this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
194 points (99.0% liked)
TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name
7036 readers
708 users here now
/c/TenForward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!
Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.
~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 3. Use spoiler tags.
Use spoiler tags in comments, and NSFW checkbox for posts.
This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.
~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'
~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.
Fun will now commence.
Sister Communities:
Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!
Creator Resources:
Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)
Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That gets into the "why can't they do this" part of transporters. If they can do too much, then lots of things become unnecessary. Lots of episodes where the transporter cures an illness or gets people out of a situation. IRL it's what you want, but not in a story (insert three panel "intro problem/quick solution/credits")
They explained Riker's as a very unique situation that couldn't be duplicated (convenient). Ignored various episodes that solved it through transporter filtering, never using it again.
What about the mass problem? Did the transporter create more mass for the two Rikers? (It's a particle beamer, not energy) Did Tuvok have double the mass? Is this a good way to lose weight?
As a new scifi writer, I've run into that problem of where to cut off trying to explain too much about the pretend technology I'm using and hope the reader accepts that it just works that way and stop asking questions.
Joss Whedon did a remarkable job of this in Firefly. They had a big spinny analog with mechanical parts that could be fixed by one woman with wrenches. Never explained interplanetary travel, never had to explain it. When you saw the engine room, you knew exactly what you were seeing, because you filled in the spaces with your own imagination. Simple, satisfying, character-driven storyline. "Engine breaks" was the driving plot point of one episode and it was effective, because the crew didn't have time for technobabble. The ship was the deeply loved character in danger. They had to abandon her to save themselves. One part would fix her and they didn't have it available.
I heard a writer say once that you should internally have three layers of explanation, and provide those or more as it becomes necessary. Like “These are transporters. They break you into molecules, store your data, and reassemble you on the other side. What if there’s a malfunction? Safety features would keep the data in the buffer.” And maybe one more. Reader’s eyes glaze over if you talk about any more than that, so more can wait until it becomes plot significant.
Or so I heard, I’m not a writer.
I saw an interview with their physics/science consultant, who found it a very frustrating job. He said they'd bring him a script, and say "We've got this problem, and we want to get out of it by doing (some nonsensical science thing). What do you think?"
And he'd tell them that it was ridiculous, no such thing exists, it wouldn't work like that, it's stupid, it's impossible, WTF?, etc., and they'd say "Eh, we're doing it anyway."
This is exactly how the best episodes of Trek worked.
That sounds right. Have an outline of what might be necessary for a situation, but don't over explain it. And while it's for visual media, I think Roddenberry's suggestion also works. Don't take out a technology and explain it, just show it in use (don't tell). The reader will get it.
I've always been suspicious of any explanation they gave for their molecule scrambler. Starfleet is at core a military establishment, and they will say any kind of lie to keep the plebs in line and everything running smoothly. Also, I think the buffer allows them to use some sort of mass reserve to fix missing bits, I think Scotty explained something like that when he put himself in the buffer and turned on the refresh to cycle, and it just did the whole thing for Riker. Now, whether that buffer is holding particles or just a record of the poor destroyed original, I don't know what to believe. (All speculation of course, based on years of transporter incidents.)