• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Probably an Ignorant Question About Transporters

But, in TOS "The Enemy Within", many things are duplicated by the transporter (Kirk, dog-like animal, heating units, blankets etc.). None of these are replicated exactly but clearly there is more mass (roughly double) after each replication. The cause of this malfunction was related to that injured guy being beamed up with an unusual ore power on his body. This means that the technology can create new matter, or steal it from somewhere else, and this ability is normally not used for transportation.

See, I've always felt that the anular confinement beam is never 100% effective so transporters ARE designed to convert energy into matter to replace missing information with replicated matter copied from the pattern buffer.

In rare, weird cases, the system can produce living duplicates made up of over 50% replicated matter. Normally, anybody missing that much of their original selves would die.

The ship can only store a limited number of Patterns in the buffer at a time so they might be able to cure someone who has just beamed down (but they won't risk it if a pathogen is highly contagious (such as in Miri)). The average patient is not going to have a healthy pattern in the buffer so they will need some plot shenanigans to pull that cure off.
 
I remember that coin-shaped transporter peg in Nemesis.
In the (Abrams) 23rd century a device the size of your thigh can beam you to the homeworld of the Klingon Imperial Empire, and a near century later a coin sized device can beam you several miles. What's the problem?

My fix is what "broke" on the transporter in NEM was only the targeting scanners, the rest of the system was fine, they just couldn't aim to transport. The coin size gizmo was a locator, the targeting scanner were unnecessary.
 
In the (Abrams) 23rd century a device the size of your thigh can beam you to the homeworld of the Klingon Imperial Empire, and a near century later a coin sized device can beam you several miles. What's the problem?

My fix is what "broke" on the transporter in NEM was only the targeting scanners, the rest of the system was fine, they just couldn't aim to transport. The coin size gizmo was a locator, the targeting scanner were unnecessary.

The fortunate difference is, I don't consider Jar Jar Abrams' deliberately brain-damaged piece of I-don't-know-what to be any part of the Star Trek universe. I detested it so much that to me, the J.J. Trek simply doesn't exist. That 2009 movie was the only movie in my life I've actually walked out of, so I couldn't tell you how it ended even if I cared (which I do not). That one J.J. movie was such a torture to sit through I gave up and decided, "Now matter how much I paid to get into this movie, it's worth even more to get out." Watching his excremental experience was like having a jackhammer drilling into my brain for two hours.

Did I mention how clownishly ghastly its transporter FX were? It looked like people were getting
sprayed with rows of shaving cream as they disappeared. What a visual monstrosity that was.
 
They also moved Captain Christopher from sitting to standing and back again. It's not as showy as doing a mid-beam kidney transplant or whatever, but it's probably about as difficult considering how many things still have to line up after you start moving them around.

Very much to the contrary, I'd argue it's inherent in the way the machine always works.

On two levels, really. In the studio, the trick always involves "beaming out" an actor holding one pose and "beaming in" the same actor holding a different pose. It's physically impossible for him or her to hold a truly identical pose, so we have to accept that the fictional machine allows for activities to take place during the transport process.

Which is only to be expected: the heart ought to continue to beat, or if the process somehow slows down time and/or only involves a split second, nevertheless the molecules ought to continue to hold together, in what is a dynamic rather than static process. Turning matter into phased matter doesn't stop it from working - which we concretely and macroscopically see in those instances where people change pose between A and B, or hold an ongoing conversation while beamed, or indeed are directly witnessed moving about and doing stuff while explicitly phased like Barclay in "Realm of Fear".

The system may gently nudge Kirk's foot to ensure he lands standing on uneven terrain, not in it. It may more robustly force Christopher from sitting to standing position. But this is macroscopic manipulation, achieved by techniques comparable to beaming a manservant along with the transportee and having him go "If you just let me lift your leg a bit, Sir" during the process. As witnessed on screen, transporting is little different from walking, except you happen to be phased to another realm of existence between steps. Doing surgery between those steps is still a feat not comparable to lifting a leg or spitting out a phrase.

There was a portable transporter that did pretty much the same thing as the pip-sized device in NEM in Voyager's "Non Sequitur" and "Concerning Flight," the latter case ruling out tapping into a "real" transporter system, except that device was hand-held.

Umm, not really. In "Concerning Flight", the device wasn't portable: it remained right where Janeway activated it. Sure, it had a handheld control unit of alien design instead of a pulpit bolted to the floor, but in the end, it was no different from a transporter room being operated on site-to-site mode.

That the "system" apparently was the size of a fridge (that is, it was the pedestal on which the control unit rested) doesn't appear remarkable. We don't know how large "real" transporters are, but we do know they can be accommodated aboard rather small shuttlecraft. This may be the standard size for UFP tech; heck, it could even be UFP tech, for the ease with which Janeway recognizes it at sight, stolen from another Caretaker victim or other Alpha wanderer.

The control unit from "Non Sequitur" is of course portable, moving with Alternate Tom. But Tom's surroundings have no shortage of fridge-sized machinery of assured UFP origin. Earth ought to have a public transporter network - and a non-public one, so it takes a bit of illegal accessing to get Tom to a Starfleet facility with that system. The remote might thus be a nonstandard, that is, non-public one, a lockpick rather than a key. It need not be a portable transporter machine, though.

Could be the "prototype" part was just that it was tiny enough for Data to keep it in one of his smuggling compartments, instead of the old fist-sized units.

Quite possibly. Or then there's a functionality to it that was missing from the previous Swiss Army Commbadges of comparable size. Or a couple of superfluous functionalities removed vis-á-vis the previous models. In the end, we're left with a device that achieves no more than an ordinary commbadge would. (A bit less, really, considering it doesn't allow Data to say "Two to beam up" while setting his phaser to explode against Shinzon's diabolical device.)

I'd like to stick to the James Bond analogy here. Not all of the Scotch gentleman's doodads defy the laws of physics or the real state of the art. But even those that don't have every excuse of really being the very cutting edge, just like S31 may have tiny communicators cleverly hidden in ornaments back when nobody else does. The regular guys don't bother with cutting edge, generally because keeping the edge sharp in field conditions is more trouble than worth. But every now and then, they may tap into something from the upper shelf, such as a super-tiny transporter beacon. Or, say, a silent and sparkless transporter with eye movement control, even though they generally dismiss such as worthless parlor tricks!

Timo Saloniemi
 
The fortunate difference is, I don't consider Jar Jar Abrams' deliberately brain-damaged piece of I-don't-know-what to be any part of the Star Trek universe. I detested it so much that to me, the J.J. Trek simply doesn't exist. That 2009 movie was the only movie in my life I've actually walked out of, so I couldn't tell you how it ended even if I cared (which I do not). That one J.J. movie was such a torture to sit through I gave up and decided, "Now matter how much I paid to get into this movie, it's worth even more to get out." Watching his excremental experience was like having a jackhammer drilling into my brain for two hours.

Did I mention how clownishly ghastly its transporter FX were? It looked like people were getting
sprayed with rows of shaving cream as they disappeared. What a visual monstrosity that was.
Well if you're picking and choosing your canon, you might as well just decide for yourself how transporters work since the input of others is pointless:shrug:
 
Well if you're picking and choosing your canon, you might as well just decide for yourself how transporters work since the input of others is pointless:shrug:

Not at all, you couldn't be more wrong; I value the opinion of anyone who quotes things not from the most dumbed-down Star Trek disaster ever committed to film. I respect your opinion on any other Star Trek (no matter how contrary) AS LONG AS you don't quote Jar-Jar Abrams' train wreck to me. That's my only condition. You can disagree with me on points about other Treks and I'll respect your opinion - as long as you detest J.J Trek as much as I do. That's the only condition.

I assume you like Jar-Jar Trek, so you've earned my lecture: with its horrid cinematography and action choreography alone, it was the most incompetently-made big budget piece of I-don't-know-what I've ever seen in my life, its production values were the stupidest and most obnoxious of all time. Its only redeeming quality is that Karl Urban did a pretty solid McCoy, he got the mannerisms down nicely. The intellectually retarded, arrogant Abrams (have you read interviews with this blithering horse's ass?) not only ruined Star Trek, he also managed to ruin Star Wars as well. He's the dumbest big-budget filmmaker in Hollywood history.
 
Last edited:
Not at all, you couldn't be more wrong; I value the opinion of anyone who quotes things not from the most dumbed-down Star Trek disaster ever committed to film. I respect your opinion on any other Star Trek (no matter how contrary) AS LONG AS you don't quote Jar-Jar Abrams' train wreck to me. That's my only condition. You can disagree with me on points about other Treks and I'll respect your opinion - as long as you detest J.J Trek as much as I do. That's the only condition.

I assume you like Jar-Jar Trek, so you've earned my lecture: with its horrid cinematography and action choreography alone, it was the most incompetently-made big budget piece of I-don't-know-what I've ever seen in my life, its production values were the stupidest and most obnoxious of all time. Its only redeeming quality is that Karl Urban did a pretty solid McCoy, he got the mannerisms down nicely. The intellectually retarded, arrogant Abrams (have you read interviews with this blithering horse's ass?) not only ruined Star Trek, he also managed to ruin Star Wars as well. He's the dumbest big-budget filmmaker in Hollywood history.
I liked his Star Wars film too:techman:
 
I liked his Star Wars film too:techman:

You liked Star Wars: The Force Awakens even though its entire plot was a complete copy of "A New Hope," but directed in a more manic, chaotic, hyperactive manner? Since J.J. Abrams has never had a single original thought in his pointed head? I will give it credit for being better-acted than Lucas' prequel abominations, but that's about all.

I implore any "reboot" Star Trek or Star Wars fans to watch/read multiple interviews with this J.J. Abrams intellectual CRETIN. Because you'll instantly see that cognitive drooling vegetable is the DUMBEST waste of human existence ever involved in either the ST or SW franchise. Good God, that horse's ass doesn't even have the intelligence of the last chicken I ate. Not only as an "artist" but as a human being, Jar-Jar Abrams is utterly disgusting. He's a pig. I make ZERO apologies for this diatribe and I mean it from the bottom of my heart 100%.

"Duhhh, I never watched or liked Star Trek. I just think Star Trek should be more like Star Wars, DERRRRRP!!!" THAT is the level of brainpower in charge of Trek now??? THAT? Some of my most dysfunctional, multiple-drugged-out blood relatives had more BRAINS than THAT!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it would be best to get this conversation back on track with regards to transporter technology. Opinions of Abrams could be their own separate thread elsewhere.
 
Okay getting away from weirdly still fresh 2009 baggage for a second, Next Gen's "Birthright" established a subspace beaming software mod which teleported people across light-years. DS9's Dominion transporters could not only beam someone over 10+ light years, but could also recieve/kidnap someone from that far away (which would have probably ended the war in a day if the writers gave it any thought). TOS' aliens routinely beamed people across massive distances also. TNG's "Second Chances" gave us the functioning cloneporter and "Unnatural Selection" the cure-all (TAS did the latter first, though)

ENT: "Daedalus" was messing with long-range beaming in the 2150's so the "transwarp beaming formula" or whatever anti-Abrams name you give it has been theoretical since transporters were invented. It just took humans longer to figure it out than the rest of the galaxy. Nemesis gave us the inevitable miniaturization of the technology in a one-use device. Add a century or so, combine it all and you have humanity becoming a technologically-assisted proto-Q.

Perhaps explaining why 30th century resident Daniels kept popping up anywhere and anywhen even after dying.
 
It would be rather easy to postulate that once you manage to convert your victim into phased matter, you can then subject him to the full range of UFP engineering tricks; phased matter may well be generic like that, being a package you can easily hand from transporter to utterly alien transporte and all.

Normally, you push the package from A to B at lightspeed only. If you want to risk it, you add a subspace component to it, or adjust the phase further to create the "The Next Phase" or "Time's Arrow" effects, or whatnot. But even in the 24th century, all this involves tying in an additional piece of machinery - perhaps preexisting on your starship but fundamentally unrelated to the transporter. And all of it remains risky, a bit like you mastering flying but not quite the art of flying in a jetstream or a tornado for extra boost. Eventually, you learn to do that (we now do jetstream even though we don't do tornadoes), but all this stuff "inherent" in the concept of the transporter can still be beyond practical reach at any Trek timepoint of our choosing.

I'm not sure I believe in Dominion long range transporters, really. Dukat's claim that this is how he managed to abduct Kira is IMHO good proof to the contrary, considering it's Dukat speaking. And we never get to see an adventure where Worf would have gotten a reason to think that Dominion has this capacity. Would Worf be mouthing off against his better knowledge there? It's not as if anybody listens to him anyway...

Timo Saloniemi
 
I'm sort of ok with the concept as long as it is backed up by the technology. If you can beam people vast distances, why don't you just beam your whole ship? Why not just beam everybody on your enemy's ship so that they are outside their ship from a distance of 10 light years away before they even know you are there? Why not beam half the ship six inches to the left and enjoy the fun.

In my head canon the lid on this Pandora's box should stay firmly closed or create a specific exception, such as in Voyager, using energy from the planet's weird mantle as a power source.

There is no logic in allowing long distance transport without vast modifications to the technology. Trek 09's algorithm using a shuttle transporter as a very limited power source was just nuts, trumped only by using a portable transporter to travel even further in the sequel.

Now building transporter buffers into subspace relays could work (like the Stargate bridge in SG:1) but they are far too far apart to be viable using Federation tech.
 
Last edited:
Transporter rules I remember vividly from TOS are:
1. Inter-ship transporting is dangerous (yet it always seems to work okay).
2. Once beaming starts you are invulnerable to harm; seen every time someone or is shot or blasted to bits during transport and then pulled back together. (Yet JJ kills Spock's mum simply by falling during transport, but Kirk survives disintegration by antimatter bombs and 90 MT nuclear explosions. :wtf:)
3. You can beam someone into oblivion by setting the transporter at widest possible dispersion (poor Redjac). (Why didn't they disperse beam Nomad, too? :wtf:)
-implies you have to rematerialize it someplace once you dematerialize it.​
4. You can't keep matter in dematerialized stasis forever, but you can discriminate humans from Klingons and hold them for a short time "suspended in transit". No, wait, Chekov wants to "leave" the Klingons in there. :wtf:

I'm getting confused with all the Transporter rules. :crazy:
 
Last edited:
I‘m also really confused with this transporter stuff and whats possible and whats not. Take Discovery for example. In season 1 at the end Sarek beams off Discovery (I think he also does that at the first episode at season 2) but then in season 2 at the end he and Amanda use a ship to say goodbye to Michael. I think it is also mentioned the transporter can only be used while not at warp....
Probably a stupid question but can you use the transporter to e.g. beam back to Vulcan or Earth, no matter where the ship is?
 
Probably a stupid question but can you use the transporter to e.g. beam back to Vulcan or Earth, no matter where the ship is?
As long as the vessel is fairly close in orbit of said planet.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Transporter#Range
During the 22nd century, standard Earth transporter systems had a range of 10,000 kilometers
however, by the 24th century, the maximum range of standard transporter systems was about 40,000 kilometers
Many 24th century starships were equipped with an emergency transporter system, but these only had a range of, at best, ten kilometers

For perspective of scale (AGL = Above Ground Level of Earth):
35,786 km = A circular geosynchronous orbit
122.310 km ~ 122 km = Space Shuttle uses Aircraft Control Surfaces instead of Steering Thrusters = My personal belief of what the Definition of Space should be placed at.
100 km = Kármán Line = International Definition of Space
80.467 km ~ 80 km = 1960's USAF Definition of Space
21.336 km ~ 21 km = is where the U2 Spy Plane operates, Pilots need Space Suits, Speed Margin between 1G Stall & Mach Buffett is 4 knots
 
The DSC show is notorious for having characters appear and disappear at odd moments, including when the ship is at warp or engaged in combat or in the middle of some other type of hair-raising action.

However, Sarek beaming off the ship immediately after a scene showing him and Burnham walking in a corridor while the ship is at high warp from A to B is not a problem as such. The ship could simply have gone to Vulcan right after that scene, dropped out of warp, and beamed the Ambassador down, then continued her warping. (Indeed, this very scene happens when the ship flies from Earth to Klingon space, and assorted star maps, including one seen onscreen in that episode, place Vulcan between Earth and Klingon space!)

Of course, Sarek, Cornwell and other highly placed characters in the show could always be using courier ships for some legs of their travels. Even the DSC shuttles move at respectable warp, so there's this convenient out. Plus, both Sarek and Cornwell are lurkers, shady characters who often would wish to appear and disappear by stealthy means. It's just that the scene where Sarek beams to Vulcan doesn't need to involve these rationalizations. The ship could simply have flown him to Vulcan, plain and simple.

As for beaming at warp, it's never been said to be impossible. When they first did it in TNG, they included extra dialogue about matching velocities, but that was it - nothing was said about risk or difficulty.

On the other hand, in that penultimate DSC Season 2 episode, the heroes are far away from Vulcan, so Sarek needs his ship for making the surprise visit...

Timo Saloniemi
 
When they first did it in TNG, they included extra dialogue about matching velocities, but that was it - nothing was said about risk or difficulty.
Dax makes it sound fairly risky in Paradise, but again without specifics.

KIRA: [...] match our speeds exactly and I'll transport over.
DAX: Like hell you will.
KIRA: Sorry, I'm the ranking officer here.
DAX: At warp, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to volunteer.
 
Good point, even though it's weird that an unresisting runabout would be a more dangerous target than a Borg Cube that might at any second decide to change course or speed...

Dax and Kira make for an odd pairing in scenes like this: in "Inferno's Light", they bantered about going to warp within a star system, again regardless of them always going to warp within the Bajoran system whenever the Defiant departs the station for any destination other than the wormhole. Perhaps it's a running joke between them, inventing danger where there is none?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Just watched a DS9 scene when Worf and Dax beam up a Bajoran woman who is graphically killed during the transporter incident. :barf: I guess it is still the safest mode of travel. :bolian:
darknessandlight-184.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top