posted
Anyone know when the Transporter, the version that was used for cargo originaly, was created. From what I can tell off Enterprise, it seemed sort of new, but I'm not sure. Any reference anyone has would also help. Thanks
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
The transporter "theory" has probably been around for awhile. We've got vaguely teleportational-like effects going on in the lab today. (NOT, I should point out, that those can or will lead to anything even vaguely resembling a Star Trek transporter.) It's possible the theory behind transporters in the Trek universe goes back as far. On the other hand, I think it's somewhat clear that transporters (like most of Star Trek tech) utilize subspace in some way, in which it would have to wait at least until Zefrem Cochrane or shortly before. (Which is an interesting side point. Was Cochrane an engineer, taking some wild predictions of theoretical physicists and turning them into an FTL drive, or was he a physicist, perhaps the guy who discovered subspace physics in the first place, and only later becoming a hardcore postapocalyptic Thomas Edison of the stars?)
But transporters themselves, as working devices, can't be that much older than "Broken Bow."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well given Cochranes involvment in the Warp 5 facility I'd guess that he was the physicst type, whilest Lily was the engineering type.
Agree that the transporter were invented before "Broken Bow", but does anybody want to take a guess as to how long it would take for something to become rated for uses by humans?
Drugs for instance can take 2-3 years to be cleared for human use, there was a gap of 4 years between the launch of the first satellites and Yuri Gagarins first flight. So a date of 2147-48 for the first relible use of a transporter and 3-4 year process to clear it for humans would be my guess.
Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
the transporter could have been invented much earlier than 2151, but it may have taken a long time to make it reliable.
IP: Logged
posted
I dunno. I can see a massive gap between the first cargo transporter, and the first human transporter. After all, if it's a chair, who cares if some small molecules get mucked up? If 90% of it gets through okay, it'll be fine.
They might have progressed from that, to more complex stuff like chemical supplies, where they would have had to have been more accurate.
But for humans, I'd imagine that they'd want a 99.999999999999999999999999999% minumum guarantee that the human will be fine before anyone would even think of using it.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Transporters need not be a human invention at all. We haven't seen enough of the other contemporary species in ENT to tell whether they have the tech or not. We didn't even know the Vulcans had tractor beams until we saw them in use.
If the tech is alien, it might take decades for the innate suspicions to evaporate. Add to that the time the Earth government(s) would keep the thing secret from the GI Joes, and you could say that the Vulcans already brought it with them in 2063. They could then have invented it in 2829 B.S. for all we know.
quote: Originally posted by Hunter: Drugs for instance can take 2-3 years to be cleared for human use, there was a gap of 4 years between the launch of the first satellites and Yuri Gagarins first flight. So a date of 2147-48 for the first relible use of a transporter and 3-4 year process to clear it for humans would be my guess.
Actually, it would probably be a lot longer. In the case of spaceflight, a better starting point would be the launch of the first successful liquid-fueled rocket. That took place in March of 1926, thirty-five years before Gagarin's flight. Given that we're talking about taking a person apart down to the subatomic level rather than sitting on top of a giant skyrocket, I'd want a hell of a lot of testing done before I'd step into the bloody thing.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Could someone please explain to me the logic of estimating the time it took to perfect transporters using completely unrelated real-world examples? From what you've said, I could've just as well researched the amount of time it took my socks to become approved for human use and used that as "evidence".
Transporters of any kind cannot be much older than the 2150s because of evidence in "Masterpiece Society", where a 200-year-old colony didn't know of transporters. The theories could go back as early as the 1960s, which is when the Star Trek and our universa diverged. "Enterprise" will probably nail down the exact dates, but until then, it's better to rely on official sources than resort to such meaningless speculation using unrelated real-world examples.
posted
Again, *human knowledge* of transporters is the only thing we have data on at this point. And even humans are in the habit of concealing stuff from each other. Perhaps the Moab folks were from a nation that was kept in the dark when a competing nation began to use the things? Perhaps it was only with the final big crunch where nations were abolished that one of them confessed "oh, and we invented teleportation in 2072" or "and BTW, this is what the aliens dropped on our laps in 1947".
It is by no means sure that the 1960s would be the divergence point, really. I mean, we thought the Trek universe of the 1980s was pretty much like our own, until we learned Bill Gates was replaced by Henry Starling and integrated circuits by isograted ones. We might yet find out that they had transistors in the 1930s (even if Spock had access to none in "City on the Edge") and telegraphs in the 1600s. And that a nation called Austria never existed, but one called Syldavia did. The earliest known divergence point is about four billion years in the past, after all - at the point where natural evolution was replaced by that seeded and preprogrammed DNA.
posted
Timo, you'd have to present evidence for the alleged scientific and technological secrecy during a period of relative prosperity, technological progress and stability under the sponsorship of Vulcans (even if 2079 was a somewhat different story).
The 1960s are a pretty safe date for the divergence point because the alterations with respect to real history were made to bring Star Trek in line with the real world, and not the other way around. Sure, the various time travelling could've influenced this, but we're talking about things that are as fixed as the edge of the galaxy -- the boundaries are not precise, but they exist.
Nothing is ever certain in these discussions, but some things are more likely than others, having more evidence to support them.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to go wildly off topic here, but with regards to the whole "divergence" thing, I firmly (well, fairly firmly) that where ever possibly, TPTB will want to make our universe and the Trek universe match each other, because to do otherwise would cause audience confusion. They no longer say "There was a big war in 1996 where genetically engineered supermen took over 2/3rds of the Earth", because the casual viewer will just say "what the fuck are they talking about?"
On the other hand, in "Future's End", they can replace Gates with Starling, because Starling is suppossed to be an obvious send-up of Gates, and therefore most people will get what is going on.
But, er, transporters. I do think there would have been a hell of a lot of testing and double testing and triple testing before people used them. More than any other mode of transport I think, simply because of the massive relucance people will have. If McCoy still has it 100 years after the first "approved for human transport" one, then imagine how many people were terrified of them when they were first invented?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
