Hang on a mo (Post DS9 Tech)

[pathstrider]

I've just thought of something. With all the emphasis on new tech developed after the Dominion War (Which has been really cool - specially the ASDB stuff I've seen dotted about), I just realised something that might have been missed out.

The federation (And Sisko is particular) captured a Dominion ship. Now, if we assume that the ship had a dominion transporter (No unreasonable, though the chance of it surviving is less)....

The federation has its hands on 3ly transporters.

Think of the implications. Inter solar system shuttles a thing of the past, no more having to orbit a planet to beam an away team down.... the list goes on.

Any opinions?

[Anarchy Bob]

Well, what the Federation has right now is one ship with 3 light years transporters.

Taking it apart to figure out how it works might destroy it.

And there's the matter of installing that on a Fed ship. It probably doesn't work according to most Fed transporter principles. So, no qualified technician to run it. It might work with different targerting sensors, software and power sources.

There's no such thing as free lunch. Well, except in Endgame of course.

[pathstrider]

All that's certainly true. But let's face it, this is Star Trek... most tech seems to get picked up by Trek engineers in.... ooo... I dunno... 45 mins (Gosh )

So let's assume, for sake of argument, they do get it. Compared to Endgame tech. It's the LEAST flange I can think of.

hmm. In fact, it might be useful to list all the tech the federation has got on screen by 2379.

I'll work on a list.

[Dan Gurden]

Its worth pointing out that the federation has 3 years study of the Dominion Fighter. When Sisko took it behind enemy lines in season 6, it was crashed in the sea of an un-used planet.

Although there is likely to be a lot a wreakage to study since that time.

[C5]

IIRC, it is mentionned in one episode (Covenant, I think), that Dominion's transporters can operate at a range of 3 ly, but with a beacon device to get a lock on the target. So maybe the 3 ly-range works only for a beam-out situation (although they use it in Jem'Hadar to beam a Jem'Hadar in DS9... oh well)

Also, since we never saw it being used in the series, we can assume that these transporters can't be used for mass-transportation (otherwise the Jem'Hadar would have been able to transport a hundred of them inside DS9), so maybe they take a lot of energy or need to be recharged after use.

So I guess we could come up with many limitations like these ones, but still, this could make an interesting asset in the hands of the Federation. Personnaly, I'd see it more like a device to be used in emergency situations only (like the transporter in ENT).
OTOH, for the guys here who wondered how the Federation would be one century later... this device could well have become the standard transporter.

Besides, as a friend of mine noticed... 3 ly in 5 seconds... that's a hell of a warp factor

[pathstrider]

Hmm... another potential spanner in the works...

I'm not sure but (AIRC) I think that transporters rely on lateral sensors to get the gain/accuracy for a transport. So, that means that either the federation will have to invent those (Or loot them from the Dominion ship too) or the transporter is limited to one ly (The current range of lateral sensors).

Can anyone remember if that's right or not?

On the use of them by the dominion, it's likely that is could be used only with a beacon (Though the one used was arm mounted, i think), but that still means transporter => transporter (i.e. most civilian transport uses) would work over 3 ly.

As a related issue, what do people think about transporting shuttles, like they have occasionally done on (blarg) Voyager?

[Sarge]

TNG actually was the first show to transport shuttles. In the episode where Q lost his powers, Picard ordered the shuttle Q had taken to be beamed back to the shuttlebay. "It's a perfectly good shuttle, Number One."

As long as the starship has sufficient cargo transporter capacity to beam up the shuttle's mass, I don't have any problem with that procedure.

[qerlin]

Sarge, is right...and it was a crappy idea on TNG, too.

[C5]

Why ? I guess it's a huge waste of energy (compared to the energy required to propel the shuttle on this distance), but it could be justified in emergency situations.
After all, not every ship have an infinite supply of shuttles like Voyager did ...

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by qerlin
Sarge, is right...and it was a crappy idea on TNG, too.

I disagree. It's not really any different than transporting a large mass of cargo. If they can transport groups of people, transporting machinery is hardly stretching either credibility or practicality.

[pathstrider]

Okay, feel free to shoot me down on this one... but I thought you couldn't transport Anti-matter.

Thus, shuttles with Warp capability (And therefore a M/AM reactor) shouldn't be able to be transported.

[Dan Gurden]

why not?

Where did the 'cant transport anti-matter' come from? After all in one of the TOS episodes Kirk beams down with an anti-matter containment cylinder on an anti-grav?

Its just I have heard this theory before, but only from fans, and I dont recall a mention of this problem on screen?

Beside if it has been mentioned, then it would be a simple matter to eject the anti-matter before transporting...

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Dan's right. As far as I can recall there is no canon basis for not being able to transport antimatter. Quite the contrary, onscreen evidence clearly shows that they can.

[pathstrider]

That's cool. I must admit to only having heard it on the grapevine, now that I think about it.

And, If I'm honest.... my TOS knowledge (and liking thereof) is just about non-existent <shrugs> Oh well.

[C5]

The thing about transporting anti-matter is that it requires some caution from the operator, since the anti-matter and its container must dematerialize and materialize excactly at the same instant (otherwise, the anti-matter would enter in contact with some matter around it and KAVOOOM!! ).
I don't remember where I saw this observation (maybe on these boards, in fact).

Now I guess anti-matter can be transported but not replicated for the same reason living matter can't...