NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

[Pauln6]

Lol yes i know they beamed onto a ship at warp in the movie. I just assumed nobody else would be stupid enough to try it.

NuScotty said he had successfully beamed something to one of our outer planets didn't he, several billion miles at least and that was before he had the transwarp equation? I do agree that a maximum safe distance of about 500,000km would have been a sensible limit otherwise your starships have to be in quite a low orbit or sitting right next to a ship to effect any kind transport.

I think you are right about the term 'transwarp'. I was getting confused because they were also beaming onto a ship at warp.

[Christopher]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

NuScotty said he had successfully beamed something to one of our outer planets didn't he, several billion miles at least and that was before he had the transwarp equation?

No, he didn't.

SCOTT: ...I had a little debate with my instructor on the issue of relativistic physics and how it pertains to subspace travel. He seemed to think that the range of transporting something like a, like a grapefruit, was limited to about a hundred miles. I told him that I could not only beam a grapefruit from one planet to the adjacent planet in the same system, which is easy by the way, I could do it with a lifeform. So, I tested it on Admiral Archer's prized beagle.
KIRK: Wait, I know that dog. What happened to it?
SCOTT: I'll tell you when it reappears. I don't know. I do feel guilty about that.

http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie11.htm

I do agree that a maximum safe distance of about 500,000km would have been a sensible limit otherwise your starships have to be in quite a low orbit or sitting right next to a ship to effect any kind transport.

Half a million klicks is a bit excessive. "Standard orbit" is generally assumed to be only a few hundred km in altitude, and geosynchronous orbit of Earth is only 35,000 km.

I think you are right about the term 'transwarp'. I was getting confused because they were also beaming onto a ship at warp.

It's right there in the dialogue:

SPOCK PRIME: What if I told you that your transwarp theory was correct? That it is indeed possible to beam onto a ship that is travelling at warp speed?

[Kruezerman]

Christopher wrote:

---

The problem with making long-distance transporting routine in the Star Trek universe is that it renders the entire format of Star Trek obsolete. If you have interstellar beaming, what do you need starships for?

Transporters have always been a plot device with the potential to be far, far too powerful to be good for the story -- in principle, they could get characters out of any crisis easily, allow resurrecting the dead or healing any disease or injury on a regular basis, they could create an army of clones of a person, etc. So ST has always had to impose limits on what transporters could do, in order to keep them from compromising the storytelling: they can't beam through shields, they can be blocked by certain materials or radiation types, they have memory limitations that won't let them permanently store enough data to replicate a live person, etc. Writing about transporters has always been a tricky balance between giving them the abilities they need to drive the story and keeping enough limitations on them that those abilities don't upend the whole universe. Since Bad Robot is new in the Trek game, maybe they haven't quite gotten the hang of that balancing act, so they exploited the convenience of long-distance transporters without thinking through the long-term ramifications and the need to impose limits on them (so it's fortunate that TNG: "Bloodlines" already gave us a handy set of limits on the equivalent technology).

The alternative is to embrace those godlike powers of teleportation and actually build a universe around exploring their ramifications. Novelist Wil McCarthy had an interesting take on that in his Queendom of Sol tetralogy. But that would be a rather different universe than the one Star Trek has always been about.

Well remember what Scotty said in the story:

"Good! Now remember, I've got to bounce the little bastard's molecules off a couple of relays to make it all the way to Earth, so it might take a little time! You're sure no one'll interrupt us?"

I take this as that maybe somebody could cut off a relay or stop re-materialization (actually killing or destroying the subject). So that I believe is the limitations imposed. Sure it's fast, but even the slightest mistake can be positively deadly, a ship is far safer and even more versatile in many situations..

[Pauln6]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

So that I believe is the limitations imposed. Sure it's fast, but even the slightest mistake can be positively deadly, a ship is far safer and even more versatile in many situations..

See, i don't see how it's possible to maintain any kind of annular confinement beam in such circumstances. It's the transporting ship that maintains the beam.. A communications relay should not be able to do it. You should end up with mush at the end of the process.

The other issue is scanning. It's not an issue in the comic with another officer seated at another transporter because they can intercept the signal. Remember in TOS, they were reluctant to beam within a ship because of the possibility of transporting into a bulkhead? Transporter sites used to be wide open spaces that the ship could scan carefully. Quite apart from the fact that Enterprise was going at warp, I could not fathom how Scotty in the movie could scan the ship at such a great distance with enough accuracy to transport safely (still, in for a penny).

This does produce a massive bar to long distance transporting - without a receiving platform to guide you in, it's basically suicide. Also I don't see how a ship could quantum scan you to retrieve you at such great distances - you'd need a sending platform to get back too surely?

It seems that the confinement beam and scanning issues have been brushed under the carpet to keep technobabble at a minimum for now... and possibly to let the writers do silly stuff :P

[Christopher]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

Quite apart from the fact that Enterprise was going at warp, I could not fathom how Scotty in the movie could scan the ship at such a great distance with enough accuracy to transport safely (still, in for a penny).

Well, that was supposedly the reason they locked onto the engineering deck, because it was the roomiest part of the ship and thus the safest to beam into. That's explained in the novelization, though it was cut out of the final film (if it was ever actually in the script at all). And as you'll recall, it wasn't quite a safe transport, because Scotty materialized inside a coolant pipe. He was lucky he beamed into liquid, something that could be pushed out of the way by the ACB, instead of a solid bulkhead. (So in that sense, the film did demonstrate that it was a hazardous undertaking, not something you'd want to do routinely. I should've given the screenwriters more credit.)

[Pauln6]

Christopher wrote:

---

And as you'll recall, it wasn't quite a safe transport, because Scotty materialized inside a coolant pipe. He was lucky he beamed into liquid, something that could be pushed out of the way by the ACB, instead of a solid bulkhead. (So in that sense, the film did demonstrate that it was a hazardous undertaking, not something you'd want to do routinely. I should've given the screenwriters more credit.)

When you look at the distance involved, the engineering deck really isn't very big at all compared to the surrounding vacuum of space. Mind you, Federation ships carry beacons, I suppose it's possible to lock onto that from a Federation outpost and extrapolate the coordinates of the brewery in relation to the beacon. But yes they were VERY lucky!

[Christopher]

^Well, it wasn't luck. Sure, it was a virtually impossible feat of computational accuracy, but remember: Spock was the one who programmed the coordinates.

[Pauln6]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Well, it wasn't luck. Sure, it was a virtually impossible feat of computational accuracy, but remember: Spock was the one who programmed the coordinates.

Yes but they were very lucky to have Spock!

It's right there in the dialogue:

I never really had a problem with them using beaming while at warp as a dangerous manoeuvre. My issue has always been with the massively expanded distances. Now if they are using subspace transporting like in TNG I can get on board as long as they show why it's more dangerous and unreliable in due course.

[Therin of Andor]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

... as long as they show why it's more dangerous and unreliable in due course.

Looks damned dangerous to me. Why do they also need to spell it out as well?

[Pauln6]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Looks damned dangerous to me. Why do they also need to spell it out as well?

To help Scotty explain why he was performing an unsanctioned, unsafe experiment on a life form in contravention of both security and quarantine protocols at his court martial. Presumably he will have some mitigating factors in his defence to explain why he felt experimenting on a multi-cellular life form was acceptable when this kind of cruel animal experimentation was abandoned in the 21st century and why he hadn't learned this lesson after killing a dog. Why else?

[Therin of Andor]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

why he hadn't learned this lesson after killing a dog. Why else?

Well, Scotty seems convinced the dog will eventually rematerialize. And, according to the novelization... it did.

[Pauln6]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Well, Scotty seems convinced the dog will eventually rematerialize. And, according to the novelization... it did.

Lol - I'm traumatised by them extending the range of the transporter and now you want them to let patterns retain their coherence in the matter stream for 6 months?

Even so, if you kick a dog, you can still be prosecuted for animal cruelty even if you don't break any of its bones. Scotty's casual disregard for animal welfare is appalling! Even Kruge loved his targ.

[The Wormhole]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

Even so, if you kick a dog, you can still be prosecuted for animal cruelty even if you don't break any of its bones. Scotty's casual disregard for animal welfare is appalling! Even Kruge loved his targ.

In Scotty's defense, he was probably certain it would work. You don't just take the beloved pet of a noted historical figure who commanded one of Starfleet's first deep space explorers, saved Earth from destruction, amd helped found the Federation and send it through an experimental new form of beaming unless you are absolutely certain it's going to work. Even after it failed, he did feel bad about it, so it's not like he's an animal hater or anything.

[Christopher]

^Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Why does everyone assume "Admiral Archer" means an impossibly old Jonathan Archer when it's about a zillion times more likely to be his child or grandchild?

[Stoek]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Why does everyone assume "Admiral Archer" means an impossibly old Jonathan Archer when it's about a zillion times more likely to be his child or grandchild?

Because the unspoken rule in Trek tends to be that unless it is established in canon that there is offspring of a character that any invocation of that characters name is almost always referring to the original character.