OK. SUPER nitpicky Star Trek question (Spoiler)

[parallaxicality]

Here's the sort of question I never thought I'd ever be nerd enough to ask. Yeah I know. There's a Trekker born every minute. But sometimes, these sorts of things need answering.

OK.

Brushes off Chee-to dust and pats down smiley face Watchmen t-shirt.

We know from multiple sources (most recently an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise) that the planet Vulcan orbits within the star system 40 Eridani, which is 16 light years from Earth. We also know that the Romulans are descended from the Vulcans, and that they left to found their own colony thousands of years ago. Whether they left via FTL or at relativistic speeds is still not known, but in any case, it's unlikely that they could have travelled very far.

So. In Star Trek we learn that Romulus was destroyed by a nearby supernova explosion. The farthest away you can be from a supernova explosion and suffer any damage is about 30 light years, though I'm sure that's negotiable.

So. Is it physically possible, given a plausible distance from Romulus to Vulcan, for Romulus to have been affected by a supernova-capable star? Which are the nearest to Earth and how likely are any of them to blow in the next few centuries?

[nauthiz]

I tracked down a map (which I'm going to assume is at least reasonably accurate) that charts Federation and Romulan space.

Earth's at the origin, Vulcan is a bit 'south'. Assuming that distance is 16 light-years and the map is to scale, then Romulus (in the 'northwest' of the empire) would be about 60 light-years from Earth, and even further from Vulcan. I also note that it's out beyond Gamma Tucanae, which is 70 light-years from Earth.

[Gillianren]

So. In Star Trek we learn that Romulus was destroyed by a nearby supernova explosion.

Wait, we do? Oh, I am sooooo not watching that movie.

[Tog]

But said SN was said to be large enough to destroy the whole galaxy as I recall. That should both drastically increase the lethal radius and limit the number of candidates.

[Chip]

But said SN was said to be large enough to destroy the whole galaxy as I recall. That should both drastically increase the lethal radius and limit the number of candidates.

Yes but Star Trek apologists (like me sometimes,) willing to cut the series some slack (sometimes) - have implied that the phrase "destroy the galaxy" was not so much a scientific term as a galactic-political general statement. A kind of 'domino-theory-of-the-stars' implying that if one important world is destroyed, it would effect other worlds in terms of trade, politics and refugees, causing wars, etc., leading to the economic collapse of the Federation and other Empires.

Then again - Star Trek is full of oddball insights - and while acknowledging that it is a great show overall, I generally don't cut them as much slack in the various TV series for curing many problems with beams of energy.

[solomarineris]

Wait, we do? Oh, I am sooooo not watching that movie.

Last time I went to that movie it was strictly for entertainment purposes; what is your beef?
It was well done, acting was great. (Even Phil Plait, SGU guys liked it).
Granted the story was dumb.

[Gillianren]

Granted the story was dumb.

You've found my beef.

[Tuckerfan]

You've found my beef.

Its a good beef to have, IMHO. I've seen the film (and did not put a dime in Paramount's pockets to do it, BTW), and they certainly had the elements to make a workable film, but what showed up on the screen was not, IMHO. Even if you hand wave away the things the film got wrong (Vulcan having a moon, Chekov being born several years before Nero showed up in the past, even though in TOS Chekov's age was such that he would have been born years after Nero appeared, etc., etc., etc.) its not a good film.

For example, Nero did something for 25 years after he found himself in Kirk's time. What, we don't know (though him ending up on a Klingon prison planet supposedly wound up on the cutting room floor), but he did not just hang out in one spot and wait for Spock to show up. (Right before Spock appears, one of the Romulans on Nero's ship says, "We're at the coordinates, sir.") Bear in mind, that Nero had a ship which was 200 years more advanced than anything in the Federation/Romulan/Klingon fleets. He could have ripped the galaxy apart and propped himself up in charge of it all fairly quickly (think what would have happened if a modern US aircraft carrier found itself parked outside of New York harbor on July 5, 1776). That's just one of the glaring plotholes in the film.

I will say some things in favor of the film. The size of starship crews was more realistic (800 on the small ship that Kirk's father was on, given that modern US warships hold that many or more, this makes more sense than the 400 of TOS), and the ships moved in three dimensions. They swung around, dove, twisted, and spun, instead of just coming at one another on the same plane, as they tended to do in previous incarnation of Trek. The cast was also pretty good, with some of them managing to capture the right elements of the original characters by the end of the film. (I did keep expecting Simon Pegg to be forced to shoot his mother, however. )

Its going to be interesting to see the reaction of folks who loved the film on the big screen, when they pick it up on DVD. I have a feeling that a significant portion of them are going to have the same reaction to it that a friend of mine did to Tim Burton's Batman when he watched it on video, "You know, this looked pretty cool in the theater, but watching it on TV, you realize it kind of sucks." (He said that less than 10 minutes into his first VHS viewing of the film. )

There's a real lack of depth to the characters in the new film. I've seen TWoK enough times to have the dialogue memorized, and I still pull new elements out of them based on the interaction of the characters. As I've grown older, I've found Kirk's wrestling with his mortality, that of his friends, and a son who neither knows who is, nor cares, to be more relevant to my life. How many of the kids seeing NuTrek today, will keep going back to it, decades after they first watched it, and identifying more and more with the characters in it?

[parallaxicality]

Oh. Right. Kinda thought everyone would have seen it by now.

[Gillianren]

Oh. Right. Kinda thought everyone would have seen it by now.

I'm sure everyone who wanted to has.

[Nick Theodorakis]

I want to see it but haven't yet.

Nick

[Tinaa]

Me either. Just can't find the time.

[nauthiz]

Ditto.

[hhEb09'1]

OK, I'm changing the title now

[Jeff Root]

When was Romulus said to have been destroyed? Was the planet
destroyed, or just the Romulan culture, with the planet essentially
untouched? In real life, a supernova could be really, really bad news
for anyone in Space throughout an awfully large volume, but have
no significant effect on a nearby planet's surface, because of the
protection given by miles of atmosphere.

Are you sure it was a supernova, not just a plain nova?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Nowhere Man]

Give it up, parallax. Star Drek was nothing but bad science from end to end.

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Fred

[slang]

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Then how could the camera survive, huh? HUH? [/childish]

(I really wish people would think of adding spoiler tags when posting, considering that people all over the world read here)

[Van Rijn]

Then how could the camera survive, huh? HUH? [/childish]

(I really wish people would think of adding spoiler tags when posting, considering that people all over the world read here)

Hopefully, anyone looking at it now will see "spoiler" in the thread title.

[slang]

Hopefully, anyone looking at it now will see "spoiler" in the thread title.

Yes! No intention to diss hhEb09'1 at all, and thanks for his action. I meant for people to be more careful about such things on first posting.

[Van Rijn]

Yes! No intention to diss hhEb09'1 at all, and thanks for his action. I meant for people to be more careful about such things on first posting.

Agreed. Always try to remember to be careful if you're posting a spoiler (though, I have to admit, I've forgotten once or twice myself over the years, and was justifiably criticized for it).

[Van Rijn]

Give it up, parallax. Star Drek was nothing but bad science from end to end.

Jeff, it was called a supernova, and there was a sequence showing Romulus being eroded away by the blast.

Fred

Yep, if it was close enough for that, Romulus must have been a recently terraformed planet. It's amazing it was habitable at all, being so near a massive, rapidly evolving star. Collapsing the star into a black hole wouldn't help - that in itself would be a very energetic event.

I went into the movie knowing the science would be stupid (that's not new for Star Trek), but there was just so much bad science.

[Rift]

I went into the movie knowing the science would be stupid (that's not new for Star Trek), but there was just so much bad science.

Actually there wasn't as much bad science as I thought there would be. And watching Trek for good science is kinda like watching Doctor Who for good science... Maybe it's because of the era I grew up there WAS no science in sci fi tv shows and I learned massive suspension of disbelief... Even Phil's review was rather praiseworthy of what they did get right...

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"

I'm not saying there shouldn't be good science in TV and movies, i'm just not holding my breath.

[Van Rijn]

Actually there wasn't as much bad science as I thought there would be. And watching Trek for good science is kinda like watching Doctor Who for good science... Maybe it's because of the era I grew up there WAS no science in sci fi tv shows and I learned massive suspension of disbelief... Even Phil's review was rather praiseworthy of what they did get right...

As I said, I knew the science would be stupid. I expected it. The problem for me was that there was just too much stupid science, stupid plot, and stupid stuff (like a brewery in a starship).

I'm not saying there shouldn't be good science in TV and movies, i'm just not holding my breath.

I'm not either.

[Jeff Root]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?

Van Rijn,

Why do you infer that Romulus must have been recently terraformed?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Tog]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?

Romulus is destroyed around what would be the time after the Nemesis Film. Spock is still alive, but old.

From there, the Romulan ship is pulled through the wormhole to encounter Kirk's father's ship, literally at the time of Kirk's Birth. and changes the timeline

About 25 years later, Old Spock appears through the wormhole as New Spock, and New Kirk are at the Academy.

[Van Rijn]

And this Romulus-getting-eroded-away... does it occur during the lifetime
of J. T. Kirk, or earlier, or later?

Van Rijn,

Why do you infer that Romulus must have been recently terraformed?

If it was close enough to a massive star to be vaporized in a supernova, as indicated in the movie, it wouldn't have had billions of years to develop a native ecology. It probably couldn't be terraformed at all, if such a star were that close.

[Jeff Root]

Oh, so the film provides an explanation for the differences between it and
the canonical Star Trek? Time travel again! Sheesh! I like time-travel
stories, but they never belonged in Star Trek. ... On the other hand, I
won some Star Trek novels in a raffle once, and one of them was a pretty
interesting time-travel puzzle.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Rift]

Oh, so the film provides an explanation for the differences between it and
the canonical Star Trek? Time travel again! Sheesh! I like time-travel
stories, but they never belonged in Star Trek. ... On the other hand, I
won some Star Trek novels in a raffle once, and one of them was a pretty
interesting time-travel puzzle.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

No, very little time travel in it, more of an alternate history, which is NOT the same thing.

I thought it was a brilliant way to have TOS and this new interpretation co-exist. (although I can get a bit nit picky about a few things, but overall I was delighted with it)

[Van Rijn]

No, very little time travel in it, more of an alternate history, which is NOT the same thing.

I thought it was a brilliant way to have TOS and this new interpretation co-exist. (although I can get a bit nit picky about a few things, but overall I was delighted with it)

Just a reminder, spoilers ahead . . .






Time travel created the alternate timeline. I knew before I saw the movie that time travel was involved, and I didn't mind that they used it to reset the Star Trek universe. I expected that.

However, it also removed the villain's motivation. He had the means to stop the supernova, and he had plenty of time to do it. That's the problem with time travel stories: It's so hard to do them right.

[Rift]

Time travel created the alternate timeline.

In the Alternate History sub-genre, that's the most common way of creating an alternate timeline...

I still say this wasn't a time travel story, but an alternate history story. Both TOS and this timeline still technically exist.