From: ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Basis for transporters
Summary: Time was the problem
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:14:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: seqp4.1236
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In article <92104.105812IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, IO00198@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Just some weird dude) writes:
> 
> In article <ASWEENEY.92Apr9140715@camelot.sw.stratus.com>,
> asweeney@camelot.sw.stratus.com (Andrew Sweeney) says:
> >
> >
> >        "There is no scientific basis for the transporters (as opposed to most
> >of the
> >        other technical stuff). The only reason that the transpoters exist is
> >        because when TOS was first started there was not enough $$$ in the
> >budget
> >        to have landing ship (shuttle craft) scenes."
> >
> >Can anyone verify this?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Andy
> According to an interview with Gene Roddenberry that I saw on
> TV, the reason the ship had transporters was because he couldn't
> figure out how the ENTERPRISE could possibly land.

Both of you are correct, actually.

Gene discusses this problem at length in Whitfield's oft cited
_Making_of_Star_Trek_.  Gene had two problems with the available technology of
the mid 60's.  Realistically showing a vessel in any particular TV episode
roughly the size of the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier landing on a planet surface 
was presenting two problems. 

1. It would require some rather expensive and tricky (for the time) special
effects.  Gene was not fond of showing some cardboard model with sparklers
shooting flames out the bottom being shown slowly landing on a plaster of paris
terrain.  So he wanted to avoid anything at all like that.

2. Even if he had the budget, showing this landing sequence would suck up
valuable time that could be used to develop the narative.  Viewers would start
to tune in ten to fifteen minutes into the show and avoid watching, Yet Another
Ship Landing.

Gene then had this brilliant stroke, with a snap of Gene's fingers, Capt. Pike 
as no longer here (on ship), but there (on the planet surface) where the action
is taking place.  So it wasn't complete magic, he wrote in the "Transporter".

Now if I may interject some opinion.  Considering some of the (Cough) TV Sci-Fi
that was on in the mid to late 60's, Gene may have wanted to avoid another
extremely annoying plot device used tirelessly in those days.  The dreaded, "Oh
NO!  Something Going Wrong During The Landing Phase!".  Shoot, "Lost in Space"
must have dedicated an entire season to the before, during, and after effects
of a Crash Landing.  Gene essentially made it impossible to even consider
writing an episode about an "Enterprise Crash Landing".  Alas, Gene should have
considered putting a little more effort into the TOS Writer's Guide, because
instead of "OH NO!  Brace for the Crash Landing!" we repeatedly saw, "Scotty,
Fix the Transporter and get my Tushie OUT OF HERE."

I've noticed that occasionally, the transporter goes wacky in TNG, but
certainly not with the regularity it did in TOS.  I guess StarFleet Engineers
decided to make the technology a little more Fault Tolerant :-).
-- 
when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking.
         - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer>
A.J. Madison                                           ajm@sequoia.com
Sequoia Systems Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech