posted
A more ethicly sound alternative to that would be to just steal the enemy's weapons
Well, in regards to the original post; There is precious little solid information about any TOS systems, but we could probably extrapolate a few rough paramiters. For one thing the TNG tech manual states that the large cargo transporters are indeed of a lower resolution, which "are designed for operation at molecular (non-lifeform)resolution for cargo use, but they can be set for quantum (lifeform) resolution transport if desired, although such usage would entail a signifiacant reduction in payload mass capacity".
No mention is apparently given of the mass/density transport capabilities of any known unit. However, the ST:IV transport does provide a good yard stick, you could say that a 2280's Klingon scout has similar power capabilities as a 2260's Federation starship and that Federation and Klingon transporter tech is more or less parallel, given the apparent similarity of the Starfleet and Klingon optical transporter effects in the movies.
posted
I'm not necessarily interested in transporting only during a planetary assault (which would seem as dangerous as using paratroopers today) but also in terms of cargo shipping. However, let's say you need to get a hypothetical 70- or 100-ton marine AFV down to the surface for your peacekeeing troops (not during an attack) or maybe a 500-ton fusion or antimatter reactor (without fuel). Would you need to bring them down in a very large shuttlecraft or could you just transport them? Of course, we haven't seen shuttlecraft so large or transporters pads either, although site to site transport is possible, I guess.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, once things get started in development, I bet it explains why Starfleet seems to conduct a lot of its industrial production in lower-gravity environments, either in orbit or on the surface of Utopia Planitia.
However, we HAVE seen some ships capable of landing and taking off from an Earth-normal planet. For example, ships like the one in DS9's "Paradise." Voyager is the obvious example, but it's also a very new ship, so doesn't really apply to the Museum.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The antimatter for an antimatter reactor would have to be transported separately from the matter. In fact, the transporter has to be modified too.
But what does make me wonder is how would a transporter react to a reactor that is working? I mean yeah there's a lot more power going on there, but is it really that much more different or difficult from transporter a person?
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
I suppose that transporting an active reactor would require a quantum level configuration, since any misstep could cause an uncontrolled M/AM annihilation within the transporters beam. Given the mass of a shuttle is allot greater compared to the average humanoid, I'd say that the power involved in transporting a shuttle would be comparable to the ST:IV transport, since that was also a large quantum level transport. So to answer your question, yeah, it probably is possible to transport a large amount of mass at once but of course you'd have to put a limit on just how much and the composition of what your shifting. Also remember that some materials (I forget which) cannot be transported at all and that the more dense materials would take longer to disintegrate, process and re-materialise.
P.S. Masao: If this has anything to do with our discussion about the Botany Bay, don't worry I've since changed my mind about that.
posted
Ya... right. So does that mean by the time USS Voyager launched, only one set of transporters are needed for cargo and personel? Perhaps Starfleet Command kept on upgrading the transporter system after the Enterprise-D encountered the Borg so by the time the Nebula Class USS Phoenix went on a hunting spree, transporters can be used at warp and by Voyager, only one transporter is needed for personel/cargo transports.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, they can still only transport things up to the size of the transporter pad. So they may still have a large cargo transporter for the really big stuff.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
What about the transporter enhancers, used in TNG several times. In a contested area a torpedo fired to sprout them would serve, I would imagine. Not unlike the MLRS and artillery that can fire transporter shells with those little ball landmines.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
the tng technical manual said that cargo transporters could be set to handle quantum (lifeform) resolution, ata cost to the payload weight transportable.
we know that even when cargo transports are set for quantum, they can still transport approximately two whales.
just because there was no technobabble line that says they were configuring them like that, we can probably assume that the cargo trans. were reset to quantum everytime they beamed something complicated on Voyager. theres no need to assume they had radically different transporters.
it obviously wasnt a radical procedure to reset the cargo transporters to quantum, since it was done so often (voyage home, power play, the prefect mate. etc.). it was an adjustment that was made without making reference to it in dialogue, but the technical manual tells us they did it.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not sure the size of the pad is a limiting factor. It probably should be, but we've seen them beam far more than six people up at a time, for instance. And what with the fancy capability of TNG's transporters to beam something up and then beam it elsewhere, without bothering to materalize it on the pad, I'd say that the limit is the size of your pattern buffer, at least for advanced enough transporters.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And yet pads must have some use beyond the purely aesthetic (or organizational; you don't necessarily want your guests beamed directly to their quarters; thus the invention of the anteroom). It's apparently easier to transport something when you have two transporters working on it, rather than just one. I'd wager that most of your everyday, non-starship transporter work is probably of the pad to pad variety, perhaps for that extra measure of safety?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
