It is important to recognize that Daystrom Institute is a curated space. We have much stricter rules than typical internet discussion boards, designed to encourage deep-dive analysis and thoughtful discussion throughout our community.

Our rules, listed on the sidebar, give an overview of what Daystrom Institute contributors should and should not do. This post is designed as a slightly more detailed guide, for anyone entering our community from elsewhere and looking to join the discussion.

These rules are not arbitrary, but built up over ten years of trial and error at reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute. That said, they can and will change over time, as the needs of different circumstances, communities, and platforms shift.

What kinds of comments can I make here?

In general, any comment which seeks to further civil discussion of Star Trek is appropriate. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Attempting to answer a question
• Proposing a counterargument to another user's point
• Asking a relevant followup question
• Mentioning a relevant piece of evidence and connecting it to a previous point

What kinds of comments are not permitted here?

First off, rudeness in any form is unacceptable in Daystrom. We expect all commenters to be polite and diplomatic to each other under all circumstances. Among other things, this rules out insults, snarky behavior, and passive aggressive attempts to get the last word. If someone is being rude to other posters, do not "fight back". Report them and move on; we will deal with the problem.

Additionally, there are many types of comments which are appropriate elsewhere on startrek.website and most other corners of the internet at large, but are not acceptable in Daystrom. They include:

• Dismissing the validity of someone else's post or comment. This includes declaring a point invalid because it references shows which are non-canonical or which you simply don't like. Alternately, declaring that "the writers didn't think about it" or "Q did it" are so banal as to be worthless: if that's all you have to say, don't say anything.
  • Note: this does not preclude discussing the show or answering questions from an out-of-universe perspective. Such comments are encouraged provided they are thoughtful and constructive, and not an excuse to devalue another poster's contribution.
• Asserting something without explaining your reasoning. If it's worth mentioning at all, it's worth telling us why you believe it to be true.
• Sharing an opinion without further explanation. Your opinion is not interesting to other people, unless you can explain why you hold that opinion in a substantive way.
• Whinging: If you want to express a negative opinion about a show, a writer, a cast member, etc, that is permitted provided that (like any other content) it is substantive, constructive, and relevant. "Burnham sucks" is never appropriate, while a longwinded explanation of how Michael Burnham is an overpowered character is appropriate in a discussion about how the Michael Burnham character is written, but not appropriate in a discussion of (for example) how the Spore Drive works which happens to mention Michael Burnham.
• External links (such as to blogs or videos) without context. If it's worth sharing, it's worth explaining what it is and why it's relevant.
• Memes, image macros, gifs, and other examples of visuals intended to deliver a joke.
• One-off jokes in any other form.

Wait, we can't tell jokes here?

Injecting humor into a post or comment which would stand alone as an acceptable submission without the joke is acceptable: humor can be very effective for making a point. However, any submission which exists primarily to deliver a punchline is not appropriate.

But what if it's really, really funny?

Fun police here. Sorry, still no. If your joke can stand alone, it's perfect for /c/Risa. If not, hang on to it for next time the topic comes up on /c/StarTrek and dazzle us all then.

If these rules seem overly harsh to you, that's okay. The other communities on startrek.website are much less stringent, intentionally, and we encourage you to go there for shitposting and more casual Trek discussion. That's the benefit of specialized spaces: if this one doesn't seem like a fit for you personally, one of the others should.

One of the fascinating things about this "third generation" of Star Trek (starting either with Star Trek 2009 or with Discovery) is the way the Star Trek universe has started to knit itself closer together by referencing existing backstory. For example, Discovery wholeheartedly embraced the idea that Andorians and Tellarites are key Federation members and should therefore be highly visible in Starfleet, building on lore originally implied in TOS, largely ignored by TNG, DS9, and VGR, and re-embraced by ENT. Prodigy, for its part, leaned very heavily on VGR for its worldbuilding source material.

This has also produced some interesting quiet exclusions from recent stories -- not to suggest they've been "decanonized" or anything like that, but clearly have been deprioritized. The Tholians come to mind as a ready example of this. Like the Gorn, they debuted in TOS, received stray mentions in DS9, before making an on-screen return in ENT. I wonder if the SNW writers considered using the Tholians but balked at a villain that had such different atmospheric requirements, and all the consequences that entails in terms of dramatic presentation. The Denobulans also seem to fall into a similar bucket; outside of a pair of appearances in PRO, they have received nary a mention since ENT.

Then of course we have the lengthy list of "one-off" civilizations, including the likes of

-the Sheliak
-the Husnock
-the Tzenkethi
-the Jarada
-the Miradorn

And in terms of "underexplored corners", I've only been focusing on the civilizations, but there are any number of other corners we could poke into. The Department of Temporal Investigations, the Corps of Engineers, the Federation Council, the Lunar Colonies... the Trekverse is littered with these little crumbs all over the place -- tiny seeds of ideas that suggest opportunities for imagination.

For my part, I would love to learn more about the Sheliak. For one thing, they seem like they would benefit from the advances in CGI over the last 30 years. But I like that they seem equally matched to the Federation in terms of strength, and that their hyperfocus on legal compliance gives them a generally underused "hat" to wear in the Trekverse. They have some similarity to Vulcans, but taken to an extreme, and layered in with real disdain for "lower life forms" that I think would make for a fascinating "adversary" -- I'd love to see Captain Pike or Captain Seven in a verbal jousting match with a Sheliak commander.

What is an underexplored corner of Trek lore that you think merits exploration?

This is the Daystrom Institute Episode Analysis thread for Strange New Worlds 2x02 Ad Astra Per Aspera.

Now that we’ve had a few days to digest the content of the latest episode, this thread is a place to dig a little deeper.

We often see technology from the future brought back to the present, whether as a case of a chance encounter, or something more.

However, it’s also fairly uncommon to see those technologies pop up against after they’ve been introduced. One such example is the ablative armour generators that Admiral Janeway fitted to the Voyager, being prototypes from a future Starfleet, which are seen in that episode, and then never again, even in shows that are set after the time she left.

The reason for this might be that the Federation does not want to run the risk of being accused of violating the temporal prime directive (or accidentally running afoul of it in some other way), and shelves that particular technology entirely.

From their standpoint, it would be rather difficult to separate a technology that the Federation developed of their own accord, compared to one that they might have developed from being inspired by, or reverse-engineering a piece of future technology, so they shelve it, rather than risk the trouble, never developing the preliminary steps to reach that future technology.

The only anachronistic part of this is the Doctor’s mobile emitter, which is a variant of 26th century technology, and was developed into Picard, but that can be explained by it being reverse engineered from 26th century technology, by someone in the 20th century, technically making it technology from the past. Since it is Earth technology from their own past, they might be able to get away with iterating on their own version without risking trouble with the various temporal enforcement agencies.

Numerically speaking, the vast majority of Ferengi we see on screen are sporting what have sometimes been called “headskirts”. Virtually every Ferengi we see on-screen — from the marauder crewmen in Next Generation to Quark’s waiters to various Ferengi businessmen seen in the background — is wearing one. Rom and Nog even wear color-coordinated versions of them once they join the Bajoran militia and Starfleet, respectively.

However, there are a few conspicuous exceptions to this otherwise apparently universal practice, most notably among them being Quark, the only Ferengi character billed as a series lead. This is particularly jarring, as Quark otherwise frames himself as the most Ferengi Ferengi around.

From a real-world perspective, I suspect that the headskirts were originally created to avoid creating a full head prosthetic for guest actors. Once the character of Quark was created, the cost of a reusable full head prosthetic would have been less prohibitive.

In universe, after reviewing which Ferengi are shown with and without headskirts, I believe I have a theory that fits what we’re shown on-screen, and gives us some grounds to infer a few extra bits about certain characters.

First, I propose that the “default” practice for Ferengi is to wear a headskirt. That would explain why we see them worn so frequently. However, I suggest that it is an option to abstain from a headskirt — under certain conditions.

Fundamentally, I propose that the absence of a headskirt indicates that a Ferengi believes he is a “top dog” — in that he has no one above him who could be considered his “boss.” However, I also suggest that there is some subjectivity and risk in this. (Note that “top dog” is not a coincidental choice of words on my part: the Ferengi logo is said to have been drawn to describe the “dog eat dog eat dog” mentality of a capitalist society.)

Zek and Gint are the clearest examples of this: as Grand Nagus, they are the pinnacle “top dog.”

Quark would also fit this criterion: Odo, Kira and Sisko aside, there basically is no one whom Quark answers to (unlike his waiters, who answer to him). Rom and Nog do not fit this criterion, for a few different reasons. Nog is a child at the series start before starting essentially an apprenticeship on his way to joining Starfleet; and obviously once he joins Starfleet, he continues to have those who outrank him. Rom answers to his brother before joining the station’s maintenance crew, at which point he ultimately answers to O’Brien.

There are several other Ferengi who do not wear headskirts, and it definitely is not a clean and tidy division between the bosses and the workers. However, that is where some subjectivity comes in. Rather than being a hard-and-fast rule, the absence (or presence) of a headskirt may be an assertion: “I’m a top dog and I dare you to say otherwise.” It then turns to one’s peers to decide if the claim is justified; if you make the claim but then don’t have the status to back it up, then you lose credibility and standing. So removing one’s headskirt is not without its risk.

Who else have we seen without headskirts?

Galia: as an arms merchant who can purchase his own moon, he would likely be seen as a “deserving top dog” — perfectly reasonable for him to abandon the headskirt.

Brunt: an FCA liquidator, his bare head takes on some new significance in this framework. The FCA is described as “answering to no one” — if that is true, then Brunt’s bare head would serve to reinforce that idea to all those misfortunate enough to cross his path. It’s also possible that liquidators are supposed to answer to someone — a manager or the like — but that Brunt goes bald anyway, just to flaunt his de facto latitude.

Nilva: as the chairman of a large Ferengi company, he likewise probably enjoys “deserving top dog” status.

Reyga: a Ferengi scientist and a bit of a maverick; we might interpret his bare head as indicating some level of rejection of Ferengi norms; if my proposed framework is true, then it is a louder act of protest than we would otherwise realize

Prak: though I doubt this was an intentional choice on the part of the showrunners (I suspect his bare head is the result of extra prosthetics being available from the concurrent production of DS9), Prak does give us an interesting example of someone who perhaps is “too big for his britches” — it is rare to see a DaiMon without a headskirt (presumably because they must answer to some sort of Ferengi admiral), but it’s easy to imagine a DaiMon who is cocky enough to flaunt their bare head — and is probably ridiculed by all his underlings for it. (Recall how Starfleet Captain Styles in The Search For Spock has been mocked for his swagger stick.)

There are several Ferengi whom we might expect to go bare under this framework who still wear the headskirt. Chief among these is Lek, who by his own admission works alone. Lek probably could justify “top dog” status if he wanted to. But the default is to wear a headskirt: to go bare is to make an active statement, and thereby draw attention to oneself. I imagine there are more than a few Ferengi who could justify their own “top dog” status but who would rather keep a lower profile (Rule of Acquisition 168: “Whisper your way to success”).

~ ~ ~

What do you think? Are there any good counter-examples to this? (I admit, I did not check the appearance of every Ferengi in every episode. So it’s possible that I missed someone!) Is this consistent with other things we’ve seen in Ferengi society? Are there any other possible explanations for the pattern of skirted vs bare heads?

We've seen it many, many times: the ship gets into a firefight, takes a few hits, shakes around, and consoles explode (possibly taking an unfortunate ensign with them). Eventually the battle is resolved with our heroes largely intact if somewhat shaken up. If it was a particularly nasty battle, there will be signs of damage: scorches on the walls, deformed equipment, busted lights, and rocks scattered about.

All of that seems reasonable... except the rocks, which look pretty out of place in a spiffy 24th century starship. So why are they there?

The traditional monologue, as used in TOS, TAS, TNG, Strange New Worlds, as well as the endings of Enterprise and several movies, can be taken as a sort of overall mission statement for the Enterprise, possibly even one that takes place in-universe.

If the other series-- Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, and Prodigy-- had similar mission statements, how might you phrase them?

It's never made much sense that the entire multi-species Federation would be subject to a strict ban on genetic engineering due to events on Earth that happened centuries before the Federation was even founded. The way they doubled down on that rationale in Una's trial only highlighted the absurdity -- especially when Admiral April claimed he would exclude Una to prevent genocide.

On the one hand, the writers may be trying to create a straw man out of a weird part of Star Trek lore so they can have a civil rights issue in Starfleet. And that's fine. From an in-universe perspective, though, I think we can discern another reason for the ban on genetic engineering -- the Klingon Augment Virus.

There was a ban on genetic engineering on United Earth, which is understandable given that it was much closer to the time of the Eugenics Wars. Why would that remain unchanged when more time passed, more species joined, and more humans lived in places without living reminders of the war? [NOTE: I have updated the paragraph up to this point to reflect @Value Subtracted's correction in comments.] The answer is presumably that they needed to reassure the Klingons that something like the Augment Virus would never happen again. Hence they instituted a blanket ban around that time -- perhaps in 2155, the year after the Klingon Augment Virus crisis and also, according to Michael Burnham, the year the Geneva Protocols on Biological Weapons were updated.

That bought the Federation over a century of peace, but after war broke out due to a paranoid faction of Klingons who thought humans would dilute Klingon purity and after peace was only secured through the most improbable means, they doubled down on the ban. Una's revelation provided a perfect opportunity to signal to the Klingons that they were serious about the ban -- hence why they would add the charges of sedition, perhaps. Ultimately, an infinitely long speech and the prospect of losing one of their best captains combined to make them find a loophole -- but not to invalidate the ban or call it into question. This Klingon context is why April, who we know is caught up in war planning of various kinds, is so passionate that the ban exists "to prevent genocide" -- he's not thinking of people like Una, he's thinking of the near-genocide they suffered at the hands of the Klingons.

This theory still doesn't paint the Federation in a positive light, since they have effectively invented a false propaganda story to defend a policy that has led to demonstrable harm. But it makes a little more sense, at least to me. What do you think?

The Galaxy class starship was designed with the ability to separate the saucer from the stardrive section, so that the "floating city" part of the ship could be left somewhere safe while the rest of the ship galavants off to do something risky. We see this happen precisely once, in the season one episode Arsenal of Freedom. We also see saucer separation deployed for a handful of tactical and or emergency uses (such as against the Borg in The Best of Both Worlds, or to escape the breaching warp core in Generations).

So, this seems like a useful ability to have, and the Enterprise is constantly being sent into dangerous situations. Why not use this ability more frequently?

Poor Terry Matalas. It's clear from numerous post-season interviews that, for as elaborate as S3 became by the end (rebuilding the Enterprise-D! Bringing back Ro and Tuvok! Changelings and Borg and Lore!), his original vision was yet more elaborate. Apparently he originally planned to have Janeway and Kim also appear, and to show Ro still alive in the brig with Tuvok at the end of the season. The man clearly was dreaming big.

Given that, it seems slightly implausible that he would omit material purely out of carelessness. And the absence of Alexander seems like a pretty large omission -- especially in a season that was so focused on the parent-child relationship and the idea of "the next generation". Yes, there are all these memes about Worf forgetting Alexander, but that doesn't strike me as the kind of fan service Matalas was going for.

From a storytelling perspective, omitting Alexander seems pretty similar to why Odo was mentioned adoringly as "a man of honor" but not named: there was already a lot of backstory and reference being woven into the story, and throwing out a random name -- or a random concept like, "Oh yeah, Worf has an estranged son" -- would create too much to unpack.

Likewise, it seems like they wanted Worf to have a paternal presence with Raffi, so omitting Alexander simplified that story.

But still: in a season that was all about parents and their children, it seems significant that they couldn't find any way to reference him.

Unless...

Worf has a memorable scene with Raffi where he tells her, "Don't presume to know what I have sacrificed" (or something to that effect). Surprisingly, that line is never followed up on... explicitly.

But I suggest that that is where we learn of Alexander's fate: Worf has lost his son. Whether to death or desertion or deep undercover work, who can say? But we have an open question -- where is Alexander? -- and we have a vague statement that is never otherwise explained -- that Worf has sacrificed a great deal -- and given how much the rest of the season ties itself together, I suspect this was meant to be a subtle nod to explain away Alexander's absence.

Why not make it explicit? Why doesn't Worf tell anyone about Alexander? I argue it's because they wanted to save the "grieving parent" story for Riker + Troi, especially Riker. Explicitly portraying both Riker and Worf as grieving fathers would create an elephant in the room too big to ignore, and would've taken up much more space in the story.

So, instead, poor Alexander is consigned to a mysterious comment from his father -- perhaps fodder for some future tie-in novel, or perhaps someone we might meet in Star Trek: Legacy.

Are there other theories as to where Alexander might be, or why the writers did not mention him?

To say Discovery has been "controversial" would be something of an understatement. From the very beginning the show sparked off considerable debate about it's quality, and the bevy of showrunner changes and resulting shifts in tone and plot choices just adds an extra layer of confusion. Many of the same groups and same people continue to have very similar arguments over what is clearly a completely different show in 2023 than it was in 2017. Personally I've become frustrated to the point of disinterest about where this show has gone, which makes it all the more exciting to go back and (re)discover something I thought I knew but had begun to really wonder about:

The very beginnings of Discovery are fucking excellent television.

Here's why.

Early Discovery was actually planned out

To start with, the pacing and plotting of both the individual episodes and the overall arc of the season are excellent. In the moment, they are delightfully seamless: pacing is brisk but not rushed, traversing from one important thing to the next, with emotional moments given an appropriate amount of time to be registered and felt without feeling drawn out. Each episode has a clear beginning, middle, and end, with individual stakes that matter beyond simply advancing the season plot. Of course they consistently advance the overall season plot too (with the exception of Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad, which is "merely" a wonderfully executed standalone sci fi story that significantly develops three of our main characters). They do so not by dropping largely inconsequential teases and misdirection in alleged pursuit of a goal fated for resolution only in the finale, but via bite sized, meaningful changes to the circumstances our heroes find themselves in.

This demonstrates something which is clearly absent from the subsequent seasons, and even tossed away before the end of this one: detailed long term planning. Not only are we spared the bizare shifts in background information (is the Red Angel suit hyper advanced future tech, or something a research team banged out 20 years ago? Is the 32nd century Federation tiny, isolated, and largely ignored, or are they active galactic participants with genuine political clout?), but it's also critical for allowing the episodes to flow neatly together as a coherent story. There's been plenty of debate about if Star Trek should even be trying to tell these long-arc, binge-friendly seasonal stories, but clearly CBS wanted that. So why not do it right?

Early Discovery (mostly) makes sense

Every Star Trek show has had it's share of silly stuff. Obviously TOS was absolutely loaded with zany things that seem more in keeping with it's cardboard and hot glue aesthetics than the more serious tone subsequent shows attempted to set, but even the best of TNG era Trek had some whoppers mixed in. Where it has succeeded is by keeping most of the wacky missteps in relatively unimportant places, encapsulated by single episodes and devoid of larger consequence.

Then there's the tech which every Starfleet ship is totally reliant on, most of which has only a fleeting connection to real world physics. The Mycelial Network blends right in: it's a pretty wild idea and most certainly is not real. Just like warp drive. And just like warp drive, it is at least based on something real. Ehh, close enough.

I have little desire to relitigate in depth the plausibility of S2/S3 Burnham being intimately connected to so many wildly disparate galaxy changing things, or how reasonable it is to have a emotionally distraught child trigger a galactic cataclysm that nobody could solve for over a century, but I'll certainly contend that early Discovery's WTF rate is more in line with TNG era Trek than it's more recent seasons have been. A low bar? Sure. But a relevant one.

Early Discovery did good job developing characters

By the end of those nine episodes, we've had a reasonable detailed introduction to six main characters, and all of them have at least a little extra dimensionality to them, enough that they feel real and as presented, I do care what happens to them:

Burnham is our focusing lens for the story and certainly gets the most screen time, but she's also far from the most important person on the ship. We know she's a proficient officer, but also that she fucked up royally with massive repercussions in the opening acts of the show. That dichotomy lines up well with her odd mix of behaviors: conflicted about how much she deserves the second chance she was thrust into, yet supremely confident in her own abilities. Highly empathetic towards the Tardigrade, yet unhesitant and unapologetic in manipulating Saru into being a walking danger meter. There's clearly major unresolved trauma there, and I'd like to see this person develop more naturally from here. She should have her redemption, but she'll need to earn it: not through one grand gesture of genocide refusal, but by demonstrating over time that she is dealing with her demons, and really has learned from the disaster at the binaries.

Speaking of the most important people on the ship, Stamets is chief among them. He has neither the desire nor the mentality to be a warrior, and yet he serves an irreplaceable and absolutely critical role in what has clearly become a ship of war. He's a jerk when we first meet him, but his military necessitated chance to get close and personal with his research shows us a softer side, and likely changed him in ways that we're just starting to see develop. Culber is still mostly one-note, but as a couple they play very well off each other.

Saru has a decidedly alien mentality for a military officer, but is clearly good at what he does. He is both thoughtful and candid about his past and present conflicts with Burnham, and his stint as acting captain in Choose Your Pain showed considerable growth. I want to see more of this guy learning to command (and I will get some, if less than I'd like).

Tilly is an absolute delight. She has her share of minor and harmless tics, babbling when she's nervous and occasionally blurting things out when excited, and she's vulnerable to getting flustered... but can still pull herself together and do what must be done. She shows an impressive level of emotional intelligence in her interactions with Burnham and Stamets, and she also has the awareness and confidence to identify what she wants in life, and fight for it. That's an incredibly endearing combination, and makes her the emotional heart of the show. Give me more, much more, of Burnham mentoring Tilly up to an eventual captaincy. Maybe Tilly could only reasonably work her way to full Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander over the course of a seven season show, but that would be plenty: I'm not here to see four pips, I'm here to see believable growth in an already sympathetic character.

Lorca and Tyler I'll be touching on later.

(Continued in the comments...)

When studying vertebrate paleontology, the skeleton is one of the most important, and often the only, clue we have to the appearance of long-extinct animals. In Lower Decks: "Kayshon, His Eyes Uncovered", we were treated to the ghoulish sight of of Spock's skeleton ^1, ^2, courtesy of the remains of his giant clone from TAS: "The Infinite Vulcan." Any dinosaur fan knows that while there's only so much bones can tell you about the living animal, they can still tell quite a story. I am not an expert in anatomy and not a trained paleontologist, but it is my hope that analyzing the remains of Spock the Larger will provide further insight into the anatomical differences between humans and Vulcans. By way of comparison, here is an anatomical diagram of the human skeleton: ^3

Dentition

As near as I can tell, adult Vulcans appear to have 28 teeth to the human's 32, seven on each side ^4, ^5 on top and bottom. (It's possible that Spock could have had his wisdom teeth out, but presumably the clone would have undergone no such procedure, and no empty sockets are in evidence.) Looking closely at the teeth themselves, six molars, four incisors, and four bicuspids per side are in evidence. There is no sign of the canines a human has. This suggests that Vulcans evolved from a herbivorous answer. Could Vulcans' propensity for vegetarianism be a biological imperative rather than a cultural tendency?

Skull

The proportions of the Vulcan skull as depicted in this image compared to the human skull in this image are fairly simpler. The skull, across the zygomatic along the upper corner of the orbit, is 101 pixels wide on the Vulcan as depicted in figure 1 and 75 pixels wide in the human as depicted in figure 3. The height of the skull, respectively, is 173 and 132 pixels. These equal a ratio of 1.71 for the Vulcan and 1.76 for the human. Sufficiently clear side and rear views are unfortunately not available for comparing the approximate circumference of the cranium, but it can be presumed that the Vulcan skull is similar in all dimensions to that of a human, and that their brain would likely be similar size (and thus, similar in proportion to their overall body mass) to that of a human. While brain-body ratio isn't a perfect estimator of intelligence this is certainly consistent with them being comparable to a human in intelligence (but don't let the Vulcans know, they'd surely be insulted.) Vulcan eyes are forward-facing. Binocular vision is unusual in prey species, but as we've established, Vulcans are herbivores. One possibility is that a wide field of vision is not necessary to protect from predators, which would suggest that there are no predators on Vulcan large enough to threaten a man, however the existence of the Le-Matya and the large creature that nearly slew a young Michael Burnham when she camped out in the Forge disproves this hypothesis. On Earth, the only herbivorous animals with forward-facing eyes are found among our primate relatives, who descend from an arboreal ancestor that required depth perception to brachiate. I suggest it is thus likely that Vulcan was once home to vast forests, in the trees of which a distant, pointy-eared ancestor once lived.

Vertebrae

Vulcans are vertebrates, shockingly.

All jokes aside, based on the position of Giant Spock's shoulders, it would appear that Vulcans have only five cervical vertebrae to humans' seven ^6. Fewer than seven vertebrae is uncommon for mammals on Earth-- the only mammals with more or fewer than seven vertebrae are manatees with six, two-toed sloths with five, and three-toed sloths with nine. All other mammals, from mice to gorillas, have seven. It's hard to say what the practical effects of this would be, as the number of bones in the neck don't necessarily tell us much about the flexibility of that neck.

Ribcage

I count seven ribs per side, of which the last two are floating ribs unattached to the sternum ^7. These extend rather further forward than the floating ribs of humans. Like earth's tetrapods, and unlike many fishes, Vulcans have only a single set of ribs. I think the Xiphoid process can be seen through a hole in Giant Spock's shirt. I suspect that Vulcans may have smaller lungs than humans do(an assertion backed up by the anatomical chart in the old Starfleet Medical Reference Manual, where the position of the Vulcan heart and stomach truncate the lungs slightly.) Vulcan is generally said to have a thinner atmosphere than Earth, so we can conclude that Vulcan lungs must be far more efficient than our own.

Hands

This is an interesting one. If you look closely at the bones of the Vulcan hand it appears that they are significantly different from those of a human. The most notable difference is that the Vulcan hand appears to have either an additional phalange, or else they have not one, but two metacarpals per finger-- I think the latter, because it looks like the joint would be about mid-palm on a human to me. ^8 The most likely result is that the Vulcan palm can, perhaps, be folded in the middle. This could potentially jive with our brachiation hypothesis from earlier. However it is worth noting that this adaptation seems to appear only on the right hand (on the audience's left in the image.) Most likely one hand or the other is simply the victim of an animation error, but which one it is, we cannot be absolutely certain of.

Unfortunately, glimpses of the remainder of the skeleton are fragmentary and hard to tell us much, though a generally close resemblance to human anatomy continues to be evident from what we see, which includes part of the left radius, the radius, ulna, and humeral trochlea of the right arm, the right shoulder, some three lumbar vertebrae, a bit of the ilium on both sides, and a glimpse of both knees. However we have sufficient diagnostic material to distinguish fossil remains of H. sapiens and V. eridani despite the otherwise extreme convergence of their physical traits.

I saw this rant/complaint over on Reddit, and it got me thinking a bit.

We know that at least on paper, Federation starships are insanely fast and agile. Data has stated that the Galaxy-class Enterprise was able to achieve Warp 9 from , and some ships, like the Nebula class, don't seem to use impulse engines at all, favouring the warp engine for sublight speed usage at all.

Despite that, we also know that impulse engines aren't simple thrusters, and are able to move the ship in a way not directly in line with the output thrust (Relics), and from the same episode, we also know that smaller ships, like the Jenolan, will still run rings around ships like the Enterprise, even though it is nearly a full century out of date.

However, from what the show itself portrays, the ships tend to be fairly slow and sluggish when in combat, sedately drifting along the battlefield, while weapons fire goes every which way. The most recent and active thing we've seen a big starship do is maybe the fighter run in Picard.

In my opinion, by trying to keep to the slow and seemingly logical expectations for starships to be slow, hulking metal structures that slowly fly around shooting each other, Star Trek ends up underselling what Federation starships are able to do. They would be more realistically portrayed flitting about the battlefield like dragonflies, instead of being like "real boats" today, that have more of a sense of mass.

It seems wildly unintuitive, but it would also help show Federation propulsion technology being more advanced than what they are now. Starships can instantly stop and reverse course, or move in ways that would be impossible with modern technology, and the show not showing ships capable of doing just that might be to its detriment.

This is the Daystrom Institute Episode Analysis thread for Strange New Worlds 2x01 The Broken Circle.

Now that we've had a few days to digest the content of the latest episode, this thread is a place to dig a little deeper.

The amount of #startrek content on my feed has expanded considerably since #lemmy became the new home to @daystrominstitute and @startrek.

It's a classic, if somewhat exaggerated trope in Star Trek: The ships first officer, second officer, tactical officer, chief engineer, chief medical officer, and a random ensign beam down to an unsecured planet while some dangerous problem is either ongoing or likely to occur. The Doylist reasons for this are as obvious as the Watsonian reasons it seems so silly: these are the main characters who are supposed to get the bulk of the screen time, so they are constantly thrown into situations which real world commanding officers and department heads are generally kept well clear of.

But what if this wasn't the precedent established in TOS and continued in every subsequent series (including, to a slightly lesser but very real extent, Lower Decks)? What would a Star Trek show look like which still had senior officers who we are meant to care about and who still get significant development and screen time, but who aren't thrown into unrealistically dangerous situations on a regular basis? Could such a show survive telling stories without visibly putting those regulars lives on the line so frequently? Would it be viable to keep the focus on things that happen either aboard ship or in nominally safe situations? Alternately, could a show successfully develop a cast of lower ranking "away team" characters who get the "dangerous" screen time while keeping significant focus on the major decision makers on the bridge? And how could the shows manage such a visible separation between "expendable" and "not expendable" crew while maintaining that humanist, optimistic, everybody-has-an-equal-right-to-life ethos?

It wouldn't be an easy thing to pull off, certainly. But how could it have been done?

It will surprise few members of the Daystrom institute who are familiar with me and my work that cartoons are one of the only things I enjoy as much as I do Star Trek. One of my favorite animated shows of all time is Cartoon Network's 2010-2019 surreal fantasy-comedy Adventure Time with Finn and Jake. The creative crew of Adventure Time were notorious Star Trek fans, and particularly of TNG. Over the course of their ten seasons they cast numerous Star Trek alumni, including George Takei, Michael Dorn, Jonathan Frakes, Wallace Shawn, Marina Sirtis, and LeVar Burton, not to mention many more that would later appear on Star Trek-- mostly career voice actors and comedians with roles on Lower Decks or Prodigy such as Tom Kenny, Paul F. Tompkins, Grey Griffin, Lauren Lapkus, Paul Scheer, and Dee Bradley Baker, but some that are more well-known for live action such as Tig Notaro, Rebecca Romijn, and Rainn Wilson.

For those of you that may be unfamiliar with Adventure Time, it primarily centers around the adventures of teenage boy Finn the Human and his best friend and adoptive brother Jake the Dog, a pair of fantasy adventurers in the land of Ooo, a fantasy realm a thousand years after global nuclear war ends civilization as we know it and heralds the return of magic to the world. As the show went on it explored many corners of their world, often devoting entire episodes to supporting characters where the two leads make minimal or no appearances. One of the most acclaimed and beloved episodes of Adventure Time is season 5, episode 16, "Puhoy", the series' first Emmy winner. Many fans, including tiresome internet personality Doug "That Guy With The Glasses" Walker, have noted the similarities between Puhoy's story and that of Star Trek: the Next Generation's "The Inner Light", an episode I am sure requires no introduction to the members of the Daystrom Institute.

More than merely riffing on a shared trope, however, I argue that Puhoy constitutes a specific parody of The Inner Light, a joke helped along by the appearance of not one but two notable Star Trek alumni: Jonathan Frakes as a grown-up Finn, and Wallace Shawn as village wise man Rasheeta. Finn, held back from adventuring by the arrival of a dangerous storm and melancholy about the state of his budding relationship with Flame Princess, constructs a pillow fort with Jake. Jake advises Finn that the problems he worries about are imaginary ones borne of attachment, and to demonstrate, thoughtlessly destroys his favorite mug by pitching it out the window into the conflagration. Unsure about the lesson, Finn enters the pillow fort to meditate and finds a mysterious door, which appears to lead him to another realm made entirely of pillows and blankets. While there, he slays a dragon, and dances with Roselinen, the daughter of a local villager named Quilton, but finds himself wanting to return home soon.

Meanwhile, Jake uses a fishing rod to retrieve his cup, and when questioned about this apparent hypocrisy by their roommate BMO, a living video game console, Jake offers to share some hot chocolate with them. Back in the pillow world, years have passed. Finn and Roselinen have married and had two children, named Jay and Bonnie (after Jake and another main character, Princess Bubblegum, also called Bonnibel.) Quilton arrives and informs him that he has learned of a way to return to Finn's normal life-- a door that appears only infrequently and for a short time. Years later, Finn consults with the oracle Rasheeta about the door, but Rasheeta offers no clear answers, except that Finn will soon leave. Finn finds he can no longer clearly recall Jake, and when he tries can only recall a figure that more closely resembles Rasheeta telling him to stay with Roselinen. Roselinen encourages him to return home, asking only that he remember her and the children when he does. Finally, Finn dies of old age, surrounded by family, and emerges from the pillowfort, still a young boy. His attempts to relate this experience to Jake is interrupted by a phone call from Flame Princess, causing him to forget the whole thing like a dream.

Almost every beat of Puhoy is the opposite of The Inner Light. Unlike the crew of the Enterprise, Jake and BMO make no attempt to rouse Finn from his other life, and indeed scarcely appear to be concerned at all. Unlike Aline, Roselinen is supportive of Finn's desire to resume his old life. Unlike Picard, the experience can leave no lasting impression on Finn, and the episode is at best ambivalent about the idea of sentimental mementos, adopting as many of Adventure Time's most poignant episodes do a highly existential, Zen philosophy that it is best to focus neither on the past nor the future. But Finn and Picard's journey is alike, the tension between their old life and their new life is alike, and it only serves, alongside the casting of Frakes, to highlight the irony of how unlike the details of the episodes around them are in a way that brings the audience in on the joke.

@[email protected] invited contributors from the old Daystrom to repost some favorites, so here is one of mine.

Throughout Star Trek, but especially in TOS and TNG, we are commonly asked to be very stressed out about our captain being overruled or displaced. Regardless of whether the replacement does a good job, it seems clear that we are supposed to resent him simply because he is not the usual captain we have come to know and love.

A particularly striking example of this is TOS "The Deadly Years," where Kirk is aging rapidly and apparently going senile. This seems like a clear case where Spock should step in -- but a good chunk of the episode is taken up with the procedings to relieve Kirk of command. In the end, the inexperienced starbase commander who replaces him turns out to be a disaster, and the ship is only saved when a cured Kirk is able to come in and be his usual decisive self.

The most gut-wrenching example, of course, is Captain Jellico, who arbitrarily changes everything, criticizes the way Troi dresses, won't let Riker do his job -- and regards it as a foregone conclusion that Picard is dead.

I have seen several comments to the effect that the crew's response to Jellico is a little childish, and I think that's a clue to what's going on with this common plot. Namely, I believe that the captain is put forward as a father figure and that the displacement plots are speaking to a cultural anxiety about divorce. The replacement captain is the step-dad who always appears to be an illegitimate usurper -- and in the end, we get the fantasy outcome that mom and dad get back together again.

This may seem far-fetched, but the earliest TOS episodes do a lot of work to establish Kirk as a father figure (most explicitly in "Charlie X") and the ship as his wife ("The Naked Time"). This is more subdued in TNG, where Picard is awkward with kids -- but Picard's emotional distance completely fits with the "traditional" image of the father. Surely "Captain Picard Day" is something like Father's Day for the Enterprise children! And more broadly, the backstory of many Enterprise crew members includes broken families, alienation from parents, dead parents or spouses -- all factors that lead them to identify the ship as their true family (and invite the misfits in the audience to do the same).

Over the years, of course, our culture became less and less stressed out about divorce as it became more routine -- and so those plots suggested themselves less and less. In DS9, it is far from a dominant theme. I haven't rewatched in a while, but I don't remember even a single plot that hinges on someone taking over for Sisko -- when the Dominion takes over the station, the emotional focus isn't Sisko's lost command, but the loss of the station itself. [ADDED: I wonder if the fact that Sisko is the only captain who is presented as a literal father somewhat undercuts his role as father-figure thematically.]

And Janeway's command is never seriously disputed. Of course, in-universe you can say it's because she's so far away from the admirals, but symbolically, she's the mom -- and in a typical divorce narrative, it's never a question of whether mom will remain in place. The one clear example I can think of where the crew rebels against her authority is "Prime Factors" -- and their main rationale is that they believe Janeway's judgment is clouded by her obvious attraction to the leader of the vacation planet. In other words, the kids get restless when it looks like mom might have a boyfriend.

The theme of the displaced captain comes back somewhat in Enterprise, but to me it feels different. The issue isn't Archer being replaced by a step-dad -- instead, the problem always centers on Archer's masculinity. In "Hatchery," he becomes overly maternal toward the Xindi Insectoid babies, which leads to a mutiny. Similarly, in "Bound," the Orion Slave Girls compromise Archer's judgment with their aggressive sexiness. Archer's either becoming a woman or being dominated by one -- which calls back to the early episodes, when it could sometimes be unclear whether he or T'Pol was really in charge. Archer represents not a father, so much as an emasculated human race ready to prove itself -- a more reactionary theme for a more reactionary time (the early 2000s).

While some may argue in transparently bad faith that it isn't so, it's obvious to even a casual observer that Star Trek's setting depicts in the Federation a vision of society in which the goals of both the social and economic left wing have largely won out and largely been attained. The people of the Federation have relatively complete equality of race, gender, sexuality, and even species. Resources are abundant and housing, food, shelter, healthcare, education, and beyond even the necessities even most of the pleasures of life are provided to virtually all. The environment is protected and even controlled on many populated planets to protect the ecosystem.

What, then, is at the cutting edge of politics for the Federation? In the interests of disclosure, I have identified as an anarcha-feminist and a pacifist for more than a decade (albeit not a tremendously intellectual one), and my analysis here is based in large part on the issues I believe that, as a civilian living in Star Trek's universe, I would likely have strong positions on.

A few candidates immediately present themselves:

• AI rights. A major theme of 24th-century Star Trek, from the beginning of TNG right up to Picard, is the debate over the rights of artificial intelligences, whether in the form of androids and synths like Data and Soji or photonics like the Doctor, Vic, and Moriarty. Less attention is given to less anthropomorphic forms of artificial intelligence. As we see in Lower Decks, Starfleet and the Daystrom Institute keep rogue AIs such as AGIMUS, Peanut Hamper, and 10111, with no evidence that they received any kind of trial or evaluation. The tragedy of 2385 became a major impediment to AI rights, but after the events of season 1 of Picard they seem to be back on track, at least for Synths. The personhood of photonics and non-anthropomorphic AIs remains up in the air.
• Augment rights. This may be an internally contentious issue. on the one hand, it is clear that genetically-altered individuals are marginalized as of the Dominion War. It is by the narrowest of margins that Bashir avoids being drummed out of Starfleet for being the recipient of a medical procedure he had no ability to consent to or refuse, and the Jack Pack are in some ways treated more like inmates than patients. Less than a century and a half before, Illyrians were persecuted and La'an Noonien Singh faced bullying as a child for being the distant descendant of Khan. However the memory of the Eugenics Wars looms large in the human imagination and genetic augmentation may still be viewed by some as inherently hierarchical.
• Humanocentrism and Vulcan Supremacy. Azetbur's remarks on the Federation as a "Homo sapiens-only" club are not strictly true, but they're not strictly unfounded either. The Federation's capital has always been Earth, Starfleet's headquarters are on Earth, Earth seems to have more colonies than any other member world (and stay tuned while we discuss that further), Humans make up the bulk of Starfleet (even on the Cerritos, by far the most species-diverse ship shown in Trek canon, the majority of the crew seem to be human), Federation Standard is closely descended from English, and four out of six Federation Presidents named or depicted across Star Trek canon are either human or of partial human ancestry. Vulcans, meanwhile, are frequently openly prejudiced against other species and seem to face little opprobrium for being so. This is more prominent in the 22nd and 23rd century, with anti-human terrorism on Vulcan, Spock's childhood bullying, and Starfleet even declaring entire vessels (such as the Intrepid) Vulcan-only; but it still seems to be present in the 24th and even, in some respects, as far ahead as the 32nd century.
• Seceding worlds (and the Maquis.) Unlike the United States of America, which had a whole civil war over the matter, Federation member worlds, and even colonies, appear to have the right to withdraw Federation membership. Aside from the Cardassian Border colonies that produced the Maquis rebellion, Turkana IV is perhaps the most prominent example in the 24th century. We know later in history most of the Federation's worlds, including Earth, Ni'Var, and Andoria, will secede as well in the aftermath of the Burn, and there are some indications that M'Talas Prime may be ex-Federation by the time of Picard. Turkana IV and M'Talas prime serve as an effective demonstration of exactly why this might become a progressive issue: neither seems to have thrived without the Federation, and the Maquis secession resulted in years of violence ending in mass murder on the part of the Dominion. On the other hand making Federation membership irrevocable is not exactly respectful of the sovereignty of those worlds' people. This is likely an issue that sees divided perspectives.
• Expansionism and Imperialism. This may be another controversial one. It is undeniable that the Federation is expansionist, always settling new worlds, welcoming new members, and pushing its borders outwards. As an organization Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Before is a central element of Starfleet's mission. However it is clear that one of the key goals of the Prime Directive^1^ is in ensuring that this expansion does not come at the expense of sovereign indigenous civilizations. Nevertheless, we often see the citizens of other polities feel their people are pressured, or even subtly coerced, to join the Federation, especially in DS9. It is not hard to believe that these concerns are shared by at least some Federation citizens.
• Social issues in neighboring societies. It is clear that many of the Federation's neighbors do not place as high a value on the rights of the individual or of the people as do the Federation, from Ferengi misogyny to Klingon classism to Cardassian totalitarianism. This is the opposite side of the coin from the prior issue, and it seems like the dominant strain of thought in the Federation is to pursue a policy of not intervening even in other advanced societies in the name of inalienable rights, or even providing more than token support to internal resistance movements much of the time (witness the struggles of Bajor, for instance.)
• Section 31. It remains unclear how much of the existence of Section 31, particularly in its modern form, is known to the public. However if it is known, an organization willing to violate the Federation's every high-minded principle in the ruthless pursuit of protecting its interests is doubtless a fraught subject. If their existence only became public knowledge after the fact of their indiscretions, one could easily imagine it being a scandal that tarnishes entire governments.
• Criminal Justice. While crime is no longer as widespread as it is in our own time due to lack of deprivation, the Federation still practices a form of carceral justice. Better minds than I discuss elsewhere the matters of police and prison abolition. Here is one 21st-century left-wing cause that hasn't yet become obsolete.
• Militarism. A common criticism of Star Trek is that everything in the Federation seems to revolve around Starfleet. While that's partly a limitation of the nature of the show, it raises the question: how true is it really? And how true do the people of the 24th century perceive it to be? How comfortable are civilians with the prominence of Starfleet?

Please use the comments to offer your own insights, or to suggest any issues I may have overlooked.

^A subject about which liberal and left-wing arguments both for and against are so played out as to be not worth any further mention.

In the finale of Picard Season 3, the Titan, armed with a 100 year old cloaking device, manages to successfully evade detection by the Borg controlled fleet. This raises some questions. How on earth is it that the Titan was able to accomplish this with a seemingly obsolete cloaking device?

I postulate two things, the first is that what we call the cloaking device is merely one component in a whole system of invisibility, and the second is that StarFleet was certainly obeying the letter of the treaty (Pegasus and Section 31 aside) by not developing cloaking technology, but was, in reality, building ships ready to accept cloaking devices at a moment's notice.

What do we know about cloaking devices, and how are they defeated? The cloaking device ties into the ship’s deflector shield control (as per TOS: The Enterprise Incident) and it obtains invisibility in part by bending light around the ship (as per comparison to the Aldean planetary shield in TNG: The Bough Breaks and description from DISL Into the Forest I Go)

However, using the deflector shield to remain unobserved does not necessarily require a cloaking device. As per the opening of TOS: Assignment: Earth, the Enterprise was able to use its defector shield to remain unobserved to 20th century technology.

And there are countless examples of a cloaking device being imperfect. The most famous example is likely Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where a torpedo set to target ionized gas is able to trace down the location of a Bird of Prey, summarized as “The thing has to have a tailpipe.”

But that is not the only example. Detecting energy distortions, subspace radiation, high speed warp signatures from neutrino radiation, and looking for tetryon particles all worked as forms of passive detection. (I will not cover active detection mechanisms such as the tachyon net, as the Borg fleet never deployed them.)

To add to all this, the clocking device is very small. A device about the size and weight of a man can make a ship invisible.

Here I switch to speculation.

First, I suggest that the cloaking device is primarily a computer. It is not the thing which makes the ship invisible - you could plug it into a building and it would not work, unless it has its own projectors. It must be plugged into a ship with a deflector array, to enhance and perfect its ability to make the ship invisible.

Second, the quality of the ship is more important than the quality of the cloaking device. A cloaking device “merely” needs to look at all incoming radiation of all types, and calculate how to move it around the ship for total silence. But it cannot protect against a ship which emits radiation, leaks gas, etc. Thus, a ship designed with high quality shields and high quality emission control will be more stealthy.

Side speculation: The design decision to not use an antimatter core in the first Bird of Prey we see during TOS: Balance of Terror (their power is simple impulse only implies fusion) and the later TNG-era decision to use a forced singularity despite the downsides, may be rooted in the notion that the Romulans felt that emissions from antimatter annihilation were a liability. Selling the Klingons the cloak and not telling them about this problem seems entirely on brand for the Romulan Star Empire.

There is something of an exception here, the phased cloak. A ship out of phase would, presumably, emit radiation which is also out of phase. (Extrapolated from TNG: The Next Phase where Ro shoots Riker in the head and he does not notice.) The phased cloak represented an attempt to fix emission control on a completely new level. But the phased cloak had problems, and is is seemingly a dead end for the ability to fire while cloaked. Plus, research was a treaty violation.

So now we return to the Titan. We know that plugging a 100 year old cloaking device into the Titan produced an invisibility effect which worked admirably. StarFleet may have seemingly kept their commitment to not build ships with cloaking devices, but this was always a hand wave agreement. StarFleet was ready for the day when they needed invisible ships, and having ships ready to accept cloaking devices was seemingly an unspoken but very intentional design consideration.

When the Titan needed to be invisible, she was missing only one piece of the puzzle.

In "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", captains Sisko and Solok form teams of their own crewmen and play a baseball game in one of Quark's holosuites. Unlike most Holosuite programs, the real people involved are extremely spread out, with Rom (in the stands behind home plate) and Dax (climbing the center field fence) at least 450 feet apart at one point, with the dugouts roughly 200 feet apart along the opposite axis. We see the interior of various holosuites in prior episodes and they are nowhere near that large. Does Quark really have close to 100,000 square feet worth of holosuites, or does the holodeck have some special tricks to deal with this sort of situation?

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

Petrus4's guide to 'Star Trek: Voyager'

Voyager is my favourite Star Trek series, although for most people it seems to be the most infamous. It's bizarre, it's humorous, it often has fairly epic action, to the point of being low-budget Lethal Weapon or Die Hard, IN SPACE! It isn't as strong in the first three seasons as the last four, but there are still some gems to be had. My job is to help you separate the gems from the viscous brown substance that they are hidden in.

The rules are simple. If I mention it, I enjoyed it for some reason or other, and I think you should watch it. Since reading Optical Data's guide on this wiki, I've realised that Voyager actually has a lot more continuity than I thought. I don't list every single episode here which somehow has continuation somewhere else. Instead, I only list those episodes which I personally felt to contain solid entertainment. Some of the episodes I list here are acknowledged as Voyager's worst, and I will usually also admit that as well, where relevant. If those episodes are here, then it usually means that said episodes either still contained some element of humour which I liked, or had continuity which I considered too important to miss.

My Top Ten Episodes

This is the shortest possible version of this guide. If you are coming into Voyager completely blind, and don't want to watch the whole thing, these ten episodes are the true unmissables out of the entire series in my opinion, (in chronological, not preferential order) and will also help you figure out whether or not you want to spend time watching more of them.

Faces

The Thaw

Sacred Ground

Year of Hell

Prey

Timeless

Gravity

Dark Frontier

Equinox

The Void

Season 1

E01S01. Caretaker: Pilot. Boldly going 70,000 light years in order to visit a holographic alien nursing home, and then adopting a homeless love child of the Night Hob from The Never Ending Story, and Hoggle from Labyrinth. Also, we get the series' first recurring Big Bad, who turn out to be Space Rastafarians. Think Psychlos with anorexia, lower technology, and no John Travolta. As Chief Engineer, we also got Roxann Dawson/B'Elanna Torres, who went on to become the most chronic actor/character crush of my existence, so far.

E04S01. Phage: Space lepers steal Neelix's lungs. Janeway rages at space lepers, orders return of lungs. Space lepers can't give them back, but give Neelix holographic lungs instead. Janeway tells space lepers that if she ever encounters them again, she will end them as they have never been ended before. Space lepers look appropriately terrified.

E09S01. Prime Factors: Tuvok becomes insubordinate, and attempts to steal propulsion technology from space swingers.

E10S01. State of Flux: Space Rastafarians first seen in the pilot, blow up their ship after mishandling Federation technology, which they shouldn't have. Voyager has a traitor on board, who turns out to be Chakotay's ex-girlfriend. Small universe.

E13S01. Faces: Voyager provides masturbation material for Klingon fanboys.

E14S01. Jetrel: Voyager asks us a question. What if Robert Oppenheimer and Joseph Mengele had a love child, who was also born as a Talaxian?

Season 2

E01S02. The 37's: Amelia Earhardt and Bill Clinton meet up and shoot the breeze, in the Delta Quadrant.

E03S02. Projections: Voyager tries to provide the audience with the legal simulation of an LSD trip. This won't be the last time.

E05S02. Non Sequitur: Voyager does Sliders.

E10S02. Maneuvers: The next episode in the "Seksa and the Space Rastafarians" arc.

E12S02. Prototype: It's a B'Elanna Torres show. Enough said. Go and watch it immediately.

E16S02. Threshold: Voyager makes its own contribution to the cause of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Recommended not due to how good it is, but how bad. Do not watch while sober.

E17S02. Meld: Grima Wormtongue makes a special guest star appearance on Voyager, and he's still a psychopath. Tuvok performs a mind meld with him because, as anyone can see, it was obviously the only logical thing he could have done. Chaos, lulz, and general merriment ensues.

E18S02. Dreadnought: It's another B'Elanna Torres episode. You know what I'm going to say, don't you?

E19S02. Death Wish: Q and son show up on Voyager. Serious Business ensues.

E20S02. Lifesigns: One of the space lepers from last season comes aboard Voyager, and temporarily becomes a holographic girlfriend for the Doctor. Romance and mild Glurge ensues.

E22S02. Deadlock: Harry Kim establishes his reputation as Voyager's answer to Kenny from South Park, or Waspinator from Transformers: Beast Wars.

E24S02. The Thaw: What Barney the Dinosaur should have been. Despite my flippant description, this is seriously one of Voyager's greatest episodes in my opinion, even if only because the level of weirdness here exemplifies Voyager's contribution to Trek as a whole. Recommended.

E26S02. Tuvix: Tuvok and Neelix develop an intimate relationship. Janeway gets in touch with her inner Jack Kavorkian.

E28S02. Basics, part 1: Die Hard With a Voyager, part 1. Grima Wormtongue plays Bruce Willis, and we get Space Rastafarians instead of Alan Rickman. Seska sets a trap for Voyager. Chakotay takes acid, has a conversation with his dead father, and as a result, decides that voluntarily falling into Seska's trap would be a good idea. Janeway and the rest of the crew get dumped on a barren planet.

Season 3

E01S03. Basics, part 2: Die Hard With a Voyager, part 2. Grima gets shot in the back with a phaser rifle before he can say, "Yippee Kiyay." Paris and some Talaxians also help save the ship. Voyager goes back and rescues Janeway and the crew, and none of the crew consider staging a mutiny against Janeway and Chakotay for getting them into the situation in the first place. Seska dies, and Space Rastafarians leave for the last time.

E03S03. The Chute: Paris and Kim get sent to a Space Prison and meet a 1960s version of Karl Marx, who's still a homeless person.

E06S03. Remember: B'Elanna Torres/Roxann Dawson episode.

E07S03. Sacred Ground: Voyager does Contact, but also adds a dash of Shirley McClaine's Out On a Limb, and a pinch of Labyrinth.

E08-09S03. Future's End: Voyager meets a time travelling version of Lex Luthor, who looks more like John Farnham. The Doctor gets shot at by some rednecks who think he's a demon, and they get back to the future with the help of a crazy homeless person.

E10S03. Warlord: Kes gets possessed, and then gets dangerous. Kes' finest hour, and the episode which Kes/Jennifer Lien's fans will usually talk about, when they explain why they think she was awesome.

E16S03. Blood Fever: On rewatching this episode, it is a lot more awkward than I remember. The opening scene where Vorik essentially tries to rape B'Elanna is particularly cringe inducing. Most of the rest of the episode is good, and we get continued clues about Tom and B'Elanna's developing relationship, (especially in the final scene) but some of the stuff with Vorik is forced, and just comes across as off-key.

E17S03. Unity: Chakotay goes on summer camp with the Borg.

E18S03. Darkling: The Doctor goes postal. Kes and Neelix break up.

E19S03. Rise: This episode is fairly thin, and doesn't really have much that is exciting or interesting. The one reason why it is worth mentioning, however, is that it has some good character development and interaction between Tuvok and Neelix. Tuvok does not like Neelix, and Neelix confronts Tuvok about this. Personally, I'm not sure how justified I feel this was, simply from the point of view that if there is one thing I've learned about Vulcans, it is that it's completely inappropriate for anyone to expect a Vulcan to react or behave in non-Vulcan terms. Most of the character conflict that occurs with Vulcans, anywhere in Trek, happens for this reason; Humans or some other more emotional race will expect a Vulcan to react to them with Human psychology or emotion, and they will typically then initiate conflict with the Vulcan when that does not occur.

E20S03. Favorite Son: "They killed Harry again! You BASTARDS!" Part Three of Voyager's Trifecta of Doom. Mostly included for surreal comedy value. You may, however, need therapy afterwards.

E21S03. Before and After: Kes' Excellent Adventure.

E22S03. Real Life: The Doctor gets a holographic family. Seriously good episode, from which the Doctor gets a lot of character development.

E25S03. Worst Case Scenario: The last episode of "pre-Seven Voyager", and a decent one at that. Seska comes back for one last encore performance.

E26S03. Scorpion: The point at which Voyager grew the beard according to consensus opinion. The first major appearance of the Borg, and Trek's first non-rubber headed alien race. Strong action, very nice CGI for the time, and a decent story. John Rhys-Davies is seen for the first time as a hologram of Leonardo DaVinci.

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

Algernon_Asimov's guide to 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'

I've compiled an episode guide for 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'. This shows major milestones and character development - hopefully without giving away too many spoilers.

If you want to know which episodes are essential to watch (and which to avoid!) in the early seasons of Deep Space Nine, this is the page for you!

.

.

.

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

Serialized Deep Space 9 Episode Guide

- /u/Darth_Rasputin32898

Introduction

The goal of of this guide is to provide an episode order to watch Deep Space 9 (DS9) that will deliver maximum impact of the series' overall story arcs in a minimum of episodes. My personal motivation in this matter was to introduce someone I know to Star Trek, a person interested in Star Trek who overwhelmingly favors non-episodic story-telling (a fan of HBO's Game Of Thrones). As such, I decided DS9 would be most appropriate.

Put another way, the purpose of this guide is enable new viewers to quickly 'rush' through the DS9 series without losing the benefits of essential plotlines or character development. No prior Trek experience is required, though reference to the 'Background' section may be helpful initially. All you need is simply the patience to sit through about the first and/or second seasons, which are quite abbreviated in this guide (since they're more episodic and generally considered lower quality).

The total number of episodes by my count is 125.

About Spoilers

This is a non-spoiler guide. Spoilers for any given episode will not be used in the Key Points for that episode. Spoilers for episodes may be included in the Key Points for episodes after that episode. These details will be contained in the spoiler code. Here is an example:

SeasonXEpisodeY

So, if you'd seen episode Y of season X, you'd be able to view that spoiler.

Background

The year is 2369. Humans have, over the past three and a half centuries, have made contact with aliens and helped form an interstellar government, the United Federation of Planets (simply, Federation) that is at the time of DS9 one of the major powers of the known galaxy. It is a post-scarcity, democratic, idyllic society dedicated peaceful to contact with other species and other inter-species governments. Its 'navy,' so to speak, is Starfleet, a 'peacekeeping and humanitarian armada,' jointly operated by its members. It is an exploratory organization, and the main focus of all Star Trek.

Unfortunately, most other known interstellar governments are not as peaceable. The chief rivals of the Federation at present are the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and the more recently encountered Cardassian Union. All of these are expansionist military powers, and all of them have been at war with the Federation at some point. (However, the Klingons are now allied with the Federation.)

Anything else important is quite clearly shown in episode 1.

Episode List

Right! On to the episodes at last!

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4

Season 5

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

#Algernon_Asimov's guide to 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'

I've compiled an episode guides for 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'. This shows major milestones and character development - hopefully without giving away too many spoilers.

Whether you want to track the development of Worf during Next Generation, or skip the Wesley-heavy episodes, this is the page for you!

.

.

.

Season 1

Season 2