PDA

View Full Version : Why do they need a transporter room on Star Trek?


18greens
18th Dec 2007, 13:55
They beam from world to world but if they want to start from the ship they have to get in a lift and go to the transporter room. Why?

(And don't tell me its just a story)

west lakes
18th Dec 2007, 13:59
According to documentation, of the design parameters, in my possesion it is: -

To give greater range for a lower expenditure of power (site to site transport requires two steps, site 1 to buffer storage on the ship and then buffer storage to site 2)
To give more precise control over destination

Ixixly
18th Dec 2007, 14:01
Well, i'd suppose it draws more energy and is inherently more difficult to 'beam' the dashing captain, his 2 senior officers and the expendable ensign down to the surface from the bridge than it is to get them from the actual transporter room?

Also i'd guess they have to pick up equipment on the way before they leave, their trusty tricorder, phase pistol etc... and its easier for them all to meet at the transporter room, check they are ready to go and beam down from there!!

airship
18th Dec 2007, 14:03
I think that is simply out of common courtesy. Imagine that Sulu and Uhura were engaged in a universal display of human sexual endeavour during their off-duty rest period. Even if no additional accessories were involved, it could be embarrassing if not downright decapitatingly serious for Sulu were he be involved in an impromptu teletransportation...?!

ScottyDoo
18th Dec 2007, 14:04
The transporter room is a dangerous place. You can't have the beam thing in the bridge. What if Capt Kirk leaned back in his seat and his head infringed the beam region just as they hit "Send"?

Suddenly he has a back-end lobotomy.

They need a special room for it to ensure no one loses half an arm or something as the thing goes off.

tony draper
18th Dec 2007, 14:13
Logically if you have a matter transmitting system you have no need of feckin Starships,or indeed a total bufoon like Kirk to run same.
John Luke was a bit believable but Kirk was an oaf of the first water.
Besides which in the real universe the Romulans wudda kicked the livin shite outta a bunch of huggy fluff touchy feely sissies like the Federation.
:rolleyes:
I mean seriously,a phaser with a stun setting?? bet the Romulans were rolling about on the floor wetting themselves with laughter when they heard about that,
:uhoh:

airship
18th Dec 2007, 14:19
What I'd really like to know is why they didn't have those transporter thinggies in the Star Wars movies...?

ScottyDoo
18th Dec 2007, 14:21
It's a range issue, Drapes. The beam requires a huge amount of energy which is directly proportional to the distance they want to beam across. They still need their starships.

Any fool know that... :p

gearpins
18th Dec 2007, 14:23
the beam strength and therefore the length/depth of its effects are regulated such that they dont end up beaming parts of the floor every time its used.( there were a couple of nasty holes during prototype testing).....so its SOP

G-CPTN
18th Dec 2007, 14:25
Actually, it's because before any 'flight' you first need to get a signed chitty, and then you have to file a plan, so that control knows where to find you.
Call yourself pilots?

Dan D'air
18th Dec 2007, 14:27
Fintastic thread, we need more of this sort of thing on JB.:D

Tigs2
18th Dec 2007, 14:29
Never in any episode did Kirk ever say

"Beam me up Scotty"!

airship
18th Dec 2007, 14:31
And why didn't the Aliens also have the transporter thinggies...?!

I reckon that behind the scenes, the Star Trek producers had far more problems with transporter issues than they were willing to admit publicly. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd had to use a Kirk clone even after the very first transporter use.

And why did Spock have those strange ears? Were they like that before using the transporter? That might also explain why there were so many strange looking aliens - maybe extra-terrestrials look quite normal but they only began to look strange once transported...?!

Dan D'air
18th Dec 2007, 14:33
Tigs,

What about bream me up Scotty?

Coat. Door. Gone.

gearpins
18th Dec 2007, 14:41
everything comes with a price to pay.long term effects of atomising one self and regrouping the same atoms again and again...well a few atoms slip in and a few depart quitely...some amount of deformation is part of the deal.however the medical board in consultation with the safety board do have some guidelines: one of them..
if teleporting to a planet with a stronger gravitational field than your home base then you have to spend o minimum of 2 planetary rotation to allow you atoms to regroup before teleporting out.

west lakes
18th Dec 2007, 14:46
Not forgetting the differing relative velocities of two different planets whereas often the ship is in stationary orbit except when it wasn't

AirScrew
18th Dec 2007, 14:47
And what was all this stuff about probelsm with the transporter.
In virtually every episode, they would nearly loose someone 'inside' the machine, and occasionally did.
OK, great drama.
But the whole of the enterprise is the most amazing piece of technical excellence. So how come they seemed to end-up with a dodgy prototype transporter, where some highly skilled operator has to twiddle some knobs to save your life.
And how come even more so that when the chips are down, Scotty seems even more experienced than the highly skilled knob twiddler.
And come to think of it, did we ever properly meet the knob twiddly man. I dont remember his name, and yet he saved more lives than JTK.
He should have re-negotiated his contract.....:)

IFMU
18th Dec 2007, 14:48
It's a range issue, Drapes. The beam requires a huge amount of energy which is directly proportional to the distance they want to beam across. They still need their starships.

Any fool know that...
Wouldn't that be proportional to the square, or some other power of the distance?

-- IFMU

planepsycho
18th Dec 2007, 14:48
If I recall correctly, in almost every episode either the transporter thing was broken or not working properly. If it wasn't broken then something else on the ship was. Does anyone recall seeing Sulu in a loving embrace with a woman?????:confused:

gearpins
18th Dec 2007, 15:05
total amount of mass leaving the ship had to be calculated in order to compesate orbital trajectory -RMC PROC

Tigs2
18th Dec 2007, 15:10
I blame all of the problems with the fact that they used Di-Lithium crystals as one of the primary power supplies. Scotty new that they were sh**e. Every other episode he was always sreaming

Scotty - 'ooh! Captain she's never goin to hold, its the di-lithium crystals'

Kirk - 'How long will it take to fix Scotty'?

Scotty - 'Och, aboot 8 hoors Captain'

Kirk - 'I can only give you 30 minutes Scotty'

Scotty - 'oooch ay'll do what a can Captain, but ay'll need a paper cup and a piece of string'!



We need techies like Scotty!

ScottyDoo
18th Dec 2007, 15:17
Wouldn't that be proportional to the square, or some other power of the distance?

Possibly. I'm not actually qualified on the Transporter Beam. The square sounds right...

a price to pay.long term effects of atomising one self and regrouping the same atoms again and again...well a few atoms slip in and a few depart quitely

But an atom is an atom in a carbon-based unit.

In Star Trek: The Movie, the results of a Transporter failure were demonstrated for all to see.

I believe they departed for that particular mission with the Transporter MEL-ed off. It's not a no-go item.

J-NUS
18th Dec 2007, 15:25
I believe we may have outed a trekkie :p

frostbite
18th Dec 2007, 15:25
Did they use a conveyor belt when the transporter broke?

AirScrew
18th Dec 2007, 15:29
I was always most impressed with the Predictive Inertial Plane Stability feature on the early transporters.

Did you ever notice, that whenever they would land/arrive/re-particulate on an uneven surface, ie a rock ledge, none of them ever 'over-balanced' as they materialised, even though they departed from a flat plane, and arrived on an incline.

It took William Obbler at NASA many years to perfect the PIPS algorithm to make the transporter a safer to use vehicle, and was awarded the Nobel prize for it.

Unfortunately history will recall that Mr W.Obbler successfully modified the algorithm to predict the movement of a roulette-wheel ball, snatched 23 trillion earth dollars from the Bellagio10 in Las Vegas, the punishment for which was to make a 1-way transport 'trip' into deep space. It was the only thing that Mr Obbler had failed to predict...

gearpins
18th Dec 2007, 15:35
Scotty - 'oooch ay'll do what a can Captain, but ay'll need a paper cup and a piece of string'!

the 'sting' they refer to is what atomic particles are made of( the string theory).....sorry to needle the thread in a different direction..

tony draper
18th Dec 2007, 15:41
Mind you one would not mind being reconstituted inside Urura.
As it were,:E

boogie-nicey
18th Dec 2007, 15:49
They need a transporter room to act as a separate customs clearing area and stop all those daft asylum seekers from turning up and putting a strain on the Enterprise's limited resources.

ChristiaanJ
18th Dec 2007, 16:03
"Beam me up, Scotty".....

I always marvel at the beam focusing accuracy.

I can't remember any occasion where they beamed up half a ton of the surrounding landscape together with the crew.

Come to that, I can't even remember ever seeing them wipe their feet when stepping off the transporter platform on arrival.

No alien doggie poo?

G-CPTN
18th Dec 2007, 16:04
Wouldn't that be proportional to the square, or some other power of the distance?You would only get a two-dimensional transfer for that, and, I think you'll find that with time being involved (the fourth dimension) it would be a fourth-power law.

Ropey Pilot
18th Dec 2007, 16:16
Apparently the whole transporter thing in Star Trek came about in the first place because they didn't have enough cash in the budget to film (semi) believable sequences involving a model landing craft!:}

Bus429
18th Dec 2007, 16:35
Actually, I've been rather concerned about Star Trek technology.

Why do they need to load-shed so often to maintain environmental control in certain situations?
Why does the ship need a replaceable energy source such as dilithium crystals? Do the doors to the bridge open automatically - tchhck - or are there stage hands operating them?
What's a Jefferson panel?
How does a tricorder work?
Does 7 of 9 use underwear?
Is there ever a shift change in the engine room?
Is there any other than a Type M world in space?
Why is the ship always oriented upwards with respect to the viewer?
How can warp drive stress the ship?

18greens
18th Dec 2007, 17:54
And why when ships meet each other in space do they always use the same up. Is there an international convention of UP in the space world?

(thanks for clearing up the energy reason not to transport to the Bridge)

Re transporter failure : There was that case of transporter failure in the excellent documentary Galaxy Quest where Tech sergeant Chen turned the pig beast inside out- easily done.

ChristiaanJ
18th Dec 2007, 18:05
Apparently the whole transporter thing in Star Trek came about in the first place because they didn't have enough cash in the budget to film (semi) believable sequences involving a model landing craft!Dead right.
And it was a brilliant invention, you must admit.

419
18th Dec 2007, 18:12
Why a transporter room?

Immigration, Customs, security, and some mini Hitler to tell Spock that his bottle of Vulcan ear moisturiser is over 100 ml, so he can't take it with him.

Also, don't forget that the crew will need somewhere to put the tribbles into quarantine when they bring them back.

Jimmy Macintosh
18th Dec 2007, 18:22
http://www.syredronning.de/Kinky_Spock.jpg

ScottyDoo
18th Dec 2007, 18:25
Re transporter failure : There was that case of transporter failure in the excellent documentary Galaxy Quest where Tech sergeant Chen turned the pig beast inside out- easily done.

And let's not forget The Fly.

ORAC
18th Dec 2007, 18:25
Direst point to poin transport just moves the object/person from place to place. No checks for germs, weapons, imposters etc.

Personnel transporter rooms have a pattern buffer with a biofilter located on the deck below the room along with other safety circuits. Those beamed in are sent to the buffer before being materialised.

Which is how Scottie saved himself in one of the films by saving himself to the buffer when ship-wrecked till recovered years later. :8:8

Nikon744
18th Dec 2007, 18:30
And how come Enterprise could accelerate to umpteen times the speed of light without everyone getting a bit squashed against the rear wall, whilst a bit of turbulence/photon torpedo explosions nearby would cause all sorts of rocking and rolling around the bridge?

By the way, I'm fairly convinced that the Klingon Cloaking Device is fitted to my car, judging by the number of drivers that pull out in front of me. I'm b*ggered if I can find the switch to turn it off.

ScottyDoo
18th Dec 2007, 18:40
Ah yes, tis all true, ORAC, and another Google gem you might've mentioned is that according to the The Original Series writers guide, a transporter's effective range is 40,000 kilometers.

:ok:

ChristiaanJ
18th Dec 2007, 18:42
Personnel transporter rooms have a pattern buffer with a biofilter located on the deck below the room along with other safety circuits. Those beamed in are sent to the buffer before being materialised.Ah, thanks. Makes sense.
Somebody nicked that chapter from my Ops Manual.

tony draper
18th Dec 2007, 18:44
It's a bit of good luck that all alien races speak American.:uhoh:

Dushan
18th Dec 2007, 18:50
bet the Romulans were rolling about on the floor wetting themselves

They didn't have to roll. It was coming from between their toes:)

419
18th Dec 2007, 19:06
It's a bit of good luck that all alien races speak American.

I thought it was English!

A bit bastardised, but still English.

toothpic
18th Dec 2007, 19:09
Always thought the transporter room was used so the viewers could see who was going to be killed/injured on the trip. You get all the usual suspects on the transporter... Spock, Scotty Sulu etc... then some crew member you have never seen before... funny but its always them that get killed...!

Ozzy
18th Dec 2007, 19:12
And how come Enterprise could accelerate to umpteen times the speed of light without everyone getting a bit squashed against the rear wall, whilst a bit of turbulence/photon torpedo explosions nearby would cause all sorts of rocking and rolling around the bridge?Inertial dampers (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Inertial_damper):}

Ozzy

Bus429
18th Dec 2007, 19:23
Why is there no load-shedding when the photon torpedoes are fired?

Bus429
18th Dec 2007, 19:28
Is there a website that answers the pressing questions about Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet?

Loki
18th Dec 2007, 20:39
And why did we never get to see a khazi in Star Trek.....I`m quite interested in advanced plumbing.

Thinking about it, would they have had mini transporters in the base of their bogs, which would transport the poohs etc to a central processing plant.....obviously that would have to be on a different channel to avoid contaminating other transport activities.

answer=42
18th Dec 2007, 21:06
Loki wrote:

And why did we never get to see a khazi in Star Trek.....I`m quite interested in advanced plumbing.

Thinking about it, would they have had mini transporters in the base of their bogs, which would transport the poohs etc to a central processing plant.....obviously that would have to be on a different channel to avoid contaminating other transport activities.


which explains why there is so much c**p on all TV channels.

Ace Rimmer
18th Dec 2007, 21:53
Ref 7 of P is it me or does she look like Toyah out of Corrie?

The real reson for the transporter - it's cool OK? deal with it, move on...

The real question is why'd they need the shuttle jobbie? (looked like an MPV)

ChristiaanJ
18th Dec 2007, 22:33
It's a bit of good luck that all alien races speak American.Oh no, they don't....
They all speak French.

419
18th Dec 2007, 22:37
The real question is why'd they need the shuttle jobbie? (looked like an MPV)

I'd of thought it were bluudy obvious.

Even though it was set set well into the future, they still had kids who had to go to school.
What use would the transporter have been for this? It couldn't have parked half on the kerb, blocking the rest of the traffic from going past. At least with the shuttle, you could still have "mumsy" drivers, who couldn't reverse or turn the shuttle without causing a 1 light year tailback.

ORAC
18th Dec 2007, 22:50
The only thing I've never understood is how they crack the Shannon limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_channel_coding_theorem). :suspect:

Blues&twos
18th Dec 2007, 22:53
Tell you what, if I told my boss I needed 8 hours to repair a control panel and he said "you've got thirty minutes" I'd tell him to f**k off and do it himself.

I'd even let hiim borrow my multimeter.

Mini fan
18th Dec 2007, 22:55
I thought the little communicator device/badge thingy was an all encompassing translator that knew every language. So everyone actually spoke in their native tongue and the translator turned it into Federation speak (english), and vice-versa, Federation speak was translated into the correct language so the enemy could understand their torrent of abuse.

ChristiaanJ
18th Dec 2007, 23:20
I thought the little communicator device thingy was an all encompassing translator that knew every language.Right.
But they never got the bugs out of the French-to-English translator....
An endearment in French still ended up as an insult in English, and vice-versa.....

corsair
19th Dec 2007, 01:18
One thing always bothered me. When you are transported. Is the person re-assembled at the other end actually you or simply a clone, a replica, a twin. It thinks it's you but the consciousness that is you is gone. The soul if you like. For example, identical twins are the same person twice. But of course each one has it's own consciousness. This is a fundamental question and should a transporter device be invented. I would be most reluctant to try it.
In the later Star Trek, Riker was accidentally replicated and the double left behind. Which seems to point to the idea of a replica of you rather than it being you.
It would depend on the physics, I suppose. If the stream of particles that is you is actually fired at that target area. Then that should be OK.
In the follow up Star Treks, a by-product of transporter technology is the holo-deck. Which the crew by and large use for rather innocent purposes. In reality of course, porn would figure highly. Not to mention plenty of other human vices. But let's not go there. If you don't believe me, pay a visit to 'Second Life'.
Now there was a troublesome device. It was always going wrong, rather imaginatively sometimes. I think, if I was the Captain. I would close it down. It would be taken over by aliens, or get stuck or the characters would develop consciousness and try to take over the universe or someone would override the safety interlocks and they would be attacked by homicidal Klingon holograms. Definitely more trouble than it's worth. := Besides you'd never get near it with all the teenagers using it for............Well you know.:oh:

Blacksheep
19th Dec 2007, 01:54
What's all this "future" nonsense? Transporters are nothing new, we've had one on Teesside for years.

The only problem is that you keep materialising in Middlesbrough. :uhoh:

Charlie Foxtrot India
19th Dec 2007, 03:06
But they never got the bugs out of the French-to-English translator....
An endearment in French still ended up as an insult in English, and vice-versa

To see this in action go to youtube and search for "Python Trek"

Buster Hyman
19th Dec 2007, 03:50
Ahh, the Federation. They've built starships capable of Warp 10, phasers with multiple settings, universal translators that allow you to differentiate farts from communication by gaseous beings, transporters that beam you to the planets surface, Russian navigators that you can understand, Chinese homosexuals, crab headed Klingons, nerd conventions, and holodecks for when you run out of story lines...BUT...


Why the F***, did no one think of friggin seatbelts???:=

CR2
19th Dec 2007, 04:02
Have to send the Health & Safety. Bit like your antipod fetish with cranes (lack of) at your airports. :}

Buster Hyman
19th Dec 2007, 04:44
Nothing wrong with a little crane fetish Ratty...they help us with erections....:ouch::suspect:

Double Zero
21st Dec 2007, 21:59
In nerd - mode answer to two earlier questions, the early model of the translator, as seen in ' Enterprise ' - the last & in my view best offshoot - was a lot less reliable, with much fiddling by Hoshi, the rather tasty ship's Comminucations Officer to get the ship's ( & therefore portable kit too ) 'align the database'.

The other answer is that there are various true - nerd websites re. Thunderbirds & other Gerry Anderson creations - ' Fanderson ' ( cringe ) for instance.

T'B's have been mentioned a few times on Pprune, someone a while ago posted the stills from the 'Flight Simulator' programs a co. brought out recently - would love to hear certain T.P's opinion of the machines ! - also a Flt Engineer explained why TB 2's vertical lift engines appear to cut out before touch down.

Now back to Star Trek, why no mention of Jolene Blalock, ' T'Paul' in 'Enterprise' ? Sublime Crumpet, way ahead of the 'good body not sure about the face ' Seven of Nine...

tony draper
21st Dec 2007, 22:49
My main beef, yon Starship Enterprise can apparently travel backward and forward in time when the plot calls for it,so every time they get into a tight spot why the **** don't they just time travel back a couple of hours and avoid said trouble? hmmmmm?
:confused::rolleyes:

Double Zero
21st Dec 2007, 22:57
I can see one snag with your otherwise laudable theory; they'd have to leave a message for themselves as to what to avoid doing when they're 'back a couple of hours'.

The bridge consoles would be covered in post-it notes !

Shiny side down
21st Dec 2007, 23:12
just because they seem to have some money-free, utopian federation thing going, does not mean they got rid of unions.

The transporter room was a demand from the transport and general workers union (they wanted to be called the federation, but that would be too confusing having a federation within a federation)
Basically, in lieu of a wage increase, and guaranteed days off and shore leave, to cover the fact that they would rarely be home, the concession required a new post(transporter technician) and a separate clean and quiet working environment(transporter room).

2 things will almost certainly survive a nuclear war- cock roaches and the human need for unions.

Double Zero
21st Dec 2007, 23:41
It's probably me, but do to an unfortunate edit / paragraph spacing, I first read that as 'roaches with nuclear war cocks' !

Now that's a worrying thought, the last one got kicked out by her own party in the end ! :E