[horatio]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

Sure, but hasn't the discussion been refreshing? As I said earlier in another post. I just found lurking here the best I could do the last few months until I could think of something to bring up for a discussion. I think I succeeded in accomplishing that.

MAYBE.......On the Kelvin, just before they came across the Narada, a transporter "guru/scientist" had just discovered how to correct some inherent problems with the whole system. Possibly the same spin as Kirk would have been born on earth, in Iowa if not for... He entered his theories into the log computer, left to go talk it over with the chief engineer, the Narada shows up and "blewey" no guru left to fix the problems.......and no Kelvin remaining with his log entry. Transporter weaknesses persist until Spock spills Scotty his own beans about certain capabilities that he theorized in the prime universe.......and subsequently lost Admiral Archer's beagle demonstrating in the new. Old problems on their way to being rectified...lol

Never understood why the transporter was never used as a weapon. Closest thing was "Trouble With Tribbles" when Scotty beamed them all onto the Klingon vessel. Probably would have been "Bad Form" to have done so...

I faintly remember that in a TNG episode they beamed photon grenades in tunnels. Whenever the shields of a ship are down you could beam an antimatter bomb over to blow it up.
But this is hardly dramatically tasty, is it?

I don't mind the discussion here but please let's always keep in mind that dramatic reasons overrule the consistency of fictional technology.
I am the first one to critisize these pop artists for their anti-intellectualism and for their comic treatment of Trek, including the technology. But in the particular instance of the transporters I think that the techspeak was totally sufficient.

[kevin]

Personally I wouldn't be inclined to be that hard on them re technology given some of the stuff trotted out in the Prime Universe.....................but the golden rule is certainly that consistency goes the way of the dinosaur when the dramatic 'moment' is called for in a given script.

[Futureguy]

[quote=horatio;316274]I faintly remember that in a TNG episode they beamed photon grenades in tunnels. Whenever the shields of a ship are down you could beam an antimatter bomb over to blow it up.
But this is hardly dramatically tasty, is it?

LOL..."Bad Form" as Capt. Hook would say, but he was never that true to his own saying either.

Hey, if I could end a fight with a "Trick" as using it to stealthily defeat an opponent, might do it myself... Could even beam the whole opposing crew into the transporter and hold them there for a while.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by Saquist

My solution would be not to use the transporter as a plot device.
If you needed simple then why not have a rock fall on her or fall into a crevice far before she's transported?


Damaged sensors would be a much better explanation than what was given in the movie.

I think the first statement, as a part of the writing, would have been the better way to take the scene. Amanda could have even pushed Spock out of harm's way and taken a strike from a boulder herself, just as the transporter engaged. Lock would have still held on everyone except Amanda who was possibly then dead or moved "too far" out of the "field" by the boulder to stay locked. Would have made giving her life a sacrifice to Spock as a token of "love", bringing his human emotions (momentarily) to the surface, then tying in with his being emotionally compromised in his fight with Kirk. 20/20 hindsight is great to re-write the script...lol

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

Amanda could have even pushed Spock out of harm's way and taken a strike from a boulder herself, just as the transporter engaged. Lock would have still held on everyone except Amanda who was possibly then dead or moved "too far" out of the "field" by the boulder to stay locked.

That's almost exactly the same as what happened in the film................minus the boulder hitting her. Which has the same end result. They lock gets lost and not re-established.

Being dead or unconscious/injured physically does not mean you can't still be transported between a planet and a ship so her 'dying' likely wouldn't make a difference as long as the signal lock was kept on her body. But if you want it to be lost.................

In this scenario, why is it they can't re-establish on her? There still has to be some sort of reason.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

I think the first statement, as a part of the writing, would have been the better way to take the scene. Amanda could have even pushed Spock out of harm's way and taken a strike from a boulder herself, just as the transporter engaged. Lock would have still held on eryone except Amanda who was possibly then dead or moved "too far" out of the "field" by the boulder to stay locked. Would have made giving her life a sacrifice to Spock as a token of "love", bringing his human emotions (momentarily) to the surface, then tying in with his being emotionally compromised in his fight with Kirk. 20/20 hindsight is great to re-write the script...lol

Three remarks.
First, it's clearly a good idea. Especially as sci-fi fans thinking about what-ifs is always good.
Second, this experience would make Spock feel less angry and more guilty (that he survived instead of his mother). How does this work in sync with the rest of the story?
Third, while I like the sacrifice per se there were already sacrifices en masse in this movie, each time by a captain. They were relevant in the context of the Kobayashi Maru theme. I think that another sacrifice would have interfered into this thematic harmony.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by Saquist

If you can't track amanda's sudden fall then you weren't LOCKED on the target...you were merely aiming at it. A True Lock means the target has been acquired by return signal and as long as the target is within the sensor's field of vision then nothing that target does will cause the lock to waver.

That's actually not quite accurate of what a lock is or how a lot of targeting systems work, or rather it is but it's overly simplified thus missing a lot of important details. It's a little more complex is some aspects, and in other areas it's actually ridiculously simple. If you want to use weapon's systems as an example, then use semi-active radar homing, which is what we use to shoot down air targets with surface to air missiles. The launch platform detects the threat with the air search radar. The search radar information is used to calculate the required flight path for the missile. The target is then illuminated by another radar transmitter that is separate from the search radar using a very narrow beam. Once the missile detects the return from the illuminating radar, target lock has been established and is ready for launch. The illuminating radar is what provides the missile with the actual guidance to the target. That is what the missile is actually tracking. The illuminating radar, however, does not actually track the target, all it does is it lights up the target (modern systems typically use continuous-wave radars). The missile is basically like a little kitty following a laser pointer on the wall. Which is why they say the missile is "riding" the radar beam to the target. The actual tracking of the target is done by another radar, probably the search radar, and is necessary in order to keep the illuminating radar painting the target. Without it the illuminating radar will likely lose the target and without the illuminating radar, the missile loses the target. The search radar literally aims the guidance radar which basically just paints a dot in the sky that the missile looks for and flies to. It's just a slightly more sophisticated version of laser guidance.

Now if you want to use the CIWS which is the high speed OMFG cannon of boyish happiness that we use to shoot down incoming missiles which I so love . It also uses two radars. It uses a search radar of sorts to detect the incoming threat and calculate course, speed, distance, and altitude of the target. With that information the system determines if the target is a threat that should be engaged. Once a valid target is established, the system turns the weapon to face the target so that the second radar, a tracking radar, can see the target within its narrow field of vision. The tracking radar then tracks the target until the system decides that probably of a kill has been maximized. The weapon then begins firing around 3000 rounds a minute. Now here's the thing, at this point the system is not actually tracking the target's course, speed, range, altitude, etc in order to land rounds on target. It's tracking the path of the actual rounds and simply "walks" them then into the target. Fast, dirty, and cuts down on the calculations while still being effective. The overall concept hasn't really changed that much from the radar targeting used by the Iowa-class battleships in WWII to aim their big guns, except that in those days the computers were analog and the size of a house and the ranges are which they fired are vastly different not to mention huge difference in rate of fire. Other than that the way the system aims the guns is still the same. Search radar gives guns information on the target range, course, and speed. Guns aim and fire. Radar built into the face of the gun turrets tracks the shells. Shells land and guns adjust before firing the next salvo. I wouldn't be surprised if the Kelvin's cannons actually walked the shots into those missiles, same with the Enterprise's phasers.


But yes, I agree, the simplest and probably preferable thing would have been to have a big rock fall on Amanda. Not very dramatic per se, but sometimes I feel screenwriters on occasion...or maybe more than that, tend to overdo the dramatic. Or maybe we could go with a Monty Python style animated monster suddenly come in off screen and eat her. And I'm not suggesting that Chekov can do any of the calculations needed to make the adjustments for aiming the transporter, rather he may have been observant enough to see that one sensor needed to be adjusted for whatever reason in order for it to provide the necessary information to allow the transporter to track and establish a lock.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

That's actually not quite accurate of what a lock is or how a lot of targeting systems work, or rather it is but it's overly simplified thus missing a lot of important details. It's a little more complex is some aspects, and in other areas it's actually ridiculously simple. If you want to use weapon's systems as an example, then use semi-active radar homing, which is what we use to shoot down air targets with surface to air missiles. The launch platform detects the threat with the air search radar. The search radar information is used to calculate the required flight path for the missile. The target is then illuminated by another radar transmitter that is separate from the search radar using a very narrow beam. Once the missile detects the return from the illuminating radar, target lock has been established and is ready for launch. The illuminating radar is what provides the missile with the actual guidance to the target. That is what the missile is actually tracking. The illuminating radar, however, does not actually track the target, all it does is it lights up the target (modern systems typically use continuous-wave radars). The missile is basically like a little kitty following a laser pointer on the wall. Which is why they say the missile is "riding" the radar beam to the target. The actual tracking of the target is done by another radar, probably the search radar, and is necessary in order to keep the illuminating radar painting the target. Without it the illuminating radar will likely lose the target and without the illuminating radar, the missile loses the target. The search radar literally aims the guidance radar which basically just paints a dot in the sky that the missile looks for and flies to. It's just a slightly more sophisticated version of laser guidance.

Trust me I know. That's why I spoke of corresponding systems used for tracking.

Now if you want to use the CIWS which is the high speed OMFG cannon of boyish happiness that we use to shoot down incoming missiles which I so I wouldn't be surprised if the Kelvin's cannons actually walked the shots into those missiles, same with the Enterprise's phasers.

You're talking about a Phalanx gun. Used to have one on my Cushing Class ship in Strike Fleet...short range point defense for missles
I wouldn't doubt they are capable of using a more than 200 year old technique. It's doubtful they would have to though. Like I said...FTL sensors. You need them to navigate at beyond light speeds. I think the Narada's weapon systems were design to overwhelm their tracking system. Yet notice it wasn't the redudnant rounds that were taking out the missles. It wasn't scatter fire it was precision tracking. Watch the scene...the beams fire just bellow the target and immediately adjust and strike the target. Pin-point accuracy.

But yes, I agree, the simplest and probably preferable thing would have been to have a big rock fall on Amanda. Not very dramatic per se, but sometimes I feel screenwriters on occasion...or maybe more than that, tend to overdo the dramatic. Or maybe we could go with a Monty Python style animated monster suddenly come in off screen and eat her. And I'm not suggesting that Chekov can do any of the calculations needed to make the adjustments for aiming the transporter, rather he may have been observant enough to see that one sensor needed to be adjusted for whatever reason in order for it to provide the necessary information to allow the transporter to track and establish a lock.

Future guy had some good ideas...
I think there is a dramatic way to do everything. I KNOW...because watching John Woo's direction of Mission: IMPOSSIBLE 2 should how just walking by a door can be made dramatic with a little flair.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by Saquist

the beams fire just bellow the target and immediately adjust and strike the target.

Yeah that's nothing really special that's what's called walking into the target. It's a method as old as the machine gun. We use it with manually operated and computer operated weapons. You fire. If you miss you adjust and fire again. And you keep doing so till you hit. Now if you have a really good feel for the weapon, you can just adjust once and land your shots on target. Likewise a computer could do the same.

[Futureguy]

[quote=horatio;316284]Three remarks.
First, it's clearly a good idea. Especially as sci-fi fans thinking about what-ifs is always good.
Second, this experience would make Spock feel less angry and more guilty (that he survived instead of his mother). How does this work in sync with the rest of the story?

Well.......no less guilty maybe than getting there by what became a few seconds too late to get everyone in the clear and (all) safely transported out...

When Kirk starts picking at him about his love for his mother, the sacrifice that could have been made by Amanda would have only made it that much more about Spock being emotionally compromised. Loosing her was bad enough, he was just seconds from everyone being transported safely. He DID spend a few seconds too long with Uhura before transporting down to Vulcan, but loosing her because she saved his life and dying while doing so...Kirk pushing the envelope of Spock's love for her.....

Would the transporter have stayed locked on a dead body? IDK.......I give you that one...