"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- 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
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!
posted
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
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
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
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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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
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.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps you cannot "beam" antimatter. That would be a valid reason for a torpedo loading hatch. What with torpedoes having antimatter warheads and all.
-------------------- I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit.
Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
