He Who Shall Not Be named is asking me to post this topic: OK, so here's somethign that should generate a few theories.
I was sitting on my bed after moving furniture staring at my E-E cutaway poster...& I noticed 2 things:
1) The warp core is stupendously huge. Why? WHY do big ships have monstrously enormous & long warp cores? It's not necessary for power; look at Defiant's dinky little 4-deck core. Not EVEN 4 decks..it's THREE. Is it aliek a penis thing or something?
2) OK, so the plasma in the nacelle is sprayed from the top & bottom (dumb as shit, it should just be the bottom or better yet, shot straight in on the centerline. How does it get to the top?)through the coils to energize them, right? And wee've SEEN this. The plasma's just fired down the middle of them. But WHERE DOES IT GO?? Does it just evaporate? Get collected & reused & recycled like poop?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I would guess that, by the time the plasma reaches the back end of the nacelle, it will have cooled to a gas, and it's probably collected, cooled to a liquid, and reused.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Also, to be sure, we haven't seen how the plasma behaves while a ship is at warp drive. The scenes in "Eye of the Beholder" were at varying degrees of "idle"...
Personally, I *like* humungously large machinery. As long as it serves a humungously large starship, that is. If the machinery to move the ship around is tiny, and the weapons are tiny, and two trainees and a Monkee can pilot the ship, WHY do they bolt living quarters for a thousand people to the thing, and give it external dimensions that barely fit the TV screen?
Roddenberry's "technology unchained" nonsense is dramatically unappealing. Tech (at least tech as important as warp drive) should be bulky and finicky and always imposing dramatic limitations on the characters' actions.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The E-E cutaway poster is good for killing an hour of time. I've done it several times. I keep looking for a guy (a better yet a woman) in the shower like in my Ent A cutaway from ERTL.
I also keep trying to figure out what room Picard and Lilly were in when they were having the discussion about money in the future and what not. It was kind of a round room with a railing in the center, but nothing like that shows up on the poster. Not that the poster is canonical...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Aban,
I know the set you're talking about. I always thought it was a corridor.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Aban,
I know the set you're talking about. I always thought it was a corridor.
I think it's a room. It had a little window that Picard points Australia, PNG and the Solomons out to Lily through.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
MPicard and Lily are walking along, Picard's got the phaser rifle. It looks VERY much like a corridor, except there's a rather thick rail in the center of the corridor, for no apparent reason.
The scene you're thinking of is, IIRC, in a room adjacent to a jeffries tube, right after Lily has disarmed Picard, and Picard is trying to convince her that he isn't the big-bad guy.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Right you are Snay. The scene I'm talking about occurs after the scene where Picard points out the window.
I suppose it could be a corridor, or perhaps some kind of juntion of corridors.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Cool. I didn't know Voldemort was into trek.
- Yes, I know.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Right you are Snay. The scene I'm talking about occurs after the scene where Picard points out the window.
I suppose it could be a corridor, or perhaps some kind of juntion of corridors.
Mabye the "window" is some sort of emergency venting system for that particular Jeffries tube? Mabye something to alievate those pesky plasma conduit ruptures we always hear about. There was no glass after all- just a forcefield behind a sliding hatch: not your standard fare for a viewport.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's also a control console seemingly dedicated to the operation of that hull orifice... Far too complex a setup for this to be a mere window.
I'd suspect this is an umbilical connector of some sort. The hole isn't conveniently sized or shaped for the ingress or egress of personnel or goods. And clearly it wouldn't be a good idea to pump deuterium or fresh water or plasma or somesuch through it, as it opens directly to the Jeffries network. But it makes wonderful sense that this would be a purge valve for the Jeffries system.
Rather than an "emergency relief valve", though, I'd suggest this is where the starbase plugs in when it starts to recycle the air aboard the Enterprise. That is, this is one of the dozens or hundreds of such plug-ins necessary for the job. Such a hole would not need any adjacent machinery, and indeed nothing useful is visible in the room, save for the control console.
Oh, and the railing in the middle of the corridor... When does one need such "traffic dividers"? When there's a great rush to a limited number of destinations. Either this corridor serves a cafeteria, or then helps divide the flow of evacuees to lifepods (some which we saw are accessed via corridor walls in this ship).
(OTOH, what the hell is the *real-world* reason for that set? Did they accidentally build too wide a set for two people to interact, and narrowed it down this way? Did they have a spare rail lying around? Were they planning on replacing the outer wall with a greenscreen and cool graphics of vast spaces beyond?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Perhaps they were going for the generic 'deep down in the ship' feel, with GNDN tubes and all.
Actually, now that I think of it, it's probably the primary GNDN control room, with a GNDN umbilical connector to a Starbase's GNDN network.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Torpedo loading hatch?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Too small an opening for that: torps would likely be loaded directly adjacent to the launcher anyway....and probably beamed on board at that.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure why the torpedoes would be more likely to be beamed aboard than any other item or consumable, and since we've got plenty of evidence that most of that is physically piped in or transfered over . . .
(Also, I wonder if the low-resolution transporter protocol that makes cargo transporters worthwhile might not wreak havoc with advanced and delicate circuitry such as the kind one ought to find in the guidance system of a 24th century weapon. For a barely acceptable comparison, could Data be transported via cargo transporter any more safely than something biological? I'd lean towards no. ((It presents another limitation to what transporters can do, for one thing, which appeals to me from a certain story-telling aesthetic p.o.v.)))
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"For a barely acceptable comparison, could Data be transported via cargo transporter any more safely than something biological? I'd lean towards no."
Lore was beamed into space with a cargo transporter, and he wasn't damaged. Or, if he was, it was simple enough to be repaired by Pakleds.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So, do we actually have any canonical reason to believe that "cargo" transporters would lack the resolution of "personnel" transporters?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't believe so. Personally, I always thought that it was more of a precautionary thing. You can transport humanoids through cargo transporters, but it's safer to use the higher reolution and million and one backup systems built into the personal transporters.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, Lore stuck to wearing Pakled fashions for awhile after being recovered, so that's at least one sign of damage to the higher brain functions, am I right boys? LOLOLOL!
Sigh.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Ahhhh that corridor with the middle 'railing' - I believe it was just an attempt to redress the same corridor used earlier. Make it look like a corridor somewhere else.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: So, do we actually have any canonical reason to believe that "cargo" transporters would lack the resolution of "personnel" transporters?
Timo Saloniemi
The TNG Tech Manual says something about the power conservation of using only molecular scan resolution transporters for cargo, replication, etc. You have to use more power to scan at the quantum level necessary for life transport though.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If it just comes down to power usage then it stands to reason the cargo transporters are capable of quantum-level transport as well. Perhaps they default as molecular-level but warn you if you're about to transport something more complex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Man, I really hate to enter these tech discussions, but didn't Danar (an uber-enhanced soldier from some alien culture) use a phaser to power a cargo transporter for his own use in one of the earlier TNG seasons?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"For a barely acceptable comparison, could Data be transported via cargo transporter any more safely than something biological? I'd lean towards no."
Lore was beamed into space with a cargo transporter, and he wasn't damaged. Or, if he was, it was simple enough to be repaired by Pakleds.
Lore also had self-repair systems and months floating in space with nothing elsae to do...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Mucus,
Danar tried to trick Worf into believing that he'd beamed somewhere from the cargo transporter. In reality, Danar was still hiding in the cargo bay.
I can't remember how Danar escaped the Enterprise, though. It's possible that after overpowering Worf (IIRC, he knocked a bunch of cargo pallets onto Worf-ie), he did use the cargo transpoter.
It makes sense to me that the cargo transporters would have the ability to transporter life-forms. In any situation regarding a mass evacuation *to* or *from* the Enterprise, it seems that utilizing every transporter aboard would be called for ... and since we know that cargo bays can be converted into emergency sick-wards (as in "Ethics"), wouldn't it make sense to have the ability to beam wounded DIRECTLY to where you want them?
I mean, yeah, you can make the arguement that you could use the regular transporter rooms to beam wounded directly to the cargo bay, but I think it is likely that when you beam someone with a transporter, the most cost-effective way is transporter to transporter, and it is more "expensive" (in energy cost, or preventative maintenance or what not) to transport from one random location to another random location. From that logic, Starfleet designers would want to make it as easy as possible on the ship to be able to conduct an evacuation, while keeping in mind that the ship might be in a battle situation, during which you would want to keep the energy-expendeture as low as possible (so as to provide more energy to shields, life-support, or phasers).
It's also most likely that the cargo transporters have the ability to be toggled between "cargo only" and "people ability" ... i.e., additional imaging equipment built into the cargo transporter which could be activated when the ship needed to beam people, but could be left off for a majority of the time.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The technical manual (which is the only place a distinction in capability is made) does say that a technician can make the cargo transporters lifeform-ready, but that it requires more than just flipping some software settings.
But, as Timo's question suggests, onscreen evidence of the difference is hard to come by, if any exists at all. (One might say, I think, based purely on what's been on TV, that a cargo transporter is simply a transporter that's in or near a cargo bay.)
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Perhaps you cannot "beam" antimatter. That would be a valid reason for a torpedo loading hatch. What with torpedoes having antimatter warheads and all.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I don't know if it's ever been established if you can or cannot transport anti-matter.
It would make more sense if you could not. After all, if you could, why not simply beam a torpedo into another ship? Near as I can tell transporting through shields doesn't seem to be a problem anymore.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
We've seen them transport anti-matter. TOS "Obsession" I believe, and they transported a torpedo onto a Borg vessel in "Dark Frontier."
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
#@!$%! You beat me to it Lee! I think they also transported a torpedo in "Child's Play".
B.J.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Oop! Good point guys.
I shall now turn over my Trekkie badge and phaser.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Mucus,
Danar tried to trick Worf into believing that he'd beamed somewhere from the cargo transporter. In reality, Danar was still hiding in the cargo bay.
I can't remember how Danar escaped the Enterprise, though. It's possible that after overpowering Worf (IIRC, he knocked a bunch of cargo pallets onto Worf-ie), he did use the cargo transpoter.
Wesley transported antimatter to the Hathaway in "Peak Performance".
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I guess it's Canon if it's on screen, even if barely legible, but the Transporter console has a small callout called "Pattern Buffer (Quantum)" on it. This would seem to directly tie in to what was intended for the Transporters capabilities.
On the other note mentioned regarding antimatter, Picard was going to beam an entire shuttlecraft back into the shuttlebay and that's like beaming an entire starship, technologically speaking. There's antimatter in a warp-capable shuttle.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: There's antimatter in a warp-capable shuttle.
Is there? Certainly there could be, but matter/antimatter collision as a power source isn't a prerequisite for warp drive.
(Having said that, I do believe that various Starfleet shuttles have been explicitly antimatter-powered. I'm just saying.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
For the life of me, I cannot remember a single reference to "antimatter" or even the more ambiguous "intermix" aboard shuttlecraft (or other craft smaller than runabouts). And I agree that warp engines can probably run on things other than antimatter.
Still, the ability to beam entire shuttles is remarkable no matter what the powerplant. It may suggest that transporters are used in the majority of replenishment tasks, including torpedo casings, drinking water, air and whatnot, and supplanting direct physical means. But personally, I'd want to retain the physical interfaces for the assorted consumables, merely because they are cool (I like Meyerisms to a degree). And the FC hole-in-the-hull is just *perfect* for an air replenishment interface...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Re: non-antimatter powered warp drives: the Romulans.
(Though you can pull antimatter out of a black hole, I guess, thanks to some bizarre quantum mechanical magic.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Runabouts have antimatter: I figure at least large shuttles would as well.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
If the Voyager shuttles can do what they do without Antimatter, Starfleet needs to reconsidder some things. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, such as? They can crash a lot. And fly from place to place!
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, reach Warp 10...
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: They can crash a lot. And fly from place to place!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)