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

On 6/5/2013 5:14 AM, 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?

Because sections of mining tunnel aren't discrete objects and the 
transporter would have to carve them free of the associated rock? 
Because the kind of things that they'd be mining for in the first place 
are the kind of things that can screw up transporters, devices which are 
particularly inclined to go awry?  Remember in TOS it took nothing more 
than a little magnetised mineral residue on someone boot and soon an 
Evil Captain Kirk is raping Yeoman Rand.


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux