|
MAKING THE
INCREDIBLE
CREDIBLE |
|
| One of the things that Gene Roddenberry decided that he wanted to do when he created Star Trek (the first series, known as [TOS]) was to try to incorporate as much real space science as possible into the show, because it helps the audience believe in the show. It is something that we do essentially for dramatic reasons to help bring the audience into this fictional universe, but to give the audience enough sort of touchstones that are real to believe that this universe could some day exist. |
Gene Roddenberry |
And part of doing that is staying up to speed with modern-day astronomy and incorporating some of the discoveries that are being now by instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, and also incorporating elements that are well known and have been known for a long time like the local geography of our little section of the Milky Way.
As Science Consultant for [Star Trek: Voyager] and [Star Trek: Deep Space Nine] I have the job of helping the shows' writers
and producers create plausible representations and descriptions
of future sciences while remaining true to established science as it
is understood today.
My involvement with a Star Trek episode typically begins with the
first-draft teleplay (script). I read the teleplay with an eye toward scientific concepts and technical language, for scientific and technical accuracy and primarily for mistakes or problems from a "real science" perspective - those that conflict with known science, theorems, and laws of physics. Star Trek writers typically have a good sense of the kind of language that should be used to
describe stars, planets, sensor readings, and so on. If the writer isn't
sure of the best terminology for a particular scientific phenomenon or
twenty-fourth-century technology, the word "tech" will appear in the
script. This is my cue to suggest appropriate language. Occasionally
writers will call me to discuss and clarify scientific concepts or technical language before they begin writing a script.
After I finish reading the teleplay, I write a set of technical
notes and fax them to the Star Trek offices at Paramount. The writer
reads the notes and selects the tech suggestions he or she feels
will work best in the context of the story. This process continues
through the various script drafts and draft revisions.
selection of comments, dated 25th July 1994, on the [#1 and #2 Caretaker] script; the story aired 16th January 1995
And finally, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach "tech" a script from a "bogus science" standpoint i.e. the 24th century science and technology upon which much of the Star Trek universe is based. Wherever possible, anything previously established, going all the way back to [TOS], must be acknowledged, adhered to, or dealt with in the appropriate manner. Okuda and Sternbach read each script, keeping an eye out for violations and inconsistencies that would pose any type of conflict. Their comments, are widely circulated, to alert everyone of changes that may need to be made, and why.
Mike Okuda (left) and Rick Sternbach pose for a photograph in the corridor set of USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D
One of the most challenging aspects of creating technical language for Star Trek is that the majority of the technical jargon must
be descriptive, not explanatory. Excluding commercials and credits,
each Star Trek episode runs about forty-three minutes. Forty-three minutes is barely enough time to tell a complete and interesting
story, let alone to explain the physics of an exotic spatial phenomenon or the cause of a breakdown in the warp core's magnetic containment field. But viewers who watch the show closely will see that there is a high level of consistency in the technical language featured in Star Trek episodes. Over the years, the writers, producers, and various advisors and consultants have developed a kind of 24th century scientific lexicon that, we hope, gives our audience a sense of the science behind the science fiction.
Because the current Star Trek series take place nearly 400 years in the future and depicts technologies far beyond
the capabilities of present-day science, the producers of Star Trek
must occasionally create some "24th century science" to
provide a plausible foundation for Trek technologies and the extraordinary phenomena our crews encounter in space. Since I am
trained in late-twentieth-century physics, this was one of the hardest things for me to get comfortable with when I started working
for the show. When a writer creates an interesting space phenom-
enon for a story, for example, my initial impulse is to try to explain
it in terms of present-day physics and space science. Sometimes
this just doesn't work.
When I work on a Star Trek script, I always first try to find
something in real science that fits the dramatic needs of the story.
If I can't find anything appropriate, I try to use a theory or idea on
the "cutting edge" of present-day science and extrapolate it into
the twenty-fourth century. And if all else fails, I invent new "science". I strive to keep the invented science in the realm of the
plausible by using analogies to known science.
I was always trying to keep the astronomy of [Voyager] as close to what we know in the real world is possible, and I think that's part of the success of the show is that it has a pretty credible setting. We would occasionally run into these bizarre spatial phenomena that are sort of pure fiction, but in terms of things like the average distance between stars, the nature of stars and planets, the nature of the interstellar medium and so forth, all of that stuff was very close to the real world and the galaxy as we understand it today. For the most part we always tried to be very consistent on [Voyager] with our present-day understanding of the nature of the Milky Way, and the nature of stars and planets.
One thing I will never knowingly do is use an established term
from present-day science in an inappropriate way. If, say, "inertia" isn't the correct word in the given context, I won't use it, even if it
might sound good to a lay audience.
| The prefix "iso" means "equal". Bormanis invented the "isoton" as a unit for the measurement of the explosive force of a photon torpedo or quantum torpedo e.g. [#69 Scorpion, Part Two], and whenever "iso" is used it is there to sound techy or give an idea of scale e.g. to make the television viewer think, "five million isoton explosion, so that's a BIG explosion". "iso" is deliberately not precise. |
Star Trek can't be 'Nova' (the acclaimed PBS science series); its
purpose has never been to teach science, but I certainly hope it stimulates interest in science and a desire among our audience to learn
more about science and technology, and perhaps even to pursue
careers in the sciences or related fields. The writers, producers, and
stars of the various Star Trek series have received countless letters
from fans describing how Star Trek was an important factor in motivating their desire to pursue careers in science and engineering.
Certainly a big part of my fascination with space exploration,
and my subsequent degrees in physics and science policy and my
work for NASA can be traced to watching Star Trek at the age of
seven, wide-eyed with wonder at the prospect of exploring strange
new worlds.
|
