15

In every series of Star Trek (at least that I recall), using the transporters has a trained Starfleet operator performing the transport when ordered. It seems that for the run-of-the-mill transporting people or cargo on and off the ship, this could easily be handled by the ship's computer, at least from TNG era onwards. Instead, there is always a transporter chief who performs the transport operation.

Here is Chief O'Brien, hard at work:

Chief O'Brien, hard at work

I can understand that under challenging circumstances where there is margin for error, then a trained Starfleet operator may be required to make snap decisions or adjustments, but for the most part, using the transporter seems to be a mundane task. A voice command to the computer would be logical, given that the operator is more or less pushing a button when the command is given.

Given that the operator is going to depend on the computer to actually perform the calculations, Is there any in-universe reason given as to why operating the transporters still requires a transporter chief?

Paul D. Waite
  • 32,172
  • 20
  • 133
  • 197
Jane S
  • 6,582
  • 3
  • 37
  • 57
  • 2
    In case of emergencies he's right there? They seem to happen quite a lot. – Paulie_D Sep 08 '16 at 10:15
  • 3
    @Paulie_D If what's shown is indicative of the average number of transporter accidents, I'll take the shuttle thanks :) – Jane S Sep 08 '16 at 10:27
  • 1
    The computer could fly the shuttle too...but generally it has a pilot at the helm. – Paulie_D Sep 08 '16 at 10:27
  • Actually that's an interesting addendum to my question, given that in the 21st century we are already dabbling with driverless vehicles. Why can't the computer fly the shuttle? – Jane S Sep 08 '16 at 10:30
  • It can, and does, many times...as I recall – Paulie_D Sep 08 '16 at 10:37
  • 5
    The Honorable Guild of Transporter Operators has a seriously strong lobby in the Federation political structures. – Paul Sep 08 '16 at 12:10
  • The only way to drop the gear in the (real) space shuttle was a manual push button. Some things you don't want to turn over to the computer. – Organic Marble Sep 08 '16 at 13:45
  • 1
    You used the wrong picture of Chief O'Brien, hard at work. Here's a better one. http://chiefobrienatwork.com/post/106684455801/episode-1-r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-builder-read-the-next-episode – Z. Cochrane Sep 08 '16 at 19:11
  • There are several examples throughout the series where characters direct the computer via voice command to engage transporters. So the scenario you would expect happens quite often. However, it's an exception to the norm and seems to only happens if the characters in question are unable to leverage personnel to handle the transport for whatever reason. – Ellesedil Sep 08 '16 at 22:41

2 Answers2

13

I can understand that under challenging circumstances where there is margin for error, then a trained Starfleet operator may be required to make snap decisions or adjustments, but for the most part, using the transporter seems to be a mundane task.

Just in case.

Fundamentally, for safety/emergency reasons.

Transporting, while mundane, is still a highly dangerous activity. In the case of an emergency the computer might not be programmed to deal with the issue (stuff happens all the time in Trek) and you need a trained intuitive person there to handle it.

As discussed in the comments, the same applies to computers flying shuttles / starships...in most cases there is still an actual person at the helm....just in case.

We have driverless cars now (almost) and they still have steering wheels and manual brakes.

Paulie_D
  • 22,856
  • 3
  • 97
  • 111
  • I'll likely accept this for being the "common sense" answer, but I wanted to see if there was any "official" in universe reason given. – Jane S Sep 08 '16 at 20:40
  • 2
    Also the computer does handle the transport lots of times, Seska & Data programmed a site2site in the computer, so have others. Also countless episode in ds9 with runabouts (sisko to computer 2 to beam up) ect. Its obvious its for safety as said here but its shown the computer can do it easily and does it frequently too – Matt Oct 03 '16 at 14:11
  • I take issue with your closing sentence: "We have driverless cars now, and they still have steering wheels and manual brakes." But they don't contain spare human drivers, "just in case". To bring it back to the original question, you're effectively saying that transporter rooms have computer consoles - but still not addressing the presence of the Transporter Chief. – flith Oct 17 '16 at 13:45
  • The passenger behind the wheel IS the just-in-case driver. The transporter chief is behind the computer console running the transporter just-in-case there is an accident the computer won’t be able to handle. It comes down to trust. We are starting to trust the driverless car, BUT we still want peace of mind knowing we have control. – MissouriSpartan Nov 02 '19 at 15:33
  • I suggest that's not at all for safety or emergency reasons.

    In our world with Star Trek as entertainment, it's purely for dramatic effect.

    Within the Star Trek universe, it's down to public relations.

    Consider our own world where on the roads, automated vehicles are almost upon us; on the railways automated trains have been with us for decades with no significant problems; in the air, pilots might sometimes be more help in an emergency.

     – Robbie Goodwin Nov 27 '20 at 20:50
9

Keep in mind that, although Starfleet's primary purpose is exploration (not military), Starfleet is not a military organization, they are essentially a military organization are both structured as one and function as the Federation military.

When you look at how contemporary military organizations function, they have a large amount of redundancy. There may be an automated task, but there is usually a person as backup to the automation in case it fails in an emergency. This is why a military ship has a larger crew than a civilian ship with a comparable function (i.e., a military cargo ship will have a larger crew than a civilian cargo ship).

During downtime, those personnel are doing routine maintenance (i.e., during warp, when the transporter isn't required, the operator is doing routine maintenance checks). During operation, it's important that the personnel are paying attention, rather than thinking about something else. Therefore, they're usually assigned actual tasks other than just watching gauges during operation...like controlling the transporter operation. Additionally, emergencies don't happen every day, but daily operations are ongoing and personnel need to keep in practice so they're ready when emergencies do happen.

Can a computer with the sophistication of the one aboard the 1701D or 1701E run the transporter? Almost certainly. There are a few instances in the various series of people starting the transport operation on a delay, then stepping on the transport platform, so it's possible to at least that extent. I even seem to remember a few instances of completely automated transporter operation, although I can't find the references, so don't quote me on that (maybe on starbases?). But it's entirely consistent with a military organization to have a human transporter operator.

Deacon
  • 1,654
  • 10
  • 14
  • Starfleet is not a military organisation – Valorum Sep 08 '16 at 18:04
  • 3
    @Valorum - Yes, I know. But if it quacks like a duck... However, note that I said they're "essentially a military organization." They're organized in a military hierarchy, using military ranks. Their primary mission is exploration, but they also have the duty of defending the Federation, which is a military function. Note also that civilians aren't subject to courts martial (literally: "military court"), which Kirk was in the TOS episode of the same name. – Deacon Sep 08 '16 at 18:14
  • 1
    Other organisations operate with a military-style structure without being a military – Valorum Sep 08 '16 at 18:17
  • And yet the Salvation Army doesn't take up arms in defense of the nation, either. And the Salvation Army doesn't court martial offenders. – Deacon Sep 08 '16 at 18:19
  • 2
    You may be interested to learn that the Salvation Army do, in fact, court martial those who've broken their internal by-laws; http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/49/371.html – Valorum Sep 08 '16 at 18:28
  • 2
    Captain Picard approves of your edits. – Valorum Sep 08 '16 at 18:38
  • While all of this makes sense, I was hoping to see an in-universe reference given. In the absence of this, I'll likely accept one of the given answers presently. – Jane S Sep 08 '16 at 20:43
  • 1
    I rolled back the edit because I very deliberately did the strikethroughs initially with a mildly- (and humorously-) sarcastic intention. I still hold to the philosophy that Starfleet is a military organization. Either that, or the Federation relies on mercenaries for defense. – Deacon Nov 01 '19 at 17:47