I would be okay with being demoted back to my old position at my current job as long as I could keep the new paycheck.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 10:05 am: Edit

Yesterday, I watched some YouTube videos (too many, to be honest) including a few Trek fan-films. Not one but two of them had "cloned" characters due to transporter malfunctions. I'm with Bones and Barclay: let's just get rid of that thing!!


Garth L. Getgen

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 - 09:00 pm: Edit

It *is* basically the laziest writing device yet conceived (well, until the Holodeck came along, anyway - and certainly how-exactly-do-they-work 'invisible energy shields' are a close runner-up...)

One of the biggest missed opportunities in 'Enterprise', really - dropping those right into the pilot episode and then using them regularly throughout the run of the series. Just...?WHY? Tech development at about the level of 'The Expanse' + warp drive would have been an extremely interesting series...

(Especially since some races would still HAVE regular-Trek-technology-levels)

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 10:48 am: Edit

Agreed, I thought when they brought in the transporter that was not safe for living things they would rarely use it.

The transporter was originally put in TOS as a way to avoid having to make expensive sets. They did not want to have to land the ship and have it appear in the background (expensive set) or use other craft to land (expensive set) so they had transporters.

Now they have to make up endless excuses as to why transporters do not work when the plot requires it. Same with their "see everything" sensors. It seems every other planet has a mineral or metal that blocks sensors and transporters.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 02:08 pm: Edit

The transporter was far too tempting to ignore if available.

The mistake with the shuttle pod was that only 2 or 3 characters at a time can be filmed easily. Unfortunately, with a large expensive cast and a desire to have them all on screen at once, the shuttle pod turns into overtime for the director as each angle has to be filmed separately. One would have expected the Enterprise producers to have caught the problem before production after seeing two recent series (DS9 and B5) replace their small awkward craft with ships that could put the cast all on the same bridge.

Execution is what matters not the reuse of a hoary concept. I think a lot of current writers would be happier working in musical theater where it was expected for a character to lay out the entire personality in a song instead of trying medications or technological gimmicks to expose the secrets.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 06:08 pm: Edit

So, I have a Trek-based story in mind where a planet is inhabited by people whose ancestors were transplanted from Earth some 1700 years ago (very much like those in "This Side OF Paradise"). They have stories from life on Earth, although some of their people believe it's nothing more than fantasy legends and myths. Their government's official position is to try to contact Earth. They are sending signals out, but it's only been a short few years and so the signal hasn't reached anyone yet. They have begun their first steps to reach for the stars, just now making their first landing on one of their moons, but it turns into an Apollo Thirteen moment.

Put yourself into our Star Fleet hero's shoes: do you sit back and watch the astronauts die, or do you expose yourself and advanced technology to save them?


Garth L. Getgen

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Garth I would save them and be danged what the big bosses say afterwards.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Gregory S. Flusche:

And I would vote "guilty" as a member of your court martial board at this juncture.

Garth L. Getgen:

There is, literally, insufficient information to make a decision. If you go back 1,700 years, the population that was gathered can have been anything from Cultured Chinese or relatively decadent Romans, to little better than hunter-gatherer aborigines from Australia. Where they are culturally when abducted starts to define where they might be 1,700 years later. If they were aborigines from Australia, even if they advanced massively faster, their beliefs about the legends of how they "evolved" on their home planet are likely not going to be taken as seriously. If they were Chinese from the more advanced parts of China, there is a good chance they might be able to internalize what happened and maintain the story.

Science develops in fits and starts, and if you start with a more cultural advancement, they might have found enough DNA differences to realize they do not fit the "fossil record" of their current home planet. But, even so, that might just strengthen the "creation myth" that they (as a people) sprung fully formed in "God's image."

If my ship is close enough to be observing, then you get into questions of how long have we been observing. What have we picked up from their entertainment broadcasts on where they are culturally.

And that gets you into what the "Cultural anthropologists" say. Are they advancing down a different road and need more time before "first contact," or are they culturally at the point where "first contact" will not destabilize and cause the (literal) collapse of their civilization?

In short, it is not just the lives of three astronauts (assuming their Apollo 13 analog also had a crew of three, and only three), but the larger effect on their society of our intervention to save them. Trying to save just three lives could result in potentially millions being killed on the planet due to societal collapse (think religious fanatics who refuse to believe that they are not the supreme creations of God and who have access to nuclear arms as a possibility).

It is extremely unlikely that a civilization would (in 1,700 years) have only one government. There would inevitably have been conflicts and divisions, and separation and the development of separate and competing tribes, then city states, then nation states as technology developed and philosophies developed.

Sorry to be such a downer.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 07:22 pm: Edit

It is not that I do not want to save them, it is that the action has consequences, and sometimes doing what seems the right thing (saving three lives) is the wrong thing (because it triggers events beyond your control that result in far more deaths).

It is in essence that same problem with being on the West side of the Berlin Wall. No matter how much you want to fire on the East German Border Guards shooting at the East German citizen trying to defect, you cannot because it might trigger a series of escalations that could lead to World War III right now, today.

If private Flusche does fire, or Sergeant Flusche orders his squad to fire, or Lieutenant Flusche orders his platoon to fire, each simply in an effort to just make the East German Border Guards duck so that the defector can make it, I will court martial him.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 07:38 pm: Edit

If the "Official Government Position" is to try to contact Earth, would there really be the xenophobic reaction outside of an extremist fringe?

For my two cents worth, I would imagine not.

OTOH: there are many in the scientific community who are concerned over what may happen if the first aliens to discover Earth regard us as little more than vermin. I would suspect that there would be some in that world's scientific community who have the same concern.

Between their relief from not having to worry about the "Advanced, Bug-Eyed Monsters" conquering their world to the joy and relief at the salvation of the crew of their Bravest, the locals equivalent of NASA administrators would be quick to help establish communications with the visiting starship.

Furthermore, as a world on the verge of being a spacefaring civilization, WOULD they be subject to "Containment" according to the standards of the Prime Directive, or would their level of technology warrant the necessity of contact to warn them of potential dangers.

Again, and this is just a guess on my part, but even if this world WAS at the societal stage WE were at, at the time of Apollo 13, a discrete rescue of the three astronauts and a quiet conversation with the NASA administrators would be the limited contact that the officials in the government would be able to hide (from "The Other Side," if necessary, or as something they'd be keeping hidden from their own people).

As such, if there truly WAS the potential for civilization wrecking shockwaves, it would be something the locals should find controllable.

By Mark Hoyle (Usa_Retired) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 08:27 pm: Edit

If you wanted to avoid contact, but give them some information (not technical), drop a probe into their space. In a position for them to find/capture to know the development of earth (after their departure).

They know they aren't on their home planet, so that shouldn't have much interference, but have to do a limited amount of information.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 09:47 pm: Edit

I would of course have to accept my court martial. Then because this is the goody two shoes federation i would be sent to some remote colony to live out my life.

Mind you i am going by what Garth had written and assuming i knew about the premise they are from earth.

By Mark Hoyle (Usa_Retired) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 10:01 pm: Edit

With transporters, you could save the crew, without the planet knowing. Humanity without interference.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Sigh. Not that simple. The astronauts either know they were saved by advanced technology, or you have an impossible to resolve mystery that can be seen as an act of "God."

Again, we are talking a human society that has been cut off for 1,700 years. It is not established what their start point was. There is not enough information to justify an intervention.

You have no right to risk shattering the existing society. And if you simply save their lives and take them away, how would you feel to be alive but never able to see your family again.

As I said before, without a heck of a lot more information on this planet's society, I would not intervene. I have to take the larger picture.

By Mark Hoyle (Usa_Retired) on Wednesday, September 05, 2018 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I wouldn't send the crew back to the planet. Yes, you isolate them from everything they know, but you save their lives.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 05:55 am: Edit

I dunno. Where is the line that says "this is the point where new civilizations can be contacted?"

Space flight
Interplanetary flight
FTL flight?

I'd say that once you get to space (the "Sputnik moment") then you might be contacted.

Given the background in TOS/ SFB universes there isn't a long time between Sputnik and the first FTL...

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 10:16 am: Edit

I would actually destroy their space ship. But then, I am from the Mirror, Mirror universe, so...

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 10:21 am: Edit

I was going to say the same thing, except replace "space ship" with "planet".

Nuke it from orbit. Only way to be sure.

Save the 3 astronauts - put them in a petting zoo for lost cultures.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 11:37 am: Edit

If I tolerate the Prime Directive at all, I let them die. If they're at 1960's level of tech, there are probably thousands of them dying EVERY DAY on the planet that my tech could trivially save. What's three more drops in the ocean?

Mind, the Prime Directive is EVIL, that's why Kirk violated it within seconds of it being mentioned in every TOS episode where it ever came up.

But three astronauts who knew they were risking death compared to the thousands of kids starving to death and the millions dying of preventable diseases? Why should THESE deaths be the ones I try to prevent. Somewhere on the world below a mother is watching in tears as her child dies of dysentery, a child is watching her mother die painfully of cancer, and a ship is sinking in a storm. I'm ignoring all that. I can ignore the astronauts. If I'm not prepared to stare into the eyes of a dying child, or of a child whose mother is dying, and say "Tough ••••, we won't even try to help even though we could, and we will actively prevent anyone else from helping even if they want to", then I shouldn't be in a Starfleet that has this particular Prime Directive. Maybe the Klingons are recruiting, at least they don't try to claim that callus indifference to the suffering of others is somehow virtuous.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 01:48 pm: Edit

For what it is worth.

It is not that I completely lack compassion, or that I am a martinet blindly following the dictates of bureaucrats.

It is that I have far too much imagination to be compassionate without knowing the probable consequences.

Sure, two of the three astronauts may be willing to live out their lives as "guests" of my more advanced civilization were I to rescue them, and thus it is unfair to let them all die on the basis that maybe one of them would rather die then spend the rest of his or her life unable to contact family and friends.

The universe is not fair, and I have no way of knowing how the three astronauts feel about the subject, or would feel about it a year after their rescue and isolation.

And, again, I have to weigh their three lives against the possible disruption to their entire society were I to prematurely reveal the existence of the star spanning empire to which I belong.

As far as "first contact" and where a society needs to be, there have been episodes of Star Trek: TNG (well ... at least one) where they basically said that a civilization has to be on the verge of discovering warp capability. Not just able to get into orbit or walk on their moon. Perhaps it is assumed that a civilization that has reached warp capability would be one that had solved its "local problems" (pollution, medical, food, etc.) and is thus ready to become a part of the empire rather than a "dependency" where the empire has to spend its treasure to raise up the downtrodden masses and teach generations of children how to be useful members of galactic society. I do not know.

Douglas Lampert does, after all, make valid points (if you are going to save the astronauts, why do not not also save the people perishing as a result of famine, solve the water shortages in region X, deliver the new improved high yield crops, end the ongoing war between regions Y and Z, etc., etc.

Lacking a lot more information, I am going to let the astronauts perish rather than prematurely intervene because there are far more risks of things going horribly wrong by intervening.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Or another way of looking at it:

"The needs of the many (society not collapsing as a result of our actions) outweigh the needs of the few (rescuing the astronauts), or the one."

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Steve, you say you are lacking information to make a different call. Okay, so if you had the time (I.e., a couple days inbound picking up their radio/TV signals) to learn more about the planet before hand, what would you want/need to see that would make you willing to step in and save them??


Garth L. Getgen

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 04:07 pm: Edit

The Prime Directive always seemed to me like a copout. It is possible our attempts to help could do more harm then good. That is the case with almost every decision in life.

The idea that each species needs to develop on its own to its potential sounds virtuous but a species is not an entity. The people on the planet now are and ignoring suffering you could prevent now because of some abstract cultural development in the future seems immoral.

You may be in the midst of a plague I could cure but the suffering of this plague might inspire an artist or writer or theorist in the future? No one short of a God has enough information to know whether the long-term tradeoff is worth it. You just do the best you can.

The Prime Directive seems like an abdication of reasoning and compassion.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 04:11 pm: Edit

I read a non-Star Trek short story about explorers with something similar to a Prime Directive. The explorers were on the planet and met a queen of a local city-state. She was heavily interested in advancement and would pay bounties to people with good ideas or good songs or art. They discovered she had cancer. One idealist amongst the explorers pretended to be a healer from a far off land and cured her, thinking she was worth saving. The treatment had a strange effect on her as the medicine was not designed for her species and she became immortal.

Using her vast wisdom she ended up slowly taking over the world relatively peacefully and the civilization skyrocketed forward. Much of the story is about the exploration agency trying to cover the whole thing up but it turns out saving the queen accidentally turned the planet into a relative utopia, a rebuke of the Prime Directive concept.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, September 06, 2018 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Also note (I finally looked it up as it had been bugging me) the colony for the episode "This side of paradise" was not an ancient one, but had in fact been recently established by Federation citizens. The threat of the Berthold rays was not known when the colony was established, and the Enterprise was sent to evacuate the colonists, although it was feared they were already too late. Why in the initial scene on the planet we see a perfectly intact farm and Kirk and company are sad that the colonists came all this way just to die, and then are surprised when the colonists great them.

Basically the time interval between the colony's establishment and the arrival of Captain Kirk and crew is at most a handful of years, not 1,700 years, and the colonists are completely aware of the Federation (and thus not only surprised by the appearance of Spock, but at least one of them happened to know Spock personally).