Why we will NEVER get a Trek/Asgard transporter even if it is possible

[Rickington]

according to a special i saw once a transporter would need a massive hardrive to store the pattern of the people it's storing. and humans will most likely never reach that level of tech

In 1990, the average hard drive size was around 100-300 MB
In 1995, it was around 1 GB
In 2000, it was around 10 GB
In 2005, it was around 75-100 GB
In 2010, it was around 1 TB

So... theoretically, in 2015, capacities COULD be around 10 TB... on average (and that's for just ONE drive!).

[WingedPegasus]

I never have and never will subscribe conspiracy theories.

I concur. Besides, transporter technology (IF possible...massive, gargantuan "if") would be far too valuable in war not to be produced, and once something like that has been made for the military, it can easily be marketed to the public in similar or different form.

Then the Mods have won. *Flies cantina flag at half mast*

We're talkin' real world here.

In 1990, the average hard drive size was around 100-300 MB
In 1995, it was around 1 GB
In 2000, it was around 10 GB
In 2005, it was around 75-100 GB
In 2010, it was around 1 TB

So... theoretically, in 2015, capacities COULD be around 10 TB... on average (and that's for just ONE drive!).

Yeah, there's that law that says computing power doubles every 18 months or so...

[shipper hannah]

Yeah, there's that law that says computing power doubles every 18 months or so...

Moore's Law.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Yeah, just remember, 380k is all we'll ever need, as someone once said.

[Quizziard]

Not to mention it could be used as a weapon itself. Problems with an enemy, but cant get a plane there to bomb them? No problem, just beam a nuke to their location.

This condition would depend on whether a "platform" is needed at both ends, or whether we're talking true Asgard point-to-point.

Going back to one of the original conspiracy arguments: whether there was or wasn't any cover-up against non-petroleum fuel sources, that has got to be out of the bag now. With places like California imposing ever-stricter emissions controls, and the whole world (mostly) "going green", there are now several models of automobile across the world (perhaps most famously the Toyota Prius?) which are partly or completely none petrol/gasoline: hybrids, bio-fuel, hydrogen and electric, to name but a few. Even the cars we have now are (largely) a generation apart in terms of fuel economy to those of a decade or two ago (thus hammering the oil companies, which are surviving through the increased numbers of cars on the road).

Finally, as mentioned earlier, and back to the subject, transportation by "transporter" is unlikely to exist. The most probable will be a scanner, transmitter, receiver and assembler - i.e. a copier. Which means, the original subject being transported needs to be destroyed (or allowed to exist as a copy). This will require a sea-change in ethics and safety legislation before any form of mechanical or electronic device is allowed to either copy or destroy people. Even if a genuine disassembler, transmitter, re-assembler were possible, the same ethical and safety arguments would prohibit its use: power glitches, data integrity, data security, inadvertent duplication or deletion. And all predicated on a way of scanning or disassembling to sub-molecular level, transmitting and re-assembling said data, in near unimaginably vast quantities. Estimates seem to concur on around 6.7x10^27 atoms, which is far too coarse for this purpose, and around ten million times more capacity than the entire planet has available at present.

[KEK]

I think a modifier should be added to the title. We'd never get something like this in a capitalist economy, though there would be a huge incentive in a more socialist or communist one.

[Quizziard]

I think a modifier should be added to the title. We'd never get something like this in a capitalist economy, though there would be a huge incentive in a more socialist or communist one.

I don't understand why the economic/political model would make a difference to a "transporter".

However, as a "copier", that's a possibility. It could, in fact, be the key to the politico-economic swing left. Imagine if a copier were available with stored patterns for foodstuffs, artefacts (clothes, jewelry, house-hold items) - there'd be no reason for money. Just the issue of motivating people to work and everything is sorted... Now, wait... it's not a copier any more, it's a (ST) replicator. My only concern (and it relates to true transporting to) is the energy requirement, which is likely to be astronomical (and therefore impractical in day-to-day use unless ZPM or anti-matter power can be harnessed).

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

we would still need people to work the transporter will not take away all humans jobs and not be paid in money or resources. Working for the betterment of men doesn't put food on table. Or should we start rationing all food.