Star Wars / Star Trek Discussion (SciFi In General)

[Collector]

Plenty of occurrences of bathrooms in the various Treks, just not the specific usage of toilets, just a couple of mentions. As DPX notes, I have no desire to watch anyone use one. And as far as that goes, how many other shows or movies do? Kind of silly to get hung up on something so trivial and mundane. As to laundries, not needed. The replicators provide not just food, but new clothes and other items and the reclaimators take care of the soiled clothes and dirty dishes. And though not mentioned, I would imagine reclaimators take care of bio waste, too.

[goatmeal]

No, during TOS (and ENT) there were no replicators and no holodecks. I have no idea about sonic showers, though, as they may have not shown them.

I know that the non-canonical Simon & Schuster novels of the 1980s referenced sonic showers being present during TOS era.

[Rath Darkblade]

... and that brings up another thing: not many of the various incarnations of the U.S.S. Voyager has a toilet, a bathroom or a laundry). Kirk, in Star Trek V, has a pop-out toilet in the brig.

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to see anyone on-screen dropping a deuce.

That's not what I mean at all. (Ugh). Just knowing that the possibility exists is enough. Picard (or whoever) could point to one and say "There, a bathroom. Happy?"

Anyone who actually wants to see, er ... that ... needs to have their head examined. Or they can watch any show like "Big Brother" ...

[goatmeal]

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to see anyone on-screen dropping a deuce.

That's not what I mean at all. (Ugh). Just knowing that the possibility exists is enough. Picard (or whoever) could point to one and say "There, a bathroom. Happy?"

Anyone who actually wants to see, er ... that ... needs to have their head examined. Or they can watch any show like "Big Brother" ...

The mere _sound_ of a flushing toilet off-camera drew huge, raucous laughs on "All In The Family" in the early 1970s. It was definitely a different time in terms of comedy and humor, but at the time, the sound-effect was considered "boundary-pushing" for broadcast television here in the US...

[Rath Darkblade]

I don't know about you, but I have no desire to see anyone on-screen dropping a deuce.

That's not what I mean at all. (Ugh). Just knowing that the possibility exists is enough. Picard (or whoever) could point to one and say "There, a bathroom. Happy?"

Anyone who actually wants to see, er ... that ... needs to have their head examined. Or they can watch any show like "Big Brother" ...

The mere _sound_ of a flushing toilet off-camera drew huge, raucous laughs on "All In The Family" in the early 1970s. It was definitely a different time in terms of comedy and humor, but at the time, the sound-effect was considered "boundary-pushing" for broadcast television here in the US...

Hmm. I'm not old enough to remember, but wasn't it considered controversial when Ed O'Neill (as Al Bundy) flushed the toilet in "Married ... with Children"?

[goatmeal]

Hmm. I'm not old enough to remember, but wasn't it considered controversial when Ed O'Neill (as Al Bundy) flushed the toilet in "Married ... with Children"?

I almost brought that up, but by then, the novelty was already 15–20 years old.

[MusicallyInspired]

The bathrooms or "heads" are all clearly marked on all the official Enterprise blueprints (and every other vessel likely, certainly Voyager). So they did take them into account. But as has been said, there's no reason to show them on the actual show. They went the whole nine yards in the production design. For instance, there's one on the Enterprise D bridge just off to the side opposite the doorway to the conference room that you can't see. I think the Captain's Ready Room even has one IIRC.

[Rath Darkblade]

And as far as that goes, how many other shows or movies do? Kind of silly to get hung up on something so trivial and mundane.

I'm guessing you may not have seen many fans of "The Simpsons", Collector? I've seen them debate and categorise just about every aspect of that show. And not just fans of "The Simpsons", but fans of Harry Potter, Game of Throne, LOTR etc. do the same.

Getting back to Sierra (this is the SHP, after all), back when Sierra still had its own boards, fans of "Quest for Glory" might debate - in a light-hearted way - questions like "Why does it never rain in Gloriana?" or "How does the hero eat and drink his way through five lands without ever going to the smallest room?" and come up with all kinds of outlandish-but-strangely-logical theories. It's silly, but fun. I'm sure fans of other Sierra games have done likewise.

As to laundries, not needed. The replicators provide not just food, but new clothes and other items and the reclaimators take care of the soiled clothes and dirty dishes. And though not mentioned, I would imagine reclaimators take care of bio waste, too.

See, devices like the replicator and reclaimator seem to me a bit like cheating (or "handwaving"). As fans of fantasy would put it, "A Wizard did it and ran away". Apparently, the Star Trek writers like Ron D. Moore hated it too because it made things too easy. If you could always replicate what you need, what's the point of using your own ingenuity?

Apparently, scientists in real life are close to recreating the replicator. Hopefully, for raw materials, it doesn't need something as gross as what the ST replicator used. (Ugh).

As for the reclaimator ... again, sorry, but it seems to make things too easy. It's a toilet, washing machine, and dishwasher all rolled up into one. Fine, I can accept that - but what happens if it breaks? What happens when it needs maintenance? Yes, I'm not asking for a ST episode all about maintenance; of course that's boring. But suppose it breaks - what then?

I think there were at least one or two episodes about that. Am I right?

[goatmeal]

See, devices like the replicator and reclaimator seem to me a bit like cheating (or "handwaving"). As fans of fantasy would put it, "A Wizard did it and ran away". Apparently, the Star Trek writers like Ron D. Moore hated it too because it made things too easy. If you could always replicate what you need, what's the point of using your own ingenuity?

One of my favorite Deep Space 9 quotes was actually from the episode "Rocks and Shoals" written by Ronald D Moore.

In it, the DS9ers crash-land on an unknown planet in a stolen enemy (Jem'Hadar) ship, and come across another enemy ship that had also crashed just two days prior. Both ships are badly damaged. The injured enemy Vorta (a Dominion representative) explains to the DS9ers,

"That's a communications system. It needs repair but I'm willing to bet that you've brought one of those famed Starfleet engineers who can turn rocks into replicators."

[Collector]

See, devices like the replicator and reclaimator seem to me a bit like cheating (or "handwaving"). As fans of fantasy would put it, "A Wizard did it and ran away". Apparently, the Star Trek writers like Ron D. Moore hated it too because it made things too easy. If you could always replicate what you need, what's the point of using your own ingenuity?

Apparently, scientists in real life are close to recreating the replicator. Hopefully, for raw materials, it doesn't need something as gross as what the ST replicator used. (Ugh).

As for the reclaimator ... again, sorry, but it seems to make things too easy. It's a toilet, washing machine, and dishwasher all rolled up into one. Fine, I can accept that - but what happens if it breaks? What happens when it needs maintenance? Yes, I'm not asking for a ST episode all about maintenance; of course that's boring. But suppose it breaks - what then?

Apparently you don't seem to understand the idea behind those devices. In "Enterprise", which predates replicators, waste was recycled through a "resequencer", but a replicator is based on teleporter technology. It creates its output from energy and a reclaimator does the exact opposite; it transforms waste material back into energy. All of this requires a huge amount of energy, but Trek is already based on the availability of nearly free, nearly limitless energy. So no, we are not close to anything approaching that technology or its energy requirements. The teleporter has to come first and while there are indications that that may be possible there is nothing to base that actual technology on yet.

The concept of those devices is fundamental to some of the basic tenets of the franchise. Man no longer pursues greed for there is no point to it in a reality where all needs are met. It allows all the pursuit of betterment. It was Roddenberry's vision.

As to "what if it breaks" you have already answered you own question. You repair it. Silly question anyway. What if anything breaks?

[Rath Darkblade]

See, devices like the replicator and reclaimator seem to me a bit like cheating (or "handwaving"). As fans of fantasy would put it, "A Wizard did it and ran away". Apparently, the Star Trek writers like Ron D. Moore hated it too because it made things too easy. If you could always replicate what you need, what's the point of using your own ingenuity?

Apparently, scientists in real life are close to recreating the replicator. Hopefully, for raw materials, it doesn't need something as gross as what the ST replicator used. (Ugh).

As for the reclaimator ... again, sorry, but it seems to make things too easy. It's a toilet, washing machine, and dishwasher all rolled up into one. Fine, I can accept that - but what happens if it breaks? What happens when it needs maintenance? Yes, I'm not asking for a ST episode all about maintenance; of course that's boring. But suppose it breaks - what then?

Apparently you don't seem to understand the idea behind those devices. In "Enterprise", which predates replicators, waste was recycled through a "resequencer", but a replicator is based on teleporter technology. It creates its output from energy and a reclaimator does the exact opposite; it transforms waste material back into energy. All of this requires a huge amount of energy, but Trek is already based on the availability of nearly free, nearly limitless energy. So no, we are not close to anything approaching that technology or its energy requirements. The teleporter has to come first and while there are indications that that may be possible there is nothing to base that actual technology on yet.

The concept of those devices is fundamental to some of the basic tenets of the franchise. Man no longer pursues greed for there is no point to it in a reality where all needs are met. It allows all the pursuit of betterment. It was Roddenberry's vision.

As to "what if it breaks" you have already answered you own question. You repair it. Silly question anyway. What if anything breaks?

OK ... but then, how can the energy be nearly free and nearly limitless? I'm confused. From what I understand, this energy comes from (ugh) recycled human waste. Fine; I don't want to know the details.

As for "What if it breaks? You repair it", that raises another question. How do these things transform energy into useful things, or waste material into energy? It seems to be the fundamental question. If you know the answer to that, you know how to repair it. If you know how to repair it, that's part of the way towards building it. Right?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious.

[goatmeal]

OK ... but then, how can the energy be nearly free and nearly limitless? I'm confused. From what I understand, this energy comes from (ugh) recycled human waste. Fine; I don't want to know the details.

I believe the "free, nearly limitless energy" comes from the matter/anti-matter reactors that power a ship's engines (or by harnessing quantum singularities, in the case of Romulan ships).

E=mc² means that a tiny bit of mass yields an awful lot of energy when transformed (think atomic explosion or a nuclear reactor)... and conversely, it takes an awful lot of energy to convert to a tiny bit of mass.

That's why energy needs to be free and nearly limitless for this technology to work.

[DeadPoolX]

Rath, you might find this entry on Star Trek replicators answers most, if not all, of your questions.

As a side note, I always liked what Voyager did with replicator rations, but the situation there was extremely unusual and warranted being conservative with energy expenditures.

[MusicallyInspired]

I've actually never heard the complaint that replicators are like "a wizard did it" handwaiving before. Never even crossed my mind.*shrug*

[DeadPoolX]

I've actually never heard the complaint that replicators are like "a wizard did it" handwaiving before. Never even crossed my mind.*shrug*

Especially since it's specifically stated (in the real world) that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so converting matter of some sort into a different form of matter doesn't seem that crazy.

Magic, on the other hand, seems to thrive on creating matter or energy from nothing in most cases. Some fantasy-oriented stories don't do this, but most seem to have no problem conjuring fireballs out of thin air and blasting them from your hands, so that definitely requires far more "suspension of disbelief" than anything in Star Trek.

Are replicators beyond our current scientific capabilities? Yes, but most of the tech in Star Trek is futuristic and that's okay considering that the earliest on-screen depiction of full-blown replicator technology was shown in TNG, which started in the year 2363.

The year 2363 is 341 years in the future. For reference, if we go back 341 years from today, it'd be 1681. Technology has changed a lot from 1681 to 2022, so it's conceivable that a similar level of technological advancement might occur from now to 2363.