When will there be a hard science fiction version of Star Trek? Star Trek could be so much better, so much more realistic, using actual science. I hate the fantasy shit in Star Trek, I mean, Transporters... the dumbest fucking shit, destroying bodies and then they magically re-appear in another location perfectly fine?
Horrible kiddie crap, they last 2 movies were like video games, and a insult to people with intelligence. America is being destroyed in science education by other countries, stop feeding kids fantasy crap, and use real science in science fiction. It will stop America from producing retards and will inspire them to be young people with the intelligence for employment in the sciences.
>>62793639
Yeah, Star Trek without warp drives would be so much better.
>>62793829
I never said anything in my post about not having Warp Drive, I said no Transporters. Learn how to read.
Obviously for the sake of meeting alien civilizations you would need a propulsion system better than conventional spaceflight. Warp Speed could be used in name for the sake of nostalgia, but the realistic science for such a drive would have to be used and explained in the show, not just a vague and lazy description of its use that previous Star Trek has always done.
>>62794326
>no transporters
Watch Enterprise.
>>62794361
twas a decent enough show, when the writing didn't make your head hurt. A lot of decent details when it came to the lower tech theme
>>62793639
They get away with this because in Star Trek they use an advanced level of science that is beyond current human understanding senpai
>>62794326
warp drives don't exist. how the hell does one explain the real science behind a warp drive?
>>62794425
also, IT'S A FUCKING TV SHOW
>>62793639
What you're asking probably wouldn't make for an exciting show and keeping all the science consistent/sound would probably be a pain in the ass for writers, taking time better spent developing an interesting story.
>>62794441
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
What are the last ten hard SF novels you really enjoyed, OP?
>>62794550
>Brendan McMonigal, Geraint F. Lewis, and Philip O'Byrne have argued that when an Alcubierre-driven ship decelerates from superluminal speed, the particles that its bubble has gathered in transit would be released in energetic outbursts akin to a sonic boom shockwave; in the case of forward-facing particles, energetic enough to destroy anything at the destination directly in front of the ship.
That's pretty fucking neat.
>>62793639
you strip away all the startrek memes, it won't be startrek anymore
>>62793639
>Transporters... the dumbest fucking shit, destroying bodies and then they magically re-appear in another location perfectly fine?
The idea isn't impossible. We already can teleport. Even if it's only a Photon at a time, so far.
>>62793639
Autism: The post
>>62793639
>Uses actual science
>Makes Star Trek movie about us flying around a small portion of our own solar system
Sounds great anon.
>>62795368
You are responding to bait.
>>62795426
it was called Defying Gravity
it got cancelled after half a season
