From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: anim8rfsk{at}cox.net
Subject: Re: STAR TREK THE WRATH OF KHAN: was What Did You Watch?
2013-06-01 (Saturday)

In article , "Obveeus"
 
wrote:

> "JRStern"  wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:18:39 -0600, David Johnston
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>>> How about transporters are a very expensive way to
move around a
> >>>> couple of hundred pounds, a bunch of poor miners
moving thousands of
> >>>> tons couldn't begin to use them.
> >>>>
> >>> What expense is there in using a transporter?  It needs power but
> >>> they've matter-antimatter power so that's not really an issue.
> >>
> >>Antimatter is a really compact way to store a lot of energy but they
> >>never indicated that it's just lying around like coal.
> >
> > Transporter might cost a lot to build and we know they're finicky and
> > can fail, maybe the parts have to be replaced after an hour and
> > sometimes fail even earlier.
> 
> That would explain why the transporters only work when needed for the plot 
> and are non-operational when needed for the plot.  Basically, the 
> 'transporter' was a stupid idea that was put into the show because it was an 
> easy 'special effect' that would make the show look sci-fi.  In reality, it 
> wasn't any more modern sci-fi looking than I dream of Jeanie, even with the 
> added light/particle effect added in.  So, they added in this cool sci-fi 
> element and then constantly had to write the plots around the fact that such 
> a device would solve 90% of their plots instantly if used.  How many times 
> could people have simply been beemed to safety if those transporters weren't 
> constantly unable to lock on?
> 
> > Why else have these little personal-size transporter pads.  Maybe a
> > bigger pad tends to implode or split your personality or something.
> 
> Notice that, despite the individual pads, they transported larger objects as 
> needed for the plot as well.  Heck, in the whale film they transported a 
> cubic area of water and whales with no trouble at all...and with one of 
> those cheap foreign transporters  If they can do that, then why would it be 
> more difficult to have transported out sections of mining tunnel?

Dirt should be easier than whales, since you don't care what it looks 
like on the receiving end. And even if there's some reason not to use 
transporters, "It took the Starfleet Corps of Engineers ten months in 
space suits to tunnel out all this" is just silly.

-- 
Dano's just a troll.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux