Transporter Range

[Dingo]

I'm curious if its ever been established just how far one can travel via transporter? For a fanfiction of mine I'm writing how a character of mine beams from Jupiter station shortly after the Breen attack on Earth in Season 7 of Deep Space Nine.

I could just as easily write that he beamed onto a shuttle heading to earth as well, but just curious if beaming within Earth's solar system is possible.

 

[Go-Captain]

40,000 km is standard range. Transporter relays are possible, as per VOY:"Future's End" where Henry Starling in 1996 has built and uses one to bounce a transporter signal. Without the main computer, the range drops to 500 km. In ENT the range was 10,000 km.

Federation transporters on a starship can be modified to work as a subspace transporter, which have a range of several light years, as in TNG: "Bloodlines." It bypasses shields, but is very slow and power intensive, as it uses a ship's warp coils. Such a transporter method is also undetectable unless one knows it is coming.

In DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" I believe Sloan, of Section 31, enters Bashir's room undetected, and there is no data on there having been any ships in the area or beam-ins. I like to suppose Sloan used a subspace beaming.

The Dominion achieved at least 3 light years of range with a homing transponder in DS9: "Covenant"

In Star Trek (2009) Old Spock reveals Scotty perfected the method for transwarp beaming. Transwarp beaming has multi-lightyear range, can hit a target at warp, and require little support equipment. It might also bypass shields, but that is uncertain. Star Trek: Nemesis was released 2002, and takes place in 2379, so Old Spock in Star Trek must be from 2386. Transwarp beaming has to have been completed sometime within that time frame of 7 years.


You could easily write the Sol system has an interplanetary transporter network involving transporter relays. It's sensible, it would be safe, and far faster than using ships.


You know, the damage to San Francisco from the Breen attack doesn't make any sense unless it's from parts of Breen ships falling on the city, or from weapons bleed through on contact with a city shield.

 

[Timo]

Actually, it appears that there is no range inherent in transporter technology as such. There is merely range limitations specific to the various models of transporter.

The 40,000 km figure has never actually been quoted onscreen as being relevant to the hero starships, even though it is a commonly known backstage assumption. Onscreen, we know that the "emergency transporters" of USS Voyager (or perhaps of her onboard shuttles?) have a range of only about ten kilometers, and that another emergency transporter on the Saturnian moon Mimas was able to rescue Wesley and his team from the vicinity of Titan, these two moons never coming closer to each other than about a million kilometers.

We never get dialogue that would contradict the idea of transporter networks running through the Sol system, so Jupiter-to-Earth might well be doable. We do get many references to ships and shuttles traveling between the planets and moons of Sol, so if the transporter net exists, it doesn't handle all traffic - but then again, starships clearly sporting transporters are known to use shuttles as well.

However, even a million-kilometer range of a single transporter beam wouldn't allow such networks to be extended to cover the distances between stars. Way too many relays required!

You know, the damage to San Francisco from the Breen attack doesn't make any sense unless it's from parts of Breen ships falling on the city, or from weapons bleed through on contact with a city shield.

...In this, it's rather aptly comparable to the minimal damage done by the Doolittle raid in WWII, a historical parallel to this symbolic show-of-force-and-gall attack.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dingo]

Thanks for the inputs, guys, especially about the Transporter relays within Sol.

 

[Deks]

I have a question regarding the 40 000 km range as it was stated in TNG TM.

This range was achieved in Enterprise (in the mid 22nd century) on an experimental basis.

By Kirk's era (100 years later), this range seems to have been 'kept' but never expanded on.
Even on TNG it seems like transporters are still limited to high planetary orbits, etc. (in the range of about 45 000 km), which doesn't make sense.

Did progress on transporter technology in terms of range just STOP?
It seems as if anything past TMP has just been frozen in terms of technological progression when the writers were writing stuff for the setting which is supposed to be taking place 75 years later.

We've seen an instance on Voyager when a race was able to achieve an extremely long transporter range, over 10 light years.
Now, I find that THIS (or fairly close to it) is what SF should be capable of in the late 24th century.

 

[Go-Captain]

Actually, it appears that there is no range inherent in transporter technology as such. There is merely range limitations specific to the various models of transporter

In that case, might as well just have long distance transporters which work without relays, for interplanetary travel. Since the computer seems key, it can be explained they barrow time from a server, or have their own dedicated machines. If that's too much, then it could be limited only to local planet-moon systems, with relays for planet-planet transport.

Again, if too much, that kind of beaming can be limited to only time critical personnel and materials, while non-critical things use ships.

We've seen an instance on Voyager when a race was able to achieve an extremely long transporter range, over 10 light years.
Now, I find that THIS (or fairly close to it) is what SF should be capable of in the late 24th century.

Do you mean the 10,000 lightyear range transporter, which only works with the planet's unique crystaline composition? The transporter which Voyager stole, but couldn't use for that and other reasons?

Anyway, I agree with your point on lack of progress, although the million km emergency beaming seems to go against that. However, this is why I like the idea behind Scotty's transwarp beaming. He knows it will work, but gets sidelined because he works on it in an overeager manner which gets him punished. He puts the project on the back burner for decades. No one thinks it will work so no one else pursues the idea.

In the mean time, dimensional beaming and subspace beaming both seem more promising. They both are workable but dead ends in their own ways. In that regard they act as distractions from the actually more promising transwarp beaming. Eventually Scotty gets around to working on it again, and actually makes it work sometimes between 2379 and 2386.

The bad side is, none of the writers are going to be smart enough, or none of the producers will be willing, to explore the full implications of transwarp beaming. For one thing, a lot of the functions of ships get obsoleted by its existence.

 

[Timo]

In that case, might as well just have long distance transporters which work without relays, for interplanetary travel.

And in the new movies, they do. There are tricks to it, but those can be mastered. It just doesn't happen overnight, or in mere centuries.

There are obviously also tradeoffs, or else the shuttlecraft and runabout transporters would be just as powerful as the one on Mimas. But the Trek universe is certainly big enough for all the various versions of the technology.

Even on TNG it seems like transporters are still limited to high planetary orbits

It's more like there's no advantage to beaming across any greater distance. If you want to go to a planet, why would you fail to bring your starship with you to the orbit? No distance between "high orbit" and "interstellar" makes any practical sense.

TNG transporters aboard the Galaxy class are not technologically limited to 40,000 km, though: in "Tin Man", Data and Tam Elbrun beam across a distance amounting to quite a few minutes of high impulse travel...

I for one find a great deal of realism in the "lack of progress": there could be plenty of it, but none of it would make any difference. Increasing range from 40,000 km to 400,000 km or 4 million km would simply not be useful and would not see any action in the episodes; inventors pushing for 40 million kilometers would not get funding, not unless they would be able to promise 40 billion kilometers later on.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

Do you mean the 10,000 lightyear range transporter, which only works with the planet's unique crystaline composition? The transporter which Voyager stole, but couldn't use for that and other reasons?

No. There was another episode where a group of aliens were using their long range transporters by beaming 1 person at a time over a distance of 10 light years so they can slowly take over a starship and use it for themselves - the former crews were put into 'habitats' that suited their biology most - the aliens in question were very intolerant to cold.

Anyway, I agree with your point on lack of progress, although the million km emergency beaming seems to go against that. However, this is why I like the idea behind Scotty's transwarp beaming. He knows it will work, but gets sidelined because he works on it in an overeager manner which gets him punished. He puts the project on the back burner for decades. No one thinks it will work so no one else pursues the idea.

In the mean time, dimensional beaming and subspace beaming both seem more promising. They both are workable but dead ends in their own ways. In that regard they act as distractions from the actually more promising transwarp beaming. Eventually Scotty gets around to working on it again, and actually makes it work sometimes between 2379 and 2386.

The bad side is, none of the writers are going to be smart enough, or none of the producers will be willing, to explore the full implications of transwarp beaming. For one thing, a lot of the functions of ships get obsoleted by its existence.

It would appear that TNG was originally supposed to have been set 150 years after Kirk... and was stated that instead of starships, the Federation would simply beam from one planet to another - though I would imagine that deep space exploration would likely be done via a combination of starships and automated probes.
Hence why they set TNG 75 years from Kirk.

I for one find a great deal of realism in the "lack of progress": there could be plenty of it, but none of it would make any difference. Increasing range from 40,000 km to 400,000 km or 4 million km would simply not be useful and would not see any action in the episodes; inventors pushing for 40 million kilometers would not get funding, not unless they would be able to promise 40 billion kilometers later on.

I don't find any realism in the lack of progress.
I find it highly unrealistic.
There is no money in the Federation. Scientific research is likely conducted by allocating necessary resources (raw materials, technology, etc.) to labs and people doing the research in whatever quantity is necessary.

You cannot apply the artificial constrictions of the monetary system as it exists today on the Federation, because it was stated such limitations do not exist.
The writers simply didn't advance the Federation enough 75 years down the line after TMP - which realistically, for a civilization as advanced and progressive as theirs, technical and scientific breakthroughs would occur much faster than they do even in real life - especially with over 150 different species working together.
Technological stagnation occurs in real life due to socio-economic reasons which are based on artificially induced scarcity.
The Federation has no such issues - and the writers were idiots for not making every planet and colony self sufficient (because quite frankly, we had the ability to do so since 1974 in reality... let alone the Federation that uses replicators to convert energy into matter, not to mention what was seemingly mentioned to be subspace based computers.

The writers (except perhaps Roddenberry) had relatively little idea on how to progress technology adequately because they had little to no understanding of it to begin with, and when presented with something 'advanced', they had little to no idea how to wrap their brains around it.

There were ample examples from real life to give them proper indications... but even if they did this, it is likely the network executives or someone else could have stopped this as it would easily defeat the purpose of the show.

But we do know that Scotty developed a formula for Transwarp beaming in the late 24th century... likely sometime after Voyager came back to the Federation.

Though, I 'guess' that one of the reasons SF rarely portrays its technical prowess is because they don't necessarily want their potential aggressive adversaries who might misuse it... so they keep themselves intentionally limited?

However, if I remember correctly from one of the episodes of TNG, the Federation was pretty open in sharing a lot of the technical breakthroughs it made with their neighbours - which begs the question, why did the writers persist in writing those races close to them as adversaries?

It would seem to me they simply wanted to keep some adversaries for the sake of it and create 'typical drama'.

Mind you, Tuvok wasn't exactly surprised about the 'extremely long range of 10 lightyear'... then again he's a Vulcan. But Janewa's reaction wasn't that much of a big deal either.

Still, it might have been possible that the Federation was into the millions or billions of KM range with transporters in the late 24th century (possibly even across the entire solar system), we just never got to see this in use.
And their transporters do appear to be quite versatile. So what they might be lacking in range, they could make up in other areas when it comes to practical use.

Mass beaming of this level (solar system wide) might present certain limitations, so transporter cycles would likely be allocated based on pressing time constraints, while others would simply use starships.

 

[Timo]

I don't find any realism in the lack of progress.
I find it highly unrealistic.

Even though lack of progress is what we have happening in the real world around us - exclusively? That's a weird definition of "realism".

You cannot apply the artificial constrictions of the monetary system as it exists today on the Federation, because it was stated such limitations do not exist.

Why would money be a crucial issue? It isn't one today. Big companies developing technologies do not generally suffer from a shortage of funds for R&D. They suffer from a shortage of skilled personnel and innovation, and apparently money can't buy those. If the Federation wants to develop both long range transporters, transwarp engines and regenerative tri-isophasic phasers, it has to make choices. Or then clone Ira Graves, and we know how the UFP feels about cloning.

Apart from that, we know that the UFP is not free of the constraints of scarcity. Starfleet has too few ships to effectively conduct its appointed tasks: colonies get destroyed left and right, wars are almost lost, and wonders of the galaxy remain unexplored. Which is only to be expected, as there is plenty in the universe to be poor in - time if nothing else. "They have no money and nobody is poor" is a fine sentiment, but clearly it doesn't mean abandoning certain realistic basics.

There were ample examples from real life to give them proper indications...

Such as? Where are the cars that travel a million miles per hour? That would be a much lesser achievement than increasing the range of transporters from 40,000 km to interplanetary let alone interstellar in a century, as would be obvious to anybody bothering to do the math.

making every planet and colony self sufficient (because quite frankly, we had the ability to do so since 1974 in reality

Heh. So why haven't we done any of that?

All of this is sort of silly anyway, because we're talking about a century of progress only. Earth has made no progress in most of its human-infested centuries. But even that is beside the point, because in Star Trek, the entire interstellar neighborhood is the playground, and the past four billion years the minimum timespan to be considered. If the Federation could make progress in a century, why is it that it should be the only one in the 'hood to do so? And only after Earthlings join? Why didn't Andorians invent transwarp beaming, say, four thousand years ago?

We can argue that progress in fact is fairly rapid, and quickly drives societies past singularity, so that us mere mortals no longer can observe those who discovered transwarp 250 years ago. Or we can argue that plateauing is natural. Or we can argue both. None of these three arguments is grounds for insisting that Earth or the UFP should make progress at some user-defined rate, though.

Still, it might have been possible that the Federation was into the millions or billions of KM range with transporters in the late 24th century (possibly even across the entire solar system), we just never got to see this in use.

Exactly my point - because there are no practical applications for such technology in the Star Trek realm. It's something you might wish to keep in your back pocket in case of emergency, but it's not something you would need for anything practical, not even when traveling across the entire solar system.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dingo]

For the intra-Sol transporter relay network, I suppose it would be theoretically possible for someone who works on Jupiter Station to 'commute' to work from his or her home via a public transporter facility in their home town.

That might be an interesting way to go about things.

 

[Go-Captain]

For the intra-Sol transporter relay network, I suppose it would be theoretically possible for someone who works on Jupiter Station to 'commute' to work from his or her home via a public transporter facility in their home town.

That might be an interesting way to go about things.

I remember a quote in DS9 where Sisko, I think, used up a month's worth of transporter credits in a week, visiting his father's restaurant. Or, maybe that was Nog. So, we have at least that one thing as limited, which shows it is valuable.

My point is, you might need to make such a job have a more ship like work schedule. Tug boat crews work in a rotation of a week on, week off, or two for each. Cargo ship crews can work anywhere from one to six months on, and off. Even full time firemen work in some sort of rotation like that.

Back to the credits: If we assume Sisko returned home for lunch and dinner, for two trips per meal, for 4 trips each day for 7 days straight, then he would have used 28 transporter trips. But, he could have been having breakfast, too.

4 trips per day, 7 days = 28 trips
6 trips per day, 7 days = 42 trips
4 trips per day, 5 days = 20 trips
6 trips per day, 5 days = 30 trips

28+42+20+30 = 120/4 = 30 trips

The mean is 30 for a range of 40,000 km.
1,000,000 km / 40,000 km = 25
30 trips / 25 = 1.2 trips/month

Earth to Jupiter = 588 million kilometers

588 million kilometers / 40,000 km = 14,700

30 trips / 14,700 = 0.00204081632 trips/month
1 trip / 0.00204081632 = 490 months
As in 1 trip per every 490 months.

So, the cycle would be 1.34 years on, 1.34 years off.

I'm partially joking, because this does make certain assumptions. But, it's also serious, since it does show such a trip as being expensive. On the other hand, we know Quark's ship was actually bought for him by his moon owning, arms dealing, cousin. That's important because it shows us even a runabout is possibly very costly. Or not, Voyager ate shuttles like candy!

 

[Ithekro]

I actually assume that Sisko's transporter credits are basically the equivalent of a leave pass off base for a cadet. Nog figured how to make that a business by working out who needed them and who didn't and got his cut while at it.

 

[Pauln6]

Transporting is energy intensive. We've seen on several occasions that that they are restricted use e.g. STIII. Whether that's because you need a code to bypass protective shields around specific areas or more general is unknown. Lots of ships were toing and froing in TMP. Transporters are not used casually. I like to think it's because over-frequent use leads to health problems caused by 'pattern leak' on each use.

We don't see entire planets or even starships protected by shields all the time. We do see certain facilities protected all the time such as prisons. This implies that shields are also energy intensive. No surprises so far.

So it seems to me that transporter range is going to be limited to how much energy you have available. Given that the amount of energy needed to fuel warp speeds cannot be obtained from anti-matter reactions alone (according to real world theorists), some other techno-babble is required. The same holds true for transporters. If subspace transporters use warp coils to transport people why not use them to transport ships or weapons more quickly? Even if they are inaccurate long term you would still cut down travel times.

Within a solar system though, transporter relay stations make perfect sense. If pattern leak and energy use are a worry though, you might not want too many relays on your daily commute.

 

[Timo]

I actually assume that Sisko's transporter credits are basically the equivalent of a leave pass off base for a cadet.

...The same with the replicator ratios on Voyager, even after the replicators were repaired. Miniature economies of scarcity can be artificially set up and maintained for purposes of discipline and control, and the military loves to do stuff like that.

Would there be a greater cost involved in transporting across a greater distance? I don't think we have had dialogue to the effect that distance would matter. Would things like penetration depth? It's difficult or sometimes impossible to penetrate bedrock, but no associated cost (in energy, computation, wear of machinery, or whatever) is established. Can anybody come up with examples of "more" being "costlier" to do here? Or is all transporting equal?

Transporting is energy intensive. We've seen on several occasions that that they are restricted use e.g. STIII.

Transporters are among the last things to go down in ships or craft starved of energy, though. And restrictions tend to be for artificial reasons: the Old Town Station was a military installation, which doesn't mean there wouldn't have been a dozen civilian ones to every military one. As you suggest, those just might have required more hacking to allow for beaming into the Enterprise.

Transporters are not used casually.

How so? Whenever McCoy or Pulaski expresses resistance to the use of transporters, this is treated as a sign of eccentricity. And transporter use is avoided only when there's clear and present danger involved in it. And that's in the military!

I like to think it's because over-frequent use leads to health problems caused by 'pattern leak' on each use.

In "Realm of Fear", two expert engineers assert that there is no "it". No danger involved, and use indeed is over-frequent.

So it seems to me that transporter range is going to be limited to how much energy you have available.

Which might mean that there are no limitations. After all, the only entities known to worry about saving energy are starships in emergencies. Replicators, a technology supposedly comparable to transporters, are used with extreme frequency and lack of concern - for creating and then uncreating forks, knives and platters along with food that could just as well be grown or hunted. Supposedly anybody not doing this on Planet Earth or its sphere of influence is a luddite freak.

Did Khan achieve the Earth-to-Qo'noS hop by illegally tapping to 1% of San Francisco's energy reserves rather than the usual billionth of a percent?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

How so? Whenever McCoy or Pulaski expresses resistance to the use of transporters, this is treated as a sign of eccentricity. And transporter use is avoided only when there's clear and present danger involved in it. And that's in the military!

I like to think it's because over-frequent use leads to health problems caused by 'pattern leak' on each use.

In "Realm of Fear", two expert engineers assert that there is no "it". No danger involved, and use indeed is over-frequent.

Did Khan achieve the Earth-to-Qo'noS hop by illegally tapping to 1% of San Francisco's energy reserves rather than the usual billionth of a percent?

Timo Saloniemi

Ha ha - I didn't say Trek science had evolved to be logical. Lots of things are fudged for the sake of story convenience but it is true that TNG treats transporters far too casually for my tastes.

Still, there is a difference between taking drugs and overdosing on drugs. Casual usage of transporters is acceptably safe (of course plenty of episodes show that it isn't completely safe). Sustained heavy duty usage such as a dozen times a day might have longer term ill effects.

We frequently see people using mundane transportation in Trek. Now this could be for aesthetic or health reasons I suppose but in STIII, transporting, even without knowing the destination, had to be authorised. People seem to transport to transporter stations rather than direct to their destination. So there are some restrictions on transportation. There may well be civilian transporters too that have off-limits co-ordinates programmed in.

If planets had unlimited power, they'd have better defences. Use of transporter is fine but use of 10 billion transporters every hour or one transporter across vast distances? Power and safety must be considerations.

 

[Timo]

Sustained heavy duty usage such as a dozen times a day might have longer term ill effects.

But that's what LaForge and O'Brien rule out categorically. They assure Barclay that he is unlikely to face gruesome death because accidents are rare; they furthermore assure him that disease-like consequences are even less likely, by asserting that the only possible such consequence that the resourceful Barclay can come up with is a thing of the past.

"There are millions of people who transport safely every day without a problem" might arguably not rule out accumulating problems that would show up from heavy overuse. But the other statements do.

Now this could be for aesthetic or health reasons I suppose but in STIII, transporting, even without knowing the destination, had to be authorised.

Nope. Using the Old Town Station had to be authorized. That the destination wasn't openly given within earshot of Mr. Adventure suggests that the specific destination was forbidden or at least required authorization. But this is no proof that other destinations would require authorization, or that transporter use in general would.

People seem to transport to transporter stations rather than direct to their destination.

Only when there IS a transporter station at the destination - which is almost exclusively a Starfleet thing. Our heroes never beam to an alien transporter station (except when beaming to alien starships); at the very most, they beam to assigned coordinates that may feature a level area specifically prepared for the purpose, without any visible or mentioned or suggested machinery.

I really doubt the Sisko living room had a transporter station installed...

...Indeed, remote activators like the one from "Non Sequitur" might be the norm, and the only thing rare and illegal about the device possessed by alt-Paris was that it keyed in to forbidden Starfleet destinations and resources.

If planets had unlimited power, they'd have better defences.

But starships, too, have unlimited power (by the same tokens the planets have). The issue is bottlenecks in the actual applications: unless main and auxiliary power is down, there are unlimited shots in a starship phaser, but a shot of unlimited power is not available.

So the offense matches the defense, for any given time period in the rat race. And meanwhile, people eat well from their replicators - and millions of them also transport at least once a day, for whatever reason (why would people commute?)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

If planets had unlimited power, they'd have better defences.

But starships, too, have unlimited power (by the same tokens the planets have). The issue is bottlenecks in the actual applications: unless main and auxiliary power is down, there are unlimited shots in a starship phaser, but a shot of unlimited power is not available.

So the offense matches the defense, for any given time period in the rat race. And meanwhile, people eat well from their replicators - and millions of them also transport at least once a day, for whatever reason (why would people commute?)

I take some of your points although Trek has its fair share of appocrypha. But as far as power goes it's not right to say that starships' power is either unlimited or inexhaustible. Even stars have power limitations and a fuel supply.

Starships are fuelled by anti-matter reactions so the ship has a fuel supply of matter and anti-matter. Once that's depleted your power options are limited. Don't impulse engines run on batteries and produce super-heated gas? Deuterium is not common enough in space to fuel all a starship's power needs on the hoof using the collectors. Planets will also have power limitations, just on a grander scale. Whatever those limits are they are insufficient to stop giant asteroids, V'Ger, or Khan crashing a starship.

So power limitations should also affect transporter range.

 

[Deks]

If planets had unlimited power, they'd have better defences. Use of transporter is fine but use of 10 billion transporters every hour or one transporter across vast distances? Power and safety must be considerations.

Geothermal.
To extrapolate from real life, an MIT study from 2006 estimated that there's 13 000 Zettajoules of Geothermal power available in the Earth.
More recent studies have estimated that the core is actually HOTTER than previously thought (which could mean that Earth's geothermal energy potential is greater than previously estimated 13 000 Zettajoules).

That same MIT study from 2006 also stated that we had the technology at the time (9 years ago) to tap into 200 Zettajoules of energy... and 2000 Zettajoules with improved technologies.

Human civilization at the moment (today) uses mere 0.5 Zettajoules per year (when you amend this number to include one third of Humanity that currently has no electricity, that number rises to about 0.65 Zettajoules per year).

So... Humanity in the mid 22nd century could have easily tapped into humongous energy source right below their feet (and even today we have technologies that could quite easily burrow relatively fast deep into the Earth - via a process that uses 'ram accelerator')... and indeed, we see that Geothermal is seen as a highly efficient energy source for technology of the Trek universe (even in the late 24th century).

There is no such as thing as 'unlimited energy source'. There is however an 'abundant energy source'.
Technical efficiency allows us to do more with less (lower the energy requirements to achieve certain tasks leaving MORE energy available for others - this also translates into creation of more potent energy sources in much smaller dimensions through use of better materials and better understood natural processes).

Geothermal is constantly renewing itself, so the trick is to =implement extraction technique that doesn't exceed the planet's ability to replenish its supplies (and besides, you cannot destroy energy... you simply turn it into another form.. and in Trek universe, the Federation has a REALLY good grasp on energy/matter interchangeability, not to mention they DO recycle practically everything - energy included).

 

[Ithekro]

On Earth I would think the transporters would be integrated into the public transportation system. It would take the place of at least some of the long range trains, though in TMP there was still a shuttle service of some sort that goes to Star Fleet HQ.

 

[Go-Captain]

I actually assume that Sisko's transporter credits are basically the equivalent of a leave pass off base for a cadet. Nog figured how to make that a business by working out who needed them and who didn't and got his cut while at it.

Interesting idea. In that case, there might be 4 leave passes per month, one for each weekend, equaling 8 trips. That fits Sisko's story nicely, and keeps it simple.

Did Nog really game the system like that? I would think the transporter credits would be non-transferable.

On Earth I would think the transporters would be integrated into the public transportation system. It would take the place of at least some of the long range trains, though in TMP there was still a shuttle service of some sort that goes to Star Fleet HQ.

A shuttle should be able to get anywhere in the world in under an hour, and should be able to pick a person up from just about anywhere. Yet, it is more likely shuttles would have designated landing areas, like helicopter ports in cities, as apposed to bus stops or taxis.

Transporters can pick people up from anywhere without worrying about space restrictions, thanks to sight-to-sight beaming, unlike shuttles, but it seems preferable to beam from the platform.

Even if a person had to travel to a transporter platform then beam out, it would offer significant time savings over shuttles which likely land in particular places. Transporters can also be better located because the space required for the transporter pad is less than that needed for a safe landing zone for a shuttle of any size.

Transporters should really supplant all non-local modes of travel leaving only walking, private and public flying cars, and shuttles for non-planetary travel.