• SeeJayEmm@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always thought the least believable part of transporters was that they worked without a pad on both ends.

    • Chrisosaur@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? Absolutely no point to the pads, since you can dematerialize anywhere and rematerialize anywhere else. They might as well hide the equipment and make a nicer reception area.

    • knotthatone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s some hand-wavey technobabble about annular confinement beams and whatnot but the real reason was because TOS didn’t have the money or time to show a shuttle land or receiver pad sent down, etc. It was cheap to depict and the audience bought it without much explaining (step into booth, shimmer, be someplace else).

      It was just a sciency-looking version of what I Dream of Jeannie did.

    • Nmyownworld@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I accept transporting to somewhere without a pad because mumble, mumble, Star Trek science. What I always wondered about was how blasé folks usually were about transporting to somewhere that didn’t have a transporter pad. Who makes sure no one is standing in the beam to area. Does the transporter have safety protocols to just not transport if there is something of a certain size in the way? Transporting someone partially into rock has been shown in Star Trek (one instance, PIC s2e9). Weaponized use of a transporter, maybe by overriding transporter safety protocols? That was done intentionally, but still.

      • Tom Riley@mas.to
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Nmyownworld @SeeJayEmm @startrek I mean, if you’re OK with ship sensors that can analyze space in tiny detail, it’s reasonable that transporter tech makes sure the target area is safe/unobstructed, and safety protocols prevent transport if there’s risk. We often see a human operator scanning for good transport locations too.

        There’s obvious issues with the concept of course, but Star Trek is the type of scifi that you can trust with your suspension of disbelief, and you’ll usually be rewarded.

        • SeeJayEmm@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Could be head canon but I’m pretty sure the air is dematerialized when the people are rematerialized. Not sure how they keep more air from rushing in.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if the area was clear when the process started, what is stopping some space tumbleweed from blowing in there right after it starts?

        • Nmyownworld@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the safety protocols fail, resulting in a space tumbleweed hybrid, then Division 14 steps in. D-14 will send the affected to a medical spa on Endicronimas V, where they are pampered and tended to like a precious gem. (Lower Decks, “Much Ado About Boimler” s1e7)

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Warp drive matching real science isn’t too much of a surprise. The current theoretically possible model for a real-life warp drive is the Alcubierre drive, and Miguel Alcubierre came up with it because he was inspired by the warp drive from Star Trek, and wanted to see what it would take to make it real, for want of a better word.

    • kargarocP4@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funnily enough, it’s kinda more like SW hyperdrive than warp. Point-shoot-pray, can’t see outside, can’t change direction, lots of calculations needed to find an unobstructed path

  • killall-q@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because teleportation is murder. Whatever comes out on the other side may look and act like you, but isn’t you, because you’re now dead for having been disassembled by the teleporter.

    • zalack@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Teleporters are interesting because when you think about it long enough, you realize the person on departure end died.

      Then you think about it more, and if the person that comes out the arrival end is an exact replica, down to the atom, and has continuity of thought… if you accept that they died then you kind of also have to accept that the “you” of any given instant is constantly dying and giving way to the “you” of the next instant. That person living that experience at that exact moment will never exist again.

      So then you’re kinda back to transporters being business as usual again, but with a fun new existential crisis on the side.

      • SeeJayEmm@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In practice, I agree with you. The transporter scans, disintegrates, and reconstructs the thing being transported. But when the thing being transported is reconstructed at a subatomic level it is effectively identical.

        I can imagine the society we see in startrek having already worked through the moral and philosophical implications. I would have loved to see that addressed in an episode tho.

        • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is one carbon atom the same as another carbon atom, philosophically? Can you keep your identity when all your atoms are replaced by other atoms of the same kind? It’s the ship of Theseus problem

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The real question is why they wouldn’t use the transporter buffers effectively as backups for away teams. Have an away team member killed? No problem, rematerialize them from the buffer.

    • waspentalive@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Dr. McCoy famously hated the Transporter. He always complained that his atoms were being scattered, but never once did he voice the opinion that the transporter killed the transportee. Also, I don’t believe even with Badmirals abounding, that Starfleet would allow such a death machine to be in regular use.

  • Haus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m with you on the transporters, but the fly in the ointment for me has always been inertial dampeners. If it’s possible to sidestep conservation of inertia, I’d be pretty surprised. If not, the crew will be converted into stew the first time a ship slows down or makes a course correction.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The other part of that is, of course, that they don’t seem to use the technology (or artificial gravity or the tractor beams for that matter) for anything else. In particular no weapons or defence systems.

      • zalack@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Final Architecture series by Adrian Tchaikovsky uses artificial gravity as the basis for almost all its tech.

      • SeeJayEmm@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seriously, once the shields are down why aren’t they just dematerializing parts of the enemy ship?

    • SeeJayEmm@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if there’s a technical manual out there that tries to explain it. It seems like energy manipulation is something startrek tech excells at.

  • @concrete_baby Today, I learned that Star Trek ALSO has a galactic barrier. Not hear even, I was catching up on Discovery earlier. So now I am coming across Star Trek’s galactic barrier twice, for the first time, on the same day. (Though, I must have seen it referenced on TOS at a some point.)

    • porthos@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I kind of love the galactic barrier in how weird and obviously differing from our reality it is, scifi shows don’t need to make their universes behave the way ours does.

      I realllllly loved the discovery episode where they went out the galactic barrier, it was just so damn weird.

      As long as the characters behave with a scientific frame of mind, it doesn’t really matter if the physics of star trek is absurd. It doesn’t matter if the calculations do or don’t add up for some fantasy tech in star trek, it matters how characters interact with the unknown and approach trying to understand problems (where the heart of science really lives). The 4th season of Discovery did an amazing job with this in my opinion, it was cool to see the crew sent to meet with 10-C stumbling through the logic of trying to figure out a way to make contact (or even WHAT 10-C was before they found them).

    • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to Memory Alpha, the barrier appears in at least three TOS episodes: “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “By Any Other Name”, and “Is There in Truth No Beauty?”