Could you use replicators and transporters to build ships or shuttles?

[Gingerbread Demon]

I had the craziest of ideas but since Trek has both transporters and replicators could you have on file a range of shuttles and ships and then replicate specific shuttles for specific missions, or small ships as needed on demand? You could use maybe stored data patterns so you could "beam them out" into the shuttlebay or outside the ship, or replicators to fabricate them as you build them section by section.



Could this be done?

 

[Shawnster]

Check out

Spoiler

Star Trek Prodigy

And you might be surprised.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Replicators, yes. Transporters, no. At least not easily in 24th century technology. It would probably be a neat idea to actually have several dozen extra transporters in a dedicated transporter buffer on hand, but we have no evidence of this ever being a thing, and usually the raw data of a shuttle pattern would probably eat too much of a 24th century computer. But then again, the USS Jenolan kept 1 1/2 people in a buffer for 75 years, and Deep Space 9 had several people in a buffer in that one episode I haven't seen in a while. Shuttles have to be less detailed than a human body, I would think.

Spoiler: Prodigy and Discovery

We see shuttle replication, piece-by-piece, in Prodigy, and witness mass transporter buffer storage in Discovery recently with the entire crew (save Burnham) placed in a buffer. 32nd century Discovery might store their shuttles in a buffer.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Spoiler

The replicator in Prodigy seems pretty neat with the arms and how it does the assembly.

 

[publiusr]

I have seen fan art of a “repli-dock”
The Ware had some of that as far back as the Archer era (Dead Stop). I think a lot of TNG tech came from whatever scans of that tech the NX-01 may have taken after the plasma blasts…it just took time. Or, you could say this was when the timeline split with the NX-01 now leading up to the Disco-prise.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I have seen fan art of a “repli-dock”
The Ware had some of that as far back as the Archer era (Dead Stop). I think a lot of TNG tech came from whatever scans of that tech the NX-01 may have taken after the plasma blasts…it just took time. Or, you could say this was when the timeline split with the NX-01 now leading up to the Disco-prise.

I forgot about Dead Stop one of my favourite Enterprise episodes, and since it's never shown on screen it is canon, that station is still out there somewhere.

 

[Relayer1]

the raw data of a shuttle pattern would probably eat too much of a 24th century computer....Shuttles have to be less detailed than a human body, I would think.

No need to store it. Have a modular system and combine modules as required for different purposes. Have one of each module irl as a scanning template. Some physical space required but a theoretically infinite number of shuttles could be made with zero long term memory use.

And the modules could be assembled by some kind of holodeck tech and drones as needed.

 

[Feltman_Langer]

Didn't TNG talk about 'industrial replicators' or was that VOY?

 

[The Wormhole]

Didn't TNG talk about 'industrial replicators' or was that VOY?

DS9

 

[Feltman_Langer]

DS9

Cheers, at least I knew it was Berman era Trek

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Also why don't ships carry a full datastore of everyone's pattern on file in case of emergencies?
I mean if you get injured and say lose a hand or something they could just pop you in a transporter beam reload your pattern and then insta heal, no surgery needed. Doesn't this make death kind of obsolete too?

 

[The Wormhole]

Doesn't this make death kind of obsolete too?

Not really. Okay, yes, theoretically the transporter could recreate someone after they died, but that's just a copy of the person. The original person still died, and from their subjective perspective they remain dead regardless if there's a transporter clone of them walking around.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Not really. Okay, yes, theoretically the transporter could recreate someone after they died, but that's just a copy of the person. The original person still died, and from their subjective perspective they remain dead regardless if there's a transporter clone of them walking around.

No you do the transporter thing when they are in sick bay, sick and terminal one moment healthy the next.

 

[Shawnster]

Shouldn't need to keep whole shuttles in a transporter buffer. That would be quicker, but might use too much energy or storage space. A replicator should be able to create a shuttle, providing the raw materials are available. Does replicating a shuttle take less energy than a transporter buffer? Maybe. A buffer would require constant energy whereas a replicator only needs energy when constructing the shuttle.

And, perhaps, replicators are already based on certain aspects of transporter technology.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It's better to have your shuttle replicated, ready to go.

Then to need to replicate it and be short on power, raw materials, etc.

How many times have we seen main power knocked out of a ship for whatever reason?

Plenty of times.

That's why you have your gear replicated, ready to go at a moments notice.

 

[Oddish]

Considering that Voyager, a small (140 souls) ship with limited resupply options, was able to produce the Delta Flyer, it would really not be a problem. It's the same principle, just automated and probably accelerated.

 

[Deks]

Replicators, yes. Transporters, no. At least not easily in 24th century technology. It would probably be a neat idea to actually have several dozen extra transporters in a dedicated transporter buffer on hand, but we have no evidence of this ever being a thing, and usually the raw data of a shuttle pattern would probably eat too much of a 24th century computer. But then again, the USS Jenolan kept 1 1/2 people in a buffer for 75 years, and Deep Space 9 had several people in a buffer in that one episode I haven't seen in a while. Shuttles have to be less detailed than a human body, I would think.

Spoiler: Prodigy and Discovery

We see shuttle replication, piece-by-piece, in Prodigy, and witness mass transporter buffer storage in Discovery recently with the entire crew (save Burnham) placed in a buffer. 32nd century Discovery might store their shuttles in a buffer.

Transporters in the 24th century CAN transport a shuttle from one location to the next.
So, using them to supplement the replicators to enhance the pattern buffer capacity and then materialize an object into existence wouldn't be a big stretch (or much effort).

In fact, they were trying to do this in TNG when attempting to make Moriarty solid... the only problem there was that Moriarty and holo matter weren't real and couldn't exist outside the holodeck due to lack of holo-emitters outside the holodeck - that was the only issue... otherwise, nothing in canon suggests that networking both transporters and replicators can't be done.
After all, replicators are an outgrowth of transporters... so down to the basics, the systems would be compatible.

 

[Relayer1]

The transporter explanation I read years ago was the extreme amounts of data were too large to routinely store so were only partially held as they flowed through the pattern buffers. Like using a funnel to pour water down a tube. Think of the funnel as the pattern buffer and the tube as the 'beam'. Everything passes through the funnel but not all at once and it's not retained.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

You wouldn't have to store info on every atom in a shuttle. You'd compress your data storage based on similarity between structures. Analogously, if you were storing a house's plans, you would only digitize one brick, and then have rules for how multiple bricks are arranged to form the structure.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I feel like Star Trek's shown that the answer to every question here is 'yes, but it's more ideal to construct them properly and then store them in a big room'. (Except for replicating people, that's... a bad idea. Just use cloning for that if you really need more of someone).