Why the galactic barrier and transporters don’t match real science, and why warp drive might

https://sh.itjust.works/post/243335

Why the galactic barrier and transporters don’t match real science, and why warp drive might - sh.itjust.works

I always thought the least believable part of transporters was that they worked without a pad on both ends.
I accept transporting to somewhere without a pad because mumble, mumble, Star Trek science. What I always wondered about was how blasé folks usually were about transporting to somewhere that didn't have a transporter pad. Who makes sure no one is standing in the beam to area. Does the transporter have safety protocols to just not transport if there is something of a certain size in the way? Transporting someone partially into rock has been shown in Star Trek (one instance, PIC s2e9). Weaponized use of a transporter, maybe by overriding transporter safety protocols? That was done intentionally, but still.

@Nmyownworld @SeeJayEmm @startrek I mean, if you’re OK with ship sensors that can analyze space in tiny detail, it’s reasonable that transporter tech makes sure the target area is safe/unobstructed, and safety protocols prevent transport if there’s risk. We often see a human operator scanning for good transport locations too.

There’s obvious issues with the concept of course, but Star Trek is the type of scifi that you can trust with your suspension of disbelief, and you’ll usually be rewarded.

A transporter tech checking that area is clear for transport makes sense. And, Star Trek is excellent at getting me to suspend disbelief (in its tech). I'm going to roll with your idea.