Transporters and Turbolifts

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by fireproof78, Aug 8, 2018.

  1. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    This may sound like a random thought, but I figured I would pick the brains of the more technical side of the forum.

    The basics of it is the idea of using transporters for between deck access, or across the ship access. Not sure if it would be more practical or not, but it strikes me as faster alternative to using the lift for longer trips across the ship.

    I am uncertain if a full transporter room would be needed or if an alcove, similar to a turbolift car, could be used and have people step in, state their destination, and beam to it.

    Am I missing a technical issue that might make this impractical?
     
  2. Leathco

    Leathco Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Faster, yes, but also significantly more energy intensive. The power required for a turbolift is a small fraction of the power required for a transport.
     
  3. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Would it be for such short distances? In addition, don't you need a intertial dampers in the turbolift for the adjustments from vertical to horizontal?
     
  4. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    But you need them anyway for the rapid adjustment from standstill (as relative to the ship's general inertial damping field) to the high speed required for reaching the other end of the deck in the time allotted. And for making all the tight horizontal turns on the way there, typically 90 degrees in the shaft maps we see.

    I could well see a practice where site-to-site is possible but not recommended for the (slight) disruption its power spikes cause to normal operations, or possible but not recommended in emergencies and alert situations and/or whenever the shields are up and messing with signal quality in their vicinity.

    It's more difficult to believe in site-to-site being declared impossible or dangerous in standard conditions, though (everybody does it, from Archer on), or in transporting being declared undesirable for the sheer power consumption (starships have limitless power anyway).

    But transporting from Deck A to Deck B is probably a rare event chiefly for all the bureaucracy it requires. Lorca can get away with it, but anybody lower down needs to file reports for the use of the asset. Why take the company car for moving across the yard when you get there on foot in twice the travel time but skip ten minutes of form-filling?

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  5. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    What about from Deck Z to Deck A? Less form-filling or more?
     
  6. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I'd assume the same amount. The transporter is quite an asset, after all - it's the primary ship-to-and-from-X access device and, while supposedly not a power hog, still a limited resource that can only handle so many transports at a time. Yeoman Purdy's mission of delivering a PADD to Deck Z absolutely needs to be cleared not to interfere with the landing party mission to the capital of Alpha Omega via Pad A or the maintenance of Pad B.

    That is, unless the ship has a separate internal transporter network that eliminates the interference issue. Civilian transporters on UFP planets no doubt are rigged like that, networked for ease of use but carefully isolated from the machines that move people and material up into space or deliver rescue or police assets etc.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  7. Leathco

    Leathco Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    I can also see risk being a concern. While the transporter is a fairly safe way to travel 99.9 percent of the time, perhaps turbolifts are safer with a safety rating of 99.99 percent (pulling those numbers out of my rear end, just a possible example). I seem to remember more episodes that dealt with issues with the transporter system than with the turbolift system, although I could be wrong. Perhaps the inertial dampener system also requires less power than transporters, or is at least a higher priority in the power chain since the ship always has them on anyway.

    Or it could just be a humanity/humanoid thing, where they prefer not to be reduced to subatomic particles than reassembled unless time is of importance. Just like in this era, it would be faster for me to take a plane from Indianapolis to St. Louis, but due to cost and comfort reasons, I would rather just drive. I would think some people don't like the sensation they get from being transported and prefer other methods unless necessary. Just speculation, although we do see that in at least two crew members in the TV shows (McCoy and Barcley)
     
  8. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Pulaski, too. So out of the three people wary of the medical consequences of using this piece of engineering, two are MDs and one is an engineer (no doubt holding a doctorate or two, too)!

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  9. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    This is my line of thought, that there would be an internal system for deck to deck movement. Theoretically, it could require less power consumption, and not interfere with the away team needing an emergency beam out.
     
  10. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Transporters are simply a faster, not more efficient than conventional forms of locomotion. You're still moving the same amount of molecules from one space to another, regardless of whether you disassociate those molecules first.
    The disintegration (and reintegration) must carry an energy cost and that cost will always be in addition to simply moving whatever mass is required from point A to point B
     
  11. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    While I see your point, I am wondering if the energy cost will be similar to the relativity and inertial damper compensating system require for dealing with a turbolift in terms of speeds required to get a card across and then up a shaft. So, I think there is an energy cost regardless of system used.
     
  12. Coyote Annabis

    Coyote Annabis Lieutenant Junior Grade Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Location:
    T'pols closet
    This all makes good sense, except in one particular situation. Security. It always boggles my mind that the security teams have to hoof their way to wherever they're needed. You would think that something that critical would warrant a breach in standard procedure regarding transporter use.

    By the 24th century, you'd think that the security teams would either have a personal transporter that they could activate to instantly jump to where they're needed, or at the very least, a bypass feature on their badges that lets them tie in to the transporter system. It would drastically cut down on response time.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  13. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    I don't think the turbolifts are as fast as you believe; from what we see in the show, they are only a bit faster than modern day equivalents, so why would they need their own inertial dampening systems?
    Security response time would indeed be an excellent application of intraship beaming
     
  14. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Transporters are the fastest way to get from A to B within a ship and onto a planet.

    But they are the most energy intensive and have issues every now and then.

    Turbolifts are just modernized Elevators with the ability to travel vertically and horizontally.

    The energy cost for using it is dirt cheap in comparison to transporting and is most likely alot safer since you're not transporting.
     
  15. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    So, if the energy compensation is equal, which would be preferred?
     
  16. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Every turbolift map we ever see shows them having to do sharp, 90 degree horizontal turns. And what is implicit is that they do vertical 90 degree turns as well, ducking below or vaulting over corridors to get to the other side. The passengers would be pulp even at contemporary elevator speeds.

    Without dampers, the turboshafts would probably be built differently, with long straight stretches and/or gentle turns.

    Unless security forcefields interfered with that. But then again, we see way too little security forcefield action, too...

    And the transporter is fairly robust in predictable environments. It can go through shields if there's enough time and stability; it can also be used for frivolous rides right next to the warp core or exotic teleport-mushrooms. OTOH, it's good for emergency evacuation in the most demanding circumstances, often involving major power loss in addition to some energetic trouble brewing. Getting the redshirts on the spot really should be done. Or if the TOS tech can't cope, then the mustardshirts of TNG at least.

    Looking at that issue from another angle, though, it's not so much an issue of Security having to run when they should use the transporter. It's an issue of them not even bothering to run. There's very little running in either TOS or TNG. One may remember "Conspiracy" where Worf and LaForge of all people rush to the scene where Riker tried to summon Security. But one should remember Riker failed: it was Quinn the possessed baddie who summoned Worf and LaForge, and supposedly Crusher as well. If Riker's "security alert" wasn't to Quinn's liking, he probably raised a "medical alert" instead. This, after all, is both his cover story for Riker's injuries, and his ultimate aim, as he wants to have a private moment with the CMO.

    As to why people run rather than transport during a medical alert... :shrug:

    Timo Saloniemi
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  17. SpyOne

    SpyOne Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    To be fair, one of those Doctors lived 100 years before the others when the transporter did still occasionally kill people.
    And the other was famously curmudgeonly and old-fashioned.
    And the engineer is ... hypochondria is just one of his problems. He's high-functioning but mentally ill.

    Personally I think the transporters are more dangerous than Geordi does, and I think how they function is less understood than they suggest. But the three people on the shows who agree with me do so as a symptom of a personality disorder. ;)
     
  18. Paul Weaver

    Paul Weaver Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 1999
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    What do you think "turbo" means?

     
  19. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Clearly the transporter is perfectly safe:
     
  20. David cgc

    David cgc Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    California
    They're precisely as fast as necessary for a conversation. I mean, we've got the low end at "The Enterprise Incident," but then we've got TFF and ST09, where a turbolift goes from the shuttlebay to the bridge, pretty much the longest possible route on the ship, in a few seconds.