This is my first post and I hope I’m placing it in the correct section, if not I do apologize. My question is what is the need for a transporter room in the Star Trek’s? I’ve notice people and items transported to and from various places like ships , planets ,etc. and alot of times the transporter room wasn’t used. So i was just wondering if any of the Trek faithful out there could cure my ignorance.
This goes back to TOS, where the transporter tech was a little less reliable than in TNG. They had the most control going to and from a transporter platform, and were least likely to have an accident.
In order to transport from point A to point B you have to know the precise coordinates for both points. With a transporter room, the ship’s computer always knows the coordinates of the transporter (relative to the position of the Enterprise in space), so one side of the computation is already done.
I can’t believe I’m actually posting this. It’s been a long time since I really considered myself a Trekkie. :smack:
I’ve often wondered that (Ethilrist obviously has the ‘outside’ answer). In ToS there was one episode where beaming within the ship was a dangerous and cunning manouver 
so obviously then they needed it. My ‘inside’ theory is that beeming from a pad uses less energy, so is used for all but emerency situations. I’ve never seen anything to back this up, though this is the way it worked in one of the books.
BTW - IIRC Cafe Society is generally used for posts about TV, etc, even if they are also mundane, pointless, opinion, or questioning. Rants could go in either BBQ or Cafe. Though I think a response to Cecil’s words on a work of fiction should go in the about the columns section.
Off to Café Society. Lemme see if Scotty has the Transporter up and running today. That, too, runs on hamsters, ya know.
Glancing around, making sure no one I know sees me…
I always assumed it was because transports from random point A to random point B were in effect two separate transports - one to “pull” the passengers or cargo from point A to the transporter (but without materializing them), and then another to “push” them to point B. In that case, then it would use less energy if one of the endpoints of the trip was the transporter itself (not to mention a bit safer – I’d hate it if there was a brownout during the second part of the trip and I materialized with my heart on the outside just because I was lazy and wanted to be transported directly from the planet’s surface to my bubble bath).
And now back into the Trekkie closet…
It was a money issue, in terms of budgets for the shows special effects.
Fat Bald Guy’s got it right. The transporter need exact coordinates to safely work and it’s a lot easier and quicker to just use the transporter rooms than try to lock on to communicators, subcutaneous transponders, bio signs, etc.
In the TOS episode “The Cloud Minders”, Plasus (Jeff Corey) was beamed up from the cloud city and then immediately down to a cave on the surface, with apparantly enough lag time to give Scotty (manning the transporter) a dirty look. This suggested the transporter room was a necessary focal point for any transports.
Only in TNG did “site-to-site” transports come into play. I found they did this inconsistantly. There have been moments when TNG episodes have transported people directly to sickbay or the bridge, but there have been many more when they didn’t bother, even when it would have been a logical thing to do.
The Day of the Dove
As far as the need for a transporter room in TNG goes, I am not convinced that it’s required for determining the exact location of someone. Site to site is rather safe within the ship and then more so with a communicator on. The remaining benifit is probably more power for larger groups and precautions for exotic materials.
Hey, Brendan Donovan, welcome to the Dope.
Even before that, in “A Piece of the Action” Scotty beamed the gangsters from their hq to where Kirk was, locking on to them when Kirk had Bela call them. This point is mentioned in one of the Technical Manuals, but I’m ashamed to admit that I read them closely enough to remember.
Welcome also to Michael Hunt. And, Fat Bald Guy, that is a greatusername.
–viva
That’s how I remember it as well. I don’t think they had the capability to beam from one point directly to another without using the pad. What’s this “TNG”? There was only one Star Trek show, right?
Fat Bald Guy
Member
Registered: Jan 2001
Location:
Posts: 142
:dubious:
I wasn’t welcoming FBG, ya silly. I welcomed MH, and then made a comment. Next time I will indent my paragraphs just for YOU, Aes.
Indent? Try the enter key every once in a while.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Sorry for the 'jack. He started it.
But you responded to it knowing there’d be a domino effect.
Cite? All the Enterprise threads!