A transporter-less Trekverse
- Thread starter Blip
- Start date
No need to be sad. If it was written respecting the 29th century Federation, it'd be boring. Another week, another jump back in time, completely overpower the helpless primitives, fix the problem, jump back to the future, and the worst risk is a hangnail. No thanks, I want to see Zero Room's Final Frontier or Andromeda re-Trekkified.
That wasn't a sad smiley (
), but a confused one (
). Why would it need to be in the 29th-Century and involve time travel?
), but a confused one (). Why would it need to be in the 29th-Century and involve time travel?
Because if the built-in limitation of the transporter is that you can't beam living things, then "We can beam living things" would be a one-off occurrence by someone with advanced technology that we never see again for some reason.That wasn't a sad smiley (
Funnily enough this is a concept I have given a lot of thought to. I was talking to a friend about Trek recently and we got on to what basic principles we would change if we were completely rebooting the entire franchise.
One of the first things I said is that I would either like to see transporters completely removed, or perhaps have them only operate when there is a compatible pad at both ends, requiring a huge amount of built in machinery and no way to miniturise the technology.
This would remove the horrible lazy scenarios involving beaming people out of ships when on a collision course, as well of the countless questions about why enemies don't beam bombs aboard the ship or simply beam crew members out into space when shields are down. It also makes the crew behave a bit more 'hunan', having to take shuttles and physically travel, and when ships are docked the crew will have to walk off the ship on to a station etc. The ease of transport seems to beg the question of why the transporter isn't used even more, and with advancing technology it inevitably will be in the future. Look at the ridiculous pocket transporter from Nemesis for example!
One of the first things I said is that I would either like to see transporters completely removed, or perhaps have them only operate when there is a compatible pad at both ends, requiring a huge amount of built in machinery and no way to miniturise the technology.
This would remove the horrible lazy scenarios involving beaming people out of ships when on a collision course, as well of the countless questions about why enemies don't beam bombs aboard the ship or simply beam crew members out into space when shields are down. It also makes the crew behave a bit more 'hunan', having to take shuttles and physically travel, and when ships are docked the crew will have to walk off the ship on to a station etc. The ease of transport seems to beg the question of why the transporter isn't used even more, and with advancing technology it inevitably will be in the future. Look at the ridiculous pocket transporter from Nemesis for example!
And transporters don't have to be stopped by deflector shields.It doesn't have to be like that.
And starships don't have to use impulse engines at sublight speed (fractional warp speeds will do).
And starships don't have to be powered by antimatter.
And fusion reactors don't have to run on deuterium.
And Klingons don't have to be generic "warrior race guys" whose entire civilization is defined by a comical love of violence.
And Data doesn't have to be the only android in Starfleet.
But those are all premises for "what if?" scenarios, much like this thread. Are you actually comfortable considering the implications of a built-in limitation to the show premise?
This is the strangest thread!!
Imagine if someone started a thread about which characters they would like to see interact, someone said "Dukat and Neelix" for example, then there were just pages of responses saying;
"They reside in different quadrants so couldn't interact"
"Dukat is dead, how would that work?"
"It's unlikely the Cardassian universal translator would be able to translate Talaxian"
Rather than just answering the thread and talking about how starships would be designed if the basic premise of transporter tech was completely different.
Imagine if someone started a thread about which characters they would like to see interact, someone said "Dukat and Neelix" for example, then there were just pages of responses saying;
"They reside in different quadrants so couldn't interact"
"Dukat is dead, how would that work?"
"It's unlikely the Cardassian universal translator would be able to translate Talaxian"
Rather than just answering the thread and talking about how starships would be designed if the basic premise of transporter tech was completely different.
^^^
Ironically, the thing I initially proposed was more limited technology (no transporters or replicators at all), so no gravity and anti-gravity should really be asking for trouble, I guess.
Ironically, the thing I initially proposed was more limited technology (no transporters or replicators at all), so no gravity and anti-gravity should really be asking for trouble, I guess.
Last edited:
Of the splat variety. 
You've totally lost me at this point.
Sorry, I was trying to make it less more clear.
If I was designing a Star Trek like show without transporters and the starships had to be as similar as possible to the Star Trek ones, I might make them groups of vertical towers with decks oriented like floors in skyscrapers.
The engineering hull would be an upright cylinder surrounded by three or more warp nacelles connected by struts and the main hull a saucer or sphere or ovoid resting on top of the engineering hull or maybe several separate hulls stacked one on top of the others. And either the whole ship or just the main hull would land on a planet and a common special effect would be to see that hull in the distance towering above the trees or the local land forms like a skyscraper.
Another design for a transporter less starship would be a horizontal ship-like design as in the original series but flatter so it could land on a planet. Possibly the engineering hull would rest on the ground when landed with two warp nacelles at its sides also resting on the ground. Or else there would be one or two warp nacelles above the engineering hull and two or three warp nacelles below and beside the engineering hull and supporting it when the ship was grounded. And the saucer like main hull would be relatively lower down so it could rest on the ground also and help support the weight of the ship. Or else the main hull would detach and land on the planet.
The engineering hull would be an upright cylinder surrounded by three or more warp nacelles connected by struts and the main hull a saucer or sphere or ovoid resting on top of the engineering hull or maybe several separate hulls stacked one on top of the others. And either the whole ship or just the main hull would land on a planet and a common special effect would be to see that hull in the distance towering above the trees or the local land forms like a skyscraper.
Another design for a transporter less starship would be a horizontal ship-like design as in the original series but flatter so it could land on a planet. Possibly the engineering hull would rest on the ground when landed with two warp nacelles at its sides also resting on the ground. Or else there would be one or two warp nacelles above the engineering hull and two or three warp nacelles below and beside the engineering hull and supporting it when the ship was grounded. And the saucer like main hull would be relatively lower down so it could rest on the ground also and help support the weight of the ship. Or else the main hull would detach and land on the planet.
