I suggest that this page be merged with "Transwarp beaming" and deleted. "Transwarp transport" should redirect to "Transwarp beaming."--Hribar 13:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The two pages have been merged already, and "transwarp beaming" redirects here already. -- sulfur 13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks.--Hribar 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Should probably be swapped since the official movie term is "Transwarp beaming" — Morder 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Especially since "transwarp transport" was never mentioned once. — Morder 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. --- Jaz 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to previously established technologyEdit

I'd like to put forward the theory that Subspace transporters TNG "Bloodlines" may be related, or indeed, the same technology as Transwarp Transport, developed by Montgomery Scott in the Prime Universe and seen in use in the alternate universe of Star Trek (2009). Their operation in the film are almost entirely consistent with the characteristics of subspace transporters - negation of shields, huge range, unreliability. 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good theory that I myself have brought up in other discussions. However, without an official canon or backstage link its must be categorized as speculation.--Hribar 14:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the name suggest this is an application of transwarp technology. We know from the Borg transwarp drive that even transwarp drive doesn't need a traditional warp drive to function. Seems to me like transwarp beaming boosts the matterstream to a faster that warp speed, how else would you be able to beam onto a ship that is traveling at warp away from you. Shouldn't we add this to the transwarp template at least. --Pseudohuman 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering that Scotty didn't know of transwarp technology (from the borg) nor was there transwarp technology in TOS (at least not in any canon reference) and that the alt scotty knew it by the name of Transwarp beaming in 2258, I have to say no it's probably not based on that technology. It's probably a name chosen by the writers because Transwarp, when used by the borg, allow them to travel farther and faster than any normal warp ship - similar to the application of this transporter...who knows :) — Morder 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it, it's quite simple. Transwarp simply means "Across warp". Basically the ability to warp across the threshold of the warp field... — Morder 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I referenced the Borg just as an example of a possible use of transwarp tech without warp drive. I don't think it proves Borg invented the use transwarp tech without warp drive or that Scotty originally based his theory on Borg tech. And considering the first propulsion use attempt of transwarp technology in the prime universe was in 2285 (only 27 years after 2258) in a TOS movie. Without any knowledge of Borg transwarp, suggests that the Federation came up with the tech on their own. As explained in "Day of Honor", in transwarp tech, energy emissions are resonanated at transwarp frequency levels and that is where the term, seems to me, comes from. I'd say if the term transwarp is used in relation to any tech then it falls into the category of that tech. There are several examples from ENT where in-universe stuff has been referenced that originated in TNG-VOY episodes, not TOS. Also Scotty presumably got his theory working in the prime universe 24th century some time after Nemesis and before the destruction of Romulus, when Borg applications were common knowledge. As we didn't see people transporting from planet to planet before this. And i'm not saying all this deduction is canonical, as it is rationalization on my part, i'm just pointing out that it isn't impossible for transwarp beaming to be an application of transwarp tech. As the name seems to indicate this. :) --Pseudohuman 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and these are the reasons that we don't allow many ideas...Yeah, I see where I misunderstood your statement as well, sorry. :) I agree and wondered about the Scotty 24th century discovery too - quite an interesting application of continuity there. :) — Morder 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, shouldn't there still be the template here. As that template, to me, seems to just link together all uses of the term transwarp in canon. As the term transwarp in itself appears to be just a generic term, not a specific tech. --Pseudohuman 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Transwarp" =/= "at warp" Edit

I don't think they called it "transwarp". Please confirm this name is from a valid source. Otherwise let's rename it to something else, becayse "transwarp" already has a completely unrelated meaning in canon, alternate universe or not. --TribbleFurSuit 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was in the movie. — Morder 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"You are in fact a Mr. Scott that postulated the theory of transwarp beaming." - Spock
The above is the quote from the movie. — Morder 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kthx --TribbleFurSuit 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

distance Edit

in the movie the transwarp beaming was obviously outside the star system. i therefore understand that the technology allows transport to a ship moving in warp where ever it is. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Given the line "it didn't occur to me to think of space as the thing that was moving" it does appear that you could transport anywhere but we don't know of any limitations because they weren't stated in the movie. — Morder 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It think that Scotty's dialogue was used to suggest that he was viewing the equation after a domain transform was applied. Perhaps that way it was easier to understand mathematically.--Hribar 12:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sensor range should be an obvious limitation unless you don't care where the person/object will be rematerialized.--Iconian 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If transwarp beaming is just another name for subspace transport, the range is only several light years, as stated by Data in "Bloodlines". I just read the novelization of the film and it has a longer discussion about all the transwarp beaming stuff. It also appeared to me that the longer discussion was propably filmed, but was edited down for better pacing. Spock-prime actually calculates the location of the Enterprise mathematically so there were no sensor co-ordinates. And the line "space as the thing that was moving" meant from the point of view of the person who is transported space is the thing that is moving. I hope we get an extended cut or the script someday. --Pseudohuman 08:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick Edit

In the film, Scotty says that his instructor believed the range of beaming a grapefruit was limited to a hundred miles. I'm assuming he meant through transwarp and would this mean that transwarp beaming runs on a completely different set of principals (since other series showed Federation transporters to have a range of 40,000 km)?- JustPhil 15:32, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I dont think 23rd century transporters have been given a canonical range, but it must be between the 10,000km (~6,200 miles ent-era) and 40,000km (tng-era). I would assume he was talking of safe transwarp beaming. It seems to be similar to subspace beaming and that was stated to be extremely unstable in "Bloodlines". --Pseudohuman 19:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
In "Daedalus", they beamed a probe 40,000 km during a test. I'm also guessing they used the transwarp formula to beam from Saturn to Earth.- JustPhil 21:49, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Which begs the question, how did Scotty get it working at millions of km, when TNG had only 40,000?
Transwarp beaming seems to be similar (or identical) to subspace beaming and that has a range of several light years in TNG. --Pseudohuman 09:33, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


I removed

The continuous recrystallization is presumably a reference to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, where the crew came up with using gamma radiation to recrystallize dilithium. As we have not seen this particular type of transporter use in any other Star Trek production, presumably Scotty came up with combining the two theories only a short time before 2387.

for having the gall to be speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 19:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+