You can join us in the heretic box.

What's "Stark Trek"?

When Iron Man's armor is powered by a micro-warp core, shoots phaser beams instead of repulsors, and can travel at speeds of up to warp 9.99 in deep space.

I want to see this happen YESTERDAY.

In my mind, the only thing that gives Star Trek an edge over Star Wars is that there is no Jar Jar Binks in Star Trek.

Extent of colonization and size of government aren't matters of technological advancement, but age. Same goes for global urbanization. Star Trek, all but a few races attained space travel within the last few hundred to a thousand years, Star Wars most did so tens of thousands of years ago. Technology in Star Wars has not substantially advanced at any point in hard canon or the extended universe (you could argue it's actually declined, as the Death Star was a child's toy compared to some of the ancient lost technologies).

Weapon yields: Trek. The TOS Enterprise was described as able to level a planet, and a quite small fleet in DS9 very nearly succeeded in outright destroying one. In Wars, outright destruction of a planet is impossible without immense superweapons with crew complements in the seven digit range.

Defenses: Trek. They're very inconsistently portrayed in both, but on average Trek defenses appear more effective and against stronger weapons.

Materials: Trek with a big caveat. Exotic materials could go either way, but Trek uses energy fields to strengthen materials far beyond their physical limits, something that gives it a materials science edge over most sci fi universes.

Power generation: Trek, primarily for fuel consumption. Both Trek's antimatter and Wars' hypermatter reactors have potential power output so large that it doesn't matter, hypermatter reactors are described as consuming immense amounts of exotic fuel. Trek ships use much smaller amounts of the most abundant element in the universe which they're outfitted to collect themselves, and under normal operation can operate on a net negative fuel consumption.

Sublight propulsion: Trek by a mile, impulse speeds can very nearly approach c (possibly exceeding it, though that might just be sloppy writing) and traverse solar systems in minutes while Wars has fairly limited sublight speed for larger vessels.

FTL propulsion: Wars. Hyperdrive has some limitations that warp does not, but it's much faster and lower energy consumption. The only propulsion system seen in Trek that can match it for speed (Borg transwarp conduit) has greater limitations than hyperdrive.

Computing: Wars. Artificial sentience is such a common thing you can build them at home as a hobby, and they have literally no rights - you can call them into existence and banish them to the delete key on a whim and it's what everybody does. Star Trek's got a handful of advanced machines, built with varying levels of difficulty. Trek does get the moral win here for struggling with their rights after the fact.

Miscellany: Trek. Sensors, communication, and terraforming appear vastly superior in Trek. Trek also has teleporters, replicators, universal translators, and any number of other feats of penultimate technology that Wars does not. Basically, Trek technology is magic. Even Wars' most exotic technologies are still fairly mundane as a story requirement, because the characters are magic. A Jedi would barely merit a passing interest in Trek - telepathy is fairly common, telekinesis not unheard of, and nearly all of their tricks can be replicated technologically.


Which is kind of the reason this entire comparison is silly: They're opposite settings. Magic people with technolgoy vs. people with magic technology.

Is there any evidence that the TOS Enterprise was actually capable of firepower of that magnitude, and in what time span (Kirk is known for his bluffs, after all)? It is only using antimatter-based weaponry, which is limited in its energy yield by the equivalent mass annihilated (Hypermatter reactors supposedly use subspace hax to provide more power... logically necessary for destroying a planet utterly without consuming a moon's mass to fuel your gun). Imperial Star Destroyers could incinerate the surface of the planet within a day, but the utter destruction of a planet was considered impossible, particularly within the timespan allotted. (That is, fast enough that total utter destruction took place from start to finish within a day or two)

Most on-screen performances of Trek weaponry doesn't support the idea the Kirk's Enterprise could put out the firepower of the Death Star. Prolonged bombardment to destroy a civilization is a relatively reasonable capability to give it, though.

I'd posit that both are supposed to be roughly equal on the directed energy weapons capability... both use neutronium alloys in their armor: "Durasteel" is a neutronium-impregnated alloy with other technobabble ingredients.

The only thing I like about Star Wars more than Star Trek?

No Time Travel.

You win.

The only good time travel episode in trek was "City on the Edge of Forever". Well, that and maybe the one with the fighter pilot.

Besides, this is a silly argument. Trek and Star Wars have their good parts and bad parts. I could just as easily say Farscape or Babylon Five were better than either and its only my opinion. Its like the argument of who could beat who in a fight betwween Superman and the Hulk....there will never be a resolution just fanboy/girl-isms.

You can like both, they are complete different from each other and the only thing they have in common is the name Star in the front and takes place in space.

I love both, Star trek a little more, but that's because I love Patrick Stewart