I think it's been demonstrated that Scotty is thinking ahead of many of the others in his field.
Transporter Room
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
...As regards Beyond, it should be noted that we never really heard of a separate "cargo transporter" or "cargo transporting setting" that would not have been compatible with people. TOS and TNG both show transporters beaming up people unawares; we see a stowaway beam up onto a special platform that was intended to beam up cargo only, and was never seen beaming up people ("Dagger of the Mind"), or a transporter specifically intended for moving cargo nevertheless moving people ("The Hunted", say).
Would the Franklin platform really be in need of modifying in order to be people-compatible? In "Broken Bow", it sounded as if Starfleet man-rated the transporter just by stating "We now believe it's fine for Ensigns just as well as for fruit and stembolts", rather than actually changing anything about the mechanism. Quite possibly, a transporter is a transporter is a transporter, and if it works at all, it works on every possible transportee.
(Now, when DS9 introduces Kasidy Yates, it also introduces different Marks of transporter, some of which cope better with difficult materials. But even all the previous Marks obviously coped with people, from "Broken Bow" on; we have no real evidence that machines from before "Broken Bow" would have been unable to cope with people, even if they couldn't handle handwavium powder or unobtainium bullion.)
Obviously, Scotty would gulp a couple of times when applying a device whose makers never actually thought in terms of man-rating it, but he need not have done anything beyond that gulping, and indeed might not have been able to do anything beyond that.
It's just that it's also possible to believe the opposite, that the different Marks actually behave sufficiently differently that some of them (chiefly the early human models) are a hazard to life and limb. The premise of "Daedalus" is close to that, and "Realm of Fear" also hints at progress being made on safety, although this could have been progress from the original and inherent 99.9999% to 99.99999% safety and in practice has only a psychological effect on the users. Perhaps, just perhaps, the machines moved over the "truly safe for people" hurdle at two different times in two different timelines (even though we really have every reason to believe this happened in the 2150s already at the very latest, rather than after 2233)?
Of course, Scotty never was much of a transporter specialist in TOS: it was Spock's cross-circuiting to B that saved lives there. Our alternate Scotty here might simply be our replacement McCoy: the man with so much knowledge that he actually starts to worry, even when the technology is exactly that of the Prime timeline where his layman Doppelgänger was content to just slide the sliders.
Timo Saloniemi
Would the Franklin platform really be in need of modifying in order to be people-compatible? In "Broken Bow", it sounded as if Starfleet man-rated the transporter just by stating "We now believe it's fine for Ensigns just as well as for fruit and stembolts", rather than actually changing anything about the mechanism. Quite possibly, a transporter is a transporter is a transporter, and if it works at all, it works on every possible transportee.
(Now, when DS9 introduces Kasidy Yates, it also introduces different Marks of transporter, some of which cope better with difficult materials. But even all the previous Marks obviously coped with people, from "Broken Bow" on; we have no real evidence that machines from before "Broken Bow" would have been unable to cope with people, even if they couldn't handle handwavium powder or unobtainium bullion.)
Obviously, Scotty would gulp a couple of times when applying a device whose makers never actually thought in terms of man-rating it, but he need not have done anything beyond that gulping, and indeed might not have been able to do anything beyond that.
It's just that it's also possible to believe the opposite, that the different Marks actually behave sufficiently differently that some of them (chiefly the early human models) are a hazard to life and limb. The premise of "Daedalus" is close to that, and "Realm of Fear" also hints at progress being made on safety, although this could have been progress from the original and inherent 99.9999% to 99.99999% safety and in practice has only a psychological effect on the users. Perhaps, just perhaps, the machines moved over the "truly safe for people" hurdle at two different times in two different timelines (even though we really have every reason to believe this happened in the 2150s already at the very latest, rather than after 2233)?
Of course, Scotty never was much of a transporter specialist in TOS: it was Spock's cross-circuiting to B that saved lives there. Our alternate Scotty here might simply be our replacement McCoy: the man with so much knowledge that he actually starts to worry, even when the technology is exactly that of the Prime timeline where his layman Doppelgänger was content to just slide the sliders.
Timo Saloniemi
Seems more like JJ Abrams was interested in making a visually appealing movie. I don't want to see transporters, I want to see the new Enterprise.
but only for a split of a second, mind you
The shuttle scene might have made more sense if we got a line about the transporter rooms being down for ladt minute upgrades or something. I don't believe hundreds of cadets were going to Enterprise. Dozens maybe? Say 25 cadets in groups of 5. That's 5 beam ups. Everyone could be beamed up in mere minutes. Surely it took longer to prep the shuttles, load everyone up, preflight, launch, safe flight to the Enterprise, approach, landing in the shuttlebay, and then clear out into the bay and toward the doors to the ship's interior.
...or a quick beam up.
We don't need the characters to see the ship for the audience to see the ship.
Example: The shot of the Enterprise-D in TNG's first scene while Picard narrated.
...or a quick beam up.
We don't need the characters to see the ship for the audience to see the ship.
Example: The shot of the Enterprise-D in TNG's first scene while Picard narrated.
The thing is, a beam-up would involve all those stages as well. While the shuttles were being prepped, somebody would still be shouting names and lining up people for the transporters, which would be sending them up in smaller batches, thus probably more than compensating for the actual flight time of the shuttles.
But the real point is, there's zero reason not to do both. That is, if time is of the essence, which may or may not have been true on the occasion.
Timo Saloniemi
But the real point is, there's zero reason not to do both. That is, if time is of the essence, which may or may not have been true on the occasion.
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
You can't single out STXI. They did it in TWOK when Kirk came to inspect the Enterprise, they did in TVH when the command crew was taken to the NCC-1701-A. The rationalization used in TMP that the transporters had issues was not reused for TWOK despite the same ship in drydock and travel pod footage getting reused. In TVH, the payoff was just so the Ent-A could get hidden behind the Excelsior and give the characters and the audience some suspense regarding where they were headed.
So, puh-lease. This is the way Star Trek rolls in film, it always has been, and it's not something that nuTrek supposedly got wrong.
And, yes. @Serveaux is absolutely correct about it.
So, puh-lease. This is the way Star Trek rolls in film, it always has been, and it's not something that nuTrek supposedly got wrong.
And, yes. @Serveaux is absolutely correct about it.
Timo, beaming up takes seconds. Pretty sure a shuttle flight takes longer. Step off the pad. Beam up the next group. Step off the pad. Beam up the next group. Besides, pretty sure there's more than one transporter room.
Coronacopia, I'm not singling out a single film. I love seeing shuttles in Trek. I'm citing a specific scene where in terms of storytelling, it doesn't make sense. In TWOK, Kirk's either making an exterior inspection, or transporters might have been down due to maintenance or something. In TFF, didn't we learn that the ship was full of problems, including the transporters being down?
If you're on Earth, and the Enterprise is in orbit; what's faster, taking a shuttlecraft or beaming up?
Coronacopia, I'm not singling out a single film. I love seeing shuttles in Trek. I'm citing a specific scene where in terms of storytelling, it doesn't make sense. In TWOK, Kirk's either making an exterior inspection, or transporters might have been down due to maintenance or something. In TFF, didn't we learn that the ship was full of problems, including the transporters being down?
If you're on Earth, and the Enterprise is in orbit; what's faster, taking a shuttlecraft or beaming up?
Possibly. But that's the only difference there.
And equally and identically, one steps onto a shuttle, flies up, and steps out, with more than one shuttle (with more than one door!) available for the purpose.
Both processes involve lots and lots of organizing and queuing (see "This Side of Paradise"!), which clearly takes way more time than the technical side of operating the hardware: the techs could have assembled a shuttle out of spares in the time it took for Uhura to blackmail her way to the Enterprise roster, or Kirk to arrange for himself to be smuggled aboard.
Transporters being down should never be an obstacle, because you can always use other transporters. Every one of those sightseeing flights takes place right next to facilities that ought to hold at least hundreds if not thousands of distinct transporter assets, which could easily be applied to take a person to the Enterprise from any arbitrary location - either by direct site-to-site, or then by first beaming him over from Iowa, then beaming him up to his center chair.
...But again, the real answer is "both". Except if your posse is just a couple of heroes strong. But that particular situation never coincided with any known hurry.
Timo Saloniemi
One person is no problem. Huge swaths of people take time and coordination and Starfleet chose the shuttles.
Also, the real world perspective is this is a movie which means we are going to show off our visuals. If you want an in universe rational then your guess is as good as mine. But, this feels more like finding a hole when there is no hole; jus a visual style choice.
Yep.
You could insert this "transporters would benefit from a maintenance cycle or recalibration period" rationalization into pretty much any space-dock situation, including—wait for it—the one under discussion in Star Trek (2009).
How is a few dozen people huge swaths of people?
Each barge-type shuttle had thirty seats; the other type might have had just twenty, but still. At least twelve took off and flew to the orbital port in a gaggle; since we saw others taking off earlier on, we can decide whether to think they ascended earlier on, or for some reason were in a holding pattern till Kirk could join the gaggle, and thus don't come in addition to the twelve. Even in the latter take, we're talking about 300 people at a minimum. Have you ever organized a truck convoy for moving a company's worth of troops? It's not quite trivial, I can tell you.
No doubt shuttles took off from other spots as well: the dozen could be easily swallowed by the hero ship alone. And no doubt further hundreds and thousands beamed up, using that equally slow method of ascent. That is, unless we postulate that the ships not only had rookie crews, but skeleton ones as well, which would be an odd combination and not really supported by what we see inside the Enterprise when Kirk hunts for Uhura, say.
Timo Saloniemi
No doubt shuttles took off from other spots as well: the dozen could be easily swallowed by the hero ship alone. And no doubt further hundreds and thousands beamed up, using that equally slow method of ascent. That is, unless we postulate that the ships not only had rookie crews, but skeleton ones as well, which would be an odd combination and not really supported by what we see inside the Enterprise when Kirk hunts for Uhura, say.
Timo Saloniemi
If you're wondering why they fly, not beam
Or other Star Trek facts
Repeat to yourself "It's just a film"
"I should really just relax!"
Or other Star Trek facts
Repeat to yourself "It's just a film"
"I should really just relax!"
where is the fun in that?
It is clearly not a few dozen people since they are using the cadets to staff the ships at Spacedock.
Isn't the Enterprise crew only 430 people? Wouldn't there already be a trained crew to work along side the cadets? Say 230 crew, 200 cadets. Say 3 transporter rooms, 6 people per beam. 6x11x3=198
With three transporter rooms, expecting 200 cadets, each transporter room would be performing 11 to 12 beam ups. Say 5 minutes per beam up. 5×12=60 You can beam up 200 people in one hour.
I'd rather beam up than go to the hassle of the shuttle.
With three transporter rooms, expecting 200 cadets, each transporter room would be performing 11 to 12 beam ups. Say 5 minutes per beam up. 5×12=60 You can beam up 200 people in one hour.
I'd rather beam up than go to the hassle of the shuttle.
No in the Kelvin Universe, no.
That's your choice. One is not automatically better than the other when dealing with a large group. Otherwise, everyone would be beaming everywhere.
Similar threads
