Tricorder? Medical tricorder!

[PicardSpeedo]

Hey, gang -

Real talk for a second. In the mid-2360s, the average Away Team leader had access to a plethora of equipment options; amongst them, the venerable Mark VII science tricorder, and the much more robust, more capable Mark VII medical tricorder. My question is pretty straightforward: is there any canon explanation why any away team leader (or anyone, for that matter) would ever choose the science tricorder versus the medical tricorder (which is literally a science tricorder with a kickass sensor suite and detachable probe added on) as their instrument of choice? After consulting various wikis and the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, I cannot find a single iota of reason why the science tricorder would be a superior instrument to the medical tricorder. Is there something, perhaps, that I've overlooked?

 

[Richard Baker]

Could be the medical edition has sensors optimized for biological/close range use and the standard has long range more universal sensors.
No real reason for a medical member of the team to be able to scan for mineral deposit structures a kilometer underground (I'm a doctor, not a geologist!) .
I know Trek tech has no bounds of what this stuff can or cannot do, but realistically there should be some limitations on what kind or data library storage is available and some sensors are designed for specific uses.

 

[NCC-73515]

Real talk? Here?
The science tricorder is not as well equipped for med scans. Why wouldn't the med tricorder be not as well equipped for science scans?

 

[Farscape One]

I would think the medical tricorder has a better instant access library for doing a medical scan vs. a regular tricorder.

It's like Nyquil vs. Sudafed... one is for general cold symptoms (Nyquil), while the other targets sinus specifically (Sudafed).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I would think that the sensors for the Medical Tricorder are optimized for scanning Biological / Organic Life.

The regular Science Tricorder is a "Jack of All Trades", no speciality.

I'm surprised that there isn't a "Engineering Tricorder" to help diagnose problems with mechanical, electronic, & computer stuff.

 

[Farscape One]

I would think that the sensors for the Medical Tricorder are optimized for scanning Biological / Organic Life.

The regular Science Tricorder is a "Jack of All Trades", no speciality.

I'm surprised that there isn't a "Engineering Tricorder" to help diagnose problems with mechanical, electronic, & computer stuff.

Jack of all trades was what I was going for. My brain totally shut down trying to say it.

 

[Oddish]

It stands to reason that just as the medical tricorder was superior for scanning biological lifeforms, the standard tricorder would be more capable for non-medical applications.

 

[Summer Solstice]

Maybe a medical tricorder is heavier?

 

[NCC-73515]

IIRC, AA/DST even made a geo tricorder with soil samples

 

[Richard Baker]

Didn't the Geo Tricorder have a giant red square the blinked for a distress signal? (That Which Survives)

 

[Timofnine]

Different types and standards of Tricorders have varied and often specialised forms of sensory inputs. You are all assuming that one form of technological sensory perception is comparable and compatible to another within a multitude of different fields of specialised data collection analysis techniques and technologies.

 

[at Quark's]

I always assumed both were optimised for their own fields. If type A were consistently superior or at least equal to B in all characteristics that could possibly matter, why would they ever use type B?

Also, if both could be of use on the away mission, why not equip at least one member of the team with the other type?

 

[shivkala]

"How many times do I have to tell you-- the right tool for the right job!" -Montgomery Scott