The great transporter qualification thread.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
The great transporter qualification thread.
I decided to put this here since it covers all series.
Simple in concept, lets work out the limits and uses of the common transporter. What's there range, what blocks them, how safe are they, etc.
Working from cannon, and anything we can figure out from it, we should easily be able to pool our knowledge to find out plenty about these things.
Good idea? Bad? Stupid?
Simple in concept, lets work out the limits and uses of the common transporter. What's there range, what blocks them, how safe are they, etc.
Working from cannon, and anything we can figure out from it, we should easily be able to pool our knowledge to find out plenty about these things.
Good idea? Bad? Stupid?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
I'm going to save us a lot of time and throw this off topic right now.
So how about that local sports team huh?
Shields are formed in sepments. Thats how you can collapse a part of a ships shield ie aft, port, stern.
When shields are collapsed you can transport through them so long as something else isnt jamming them (I cant remeber how you block transporters with out shields but it was one in Insurrection.
Going Pad to Pad is safer easier and uses less power than Pad to point or point to point.
Range is dependant on the hardware involved in it but can be rather long distance. A few hundred Kilometers is my guess for the Feds.
In everyday use they are very safe and even in adverse situations they are still realiable so long as you have a good crew operating them.
So how about that local sports team huh?
Shields are formed in sepments. Thats how you can collapse a part of a ships shield ie aft, port, stern.
When shields are collapsed you can transport through them so long as something else isnt jamming them (I cant remeber how you block transporters with out shields but it was one in Insurrection.
Going Pad to Pad is safer easier and uses less power than Pad to point or point to point.
Range is dependant on the hardware involved in it but can be rather long distance. A few hundred Kilometers is my guess for the Feds.
In everyday use they are very safe and even in adverse situations they are still realiable so long as you have a good crew operating them.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
The sad thing is that I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up like that!I'm going to save us a lot of time and throw this off topic right now.
So how about that local sports team huh?
It also seems to be more difficult to transport onto a ship than a planet. We see people beaming down from orbit plenty of times, yet they need to be a lot closer to another ship to beam on. Perhaps the hull interferes somehow?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
And all the elecrical stuff in the walls. We see electronic interfernce stops transport on planets maybe the constant background electrical field of a starship makes it more difficult.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
It's also possible that they have problems with moving objects (ships ) vs sationary ones (planets). In "Coming of Age" they were unable to beam an individual off a shuttle despite the shuttle being between them and a planet they had no problems beaming to.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
That would make sense, it would be harder to lock onto something moving than stationary.
Another point, we see in Symbiosis (TNG) that low level X-ray radiation can interfere with transporters.
Another point, we see in Symbiosis (TNG) that low level X-ray radiation can interfere with transporters.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:53 am
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Correct me if im wrong but weren't two people killed in TMP in the transporter? And on Enterprise, they seem to prefer to use shuttlepods even though the transporter is safe for people.
We've also seen that its possible to use the transporter to put oneself into suspended animation, like in TNG's 'Relics'. I think thats interesting, though its not without risk (obviously)
I think that transporters are an excellent tool and method of transport, and by TNG, they'd hammered out all the kinks for day-to-day use.
We've also seen that its possible to use the transporter to put oneself into suspended animation, like in TNG's 'Relics'. I think thats interesting, though its not without risk (obviously)
I think that transporters are an excellent tool and method of transport, and by TNG, they'd hammered out all the kinks for day-to-day use.
"Beware what you intend to say, those words will always make you pay." - Soilwork
Booze and Strippers!
Booze and Strippers!
Still there is always the risk of something going wrong that you didn't anticipate before you beamed down. We have yet to have someone cloned or whatever by a shuttle.
Also shuttlecraft have wider range, as later ones were warp capable, and give you some autonomy.
I forget where but I think I heard a max range of 100,000km for transporters. Since most M-class geostationary orbits are ~40,000km that is plenty.
Also shuttlecraft have wider range, as later ones were warp capable, and give you some autonomy.
I forget where but I think I heard a max range of 100,000km for transporters. Since most M-class geostationary orbits are ~40,000km that is plenty.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
True, but I was thinking more about TNG era transporters.MetalHead wrote:Correct me if im wrong but weren't two people killed in TMP in the transporter?
Well, back then the transporter had only been tested on cargo. I think I'd be pretty reluctant to get into it as well!And on Enterprise, they seem to prefer to use shuttlepods even though the transporter is safe for people.
Well, not all of them. We've seen the transporter screw up pretty spectacularly on several ocasions. But overall it does seem rather safe.I think that transporters are an excellent tool and method of transport, and by TNG, they'd hammered out all the kinks for day-to-day use
Could you explain what you're trying to say here? Thanks.Sunnyside wrote:We have yet to have someone cloned or whatever by a shuttle.
That seems to make sense. Of course, that would probably be a max range under perfect conditions. We've seen ships needing to get closer than that on several ocasions.I forget where but I think I heard a max range of 100,000km for transporters. Since most M-class geostationary orbits are ~40,000km that is plenty.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:53 am
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Rochey:
I've not seen many TNG episodes so I can't really say.
BUT. I remember several transporter accidents on Voyager, so perhaps im wrong. And the ones on TOS - Enemy Within I think it was where Kirk was split into good and evil.
I think what Sunnyside was saying is that you avoid taking almost all the transporter risks by using a shuttle - which actually, I reckon is more risky, given that shuttles can loose control, malfunction, crash, explode, be shot down, and have klingons perch on the starboard bow for all we know.
I've not seen many TNG episodes so I can't really say.
BUT. I remember several transporter accidents on Voyager, so perhaps im wrong. And the ones on TOS - Enemy Within I think it was where Kirk was split into good and evil.
I think what Sunnyside was saying is that you avoid taking almost all the transporter risks by using a shuttle - which actually, I reckon is more risky, given that shuttles can loose control, malfunction, crash, explode, be shot down, and have klingons perch on the starboard bow for all we know.
"Beware what you intend to say, those words will always make you pay." - Soilwork
Booze and Strippers!
Booze and Strippers!
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
MetalHead;
No problem, this wasn't meant to be a thread discussing how accident prone or not transporters are.
No problem, this wasn't meant to be a thread discussing how accident prone or not transporters are.
Ah, okay.think what Sunnyside was saying is that you avoid taking almost all the transporter risks by using a shuttle - which actually, I reckon is more risky, given that shuttles can loose control, malfunction, crash, explode, be shot down, and have klingons perch on the starboard bow for all we know.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
As I recall, the max range for a transporter is 40,000 kilometers.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
That would be in ideal conditions as well. Ship to ship, electrical interference, any number of things drop the range.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.