BadAstronomy tackles nuTrek (spoilers)

[Bounty]

OK, here’s the deal: I’m a big Trek fan. I watched the original series as a kid and saw the reruns a bazillion times. I loved the movies, and was thrilled when TNG was on the air. And while I lost it for a while with DS9 and Voyager (and with the exception of the finale, the last season of Enterprise was pretty good, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise), I am still a fan.

I was ready to be disappointed with this revision of Trek. But I wasn’t. I loved it. I was very unsure if this would resemble the Star Trek I grew up with, and incredibly, J. J. Abrams, without being a fan, was able to take what made the show Trek — it’s heart, if you will — and bring it up-to-date.

But I am here to review the science of the movie. I won’t worry about warp drive, transporter tech, or time travel; I’ll concentrate on the real stuff. And never fear: I am not going to reveal the overall plot here. I avoided as many spoilers as I could before watching it, and I’m glad I did. It really made the movie more exciting and fun to watch.

But I do have to do what I do, so do it I will. While I won’t reveal the plot, I have to reveal some details to write a review. So:

The rest is a bit too long and image-heavy to repost, but it's a fun read. They address the silliness of calling the time hole a black hole, have some good to say about the Titan scene and end with... more complaining about the black hole.

[Junghalli]

Yeah, the science behind that superweapon just makes me die a little inside every time I think about how ludicrous it is. Let's see...

Spock stops the supernova by making a black hole that will suck it all in ... when it's already reached Romulus, meaning unless it was Romulus's sun that exploded it's a wave of radiation many light years across. Yeah. And the supernova supposedly physically shatters Romulus in seconds. I'm pretty sure that's impossible even for a high end GRB. All it should do is fry the surface. I reject this reality and insist the planet we saw breaking up actually orbited the star that went supernova and isn't Romulus, because I might as well do some damage control where I can.

And then there's the drill. Putting aside all the reasons it would never work, why is it even necessary? A massive black hole forming on the planet's surface will fuck it up every bit as bad as one forming in the core.

You know, the whole thing would be a lot better if they just had the tentacle ship grab a big asteroid, go to warp, warp out above the surface of Vulcan, and throw the asteroid at Vulcan at a few dozen km/s. It would still totally fuck up the planet, it would avoid all the horrible butchery of science, and it would let us do without yet another lame one-shot superweapon with ridiculously long "dramatic" set-up procedure. It would fit well with the idea that the tentacle ship started out as a mining ship, and it would make Nero more intimidating because he'd be using limited resources cleverly to take advantage of basic physics, instead of "lol he has a doomsday weapon".

[bz249]

How dramatic was the supernova explosion? In most movies (bad thing even popular science shows like) the supernova explodes like a firecracker which is cool as a visual, however in real life our Sun has a radius of 2.3 light second, so the matter should move slowly relatively to the original size of the star...

[Bounty]

It wasn't written as a supernova, and I'm not even sure it's called that in the movie. In the comic, the Hobus star was just blasting out planet-killing FTL shockwaves for some reason.

[Anguirus]

^ I'm pretty sure they did use "supernova" in the movie. Although I, too, thought a GRB would make more sense.

With all they got wrong, I'm surprised they got stuff like the drop scene so right.

[Junghalli]

With all they got wrong, I'm surprised they got stuff like the drop scene so right.

Actually I'd say the drop scene itself had quite a few problems, though not so much relating to science as to the idea that they could just deploy the skydivers right under Nero's nose and somehow he doesn't notice.

Heh, you should have seen the outrage I provoked from the Trekkies on SB when I pointed out how unrealistic that was in the review thread over there. If I hadn't agreed to drop it (because I have better things to do with my time than have tedious arguments about shit like this) I think it could easily have turned into a ten page shitstorm.

[Mad]

And then there's the drill. Putting aside all the reasons it would never work, why is it even necessary? A massive black hole forming on the planet's surface will fuck it up every bit as bad as one forming in the core.

I mentioned this in reply to you over in the review thread, but: no, not necessarily. Small black holes dissipate quickly. A small black hole in the dense core of a planet would have more mass to absorb than one on the surface, and would stand a better chance of destroying the planet. Phil Plait's review goes into the difficulties the black hole would encounter inside the core, but the black hole would be even less likely to succeed if it were at the surface of the planet.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

I posted this in the review thread, but I'm posting it here because it pretty much sums up why the science was so bad.

[Darth Wong]

It wasn't written as a supernova, and I'm not even sure it's called that in the movie. In the comic, the Hobus star was just blasting out planet-killing FTL shockwaves for some reason.

As if that makes any more sense. It's idiotic bullshit no matter how you slice it.

PS. Just for fun: a light year is 3E8(3600)(24)(365)=~9.5E15 metres. If this "Hobus star" is, say, 4 light years away, that's 3.8E16 m. That's a sphere of 1.8E34 m² surface area. The planet Earth casts a shadow of roughly 1.3E14 m², so an Earth-sized planet would be catching 7.2E-21 of the output of the star. In order to deliver the minimum 2.4E32 J necessary to destroy the planet, the star would need to be dumping at least 3.3E52 J to its environment. Our own Sun could be completely annihilated into energy (like an M/AM reaction) with 100% efficiency and it would only produce 0.0005% of that.

[Solauren]

It wasn't written as a supernova, and I'm not even sure it's called that in the movie. In the comic, the Hobus star was just blasting out planet-killing FTL shockwaves for some reason.

As if that makes any more sense. It's idiotic bullshit no matter how you slice it.

Romulan Subspace Superweapon test they didn't want to admit to?

[Darth Wong]

It wasn't written as a supernova, and I'm not even sure it's called that in the movie. In the comic, the Hobus star was just blasting out planet-killing FTL shockwaves for some reason.

As if that makes any more sense. It's idiotic bullshit no matter how you slice it.

Romulan Subspace Superweapon test they didn't want to admit to?

If they had a weapon which could completely annihilate the mass of two thousand Suns into pure energy, they wouldn't need to hide anything.

[Solauren]

Hmm. Good point.

Maybe some other tech test that massively screwed up, but whatever, that timeline is long gone.

[Junghalli]

I rationalize it by saying that Romulus just got devestated by having its ozone layer fried away and its surface bombarded with radiation, and the planet we saw being blown up was just some random planet orbiting the star that went supernova, that got randomly put in the shot for dramatic effect.

[Anguirus]

If they had a weapon which could completely annihilate the mass of two thousand Suns into pure energy, they wouldn't need to hide anything.

Not to disagree or to excuse this, but this reminded me that the Feds had something even awesomer in the 23rd century...Genesis...that they discarded. There are all sorts of weird one-offs in this universe.

[Patrick Degan]

If they had a weapon which could completely annihilate the mass of two thousand Suns into pure energy, they wouldn't need to hide anything.

Not to disagree or to excuse this, but this reminded me that the Feds had something even awesomer in the 23rd century...Genesis...that they discarded. There are all sorts of weird one-offs in this universe.

They "discarded" it because a) Genesis was a failure and b) the intellectual capital required to recreate the device was lost: i.e. the murder of all but two of the project scientists by Khan Singh and the subsequent death of one of the remaining two at the hands of the Klingons. The computers on which the specs and designs were kept were wiped, and the one working prototype was expended.

[avatarxprime]

My friend and I were calling it as being the result of those aliens from TNG who said they seeded life in the Milky Way. Hobus was some kind of old weapon or something of there's in a rip-off of Halo, but honestly it's all ridiculous. Who knows, given their effects on stars, maybe some young Q were goofing off with their guns and caused the whole Hobus mess.

[Ryushikaze]

The drilling as needed because to activate the red matter, incredibly high temperatures and pressures such as in the core or mantle of a planet. There's also a one off line in the novel calling the time hole a black hole a gross oversimplification, though it does crush anything that passes through without a warp core engaged. That doesn't solve all it's problems, but it's a start.

[Anguirus]

If they had a weapon which could completely annihilate the mass of two thousand Suns into pure energy, they wouldn't need to hide anything.

Not to disagree or to excuse this, but this reminded me that the Feds had something even awesomer in the 23rd century...Genesis...that they discarded. There are all sorts of weird one-offs in this universe.

They "discarded" it because a) Genesis was a failure and b) the intellectual capital required to recreate the device was lost: i.e. the murder of all but two of the project scientists by Khan Singh and the subsequent death of one of the remaining two at the hands of the Klingons. The computers on which the specs and designs were kept were wiped, and the one working prototype was expended.

All pure handwaving. The Klingons called it: a device that turns a nebula into a Sun-type star and an Earth-type planet in a time period of minutes to days is not a "failure" no matter how you slice it, especially when it can trivially be used as a planet-sterilizing WMD. One hundred years later, Starfleet has no weapons that are remotely similar in power output. Why? And don't say "protomatter," as David said he used it to "solve a few problems." Spock didn't watch that video and say, "This is completely impossible unless they're using protomatter."

In any case, the Regula 1 scientists used one "dangerously unpredictable" material and made a solar system-killing/creating missile, and then everyone forgot about it. It's the nature of the setting. Even in DS9, a more consistent and arc-based show, a Federation scientist came up with a star-igniter and the Dominion used a bomb that could turn a Sun-type star into a supernova, but they were only shown once apiece. Star Trek treats strategic weaponry as plot devices, rather than as tools.

[Darth Wong]

If they had a weapon which could completely annihilate the mass of two thousand Suns into pure energy, they wouldn't need to hide anything.

Not to disagree or to excuse this, but this reminded me that the Feds had something even awesomer in the 23rd century...Genesis...that they discarded. There are all sorts of weird one-offs in this universe.

Don't be stupid. The energy required to rearrange the surface of one planet does not even register when compared to the energy of annihilating 2000 Suns into pure energy.

[Darth Wong]

All pure handwaving. The Klingons called it: a device that turns a nebula into a Sun-type star and an Earth-type planet in a time period of minutes to days is not a "failure" no matter how you slice it, especially when it can trivially be used as a planet-sterilizing WMD. One hundred years later, Starfleet has no weapons that are remotely similar in power output. Why? And don't say "protomatter," as David said he used it to "solve a few problems." Spock didn't watch that video and say, "This is completely impossible unless they're using protomatter."

The energy state change of the Mutara Nebula to a planet is negative, you idiot. What "power output" do you think this process requires? We don't even have any evidence that the thing would do anything to a shielded target, since it appears to use an effect very similar to the transporter.

[Batman]

Not that there's any evidence for Genesis creating a STAR that I can remember.
And while Genesis failing is not necessarily evidence for the project not working-it was supposed to be used on an already existing lifeless planet, not to have to CREATE one from the ground up- the one and likely ONLY person who knew how EXACTLY the thing worked THOUGHT it was a failure, and he never even CONSIDERED Genesis being used in completely the wrong way was part of the problem.
For what Genesis was INTENDED to do it WAS a complete failure.
On the military side, I'm not sure I see the value of having a weapon that can turn a nebula of undetermined dimensions into an unstable planet. Yes, okay, the nebula's gone, the military value of which is?
And I'm sorry, how exactly is the loss of all the data about project Genesis and even more important the death of the only person who knew how to actually make it WORK 'pure handwaving'? Genesis may be the only example of Trek lostech that actually genuinely WOULD BE lostech.

[Havok]

One hundred years later, Starfleet has no weapons that are remotely similar in power output. Why? And don't say "protomatter," as David said he used it to "solve a few problems." Spock didn't watch that video and say, "This is completely impossible unless they're using protomatter."

Starfleet never had a weapon with that power either. Keep that in mind. It was a prototype and Starfleet knew what it was supposed to do and what it could do, but it was always in the hands of the scientists. While Starfleet funded the project and provided support, they never were in possession of it.

It may be a nitpick, (It does show what kind of weapons Starfleet could potentially make) but it is how it was.

[Anguirus]

^ Well, I only said that Starfleet DOESN'T have it one hundred years later. Not that they ever did.

Not that there's any evidence for Genesis creating a STAR that I can remember.

Then where does the star at the end of the movie come from? Don't tell me that the local star had a nebula hanging out in its habitable zone. That's why I figured that there must be some sort of immense power involved, but I'm no physicist or engineer so I'll concede the point if I'm wrong.

Regardless, the Dominion has a Sun-to-supernova bomb, and the Feds are within spitting distance of the technology to "re-start" a star (a single scientist who is on the verge of a breakthrough to cause this to happen is used as a plotline twice that I recall, and the second time the guy succeeded).

[Darth Wong]

Then where does the star at the end of the movie come from? Don't tell me that the local star had a nebula hanging out in its habitable zone. That's why I figured that there must be some sort of immense power involved, but I'm no physicist or engineer so I'll concede the point if I'm wrong.

You figure there's "some sort of immense power involved" every time something happens which you don't understand: a mentality which is very familiar to me since I deal with a lot of creationists. You obviously don't think like a scientist or an engineer, so perhaps you should just shut the fuck up about energy and power, OK? So far, you've declared that immense power was required in order to cause a negative work situation, and ignored my correction to you on that point.

Regardless, the Dominion has a Sun-to-supernova bomb, and the Feds are within spitting distance of the technology to "re-start" a star (a single scientist who is on the verge of a breakthrough to cause this to happen is used as a plotline twice that I recall, and the second time the guy succeeded).

This may seem bizarre to say, but those devices don't necessarily require huge amounts of power either. What they do require is some kind of magical chain-reaction elemental transmutation reaction, which is of course ridiculous, but which is pretty much an unavoidable interpretation of events.

[Vympel]

And don't say "protomatter," as David said he used it to "solve a few problems." Spock didn't watch that video and say, "This is completely impossible unless they're using protomatter."

Spock's not the scientific genius of the universe, he can't instantly determine some obscure technology application based on a proposal video.