Why not portals?

"Wheelerguy" (wheelerguy) 07/20/2018 at 22:30 • Filed to: None

1

14

After reading !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , I thought of the Aperture Science portal technology as shown and thought: if y’all so averse about transporters why not just use these instead? Are these worse?

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > Wheelerguy 07/20/2018 at 22:34

2

Odd realization about Portal. The portals maintain your momentum but not your orientation. If they maintained your orientation the classic gravity assist jump would result in you getting launched feet first into the air.

Wheelerguy > TheTurbochargedSquirrel 07/20/2018 at 22:36

0

And if you launch a landable rocket...

Cryptopygia - Front Wheel Drive is Best Wheel Drive > Wheelerguy 07/20/2018 at 22:48

2

Knowing Aperture, those portals almost entirely consist of concentrated asbestos.

MM54 > TheTurbochargedSquirrel 07/20/2018 at 22:48

0

People skydiving can orient themselves however they want; I could see jumping in and coming out feet-first but being able to roll around or otherwise orient yourself as needed. Would just make for a frustrating video game to have to do that, though.

Wheelerguy > Cryptopygia - Front Wheel Drive is Best Wheel Drive 07/20/2018 at 22:50

0

But you know, I still think one is better off with portals in general rather than transporters. Same person goes in and out, the hole can be made big enough to accommodate most things, plus a preview of the destination. I can see why Rick Sanchez would go for a portal.

MrDakka > Wheelerguy 07/20/2018 at 22:53

2

Because those already exist, duh.

They're called Stargates.

Svend > Wheelerguy 07/20/2018 at 22:57

2

Transporters have already altered the way we see life.

Wheelerguy > Svend 07/20/2018 at 23:04

0

That must cost six figures.

Svend > Wheelerguy 07/20/2018 at 23:15

1

They are about £60,000.

Which is a lot when it comes to other T6 campers.

A base Transporter can be had from £20-35,000 with campers coming inat around £40-45,000.

But this has an extra two metres on usable length. 

Wheelerguy > Svend 07/20/2018 at 23:22

1

NP, actually. Would definitely buy i f I had the means, though heaven forbid automotive presenters rip me a new one. Maybe if I tow a couple of Caterhams...

facw > MrDakka 07/21/2018 at 01:51

0

I recently watched Stargate, and I’m still struck by how weird a decision it was to recast from Kurt Russell ’s muscle-bound, chiseled jawed, battle- hardened, non-nonsense veteran, flirting with suicide after the tragic death of his son to you know, MacG yver. Like why even make that the same characte r? I mean they recast pretty much everyone else, but at least Michael Shanks’ Daniel Jackson is reasonably similar to James Spader’s. Aside from their back story, Col. Jack O’Neil is pretty much completely different from Col. Jack O’Neill (yeah they couldn’t even be bothered to check how his name was spelled, good work Showtime), so why not just make a new character to lead the team?

MrDakka > facw 07/21/2018 at 02:12

1

Continuity? Probably banking on the popularity of MacG yver to get the show through the first couple seasons until it can stand on it’s own. Most of the good sci fi shows have a pretty rough first couple seasons

boxrocket > Wheelerguy 07/21/2018 at 09:26

0

I’d also feel better about portals versus Star Trek-style molecular transporters, as the objects going through them seem to stay intact, and only certain types of building material allow portals.

At least, it seems that way.

...

There’s Science to be done!

Wheelerguy > boxrocket 07/21/2018 at 11:11

0

So would I. Portals create a window, while transporters rely on location algorithms and faith that it works at all, even if it does work. You just fall into a portal and there you go, you’ve arrived, no need for startup .

But maybe this is a case of defense contractors and government being like it is now, where a slick-looking shit* and expensive design gets the nod?