Cargo space

[Timo]

So...by "transporter buffer" are we just meaning the computer memory storage?

Apparently not. The transporter buffer keeps a phased version of the transportee in limbo for just a couple of minutes unless something extreme is done (but this extreme stuff works just fine on the 24th century even if it kills 50% of the users in the 23rd). Computer memory in Trek is forever instead - but cannot cope with transporter patterns, heavily suggesting that the patterns themselves contain the bulk of information needed for reconstruction (just like the original, unphased versions contain 100% of it), and there is very little abstract data on top of that.

I always got the impression that the buffer was like a storage area for the deconstructed transportee, prior to them being reconstituted on the platform or being sent to their planetside destination.

Seems so. And generally one can't input or extract piecemeal: what's in the buffer is the whole package, functionally whole so that apparently the heart (or its phased equivalent) keeps beating, say. Or at least the limbs can keep on moving and the lips producing words which the ears then hear.

Sure, you can beam out "energy only", leaving stuff behind. But perhaps this is only survivable if you are an energy-based superbeing to begin with, and know the tricks needed for your mere mortal host to survive the reintegration.

A great way to move bulk, that - if failure in longterm storage is an issue of small mistakes creeping in, then 99.99999999999999999% of a shipment might arrive intact even in bad cases. (Or then what arrives is only 99.99999999999999% right, and will explode on arrival as the result...)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Leathco]

@Timo my argument that storage would work is Moriarty. The Moriarty hologram became self aware and could be argued that it is it's own life form, stored in the data banks for the Holodeck. The Doctor from Voyager being another example. Although there seems to be an issue with taking this data and extrapolating a flesh and blood version using the transporter, so there is something missing. That being said, theoretically that would mean that a holographic version of any person could be made quite easily, with all the self awareness of the original.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

@Timo my argument that storage would work is Moriarty. The Moriarty hologram became self aware and could be argued that it is it's own life form, stored in the data banks for the Holodeck. The Doctor from Voyager being another example. Although there seems to be an issue with taking this data and extrapolating a flesh and blood version using the transporter, so there is something missing. That being said, theoretically that would mean that a holographic version of any person could be made quite easily, with all the self awareness of the original.

It's been stated repeatedly that Traditional Replicators CANNOT create living matter. It can get down to the smallest atom, but they would be dead matter, not an organic life form.

Making a Technological Backup seems to be a thing by the time of "Star Trek: Picard".

Ray Kurzweil must be happy that Star Trek used his idea of backing up the mind onto a computer.

You could probably have "Sentient Hologram" or Golem (Human Like Android) Jean-Luc Picard.

But what would be nice is if Golem Picard can create remote operating Sentient Holographic Clones using copied 29th Century Mobile Emitters.

 

[Timo]

It's been stated repeatedly that Traditional Replicators CANNOT create living matter.

...The fun thing is that this is utterly false. No such statement has ever been made in any episode or movie.

Indeed, in "Emanations", the holo-doctor has no difficulty replicating new neural tissue for a (dead!) patient, even though the ship has suffered such serious damage to her replicators that the skipper has issued a rationing scheme.

It can get down to the smallest atom, but they would be dead matter, not an organic life form.

Thankfully, this is not true, because it would make no sense. Why would the result be dead? Because the soul was left ashore? But our heroes manage just fine by using the transporter, so either tech and souls are compatible, or then souls aren't crucial to being alive and Kirk or Spot no longer has one.

Making a Technological Backup seems to be a thing by the time of "Star Trek: Picard".

And it is a robust technology, there being no suggestion of an expiration date, say. Whether it is related to replicators or transporters, or merely utilizes those for final delivery, is currently unknown. But it does look like the storage system of "Counterpoint" taken to its logical conclusion.

As for making backups of people, neither the EMH nor Moriarty were such. Ira Graves once almost figured out how to back himself up, but we never hear of anybody perfecting that tech.

Once one becomes an AI, though, by whichever means, cross-platform ops would appear easy. The EMH just never had a need for a flesh body, and when Moriarty wanted one, our heroes fought and defeated him before this could happen. Perhaps A.I.Soong's golem wasn't particularly exotic tech after all?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

...The fun thing is that this is utterly false. No such statement has ever been made in any episode or movie.

Indeed, in "Emanations", the holo-doctor has no difficulty replicating new neural tissue for a (dead!) patient, even though the ship has suffered such serious damage to her replicators that the skipper has issued a rationing scheme.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Dead_Stop_(episode)

The Alien repair station's replicator made a replicated body of Travis Mayweather, almost fooled Doctor Phlox.

Thankfully, this is not true, because it would make no sense. Why would the result be dead? Because the soul was left ashore? But our heroes manage just fine by using the transporter, so either tech and souls are compatible, or then souls aren't crucial to being alive and Kirk or Spot no longer has one.

Transporters don't make new life, it just moves matter from A to B. It doesn't change the essence of that matter.

Replicator makes new inanimate object from raw matter stock and assembles it particle by particle to fit the preprogrammed pattern.

 

[Tenacity]

The fun thing is that this is utterly false. No such statement has ever been made in any episode or movie.

Didn't the EMH say something to that effect as to why he could replicate Neelix new lungs?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Indeed, in "Emanations", the holo-doctor has no difficulty replicating new neural tissue for a (dead!) patient, even though the ship has suffered such serious damage to her replicators that the skipper has issued a rationing scheme.

The patient was "Supposedly Dead". Not really, there was still brain activity, so the doc resuccitated her and fixed her medical issues.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Emanations_(episode)
Scanning the deceased woman, Torres is reading electrical activity in her brain, meaning they could still revive her.
...
Aboard Voyager, the Vhnori corpse is determined to have died within the last few minutes, and within reach of Starfleet medical resuscitation technology. The Doctor removes her brain tumor, replicates replacement neural tissue, and explains that the new element Voyager discovered is a biopolymer, secreted by the epidermal layer of the skin of this species when they die.

There are many ways of replicating Tissues the old fashion way, but not by your traditional "Replicator".

 

[Timo]

The Alien repair station's replicator made a replicated body of Travis Mayweather, almost fooled Doctor Phlox.

And? This doesn't change the fact that nobody in Star Trek ever said "replicators can't create living things", or other words to that general effect. All we learn here is that this specific system did not bother with it.

Transporters don't make new life, it just moves matter from A to B. It doesn't change the essence of that matter.

So why should a replicator? And what is "essence of matter"?

Replicator makes new inanimate object from raw matter stock and assembles it particle by particle to fit the preprogrammed pattern.

Never stated. That is, there's zero mention of any raw matter stock. But so what? If the object is perfectly assembled, why would it be inanimate? Again, nobody in Star Trek says it would be. (And many an episode shows that the difference between animate and inanimate is really fuzzy anyway.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

And? This doesn't change the fact that nobody in Star Trek ever said "replicators can't create living things", or other words to that general effect. All we learn here is that this specific system did not bother with it.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Replicator
Replicators were capable of producing food as fresh and tasty as non-replicated foodstuffs, inorganically materialized out of patterns used by the transporters.

If you want a device that makes organic matter.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Genetronic_replicator
The genetronic replicator was a type of DNA-based generator developed by Dr. Toby Russell. This revolutionary medical device could scan the genetic information in a damaged organ, translate that information into a set of instructions for replication, and replicate an entirely new, healthy organ for replacement.

That's the device that you would use, it's not as instantaneous as a traditional replicator, but more than fast enough.

So why should a replicator? And what is "essence of matter"?

Traditional Replicators are designed for "inorganic" materials where you can assemble things together. The "Essence of Living Matter" or Life itself. Down to the smallest living cells. Traditional Replicators can replicate it on a Atom by Atom basis, but even if it had the pattern for organic cells, it can't make life or living objects. Ergo you can't just replicate a living chicken out of the Replicator.

Never stated. That is, there's zero mention of any raw matter stock. But so what? If the object is perfectly assembled, why would it be inanimate? Again, nobody in Star Trek says it would be. (And many an episode shows that the difference between animate and inanimate is really fuzzy anyway.)

I would've expected you to have gone through all the Star Trek Technical Manuals and Encylopedia by this point.

 

[Leathco]

If we are looking for examples of making living things, what about Worfs spine, which was completely replaced by Crusher and another doctor? The spinal cord would have to be living at the point of install, otherwise Worfs body would reject it, just like the human body today rejects a heart or kidney replacement if it's dead (and many times even if its still living!).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If we are looking for examples of making living things, what about Worfs spine, which was completely replaced by Crusher and another doctor? The spinal cord would have to be living at the point of install, otherwise Worfs body would reject it, just like the human body today rejects a heart or kidney replacement if it's dead (and many times even if its still living!).

That was replicated by the "Genetronic Replicator". That's more closer in tech to modern day 3D organ printing. Not traditional replicator speeds (< 10 seconds), but fast enough to be practical.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Henoch]

Replicators were capable of producing food as fresh and tasty as non-replicated foodstuffs, inorganically materialized out of patterns used by the transporters.

If you are a colonist, you might want livestock, hence one need for cargo haulers. You can transport a living chicken, but you can't replicate a living chicken. (I guess they both taste like chicken, though.)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If you are a colonist, you might want livestock, hence one need for cargo haulers. You can transport a living chicken, but you can't replicate a living chicken. (I guess they both taste like chicken, though.)

I can think of countless things needed to be transported, the issue is going to be how reliable are the delivery service, and what's the energy costs for the speed of delivery.

The faster you go, the higher the energy costs for traveling, divide that amongst all the items shipped, it makes sense to pack things into larger transports then onto smaller units.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Also, since we're dealing with Cargo Hauling in space, there shouldn't be a limit on Cargo Container size as much as a limit on creating the Standardized Cargo Container unit to fit with the ship / family of cargo ships. Each Planetary Species will have their "Standardized Cargo Container" Specifications. So accomadating Hundreds of species standardized Cargo Containers will probably need a pretty large container to haul multiples of their standard sized container.

On Earth, we have Intermodal Containers which serve as our standard container for transporting mass produced goods. I'm sure every member of the UFP will have their "Planetary Standards"

General Cargo is obviously separate from Bulk Carriers of a specific item/resource/mineral/gas/etc.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

^ That would make for a great visual... a miles-long cargo carrier (like the ‘road trains’ in Australia but WAY longer), with the Enterprise alongside for scale.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[DEWLine]

Any vessel from any established starship class would do to establish scale.