3 ms·
A lot of Star Trek writing wildly errs with computers. And other things, but also computers. Like, IRL we can't fire modern artillery over the horizon without
by ben_w 1y ago
A lot of Star Trek writing wildly errs with computers. And other things, but also computers.
Like, IRL we can't fire modern artillery over the horizon without a computer assisting us, and that's only a few hundred miles; a starship within range of their transporters (up to three times the diameter of this planet) is just an invisible dot on an invisible dot if you're looking for it out of a window. (IRL you can see the ISS flybys because it's only a few hundred km up, last I heard nobody can see any of the geostationary satellites).
Or comms: Uhura was written in an era when telephone switchboard were still around, manually connecting your phone calls by plugging and unplugging cords. (Did any later shows even have a comms officer?)
Even later, VOY tries to show how fancy the ship is with "bio-neural gel packs", but even when that show was written, silicon transistors were already faster (by response time) than biological synapses by the same degree to which going for a walk is faster than continental drift.
- rightbyte 1y ago> Like, IRL we can't fire modern artillery over the horizon without a computer assisting us The horizon is in mortar range. Like 10 km at 10m elevation of the observer. The horizon is not very far usually.
- ben_w 1y agoI meant more that the maximum range of an "over the horizon" artillery system is that. I may have overestimated the maximum range even then, but the core point was that you need computer assistance even for relatively short distances on the ground, let alone in space.