Should transporter use have been limited?

[Eman1986]

I’ve watched all the trek series and one thing that bothers me is how dangerous using a transporter can be. It’s not so much about the possibly horrendous death that a malfunction can easily cause (like in TMP), but that its also possible for it to cause devastating time travel shenanigans if given certain circumstances (the DS9 Past Tense episode) are met. In all the series combined, exactly how many transporter incidents are we the viewer shown? A dozen or so? So how often do incidents occur in the trek universe overall?

Knowing that there are these terrible things that can happen, whether it be from malfunction, lack of maintenance or human error, it always struck me as odd that even in some major diplomatic moments, special personnel or species are beamed over without much thought. Do you think transporter use should have been limited a bit on trek?

 

[Push The Button]

Limited to transporting cargo and supplies, but the original intent of the transporter was so Enterprise wouldn’t have to land on a different planet every week, to avoid the expensive model work and f/x that it would have required.

We’ll develop a real working FTL drive long before we develop a transporter, if ever. I think the massive amount of data that would need to be gathered to completely and perfectly describe something as simple as a grain of salt would make the task almost impossible.

 

[Butters]

Not forgetting the fact that when you’re transported, you’re scanned, obliterated, and a copy assembled at the other end.

You’re dead, and there’s a copy of you wandering about at the other end. Who in their right mind would use that?

 

[BillJ]

No more dangerous than driving a car. Or wearing a red shirt.

 

[Tosk]

exactly how many transporter incidents are we the viewer shown? A dozen or so?

Maybe. But it's much fewer than people killed by aliens. So should they stop exploring?

I'd argue that the fact that we've only seen "a dozen or so" transporter accidents when the transporter is an omnipresent bit of tech used dozens of times a day for hundreds of years actually makes it seem more safe to me, not less.

I think the massive amount of data that would need to be gathered to completely and perfectly describe something as simple as a grain of salt would make the task almost impossible.

Nah, data storage/manipulation grows all the time. The amount (and speed) we can transport now would be incomprehensible to people only a few decades ago. Where we'll be in a hundred years will be magic compared to what we have now.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

Not forgetting the fact that when you’re transported, you’re scanned, obliterated, and a copy assembled at the other end.

You’re dead, and there’s a copy of you wandering about at the other end. Who in their right mind would use that?

I’m with Butters and Barclay on this one.

 

[The Wormhole]

Transporters are basically Trek's version to flying in an airplane today. Indeed, Realm of Fear makes a straight analogy out of it with everyone trying to reassure Barclay that transporters are in fact "the safest way to travel" likely a reflection to the fact transporters, like airplanes today, are subject to strenuous safety inspections. They say the chances of getting into a car accident are much higher than a plane crash. I imagine in Trek land, a transporter is probably used billions of times daily in the Federation and we only know of a dozen or so incidents resulting in anything other than a smooth transport over the course of a two hundred year period.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

They say the chances of getting into a car accident are much higher than a plane crash. I imagine in Trek land, a transporter is probably used billions of times daily in the Federation and we only know of a dozen or so incidents resulting in anything other than a smooth transport over the course of a two hundred year period.

The issue for me is, you can walk out of a car accent with a few bumps and bruises. However, if your molecular structure gets compromised in a transporter malfunction, there’s no coming back from that!

 

[The Wormhole]

But again, there's presumably so much safety procedures and protocols in place to prevent that sort of thing, and from the looks of it they work 98% of the time. Not bad statistics.

Then again, I have such an irrational fear of airplanes to the point that I'm in my thirties and have never flown anywhere, so maybe I shouldn't talk.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

Then again, I have such an irrational fear of airplanes to the point that I'm in my thirties and have never flown anywhere, so maybe I shouldn't talk.

Me too! I’ve flown a bunch, but every time I have a nervous breakdown and it ruins my vacation. It’s totally not worth it.

 

[The Wormhole]

What's especially weird is I have no problem travelling on boats, despite not knowing how to swim.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

What's especially weird is I have no problem travelling on boats, despite not knowing how to swim.

This is uncanny.

I too love boats but can’t swim

 

[1001001]

This is uncanny.

I too love boats but can’t swim

Looks like you're Amtrak's target demographic.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

Looks like you're Amtrak's target demographic.

I’m not a big fan of trains either, I’m a roadtripper.

 

[1001001]

I hate all forms of travel equally.

Mostly because...other people.

 

[TribbleFeeder]

 

[The Wormhole]

I like trains. They have a certain elegance to them that really can't be replicated. IMO, the efficiency of airplanes has robbed our society of that elegance.

 

[1001001]

 

[Jedman67]

My kids looooooveeee trains.

Also, in Trek, you're broken down into molecules and reconstituted at the destination. It's not a duplicate of you, it is you. If you think that doesn't make any scientific sense, well, there's not much in Trek that does.

 

[Sophie74656]

I think transporters in Trek are super safe. Accidents have happened but it is a tiny percentage compared to how many transports there are overall. It's like driving a car. Usually safe, but there are accidents.