The transporter effects

[Holopat]

I prefer the TOS effect as well.

Not trying to derail the conversation, but given there was a transporter on every starship and presumably it was well understood technology (used every day, and was successful even under extreme cases of storm, explosion, etc) I found it totally unconvincing that whether it was three years or a decade later, the transporter malfunctioned in spacedock in TMP. Anyone else "raise an eyebrow" over that plot device?

 

[Poltargyst]

TNG delving into evermore technobabble led them into trying to explain how things worked in greater detail. It was like trying to explain “the force” in Star Wars. Best to keep it vague.

I really hated the midichlorian explanation for the Force in Star Wars.

 

[Poltargyst]

I prefer the TOS effect as well.

Not trying to derail the conversation, but given there was a transporter on every starship and presumably it was well understood technology (used every day, and was successful even under extreme cases of storm, explosion, etc) I found it totally unconvincing that whether it was three years or a decade later, the transporter malfunctioned in spacedock in TMP. Anyone else "raise an eyebrow" over that plot device?

Not really. The first airplane was invented in 1903. They still crash.

 

[Holopat]

Not really. The first airplane was invented in 1903. They still crash.

It's not really the same thing. Hard to believe Starship installation doesn't have quality control, that they wouldn't do it with eggs etc., before using it on people. Cute reply though.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Not trying to derail the conversation, but given there was a transporter on every starship and presumably it was well understood technology (used every day, and was successful even under extreme cases of storm, explosion, etc) I found it totally unconvincing that whether it was three years or a decade later, the transporter malfunctioned in spacedock in TMP. Anyone else "raise an eyebrow" over that plot device?

The new transporter didn't really malfunction. Somebody tried to use it while part of it was disassembled in the Engine room. A death like that in the Navy would be an instant career ender for Scotty and Kirk, because they didn't notify the operator that the thing was in pieces.

They had a new kind of warp drive that didn't work yet, too. And that made sense on a new class of ship. The USS Gerald R. Ford inaugurated a bunch of new technologies, and had a lot of long delays getting the ship combat ready. They had all kinds of trouble with the new magnetic catapults and weapons elevators, and other new technologies, and it dragged on for years after Ford was commissioned.

 

[Metryq]

The new transporter didn't really malfunction. Somebody tried to use it while part of it was disassembled in the Engine room. A death like that in the Navy would be an instant career ender for Scotty and Kirk, because they didn't notify the operator that the thing was in pieces.

As Holopat noted, this plot device seemed forced and unrealistic. "Lockout-tagout" is a common practice in many industries so that accidents of this sort do not happen.

"The only ship in the quadrant" (sector, maybe?) is also a n00b writer gambit. We're the only ship in the 27th quadrant!!

 

[Captain Crow]

"The only ship in the quadrant" (sector, maybe?) is also a n00b writer gambit. We're the only ship in the 27th quadrant!!

I've always wondered if the "Enterprise is the only ship within range" thing in the first movie was actually just BS peddled by Kirk as part of his scheme to regain command of it.

 

[blssdwlf]

As Holopat noted, this plot device seemed forced and unrealistic. "Lockout-tagout" is a common practice in many industries so that accidents of this sort do not happen.

"Lockout-tagout" (LOTO) is common practice today but before the 1980s it wasn't. If we had watched TMP back when it first came out I doubt we could point to LOTO as a reason why the transporter accident was unrealistic. I agree it was forced.

Speaking of no OSHA or system safety standards we also have "And the Children Shall Lead" where the transporter system doesn't warn the operator that the target is no longer a planetary site (and operator has no checklist to validate the coordinates). That's just... wow.

"The only ship in the quadrant" (sector, maybe?) is also a n00b writer gambit. We're the only ship in the 27th quadrant!!

There are four QUADrants and in TOS there are more QUADRANTS

 

[1001001]

It's not really the same thing. Hard to believe Starship installation doesn't have quality control, that they wouldn't do it with eggs etc., before using it on people. Cute reply though.

 

[Henoch]

I'll defend our heroes:
1. For TMP transporter accident, the Enterprise was ordered to make ready for launch ASAP to save Earth. In universe, this meant all rules for safety measures that take extra risk and time like LOTO were suspended by Starfleet Command to save even seconds for launch. Another result of their orders, was that all ship personnel were rushed with conflicting priorities and that mistakes will happen. To Starfleet, these were acceptable casualties in order to save Earth. Do I put Scotty and Decker to blame? Sure. Did they save Earth? Yes, so, causalities were acceptable. Give them medals.
2. For the TOS transporter beaming men into empty space, the transporter tech, along with the rest of the ship, were under the influence of the stupid, fist pumping kids. <edit. I can't believe I'm defending my worst episode; sigh. > The kids made the rounds throughout the ship to go to great effort to target personnel in every key area on the ship that can detect the ship left orbit. I assume this included the transporter room, too. In their eyes, they were still orbiting the planet and everything was normal.

 

[Metryq]

If we had watched TMP back when it first came out I doubt we could point to LOTO as a reason why the transporter accident was unrealistic

Valid point. But one of things I liked about Michael Crichton's stories was the detail of complex systems. One item from Jurassic Park that did not show up in the movie was the computer census system. If the computer ever came up short on T-rexes, or raptors, or whatever, it would sound an alarm. "One got out!" The programmers forgot to give the computer a conditional if the census turned out high. In that case, they would have known long before the SHTF that the animals were breeding.

One of the things I love about older sci-fi is the "teaching" aspects in many stories. For example, one "Berserker" short story explained how to fake a methodical, logical mind when both computers and human brains were scrambled by a beam used by the berserkers.

 

[blssdwlf]

Valid point. But one of things I liked about Michael Crichton's stories was the detail of complex systems. One item from Jurassic Park that did not show up in the movie was the computer census system. If the computer ever came up short on T-rexes, or raptors, or whatever, it would sound an alarm. "One got out!" The programmers forgot to give the computer a conditional if the census turned out high. In that case, they would have known long before the SHTF that the animals were breeding.

One of the things I love about older sci-fi is the "teaching" aspects in many stories. For example, one "Berserker" short story explained how to fake a methodical, logical mind when both computers and human brains were scrambled by a beam used by the berserkers.

Heck, the program should sound an alarm if the expected dinosaur count no longer equals the actual count. That would trigger if it went below or above the count.

Back to TOS, it has its ups and downs when it came to thoughtful design of their systems.

 

[Elder Knight]

Heck, the program should sound an alarm if the expected dinosaur count no longer equals the actual count. That would trigger if it went below or above the count. ...

Unless the extra dinosaurs consumed other extras in a 1:1 ratio, in which case the count would till look valid!
I'll bet that DinoCensus v2.0 checked the totals for each species at the very least!

 

[blssdwlf]

Unless the extra dinosaurs consumed other extras in a 1:1 ratio, in which case the count would till look valid!
I'll bet that DinoCensus v2.0 checked the totals for each species at the very least!

Good point! I had assumed the census would uniquely identify each "counted" dinosaur to prevent that but my same assumption would've failed if they looked only at totals.