Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Why transporter rooms?

This is topic Why transporter rooms? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1117.html

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Why are ships equipped with Transporter rooms, which are apparently solely dedicated to transporting people to and fro, when we've seen people, on many different occasions be transported off the bridge, or to a bridge.

It seems possible that the transporter pattern could go through the relays in the actual room itself, using it to relay the pattern of the subject to wherever it needed to go.

If it's used mostly as a relay station, couldn't the transporter room and pads (which apparently aren't necessary, and therefore could be omitted) simply be stored in a 'closet' or smaller room, with the transporter function being carried out by someone somewhere else, like on the bridge?

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Well, site-to-site transports take double the time and double the energy than trasporter pad-to-sit transports. A site-to-site transport is basically a double transport. First, the subject (at some location that is not the pad) is dematerialized and sent to the transporter pattern buffer. However, instead of being materialized on the pad, the pattern and stream is shunted to a transporter emitter. The subject then appears at a new location without going to the transporter room.

Essentially, the subject is "beamed up" and then "beamed down" in quick sucession without ever appearing on the pad.

------------------
Nic: She's not a practicing lesbian. We need PRACTICING lesbians!
Me: I have a camcorder.
Nic: But no lesbians.
Me: Ahhh... no.
Nic: DAMN IT MAN! WE NEED LESBIANS! LOTS AND LOTS OF LESBIANS!

ICQ Conversation From January 23, 2001.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Whoops, forgot the conclusion to my post. Anyway, you could have the transporter operations completed from the bridge and utilize a closet transporter room, but the process is much more energy and time intensive. That probably puts a real wear-and-tear on the equipment. That's probably why we see the transporter rooms being utilized so much and site-to-site transport not as often.

Posted by Pro. Portside on :

ok the TNG:TM says that a site to site transport like you where talking about dose go through the transporter room. The subject is dematerialized at point A then routed to the ransporter chamber. insted of being materalized it is shunted to a second pattern buffer and then to a second emitter array so it can me materalized at point B. This is needs twice as much power.

but as to the room itself if the diagram on page 103 of the TM along with the cutaways posters are to be belived the room is just a small part of the transporter. The Biofilter, Pattern buffer and all the rest are located in a smiller room one deck below the Transporter room conected to the pad by conduit for the matter strem.

but back to the TM It refers to the transporter pad as the transport chamer and states this is the protected volume within which the actual materialize/dematerialize cycle occurs. and that the pad is elevated above the floor to reduce the possibiltiy of dangerous static discharge, which sometimes occurs duirng the transport process. (if you wandted to know why it was up a steep or two)

Also having a seperated room for transporting would give the ship and crew some security should something or someone should be beamed on the ship.

I hope I have helped

------------------
Tribbles and warp cores dont mix

Posted by Pro. Portside on :

well I was solong in typeing my reply someone beat me to the punch. well I gess I will go pracitce my thping now

------------------
Tribbles and warp cores dont mix

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Of course, they considered putting a transporter pad on the bridge for TNG, but in the end decided that having the characters ahve to go somewhere else to beam down gave time for them to talk, get the exposition out of the way etc. Mind you, DS9 didn't seem to suffer from having a transporter in Ops. . .

------------------
"Kif, I have made it with a woman! Inform the crew!"

- Zapp Brannigan

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

If Trek ever ventures to a future timeframe (if, say, the next series takes place in the 25th century), I'd like to see the transporter room eliminated. Not the transporter machinery, though, at least not in just a hundred years. Something like the wrist-worn remote control seen in "Non Sequitur" would be used, controlling a transporter system aboard a starship or in a protected building, and *all* transporting would be site-to-site and totally controlled by the user himself. This wouldn't change the mechanics of transporting too much, but would be a logical step ahead. Something like the move from handheld to chest-worn communicators - not too demanding technologically, but it speaks volumes of how this technology has become *mundane* and *streamlined*.

If we visit an even more remote future, then truly portable transporters would be nice. Perhaps even interstellar ones, allowing for Q-style travel without the need for starships. But since we still see starships (or at least timeships) in the 29th century, interstellar transporting might be very difficult to achieve...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :

I've only seen a long range transporter in the Trek universe when Damon Bok used it to transport Jason Vigo off the Enterprise-D. I wonder if Starfleet R&D is working on that technology.

And I still think that transporter rooms are needed. Where would we put the nasty aliens we beam off an exploding ship then?

------------------
"When I said to get involved in the gay community, I didn't mean to sleep with everyone in it."
Michael_T

Posted by Tech Sergeant Chen (Member # 350) on :

We've seen extremely long range transporters as early as TOS. Gary Seven used one, and the Kalandan outpost used one to beam the whole Enterprise a good distance away.

------------------
Never give up. Never surrender.

Posted by Nonsuch on :

didn't Dukat use a long-range transporter of some sort to beam Kira to Empok Nor in that DS9 episode whose name eludes me at the moment?

------------------
And one day we will die
And our ashes will fly from the aeroplane over the sea
But for now we are young
Let us lay in the sun
And count every beautiful thing we can see
Love to be
In the arms of all I'm keeping here with me

- Jeff Magnum

Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :

I thought that Dukat sedated her, shoved her in that Type-6 shuttlecraft he got from the late USS Honshu, and brought her to Empok Nor?

------------------
"When I said to get involved in the gay community, I didn't mean to sleep with everyone in it."
Michael_T

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

It's difficult to say how much of Odo's and O'Brien's speculation about the transporter was true. Perhaps Dukat indeed used a shuttlecraft, and our heroes simply were very confused.

It would, however, be rather nice if the Dominion did possess long-range transporter technology. That would help explain what happened to Eris in "Jem'Hadar" - she could have beamed to a cloaked ship (even though we never saw the Jem'Hadar use cloakships in other occasions), or she could have committed suicide by transporter (even though we later found out the Vorta do value their own lives), but she *could* also have used an interplanetary transporter.

There would have to be some limitations to the tech, though. After all, we didn't see the Jem'Hadar overrunning planets by transporting to them from three lightyears away.

Incidentally, the upcoming "Gateways" novel series draws a connection between the Kalandan teleportation technology and the Iconian gateways...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Perhaps my mind is going, but I thought DS9 did establish that Dominion transporter technology was far in advance of the Federation's?

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

That the Dominion can transport through Federation shields, that much was made clear. That the Dominion can transport between star systems, well, that was only one possible interpretation of "Covenant"...

We did not see any Dominion technologies that would have been radically more advanced than the corresponding Fed ones. The Dominion was better at cloning and bioengineering, but then again, the Feds refuse to even participate in that particular competition.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Don't forget beaming through the wormhole. Or grabbing Jake and Nog off DS9 without anyone noticing.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

When did these take place?

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Dan Stack (Member # 516) on :

I can't recall beaming through the wormhole... Maybe at the end of "Jem Hadar". However, Nog and Jake were beamed off the station, if I recall correctly, in "In the Cards".

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

About DS9 having a transporter in OPS:

Different situation. The Enterprise would fly up to a planet/ship/take-away, and Riker and co would walk down the corridor, have a chat, and then beam off. This didn't happen in DS9, because almost all the beaming involving the ops transporter was beaming someone ON. Since they could create a forcefield around the pad, there was little need, in storytelling terms, to have a seperate transporter room.

There was more of a need on the Defiant though. And look, it had a sperate tansporter, er, chamber thingy.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The first is, as was mentioned, presumably from "The Jem'Hadar." Er...or was it from the second part of "The Search"? Anyway, it's just a guess, but Eris beamed somewhere, presumably out of sensor range. Whether it was back through the wormhole or not, it still represented a feat Starfleet transporters weren't up to.

Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :

In Relativity, we have a long range transporter on the bridge (albeit with temporal capabilities). So that would seem to set the pattern for the next few centuries.

------------------
Faster than light - no left or right.

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

There was a transporter on the bridge of the Jenolan. Though the entire bridge would not fit the module that it has.

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!