Where would we be without transporters

Mark Mag Gloade · **Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:21 pm Where would we be without transporters**

Imagne startrek without transoprters......yipes

Captain Jayson Day · **Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:21 pm**

Well no one really likes transporters in Enterprise

Kyle Reese · **Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:14 am**

Without transporters then some people would be late for their shift

syd2002 · **Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:18 am**

LOL, I dont know I cant see startrek with out some sort of transporter.

Captain Jayson Day · **Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:43 am**

Well Transporters are a legal word for Star Trek, no one else can really use it

Mark Mag Gloade · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:35 am**

true very true but if there was no transporters people would be late for shifts, it would be harderto get onto any ship, you couldnt get of a blowing up ship quckly

och alot of peopl would die then

Capt.Rene D'Hondt · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:16 pm**

Well..right now the dont really use transporters on ENT cuz they dont trust them........sdo in away transporters arent in Star Trek for no.

Praetor · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:32 pm**

The only reasons Rodenburry but them in Startrek was because he didn't know how to dock the ships or whatever, he needed an alternate way of doing it. But that was a long time ago, now it's getting easier to see things and do better things using graphics and $#it on computers.

Capt.Rene D'Hondt · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 2:10 pm**

I read this on Scientific America and did u know about one year ago..the transporter ONLY the pattern of a single cell i think it was from point A to point B...and it arrived sussecfully..perhaps sometyme in the near futre...we can all get to work much faster:)

1/1 · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 3:20 pm**

Mark Mag Gloade · **Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:36 pm**

hey thats great, perhaps roddenberrys vision of the future wasnt far off ....

Datas_Hottie · **Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:04 am**

If we actually had transporters. I'd be in London England. Or with Elijah Wood. lol

Qgirl · Captain Joined: 08 Jun 2003 Posts: 554 Location: Florida

Thomas · **Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:33 am**

I saw a programme on television that explained why they had transporters. It would have been too expensive for them to do continuous landing sequences using shuttles (or something along those lines) so Gene Roddenberry invented transporters, and obviously, they stuck. As for Trek without them, I guess they'd just have to use shuttles all the time.

Mark Mag Gloade · **Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:06 pm**

well that would be good it would give pilots more of a job, flying rules

Datas_Hottie · **Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:15 pm**

Mark Mag Gloade · **Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:49 pm**

remember this is a TRANSPORTER discussion

Melodramatic · Rear Admiral Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Posts: 4577

It would make things so much harder.

I would love for it to exsist tommrow

But we all now thats impossible.

Mark Mag Gloade · **Tue Aug 12, 2003 6:38 pm**

nothing is impossiple, just very hard to accomplish
it is unlikely sadly but not impossiple

Jeremy · **Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:11 am**

Theres been some research into it and it could be possible

Qgirl · Captain Joined: 08 Jun 2003 Posts: 554 Location: Florida

I heard in Germany they are working on it, and they actually did transport non-organic material.

Akira Class · **Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:35 am**

*gasp* Without transporters, Data would be imprisoned for murder! (The Most Toys; TNG ep. 170)

Caspar Vandenburgh · **Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:36 pm**

That all may very well be true. But im sure G.R. (may he rest in peace) had other reasons. I mean IT WAS IN THE FUTURE. And he did have energy wepons too.

Jadzia Lenara Dax · **Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:54 pm**

[moved from gen. trek to tech. jad.]

Dax Orien · **Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:14 am**

Yeah they'd all fly around in shuttles, just like they used to.