2018: A critical year in Star Trek History

SS Botany Bay

We don't know a lot about the early 21st Century from historical references made on-screen in Star Trek, but we know something BIG happened in 2018 - the invention of Impulse Engine Drive.

One of the things that has always appealed to me about Star Trek is how all of the timeline and historical references fit together, an important part of the overall continuity of the multiple Trek TV series.  From the beginning, the producers have worked hard to ensure that they remember what they have said previously, and everything (usually) holds together well. 

So, this essay is based on many tidbits of what onscreen characters have said about 2018, and this general era in Star Trek history.


Star Trek is not in OUR Timeline

First, we have to admit that we do not live in the Star Trek universe.  As early as the 1990s, things happened in Star Trek history that did not happen in our own.  Specifically, the Eugenics Warshappened, in which genetically engineered "supermen" conquered a lot of countries and ruled as dictators.  Khan was one of them.

The Eugenics Wars are a fixed point in time in Star Trek history.  So what can we infer, based in this fact?

Humans, at least in one secret laboratory somewhere, had genetic engineering technology in the 20th Century that was already well in advance of what we have today.  The Original Series referred to Khan as the result of "selective breeding" but The Wrath of Khan and later TV episodes amended that to "genetic engineering."  Assuming that Khan and the supermen aged at normal speed (not TV magic rapid aging) means that somebody had advanced genetic engineering capability in the 1950s or 60s, which in our timeline we didn't have.


DY-100 Space Craft

We know that in 1996, the last of the supermen was overthrown, and Khan and 81 of his followers escaped Earth in the sublight DY-100 class SS Botany Bay. The Botany Bay, pictured above, appears to be a cargo ship, vaguely like the Hermes in The Martian, with detachable cargo pods. The Botany Bay was a sleeper ship, putting passengers in suspended animation for the months-long trip to Mars or other places int eh solar system.

Having an operational inter-planetary craft in 1996, with functional suspended animation, was certainly beyond what we were capable of in our own timeline.  This implies that humans were capable of transporting heavy cargo to the Moon, Mars, and maybe other places (you don't need a sleeper ship to go to the Moon).


2018, "The Year Everything Changed" 

In 2018 in the Star Trek universe, humans invented the first generation of Impulse Drive. Eventually, Impulse engines would be able to propel a starship close to the speed of light. Even the primitive 2018 first generation would likely have dropped the Mars trip to only weeks, or maybe even days.

(In our own timeline, a possible Electromagnatic Thuster is being tested. If it is proven to actually work, it might be something that could be scaled up to serve as our own version of an Impulse engine.)

The consequences of Impulse Drive in the Trek universe are not discussed on screen but it is clear that a small fleet of DY-100 or similar DY-500 ships, upgraded to employ Impulse engines, would have opened up the solar system to exploration and eventually to colonization.


What Comes Next

In 2037, Earth launched a mission outside the solar system, the Charybdis, which was large enough to carry planetary shuttles and an extensive library, arriving in the Theta 116 star system in 2044. To achieve interstellar distances in seven years certainly required speeds close to the speed of light, i.e. Impulse Drive. 

The 2030s is about the time when Zefram Cochrane was born, who would go on to invent Warp Drive in 2063, after a nuclear war a decade earlier. Within a few more years, the starship Valiant reached the "edge of the galaxy," a century before Kirk and Spock.

So, 2018 is a BIG turning point in the Star Trek parallel universe.  Maybe it will also be in our own. 


Image from: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bQgAAOSwTglYkpSy/s-l400.jpg

Why go to the Moon?

Going back to the Moon will be great -- if it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.

The Trump administration announced an initiative today to partner with private industry to return Americans to the Moon, and continue on to Mars.

I like the idea...if it's done right. But it could easily be done wrong.

First a confession

The starry-eyed idealist in me believes that we MUST establish a population of humans off the Earth, because there are SO many things that could destroy the Earth, or at least destroy civilization. I have thought this since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of the Cold War, and my ideas have been strengthened by the credible threats of climate change, big rocks from space, and even things like the Yellowstone super-volcano, not to mention epidemics, political stupidity, and other threats.

For the human race to insure that it will survive for the very long term, we have to distribute ourselves, in a way that is sustainable, on many different worlds, and eventually many different star systems.

Now back to today

Based on my logic above, having a significant human presence on the Moon, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would be a good thing. 

Having a significant human presence on MARS, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would also be a good thing, and possibly easier to sustain, in the long run, than the Moon.

There are other worlds in our solar system with lots of water and the possibility of sustainable colonies, as well.

Why return to the Moon now?

The biggest reason to go to the Moon now is to begin developing the technology we need to do the rest of this stuff.

A lander that can set down on Mars would also likely be able to set down on the Moon, which would be a good way to test it. The deep space outpost around the Moon, previously announced, can be the precursor of the orbit-to-orbit "mother ship" that takes people and landers to Mars, and maybe farther out.  We need to develop these things, step by step.

But we also need to start thinking not just in terms of reusable space vehicles, but also vehicles that can do lots of stuff.  Like the space opera fiction of the 1950s, our next generation of craft needs to be flexible enough to go many different places and land on many different worlds.

That's expensive, isn't it?

Yes, but the reusability brings the cost down a lot.  Partnering with private industry brings the cost down a lot.  Stable goals that do not get changed every time there is a new president would make a BIG difference. 

And remember -- every dollar spent on space is spent ON EARTH.  All the R&D and construction contracts go to companies and institutions on Earth which employ people, and have payrolls.  It would require a big push for STEM education, which would benefit lots of other technology programs and companies, also.  Face it, without the Apollo Program, you probably wouldn't have smartphones.

Is there a down side?

There is some concern that the Trump administration is pushing NASA to the Moon and Mars as a way of deemphasizing Earth resources programs and climate research.  It may be, and those programs will need protection in Congress. 

But going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is still a wise investment in the future of the human species.

Educational Engineering

My latest scholarly publication is Chapter 14 of monograph published for the 25th anniversary of the English Teachers’ Association in the Republic of China (ETA-ROC), in November.

Educational Engineering for CALL and MALL, is an invited article on curriculum development, taking an engineering approach to developing outcome requirements and then engineering a theory-based system that will accomplish those outcomes.  The CALL and MALL in the title refers to Computer Assisted Language Learning and Mobile Assisted Language Learning.  But it's all Mass Communication to me.

The overall monograph, Epoch Making in English Language Teaching and Learning, is out in hard copy and CD.  I am not sure when or where it may eventually be available online, other than my pre-press version on ResearchGate.

It may be cited as:

Marek, M. W., & Wu, W. C. V. (2016). Educational Engineering for CALL and MALL. In Leung, Yiu-nam (Ed.), Epoch Making in English Language Teaching and Learning, Twenty-fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, English Teachers’ Association, Republic of China (pp. 115-125).

Technology Assisted Language Learning

One of my scholarly journal articles has just been cited in a paper entitled "Technology Assisted Language Learning is a silver bullet for enhancing Language competence and performance: A Case Study."

The specific citation is:

"Wu, Yen and Marek (2011) explored in their studies the unprecented impact of technology in increasing learners’ motivation for listening to online audio and video resources in order to improve their listening skills. They also found that while listening to online audio and video resources, the ESL learners were found to ward off their hesitation and shyness and try to speak English."

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

Educational Technology

One of my academic papers was cited in a conference paper from the 2016 International Symposium on Educational Technology, held 19-21 July in Beijing.

Collaborative Online International Learning: A Case Study between USA and Thailand

Educational Engineering

Spent the evening galley proofing this invited chapter.

It will be chapter 14 in a "monograph" to be published recognizing the 25th anniversary of the English Teachers’ Association in the Republic of China (ETA-ROC).

Here is the full abstract:

Innovation abounds in the fields of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), but recent evidence reveals that innovative instructional designs are often not repeated in subsequent semesters, much less integrated into the permanent curriculum. This “how to” article presents the perspective that educational curriculum and technology design should be treated as an engineering process, i.e. using evidence-based principles to create instructional and technology designs that meet the long-term needs of students and allow them to achieve required outcomes. Factors influencing CALL/MALL teaching are discussed, followed by presentation of educational engineering as a seven-step process – identifying  marketplace requirement goals, determining measurable outcome objectives, choosing theory-based instructional methods, selecting CALL/MALL technology by affordances, developing integrated lesson plans, teaching the class, and evaluating success. Six figures give concrete examples of how the process should work.