hiding nearby to ensure it ambushes any attackers. The minefield is setup, how do we win this battle? ...oh, we’re leaving the station? ...When are we coming back home? Night versus Day.

[@pjt]

Stargate sg1 starts off with mp5s and Kevlar and ends with particle weapons and space superiority fighters and it all makes sense

[@Marconius6]

The cool thing about all the layers is they actually become part of the writing and stories, they aren't just an explanation in a reference book for ultra nerds somewhere. The downside of this is when a series or movie ignores some of these established rules, it becomes way more of an issue.

[@topcat1255]

Well done, Rick! Cranking the Geek-O-Meter up to 11! Loved it!

[@feralprocessor9853]

The spore drive shenanigans visually seems to be like deus ex machina above the standard warp drive.

[@Uni790]

What helps me believe some of it, is how much of it is actually happening around us, cell phones and the like, I mean what you went over helps too, but it's not hard to believe the rest of it, when you can look around and everyone has at least one of TOS's communicators, lol.

[@timothy1701]

Can we talk about how warp drive has changed? During old trek, and before the Alcubierre warp drive, the way warp drive worked was by using subspace. The warp bubble would phase the ship with subspace, thus reducing the ships apparent mass, allowing for FTL. If you watch certain episodes of TNG or even voyager, they even make references to this. But ever since Alcubierre's warp drive theory became commonly known both the fandom and the modern shows all imply that's how warp drive works. Which is fine, but I'm confused on where subspace fits into the equation now.

[@RobKMusic]

THIS THIS THIS!! I've never heard anyone else talk about this. The warp field reduces the ship's apparent mass so that the impulse drive can push the ship past 1c. The further the mass is reduced, the faster you can go. This would also be a direct result of the existence of, and the ability to manipulate, the "graviton" (which is used all over other Trek technologies). Once you can manipulate gravity, you have access to the OTHER side of that equation… apparent mass.

[@Monody512]

I think I remember something about like... the more you warp space around something, the deeper into subspace it gets submerged. Picture folding the plane of space around something until it's in effectively a closed pocket hanging from the underside of the plane. I don't remember where I heard that concept though.

[@kaitlyn__L]

That wasn’t the explanation for warp drive, that was the explanation for impulse drive and how it’s better than “regular” thrusters (which themselves are already microfusion rockets!) It doesn’t matter how much you reduce the inertial mass, so long as it’s positive you’ll still merely asymptotically approach c. Subspace was always said to create a warp bubble around the ship and ride the wave, this even was made very explicit in the TNG episode about the “soliton wave” (which is actually what inspired Alcubierre IIRC!)

[@HCBailly]

I'm reminded of a comment by a showrunner (paraphrased), "You don't have to be realistic. You just need to be convincing."

[@jonleonard1555]

I've heard of this idea of only needing up to 3 layers of explanation for a lore decision, to be satisfactory. A classic post is one that explains "Why don't the vampires use the sewer systems to travel around the town?" A: Because there are giant alligators. Q. Why are there giant alligators and how do they survive down there? A. There's a group of nuns that keep them fed and protected. Q. Where did the NUNS COME FROM? A. The nuns use the alligators to protect the town from the vampire menace. Duh. Anything beyond that is just over thinking it.

[@CertifiablyIngame]

I heard that idea a long while ago. The basis for this video is that "Layer theory", but I could not find an actual name for it so that made it hard to trace where I had heard it before. Was trying to actually find a name for it like "Occam's Razor" or "Chekhov's Gun" so I could reference it properly but I couldn't find it again. :/

[@feralprocessor9853]

Pretty awsome and deadly lazer weopons from big to small.

[@mr51406]

Excellent video! ⭐️ I totally agree with you. When you ask someone “How does the Heisenberg compensator work?” and they answer “Very well,” you want to know that they’re laughing with you not at you. Trek’s tongue is always in its cheek. Everything is true, “Especially the lies.”

[@scottfw7169]

Say, that reminds me, I need some pants hemmed and jacket sleeves shortened.

[@ukeyaoitrash2618]

No no no, it's the other way around with warp drive. Alcubierre apparently literally send an email to Shattner that his warp drive was inspired by star trek. He also refers to "the warp drive in science fiction" in his paper. The warp drive was, thus, pretty much invented in star trek and is now worked on in the real world - NOT the other way around!

[@CertifiablyIngame]

Pretty sure I did say "from TNG" onwards when referring to the standardised warp behind the scenes. I was not sure exactly why they settled on that drive to explain warp but I know that it did happen at a point waaay post-TOS, it's cool to see that theory was inspired by Star Trek!

[@AlexandarHullRichter]

I think a large part of making the technology believable is simply making it not overpowered. If the characters have a technology so powerful that it can accomplish their goals with relative ease, that makes it not believable. If, however, the characters have to understand how their technology works, and they have to use it in a way that they find challenging, that makes the story compelling, and the compelling story makes the technology more believable.

[@scottfw7169]

Good point there.

[@theonlyjacknicole]

I hope you can also discuss Stargate’s believability, since it is not set in a distant future, but in our current time. I haven’t seen you discuss Stargate in any video. Thanks in advance! 😊

[@shocktnc]

technically its based in the past

[@malguskerensky]

Thank you for the videos! I wish STO either added story content quicker or added a means to replay the various story arcs to provide fresh content for your excellent series.

[@芦白龙]

"The Mycelial Network"

[@housecoatgaming]

(Clap clap clap) He gets it. So does Terry Matalas. That is why Picard Season 3 hit it on the nail when Seasons 1 and 2, were questionable and mediocre, Lower Decks is grating, STD was _insulting_ and SNW just...made it worse. Be. _Consistent._ But do not _just_ be consistent. Be _good._ The writing of every Kurtzman-era show, with the sole exception of Picard S3, has been _garbage._ But characterization and plot are another story. Tech speaking, _nothing_ about STD's makes any sense whatsoever. And the more they try, the more they fail.

[@signaltome]

Hey, the magic man CAN do anything with a snap of his fingers! 😛 But to get more real, while I have always felt I am fully grounded in reality I have also always had a very high tolerance for suspension of disbelief. (But is it not that that makes us sci-fi/fantasy fans to begin with? 😉) So while my rational mind know that teleporters and magic is not true because the real world HVE no such things and are likely to never have them, I can still play along and "act" as if that is perfectly reasonable inside that fictional settings story. I have never thought of it in exactly the way you phrase it I think I have had similar thoughts on why ST sounds so believable. Many things are based on real theories which makes the so called technobabble feel real in most cases, and the layers of deeper explanations are just good enough to help with the SOD. What I am saying is that this makes very much sense to me, that you have set words to my vague understanding of the same thing. I would agree! Thank you.

[@rogerr.8507]

MODIFY THE PHASE VARIANCE

[@dantheplasticman9742]

Really been a fan of your vids for a couple years now sir, be they class breakdowns, legacy videos or the Story Series of STO. Keep up the great work Ric!

[@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701]

The Spore Drive is PURE *Magic BS* ... Esp. in a Franchise that tackles often at least theoretical concepts like Star Trek

[@kaitlyn__L]

This has crystallised a lot of ideas I’ve had while discussing some of these topics with people. Especially the layers of mechanics ultimately leading to “because we said so”, as I realised there’s still no definitive answer as to whether a warp coil alone can warp space or if you always need dilithium plasma to do it. Ultimately both have been said to have subspace components and it’s fiction and doesn’t really matter. But that’s when I started to think, this isn’t as well thought out as it seems on the surface and they just have a lot of interlocking smoke and mirrors to keep it looking fairly plausible without much digging. It’s still fun to talk about though.

[@Corbomite_Meatballs]

The Phoenix was able to jump to Warp 1 w/o dil (that we know of) and likely some type of warp coil. Pretty sure ENT didn't have dil, but I can't find a good source to say whether or not that's the case.

[@jonesthemoblin1400]

I think there are 2 core problems with the spore drive. On the one hand, it doesn't seem any more well explained than Warp was back in the 60s but warp had the advantage of relativity being counter-intuitive. We look at warp and go "Yeah, that makes sense because going faster makes us get places quicker." and that's all the explanation people REALLY need for things like Warp drive, hyperdrive, slipspace drive, etc. On the other hand, we don't travel via mushroom in reality and most people don't know that mushrooms can be massive organisms that are able to transmit information at baffling speeds from one part of itself to another. The spore drive is based on this concept, but it's unintuitive at the jump, and the writers didn't put in any effort to explain the base idea. They just assumed we'd understand mushrooms like we understand "go fast" and never tried beyond that. Not that any amount of information would make the Spore Drive "work". I think space technology has to work on an intuitive level at its base, or it will never connect to the viewer. Again, Warp works because we understand "go fast" intuitively, and it only breaks down when you add less intuitive understandings of how space and time work.

[@dextrian]

As an engineer, i kinda do that every day: there is a tech, for the job, it works for something, and it use a principal (electrical resistance, magnetics, material engineering, ultrasound, etc...) , ok... what subprincipal ? (Ressonance? PID? 4D matrix? Diferential equations? ) by them... trust me, it looks so much like startrek, that startrek seen far more beliveble them how a lorawan network is capable to work in reallife. 😂 Same for solar energy, in photovoltaic panels... layer one: the sun, 2nd layer, photo voltaic principal + simple diode theory , 3rd layer, Laplace diferential equations + thermodynamics