Fair question, since I used “wasn’t in the film” earlier.
I think there are clues. They were show dedocking from the refinery to land. They do sleep most of the trip. One could make extrapolations from these, but, yeah, a lot remains unsaid.
The refinery section looks YUGE compared to the Nostromo, but it could be integrated. I think “supplemental materials” said it was independent, but danged if I can remember where I read that (probably Starlog magazine).
Like you sad, not really in the film.
(to retate: I love Alien and Aliens, but I think they didn’t think the science through enough. Same as Star Trek. It started as a gothic thriller…in SPAAAAACE! It didn’t need more detail.)
I tried the Voight-Kampf test on ChatGPT. It just said it would flip the tortoise over and then explained the movie to me. Soooo…does that very logical answer mean you’re human or not human? Like why do dumb questions make replicants freak out? Like does it test to see if they show emotion or no emotion? Why did Rachel need like 150 questions before Decker could figure her out? She freakin talks like a robot. Tyrell’s big fake out was to design a replicant that passes as a human woman with no personality?
In universe, the Voight-Kampf test is looking for subtle, involuntary muscle twitches around the eyes that happen when a human is thinking about an emotional subject, like an animal in distress, or a family member. The questions don’t make them “freak out” - the one who kills the cop at the beginning of the movie realized that his cover was most likely blown, and acted first before they could do anything to him, but it wasn’t the questions specifically that triggered him. Rachel’s new design is better at making those minor autonomous movements, which is why it takes Deckard so long to perform the test.
Rachel’s affect may be flat and sort of robotic, but a lot of real people have flat and sort of robotic affects, and a functional replicant test needs to be able to tell the difference. Also, a major theme of both book and movie is that the distinction between human and replicant is not as bright-line as everyone in the movie thinks it is. The “real” humans in general tend to be flatter and less dynamic than the “fake” replicants, which is a deliberate stylistic choice from Ridley Scott.
Which is why I am on "Team ‘Deckard is human’ ". It makes a better point if Deckard, a human, is less empathic, less emotional, less “human” than replicant Roy. The ranges overlap.
Rachel saying “Did you ever take the test yourself” isn’t some subtle clue he’s a replicant, but an insult from Rachel that he’s not, and he wouldn’t pass. “Cold fish, that’s what my wife called me.”
And it’s why I’m on “Team It-Doesn’t-Matter-What-Deckard-Is”. Replicant-Deckard would be the same character as Human-Deckard. By trying to pin him down, either way, you’re falling into the same trap that he and most of the other characters fall into.
It started as a gothic thriller…in SPAAAAACE! It didn’t need more detail.)