Genesis device question

[montypython]

I keep hearing claims from ST fanboys about the Genesis device able to create stars from scratch, but I've always considered the star the Genesis planet orbited was already there, considering the energy requirements to scratch build a star. Is the Genesis device even capable of such a thing?

[Starglider]

I keep hearing claims from ST fanboys about the Genesis device able to create stars from scratch

Highly unlikely. It was not designed to do this; it was designed to terraform lifeless planets and moons in existing systems. It's impressive that it even managed to make a planet out of a gas cloud, it's extremely unlikely that it could exceed its designed mass limits by six orders of magnitude and create structures that it was in no way programmed to create.

but I've always considered the star the Genesis planet orbited was already there, considering the energy requirements to scratch build a star.

It's blatantly obvious that it was the same star that the Regula planetoid and station was orbiting, because the ships reach the 'Mutara Nebula' in about a minute of low impulse flight. Incidentally this is nothing like a normal interstellar nebula, it's some kind of bizarre dense gas cloud inside an otherwise normal solar system. In fact if it wasn't explicitly called a 'nebula' I'd say it was the upper atmosphere of a gas giant.

Is the Genesis device even capable of such a thing?

Almost certainly not. The Genesis effect might be, but you'd need a different and probably much larger device.

[DaveJB]

Remember near the end of TWOK, where the bridge crew were awed at the sight of the Genesis Planet forming? If the device was capable of forming a star as well, I'd have thought that the creation of a planet would be small potatoes next to that. Moreover, whenever we saw Regula in the film it was strongly lit from one side, and not from the correct angle for it to be the nebula that was lighting it up, which indicates that there was already a star in the system.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

The fact that life was able to survive on the Genesis planet at all is proof that there was already a star in existence. It is a fact often forgotten with regard to Sci-Fi and Sci-Fan terraforming, that the planet in question must be in appropriate proximity to a suitable star for the terraforming to work.

Highly unlikely. It was not designed to do this; it was designed to terraform lifeless planets and moons in existing systems. It's impressive that it even managed to make a planet out of a gas cloud, it's extremely unlikely that it could exceed its designed mass limits by six orders of magnitude and create structures that it was in no way programmed to create.

I sometimes wondered whether Genesis was a truly 'failed' concept. Aside from the protomatter issue the Genesis device, in creating a planet, was doing something it was never designed to do. Surely that should have created problems in itself. Nonetheless the project seems to have been abandoned.

[Darth Wong]

I'd be more interested to know what kind of mental deficiency these Trekkies suffer which makes them think this idea in the first place. Throughout the whole movie you can see how strongly lit the Regula moon is. There is obviously a star already in the system, and it's also obvious that this "nebula" is the remains of the nearby planet which supposedly "exploded" according to Khan, "six months after we were left here". Didn't these people watch the goddamned movie? Or do they just skip ahead to the pow-wow space battle parts?

[Bounty]

it's also obvious that this "nebula" is the remains of the nearby planet which supposedly "exploded" according to Khan

So you're saying that Ceti Alpha V is in the same system as Regula 1? I find that very hard to believe - it would make Reliant's poor charts an even worse error than it already is and would mean that the system is ridiculously crowded, since Reliant had already visited 16 Earth-like or close enough planets looking for a suitable candidate for the project.

I think it's virtually a given that Regula and its station, the star they orbit, the "nebula" cloud and later Genesis are all in the same system, but I don't see how or why you'd drag in Ceti Alpha too.

[Vympel]

it's also obvious that this "nebula" is the remains of the nearby planet which supposedly "exploded" according to Khan, "six months after we were left here". Didn't these people watch the goddamned movie? Or do they just skip ahead to the pow-wow space battle parts?

The planet which exploded was Ceti Alpha 6 though, we don't know where it was in relation to the Mutara nebula (near Regula). There's no reason to believe it's in the Ceti Alpha system.

(Bounty got there before I did)

[Darth Wong]

Even if it wasn't, it's obviously far too dense to be the kind of nebula they're thinking of. It had lightning and cloud formations in it, for fuck's sake. If it wasn't produced by this exploding planet (let's leave aside the silliness of spontaneously exploding planets for now), then it is in the process of collapsing into one.

And as I said, one had to skip most of the movie in order to not notice that there's obviously a star already in the system.

[Bilbo]

The source for this is the novelization which states that when the Genesis device is activated its runs the "sun-building subroutine" since no proper star is detected.

Not saying this matters due to canon rules or that is it not completely stupid. Just mentioning the source.

Also want to point out that the ST III novelization says that the Genesis Device did not convert Regulus I into a new planet but actually gathered and formed the planet from the nebula. This comes from an arguement about why the planet is unstable and one of the character mentions that the device was not intended to be detonated inside a ship that is inside a nebula.

[Darth Wong]

The source for this is the novelization which states that when the Genesis device is activated its runs the "sun-building subroutine" since no proper star is detected.

Not saying this matters due to canon rules or that is it not completely stupid. Just mentioning the source.

Even so, these people must surely wonder why there aren't two stars at the end then, since we know there's already a star earlier in the film.

Also want to point out that the ST III novelization says that the Genesis Device did not convert Regulus I into a new planet but actually gathered and formed the planet from the nebula. This comes from an arguement about why the planet is unstable and one of the character mentions that the device was not intended to be detonated inside a ship that is inside a nebula.

I love the way planets do amazing things in these movies like spontaneously exploding, and they just explain it by saying that the planet is "unstable".

[Bilbo]

The source for this is the novelization which states that when the Genesis device is activated its runs the "sun-building subroutine" since no proper star is detected.

Not saying this matters due to canon rules or that is it not completely stupid. Just mentioning the source.

Even so, these people must surely wonder why there aren't two stars at the end then, since we know there's already a star earlier in the film.

Also want to point out that the ST III novelization says that the Genesis Device did not convert Regulus I into a new planet but actually gathered and formed the planet from the nebula. This comes from an arguement about why the planet is unstable and one of the character mentions that the device was not intended to be detonated inside a ship that is inside a nebula.

I love the way planets do amazing things in these movies like spontaneously exploding, and they just explain it by saying that the planet is "unstable".

David stated the reason it was unstable was because he used "protomatter" to make the Genesis planet work which according to Saavik was an unstable element denounced by every ethical member of the scientific community.

[Darth Wong]

And that makes it more logical ... how?

[tim31]

I love the way planets do amazing things in these movies like spontaneously exploding, and they just explain it by saying that the planet is "unstable".

Where do you think the brainbug of the Alderaan Bomb came from? Jesus, what must fanboy nerds have been like back in the days where they had only had Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers to argue about?

[Ted C]

I keep hearing claims from ST fanboys about the Genesis device able to create stars from scratch, but I've always considered the star the Genesis planet orbited was already there, considering the energy requirements to scratch build a star. Is the Genesis device even capable of such a thing?

As noted earlier, the non-canon novelization is the likely source of the idea.

According to the Genesis project information video, the device reorders matter to fit a specific pattern. Since the team had Reliant out looking for an uninhabited planet as a test body, it stands to reason the expected their test body to already have a sun, so they would not need to include a "sun formation subroutine" to make one.

The novelization aside, it makes no sense for the Genesis design team to include the capacity to make a star in the matrix for the Genesis test device. The device was designed to terraform planets, not to create star systems.

[Patrick Degan]

I love the way planets do amazing things in these movies like spontaneously exploding, and they just explain it by saying that the planet is "unstable".

Where do you think the brainbug of the Alderaan Bomb came from?

Krypton.

[tim31]

Awww, snap. Still, the apologists will always have a preferred source material