Or maybe during the American Civil War when various metal protective vests were sold, or maybe in Glenrowan, Australia in 1880 by outlaw Ned Kelly.
Last edited:
A transporter-less Trekverse
- Thread starter Blip
- Start date
Why don't you just look at it as discussing how the starships and shows would be different during the period after transporters are invented but before they can be made safe for living beings? Imagine that each and every show in this imaginary Star Trek no matter what it's ficitonal date, is years, decades, or centuries before transporters can be made safe for human use.
The transporters used by humans were developed something like three decades before being approved for biomatter for the version used on the NX-01 Enterprise. So you have basically a generation where you have this device that is not considered safe for use by living creatures, but can still be used for non-living cargo. It could be something like any living being transported comes out the other side intact but dead (I guess like the alien dog in "The Enemy Within"). As the decades go on and their are refinement, and risk takers, the transports are able to handle living beings, but people are still wary of the idea even after it has been shown to be safe (most of the time).
So there is a thirty or more year span of time were the transporters exist for the humans but they are not safe for human transport. Even the USS Franklin built late in this era and likely refit before going out post-war for the Federation, had cargo transporters that were not suppose to be exactly safe for lifeforms, but it could work with risks. They work better wen operated by someone with a lot of experience (Mr. Scott) and a hundred years more knowledge about how the damned things work.
So there is a thirty or more year span of time were the transporters exist for the humans but they are not safe for human transport. Even the USS Franklin built late in this era and likely refit before going out post-war for the Federation, had cargo transporters that were not suppose to be exactly safe for lifeforms, but it could work with risks. They work better wen operated by someone with a lot of experience (Mr. Scott) and a hundred years more knowledge about how the damned things work.
Why don't you just let this particular subject drop? It ran around in circles and didn't change anyone's opinion on it.
I was making a joke based on a Back to the Future reference.
Maybe you got that, maybe not. That's cool. no worries.
--Alex
So basically, you'd to "The Expanse."
This seems like an exercise in overthinking, IMO.
The ship could still have a horizontal orientation and we could simply justify it by having the entire ship be in zero gravity whenever it's in space. For planetary missions, the ship descends into the atmosphere and hovers rather than orbits, so the crew gets to experience gravity whenever they are "anchored" over the surface of a particular planet. Have the anchors be a type of highly reliable tractor/repulsor beam that the ship can rest on and hardly ever breaks down, and that way you can do a lot of location shooting by inserting a giant CGI image of your hovering starship in the background.
Yes I got the joke.
Crazy Eddie said:
I am not familiar with the Expanse. this has been my idea for a long time.
Having the ship in zero gravity while in space means having to do zero G special effects. In real life humans need gravity for health. If they don't show generated gravity on the ship they have to have spinning sections for gravity like effects on the human body. Then when the ship lands on the planet the crew will have to leave their quarters in the spinning sections and move to other quarters in a section with horizontal decks while on the planet.
Right. Hence the reason I mentioned "the Expanse." The ships in that series (as well as the novels) only have gravity while they are under thrust. Zero gee effects -- plus coriolis effects in places that have spin gravity -- are actually pretty neat and not that hard to do nowadays, even if they are annoyingly inconsistent.
And health effects caused by prolonged exposure to low gravity make for a very useful plot device (again, not unlike the Expanse or the "Odyssey" novels, particularly "3001")
Am I the only guy that thinks there would be MAJOR changes to the way the Trek universe looks and would work without the ability to transport a living organism?
Ship Design: Larger area not just for shuttles, but cargo as well. I'm sure some matter could still be replicated, but any "fresh" type foods would have to be kept on hand, from Earth chicken eggs to Klingon gagh. Also, transporters are no longer a feasible method for ship evacuation, meaning more lifeboats in more locations or the ability for entire ship sections to seperate and be their own lifeboat. This could also mean an additional impulse reactor onboard to power a "breakaway" section for lifeboat usage.
Shuttle Design: SIGNIFICANTLY more types of shuttles and ships. Without transporter tech for life, I would think there would be a "troop assault" type ship, built large and meant to enter an atmosphere with a large amount of soldiers and large amounts of room for equipment needed for a land based assault. With the move of troops to a transport ship, it would be faster for them to leave with equipment via a drop down hatch than to wait on transportation of equipment after landing, especially considering the possibility of a support ship to transport supplies being destroyed in an orbital battle. I think we would see numerous types of shuttles and small ships for specific jobs.
Research areas change: Without the ability to transport life, we would likely see heavier research into androids and AI. Data would be a much larger advantage for the Enterprise-D, as he would actually be able to transport between areas, assuming that the transport killing living creatures feature isn't also something that would damage his positronic brain. The bi-pedal robots that gained sentience in an episode of TNG (can't remember the episode name) would have an uphill battle for their rights, as their usage is significantly increased since they could be beamed from location to location. As far as TOS, there is a chance that the M-5 would have been more of an android type of unit that could be used as a robotic away team, able to make its own decisions based off of factors around it.
Ship Design: Larger area not just for shuttles, but cargo as well. I'm sure some matter could still be replicated, but any "fresh" type foods would have to be kept on hand, from Earth chicken eggs to Klingon gagh. Also, transporters are no longer a feasible method for ship evacuation, meaning more lifeboats in more locations or the ability for entire ship sections to seperate and be their own lifeboat. This could also mean an additional impulse reactor onboard to power a "breakaway" section for lifeboat usage.
Shuttle Design: SIGNIFICANTLY more types of shuttles and ships. Without transporter tech for life, I would think there would be a "troop assault" type ship, built large and meant to enter an atmosphere with a large amount of soldiers and large amounts of room for equipment needed for a land based assault. With the move of troops to a transport ship, it would be faster for them to leave with equipment via a drop down hatch than to wait on transportation of equipment after landing, especially considering the possibility of a support ship to transport supplies being destroyed in an orbital battle. I think we would see numerous types of shuttles and small ships for specific jobs.
Research areas change: Without the ability to transport life, we would likely see heavier research into androids and AI. Data would be a much larger advantage for the Enterprise-D, as he would actually be able to transport between areas, assuming that the transport killing living creatures feature isn't also something that would damage his positronic brain. The bi-pedal robots that gained sentience in an episode of TNG (can't remember the episode name) would have an uphill battle for their rights, as their usage is significantly increased since they could be beamed from location to location. As far as TOS, there is a chance that the M-5 would have been more of an android type of unit that could be used as a robotic away team, able to make its own decisions based off of factors around it.
It's always bugged me how this period seems to have conveniently ended just as the show was set. Yes we had shuttles coming and going for the most part but there was always the fallback option of using it.
On the other hand OP, if you DO want to know what trek would look like without transporters, well ENT is pretty much it, which can be summned up as "much the same with a few superficial changes in the dialogue and SFX"
A transporter-less Trek would mean:
Federation starships would land as did the Intrepid class Voyager.
Federation starships would carry many shuttlecrafts or Runabouts to visit planets. Such as other science-fiction series without transporter story element, just used small crafts to visit a planet:
Federation starships would land as did the Intrepid class Voyager.
Federation starships would carry many shuttlecrafts or Runabouts to visit planets. Such as other science-fiction series without transporter story element, just used small crafts to visit a planet:
- Space:1999 Alpha Moonbase had a fleet of Eagles
- Lost In Space Jupiter 2 had a Spacepod
- Battlestar Galactica had Colonial Vipers and Shuttles
- Space Academy had Seekers
- Jason Of Star Command Star Command had Starfires
As much as I might like to see a transporterless Star Trek, I cannot see it as a compelling reason to write fiction on that basis. Using it as the basis of an original universe could be interesting though. The real interesting aspect would likely be in figuring out how to keep replicators without transporters being present. That might effect holodecks too, but not much. More interesting might be trying to make the soft science as hard as possible.
Sea Quest shows us a show does not have to have any subtle or obvious connection to Star Trek for it to feel like Star Trek (TOS). Mass Effect does that too, thanks to emphasis on decisions and crew comradery; it is one of the best non-Trek Star Trek games out there.
Sea Quest shows us a show does not have to have any subtle or obvious connection to Star Trek for it to feel like Star Trek (TOS). Mass Effect does that too, thanks to emphasis on decisions and crew comradery; it is one of the best non-Trek Star Trek games out there.
Funny you mention Mass Effect, they get around the "transporter less" concept pretty easily. Efficient use of shuttles or the classic "drop the Mako" paratrooper delivery system. Either of those are pretty bad ass, in fact I could see the TOS Enterprise streaking through the atmosphere and throwing open its shuttle bay doors for a large six-wheeled vehicle to drive off the back of it and plop to the ground on a landing thrusters.
Replicators and holodecks are just a technical gimick, they don't HAVE to be based on transporter technology, or utilize it in any way. That's another interesting reference to Mass Effect since they can manufacture just about anything using omni-gel; it's just a glorified 3D printer. That, plus actual hologram technology covers all the basses.
If I was going to redo Star Trek in a "harder" scifi universe, I'd actually do some kind of "unified technology" concept and adjust warp drive, deflectors and even phasers to be based on the manipulation of gravity. Warp drive is just a gravity drive: it lets your ship accelerate forward at a certain factor, and you can exceed the speed of light (eventually) because you're being pulled by the bending of space. Deflectors are a gravitational repulsor field; they're a part of the warp drive, basically, and also what allows a starship to hover over a planet. Phasers are a kind of gravitational disruptor: they basically project a tiny pulse of warped space that causes everything in its path to collapse in on itself at hundreds of gravities. A lethal setting could crush people alive, shatter their bones, or if dialed high enough, collapse part of their bodies or their ships so quickly that their atoms actually achieve nuclear fusion. Your stun setting just compresses them really hard, which induces unconsciousness the old fashion way.
You could do transporters too: just install a Halo-style gravity lift and explain that transporters are a kind of man-rated tractor beam that can yank people off the surface of a plant and drag them up into the ship like a Fulton Skyhook.
Replicators and holodecks are just a technical gimick, they don't HAVE to be based on transporter technology, or utilize it in any way. That's another interesting reference to Mass Effect since they can manufacture just about anything using omni-gel; it's just a glorified 3D printer. That, plus actual hologram technology covers all the basses.
If I was going to redo Star Trek in a "harder" scifi universe, I'd actually do some kind of "unified technology" concept and adjust warp drive, deflectors and even phasers to be based on the manipulation of gravity. Warp drive is just a gravity drive: it lets your ship accelerate forward at a certain factor, and you can exceed the speed of light (eventually) because you're being pulled by the bending of space. Deflectors are a gravitational repulsor field; they're a part of the warp drive, basically, and also what allows a starship to hover over a planet. Phasers are a kind of gravitational disruptor: they basically project a tiny pulse of warped space that causes everything in its path to collapse in on itself at hundreds of gravities. A lethal setting could crush people alive, shatter their bones, or if dialed high enough, collapse part of their bodies or their ships so quickly that their atoms actually achieve nuclear fusion. Your stun setting just compresses them really hard, which induces unconsciousness the old fashion way.
You could do transporters too: just install a Halo-style gravity lift and explain that transporters are a kind of man-rated tractor beam that can yank people off the surface of a plant and drag them up into the ship like a Fulton Skyhook.
I don't think that that's necessary.
Galileo7's list reformatted using the BBCode list feature:
- Space:1999 Alpha Moonbase had a fleet of Eagles
- Lost In Space Jupiter 2 had a Spacepod
- Battlestar Galactica had Colonial Vipers and Shuttles
- Space Academy had Seekers
- Jason Of Star Command Star Command had Starfires
Running this sequence in reverse reveals a serious problem for a Transporter-less Star Trek: how to covertly enter big cities. One would have to have some cover identity for doing so, and one would have to land well outside of town and make one's way into it.
Exiting would also be much more difficult. David Gerrold in The World of Star Trek very strongly criticized how the Transporter makes exiting too easy, so a Transporter-less ST would avoid that sort of problem. As he noted, many ST:TOS stories depend on interfering with the Transporter, so one can't get out of some troublesome situation. I'll quote DG, who refers to Captain Kirk:
- He would run into aliens of such superior ability that they could nullify his transporter beam. Thus he got captured.
- He would run into aliens of such inferior ability that they would knock him over the head and take his communicator away from him without knowing what it was. Again, he got captured.
- Contact between the Captain and the Enterprise would be cut off by some arbitrary force created by the writer for this specific purpose, thus trapping Kirk in the story until contact could be restored— usually not until just before the last commercial.
I just saw Passengers and as far as hard scifi ships go that movie's starship has to be the most simultaneously ornate and hard. It has an aesthetic I think would be perfect for a hard Star Trek.
I like the point about landing on planets of pre-warp civilizations. If we are talking hard scifi, then they cannot just use their shuttle like a car once they land, they would have to have something like the Argo shuttle and buggy. It would be really neat for them to have to print or grow a local vehicle to carry down, or even a horse, like how West World has life like robotic horses. The shuttle could also be only a shuttle, as in it might not be capable of emergency pickup since it could be strictly point to point, so it would have to wait where it lands. If it is only sans transporter it is easier.
The shuttles can fly anywhere trivially, or skim the surface where needed, they could also be equipped with holographic camouflage. Shuttles in TNG are so versatile the Argo has no business existing for any reason. Hovercycles make more sense than the Argo buggy, but not by much.
I like the point about landing on planets of pre-warp civilizations. If we are talking hard scifi, then they cannot just use their shuttle like a car once they land, they would have to have something like the Argo shuttle and buggy. It would be really neat for them to have to print or grow a local vehicle to carry down, or even a horse, like how West World has life like robotic horses. The shuttle could also be only a shuttle, as in it might not be capable of emergency pickup since it could be strictly point to point, so it would have to wait where it lands. If it is only sans transporter it is easier.
The shuttles can fly anywhere trivially, or skim the surface where needed, they could also be equipped with holographic camouflage. Shuttles in TNG are so versatile the Argo has no business existing for any reason. Hovercycles make more sense than the Argo buggy, but not by much.
Annoying teenager?
There have been a million of those going back to probably the invention of filmed entertainment.
One could almost classify Will Robinson in that category, and that was late 60s. Only difference being Will wasn't smug intelligent superior like Wesley Crusher could have become or Lucas was for a time on Seaquest.
Given that a likely landing spot would be in a rural area or a wilderness, the shuttle would have to be a VTOL vehicle, like a helicopter. Fortunately, that is well-established for Star Trek's shuttles.
Because of these likely landing spots, a surface vehicle would have to be an off-road vehicle, and the terrain means that that vehicle will not be able to travel very fast. Furthermore, in some terrains, such a vehicle will leave very distinctive tracks, something that
About horses, I've found Horses Are Not Machines: On Writing the Steeds of Fantasy Fiction - SFWA, notably
So on average, a horse won't travel very fast. The same can be said of horse analogs on other planets, I'm sure.
A mechanical horse may be able to travel faster and more tirelessly, but like the originals, it may have problems in some terrain.
I always thought that Adamski's designs for flying saucers and mother ships would be good in a TV series.
I like that point about competent riders. Even with a robotic super horse, which can gallop all day, the rider would still be a weak link, because the rider's muscles would give out quickly if not experienced, to say nothing of balance issues. I've experienced a small degree of that.
There is also the point that a horse might not practically be fed by a peasant, for that matter it might not make sense for a peasant to have any means of transportation other than walking. The most incognito form of transport augmentation might be powered pants (soft exoskeletons) assuming an away teams want to be as unnoticeable as possible in plain sight.
