Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"Enterprise" tech question

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Wgregcox

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 2:28:19 PM3/24/04
to
Okay, I know they didn't have food replicators back in Archer's and Kirk's era,
but I seem to remember them mentioning something similar on "Enterprise."
Anyone remember what term they used? "Food converter?" "Food generator?"
Whatever?


Greg Cox
Coming in July: TALES OF THE DOMINION WAR

Justin Hilyard

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 2:49:15 PM3/24/04
to
"Wgregcox" <wgre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040324142819...@mb-m26.aol.com...

Protein Sequencer, I believe.


Wgregcox

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 3:06:39 PM3/24/04
to
Wow! Thanks for the fast response.

Just finishing up the third Khan book, btw. My plan is to deliver it to Pocket
by the end of the week.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 3:38:31 PM3/24/04
to
in article 20040324150639...@mb-m10.aol.com, Wgregcox at

wgre...@aol.com wrote on 03/24/2004 2:06 PM:

> Wow! Thanks for the fast response.
>
> Just finishing up the third Khan book, btw. My plan is to deliver it to
> Pocket by the end of the week.

You're writing Trek books and you have to ask a beginner's question like
that? Are you actually a published Trek writer?

Kee-rist! Glad I quit reading Trek books...

> Greg Cox
> Coming in July: TALES OF THE DOMINION WAR

Is that anything like "Tales from The Far Side"?
--
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it."
-- "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey

Wgregcox

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 5:03:24 PM3/24/04
to
Hey, it's an ENTERPRISE question! There's not many ENTERPRISE-era reference
books out there! :)

Elvis Gump

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 5:37:43 PM3/24/04
to
in article 20040324170324...@mb-m10.aol.com, Wgregcox at

Bog, I hope there will never be any Enterprise books.

Won't someone think of the trees?
--
"This paperback is very interesting, but I find it will never replace a
hardcover book - it makes a very poor doorstop."
-- Alfred Hitchcock


Butthead

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 10:03:06 PM3/24/04
to
Ignore that Greg, I for one can't wait for book 3 in the series. What is
the eta for the shelves?

"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BC8769D7.97A%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...

Wgregcox

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 10:24:25 PM3/24/04
to
Last I heard, we're talking January 2005. Thanks for asking!

Greg

Mr. Personality

unread,
Mar 25, 2004, 12:05:41 AM3/25/04
to
In article <BC874DE7.92C%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com>, Elvis Gump
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> in article 20040324150639...@mb-m10.aol.com, Wgregcox at
> wgre...@aol.com wrote on 03/24/2004 2:06 PM:
>
> > Wow! Thanks for the fast response.
> >
> > Just finishing up the third Khan book, btw. My plan is to deliver it to
> > Pocket by the end of the week.
>
> You're writing Trek books and you have to ask a beginner's question like
> that? Are you actually a published Trek writer?
>
> Kee-rist! Glad I quit reading Trek books...


Yah, God forbid he should ask a simple, polite question. A tool like
you might get all bent out of shape about it.

Elvis Gump

unread,
Mar 25, 2004, 1:44:30 AM3/25/04
to
in article 250320040005413080%aff...@no.com.invalid, Mr. Personality at

Right. Well, I finally placed who he was, that guy that was interviewed and
passed off as an 'extra' feature on the Wrath of Khan DVD.

Pardon me, but I remember listening to him explain how he was going to weave
a story out of the mish-mash of nonsense that was Khan's 'back story' and
glad I was saved the otherwise momentary curiosity I might have had seeing
it in the bookstore and actually buying it.

I don't know anything about the guy. He seems well groomed from what I
remember seeing him on tee-vee. Maybe he's the politest guy ever to walk the
face of the Earth, making Gandhi look like a brutish lout. If he's offended
I apologize like hell.

But Enterprise is dreck pawned off on the fans as though it belonged in the
Trek universe merely to enrich Paramount's stockholders. As well as most of
the Trek books that I pass by on the store and despair about.

I'm delighted whenever someone sells their book really it's a monumental
feat, but don't automatically expect me to jump for joy to want to read it.

We all can't be Mr. Personality after all.
--
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words."
-- Phillip K. Dick

ntl: Victim

unread,
Mar 25, 2004, 8:55:29 PM3/25/04
to
With regards to the post below I thought it was a "Protein Re-sequencer"
using the same type of system that they use to recycle the human waste into
more useful items.

And it's actually the cook who cooks all the food, the re-sequencer is only
used to create the raw materials for cooking.

:o) Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.....

"Justin Hilyard" <r...@eoni.com> wrote in message
news:1063pk9...@corp.supernews.com...

Mr. Personality

unread,
Mar 25, 2004, 11:57:24 PM3/25/04
to
In article <s2M8c.819$eg6...@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, ntl: Victim
<ntl.v...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> With regards to the post below I thought it was a "Protein Re-sequencer"
> using the same type of system that they use to recycle the human waste into
> more useful items.

IIRC the reference was in turning poop into boots. I got the idea that
the protein resequencer was used to produce durable goods, not
consumables. The reference to boots meant, I thought, that they could
turn out synthetic leather. It made a certain amount of sense to me to
use organic mass to do that.

Justin Hilyard

unread,
Mar 26, 2004, 4:44:27 AM3/26/04
to

"ntl: Victim" <ntl.v...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:s2M8c.819$eg6...@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net...

> With regards to the post below I thought it was a "Protein Re-sequencer"
> using the same type of system that they use to recycle the human waste
into
> more useful items.
>
> And it's actually the cook who cooks all the food, the re-sequencer is
only
> used to create the raw materials for cooking.
>
> :o) Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.....

Now that I think about it, I think you're right for the term used. Thanks
for the correction.


Justin Hilyard

unread,
Mar 26, 2004, 4:45:50 AM3/26/04
to

"Mr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:250320042357248329%aff...@no.com.invalid...

Didn't think about it like that, but that makes sense. Are you sure the
term was never used to refer to food production in another episode, though?
I get the feeling it might have been in the episode with the automated
repair station, when they were talking about its more advanced version.


Wgregcox

unread,
Mar 26, 2004, 8:34:50 AM3/26/04
to
Yep, apparently it's "resequencer"--and apparently it can be used to make five
different flavors of ice cream!

Mr. Personality

unread,
Mar 26, 2004, 10:43:27 AM3/26/04
to
In article <1067uvu...@corp.supernews.com>, Justin Hilyard
<r...@eoni.com> wrote:

No, I'm not sure. Long gone are the days when I'd watch a Star Trek
episode fifteen times and memorize everything. Now Greg Cox says they
use the resequencer to make different flavors of ice cream, and I'm
sure he's right about that, but I just don't see the logic of it. But
it's so Star Trek, this technobabbling. It would have been much more
interesting to me to see them use these organics in farming a crop
aboard the ship. I mean, the ship is gone for months at a time, and it
makes perfect sense for them to try to raise (for instance) fresh
vegetables on a little farm somewhere below. It would be the kind of
thing you could reasonably expect a first-generation starship would do.
Instead, they came up with another undefined gadget and ask me to
believe that it makes ice cream out of poop. Huh?

ntl: Victim

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 9:26:39 AM3/27/04
to

"Mr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:260320041043271626%aff...@no.com.invalid...

I agree that you might expect something like the hydroponics bay that Kes
created on Voyager so fresh vegetables & the like could be grown but can you
imagine the space required to cultivate these to the proportions needed to
feed the whole crew on a daily or even weekly basis. Given this is Earth
1st serious attempt at exploration I would imagine that space on the ship
would be at a premium and any technology that can create food & other items
on demand would be preferable.

And why not make ice cream out of poop? Given that this technology is
supposed to break everything down into the same material in which to
re-sequence, what's the difference what you start with? This is after all
the hope that nanotechnology brings with it isn't it, to be able to
manipulate single atoms in order to create something completely different
from what you started with.

Oh and when technology had progressed to the Voyager era Miss Toress did
mention to certain aliens that every waste by-product on the ship was
completely recycled.


Mr. Personality

unread,
Mar 27, 2004, 12:26:46 PM3/27/04
to
In article <hag9c.16$N2.5@newsfe1-win>, ntl: Victim
<ntl.v...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I agree that you might expect something like the hydroponics bay that Kes
> created on Voyager so fresh vegetables & the like could be grown but can you
> imagine the space required to cultivate these to the proportions needed to
> feed the whole crew on a daily or even weekly basis. Given this is Earth
> 1st serious attempt at exploration I would imagine that space on the ship
> would be at a premium and any technology that can create food & other items
> on demand would be preferable.

I would agree with pretty much all of that, but my problem with the
poop machine (which is what I think I'll call it) is that it's just
Harry Potter magic. In Star Trek, if you want something to happen and
you don't want to spend too much time worrying about how it happens,
you just make up a device that does the thing for you, and then you
move on. That's really no different from casting a spell.

As you say, it's important that this is Earth's first serious attempt
at interstellar exploration. That's pretty much why, for the sake of
credibility if nothing else, we should be seeing a more primitive level
of technology than we do. There's no reason to suggest that Enterprise
must grow *all* its own crops, but we should be seeing attempts to grow
things they are not likely to find on alien planets -- common spices,
for one thing. I think they would be likely to find a sugar crop
pretty much anywhere plant life is supported, and if you have sugar you
can manufacture any number of other foods and goods.

> And why not make ice cream out of poop? Given that this technology is
> supposed to break everything down into the same material in which to
> re-sequence, what's the difference what you start with? This is after all
> the hope that nanotechnology brings with it isn't it, to be able to
> manipulate single atoms in order to create something completely different
> from what you started with.

If they had nanotechnology at the level you suggest, the ship would be
repairing itself constantly, supplies would be renewing themselves, and
there would be little need for the crew to do anything but sit back and
enjoy the ride. Since we're sort of stuck here with a complex Trekkish
history, it's an unfortunate fact that there is no evidence of such
nanotech in Trek Classic, so the possibilities in Enterprise are (or
should be) rather limited. In Trek Classic, they hauled along their
own supplies and traded for what they needed as they went. The ship
could pay in gold and trade goods. This is the kind of thing you'd
expect to see in an expansionist frontier culture. I would not expect
to see better than this in a show set well before Trek Classic.

> Oh and when technology had progressed to the Voyager era Miss Toress did
> mention to certain aliens that every waste by-product on the ship was
> completely recycled.

Recycling is one thing and remanufacturing is another. However,
Voyager is far enough ahead of Enterprise that such "magic" is more
excusable. I admit that's more of a feeling than a finding of fact.

Justin Hilyard

unread,
Mar 30, 2004, 1:30:53 AM3/30/04
to

"Mr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320041226464808%aff...@no.com.invalid...

Now, that was never established on TOS, Voyager aside. There were the food
slots, and there was even one in the transporter room that we saw in
"Tomorrow is Yesterday," which would seem a bit odd if it did just move food
from a kitchen out. Especially considering there weren't any in quarters.
Then again, we did _see_ a kitchen in ST6 and hear a chef in Charlie X.
Don't think it'd be hard to think that Kirk's ship had this protein
resequencer in addition to more traditional food preparation systems like on
the NX-01, as it isn't _technically_ a replicator, satisfying both
Enterprise and Voyager.


Mr. Personality

unread,
Mar 30, 2004, 11:02:18 PM3/30/04
to
In article <106i51b...@corp.supernews.com>, Justin Hilyard
<r...@eoni.com> wrote:

> Now, that was never established on TOS, Voyager aside. There were the food
> slots, and there was even one in the transporter room that we saw in
> "Tomorrow is Yesterday," which would seem a bit odd if it did just move food
> from a kitchen out. Especially considering there weren't any in quarters.
> Then again, we did _see_ a kitchen in ST6 and hear a chef in Charlie X.
> Don't think it'd be hard to think that Kirk's ship had this protein
> resequencer in addition to more traditional food preparation systems like on
> the NX-01, as it isn't _technically_ a replicator, satisfying both
> Enterprise and Voyager.

I agree that nothing precludes a resequencer in Trek Classic. The
Charlie X reference is important because the chef had been turning meat
loaf (or something) into ersatz turkey for Thanksgiving. Maybe he was
resequencing the meat loaf. Fair enough.

This sequence strongly suggests that meals aboard the ship were
generally prepared along traditional lines, and you get the sense that
whatever it was the chef was doing would result in lesser quality,
artificial-tasting turkey. Note, though, that at least the chef was
turning one kind of foodstuff into another. I can easily accept *that*
kind of resequencer.

BTW, perhaps you don't know that the voice of the chef in Charlie X was
Gene Roddenberry's. It was the only time he appeared on the show.

Justin Hilyard

unread,
Mar 31, 2004, 5:11:37 PM3/31/04
to

"Mr. Personality" <aff...@no.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:300320042302180963%aff...@no.com.invalid...

Actually, I did. Having never seen the episode myself, that's the only
reason I knew it happened at all. I didn't actually know the turning meat
loaf into turkey part of it.


DBurch7672

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 3:18:27 PM4/20/04
to
Now, that was never established on TOS, Voyager aside. There were the food
slots, and there was even one in the transporter room that we saw in
"Tomorrow is Yesterday," which would seem a bit odd if it did just move food
from a kitchen out. Especially considering there weren't any in quarters.
Then again, we did _see_ a kitchen in ST6 and hear a chef in Charlie X.
Don't think it'd be hard to think that Kirk's ship had this protein resequencer
in addition to more traditional food preparation systems like on the NX-01, as
it isn't _technically_ a replicator, satisfying both Enterprise and Voyager.

1. I have trouble seeing a *chef, proper* on a at least quasi-military ship
like the ships of Starfleet are supposed to be; (*my* image is*more like
"Cookie" in the "Beetle Bailey" comic strip!) :)

2. Didn't they get a bit "food-slot happy" at one point in the original "Star
Trek"; (at least at the point mentioned?)?

3. How do we know that "chef"; (at least in the non-obsolete/"fancy-shmancy
restaurant" sense) isn't just a shorter/slang term for "Protein
Resequencer/Replicator Programmer/Operator"; both in Starfleet AND "civilian"
life ? :)

Elvis Gump

unread,
Apr 20, 2004, 3:55:42 PM4/20/04
to
in article 20040420151827...@mb-m15.news.cs.com, DBurch7672 at

dburc...@cs.com wrote on 04/20/2004 02:18 PM:

> Now, that was never established on TOS, Voyager aside. There were the food
> slots, and there was even one in the transporter room that we saw in "Tomorrow
> is Yesterday," which would seem a bit odd if it did just move food from a
> kitchen out. Especially considering there weren't any in quarters. Then
> again, we did _see_ a kitchen in ST6 and hear a chef in Charlie X. Don't think
> it'd be hard to think that Kirk's ship had this protein resequencer in
> addition to more traditional food preparation systems like on the NX-01, as it
> isn't _technically_ a replicator, satisfying both Enterprise and Voyager.

This question demonstrates sadly your total unsuitability to write for the
movies or TV. Rationales are not needed or welcome.

> 1. I have trouble seeing a *chef, proper* on a at least quasi-military ship
> like the ships of Starfleet are supposed to be; (*my* image is*more like
> "Cookie" in the "Beetle Bailey" comic strip!) :)

I bet it's the same race as Mr. Mott the barber. No need for hairnets and
no hair in your nice plomeek soup.

> 2. Didn't they get a bit "food-slot happy" at one point in the original "Star
> Trek"; (at least at the point mentioned?)?

Those slots were probably all removed when a Starfleet officer sued because
the ready access to fast food 24/7 made them fat. (Though that doesn't
really explain Kirk or Riker's girth does it?)

Hell what happens when the poor transporter tech has to go to the little
boys room during a crisis? You'd think there'd be at least two techs
standing by during a landing mission.

Of course realism in anything much less Trek is relative.

There was a quote by director Stanley Kubrick on drama in a crisis about the
atomic bomb that went something like if the bomb drops while you are at work
it's a drama, while your at home a melodrama and if you're in the bathroom
it's a comedy.

Which is why we never saw
"Scotty, emergency! Beam us up now!"
"I canna do it Cap'n, I'm pinching a loaf!"

> 3. How do we know that "chef"; (at least in the non-obsolete/"fancy-shmancy
> restaurant" sense) isn't just a shorter/slang term for "Protein
> Resequencer/Replicator Programmer/Operator"; both in Starfleet AND "civilian"
> life ? :)


Interesting idea!

"I swore I'd never use one of these things. Computer activate the Emergency
Culinary Program."
"Bon sware. And what would madam like for dinner this evening?"
"A dozen Borg are about to break through that door! Create a diversion!"
"I'm a cook, not a doorstop!"
--
"My favorite thing about the Internet is that you get to go into the private
world of real creeps without having to smell them."
-- Penn Jillette

Justin Hilyard

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:43:49 PM4/28/04
to

"Keeper of the Purple Twilight" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:280420041859258618%n...@spam.invalid...
> In article <20040420151827...@mb-m15.news.cs.com>,

> DBurch7672 <dburc...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > How do we know that "chef"; (at least in the non-obsolete/"fancy-shmancy
> > restaurant" sense) isn't just a shorter/slang term for "Protein
> > Resequencer/Replicator Programmer/Operator"; both in Starfleet AND
"civilian"
> > life ? :)
>
> On ENT, Chef has been referred to many times as a person. He is
> definitely a human being. We even see him - his arm, anyway - in the
> ep "Catwalk".

I think what DBurch means is that the title Chef in ST might not mean
someone
that actually prepares food like a present-day chef, but merely someone that
operates a protein resequencer, food slot, replicator, or what have you.


Keeper of the Purple Twilight

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:52:56 PM4/28/04
to
In article <1090uh0...@corp.supernews.com>, Justin Hilyard
<r...@eoni.com> wrote:

Chef's actual cooking (and some of his recipes) is also mentioned on
the show.

--
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

0 new messages