Skip to main content

star trek - How much did transporter risk decline over time?



The Star Trek transporter appeared in the original pilot, The Cage, as a cheaper effect (ex-universe) than having the Enterprise land. - Transporter (Star Trek)


enter image description here


Somewhere around one hundred years spanned the distance between the first biologically safe transporters and the launch of NCC-1701. Dr. McCoy was, perhaps reasonably, afraid—there were still problems: TOS The Enemy Within.


There were a series of staged releases for Federation transporter technology. Memory Alpha has this to say:



Production of Mark V transporters was halted in 2356. By 2371, Mark VI transporters were considered outdated. Mark VII transporters were able to transport unstable biomatter, as long as the phase transition inhibitor was adjusted. (DS9: Family Business)



Presumably, there were also Mark I, II, III and IV releases, unless some were skipped à la Windows. Also, Emory Erickson, the transporter inventor, must have had a number of pre-deployment alpha and beta versions. I know of at least two, detailed in ENT: Daedalus.


Various risks have been described, including transporter psychosis (ENT: Realm of Fear), total materialization failure for a variety of reasons (Star Trek: The Motion Picture), merging of two people during transport (Voy: Tuvix), and regression during materialization to childhood (TNG: Rascals).


These risks are described as having decreased over time.




[I]n the episode "Realm of Fear", Geordi La Forge states that there have been no more than 2 or 3 transporter accidents in the preceding 10 years. Reference is also made to the advancement of transporter technology in the same episode, where Chief O'Brien states that each individual transporter pad has four redundant scanners whereby in the event a scanner fails the other three will take over, and that he has never lost anyone having been a transporter operator for over twenty years. - Transporter (Star Trek) at Wikipedia



But how much safer was the technology in the later (in-universe chronology) episodes than when first deployed? Is there evidence beyond what La Forge and O'Brien said anecdotally? There were enough late accidents to make me think that transporters must have been very dangerous in the beginning.


Not that this really proves anything, but extrapolating from Richard's detailed answer to this related but separate question, and adding in the accident from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I count four known accidents from before TNG and seven from TNG on.


But it would be silly to think that transporter technology had become riskier over time, right?



Answer



Since you said you would accept anecdotal accounts in lieu of cold, hard statistics, note that the Enterprise episode "Daedalus" deals with the genesis of the transporter and introduces its creator, Emory Erickson:



ARCHER: I have to confess, given a choice, I'd much rather use a good old-fashioned shuttlepod.



EMORY: I'll never forget the protests when the transporter was first approved for bio-matter.


DANICA: Oh, God. Here we go.


EMORY: People said it was unsafe, that it caused brain cancer, psychosis, and even sleep disorders. And then there was all that metaphysical chatter about whether or not the person who arrived after the transport was the same person who left, and not some weird copy.


TUCKER Which would make all of us copies.


EMORY: I had to fight all of that nonsense, and I'm not going to tell you there weren't costs. I'm living proof of that, but I won. Mankind is better off. Makes everything I've fought for worthwhile.



While Emory is dismissive of the concerns over transporter use, he goes on to reveal however that actual lives were lost during the first uses of the transporter:



EMORY: I sympathise, believe me. During the initial tests for the transporter, some brave men and women were lost. Not a day goes by that I don't think about them. How can I help?




In particular, his own son Quinn was lost in such an accident, and his pattern was trapped in a subspace anomaly for 15 years. In the episode, they manage to rematerialize him, but he dies a few moments later.


So, anecdotally, it would seem that the risk of using the transporter has diminished significantly since Archer's generation.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

harry potter - How could Expelliarmus beat Avada Kedavra?

I want to be very careful about how I ask this question – I am not asking How did Voldemort die? [CLOSED] Below the text is the relevant passages from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows if anyone wants to review them (I'm sorry for the amount of text). How did Expelliarmus beat Avada Kedavra and kill Voldemort? I feel the reason Harry's Expelliarmus overpowered Voldemort's Avada Kedavra curse has to do with who was master of the Elder Wand and how the Elder Wand works. I've always had trouble understanding fully how the Elder Wand works, though. How much did the fact that Voldemort never truly won or mastered the Elder Wand factor into how Expelliarmus reacted to Avada Kedavra and caused Avada Kedavra to rebound and kill Voldemort? An answer based in book canon would be especially welcome, but any canon source really is fine. Harry heard the high voice shriek as he, too, yelled his best hope to the heavens, pointing Draco’s wand: ‘ Avada Kedavra !’ ‘ Expelliarmus !...

game of thrones - Is Syrio Forel dead?

In the episode 'The Pointy End' (Season 1 Episode 8) when Arya runs from the Lannister guards you hear the sound of a sword being dropped (around 4:56): [embedded content] After that neither Syrio or Ser Meryn Trant is never mentioned or seen in the show again, except when Arya mentions to the Hound that Ser Meryn Trant killed Syrio. Is there any mention in the books that Syrio actually dies?

tolkiens legendarium - Difference between elves and dwarves blacksmithing in the Lord of the Rings

Both the elves and the dwarves were famous for their metal work in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but what is the difference between what they made, and which one had the better skill of making amours and swords? Answer James Christopher's answer sums up the second part of your question well, but as to the difference in what they made, a little more detail is needed. Once the Elves learned to forge with steel, the shape of the sword changed, now being able to take on the form of a great broadsword or a light and agile curved sword. Additionally, they took great pride in decorating their swords. As we see in the Lord of the Rings , some swords like Sting had magical properties such as glowing blue when orcs are near. As far as the use of Mithril, lotr.wikia has two contradictory passages: Thus, Elven blades became renowned as great weapons, capable of performing deeds beyond the skill of their handlers and were even more glorious when the use of Mithril was allowed to the Elves. ...