posted
I suppose it's possible that a hella bunch of the Lantree's suacer area was converted to cargo storage and that very little of the internal vlume needs to be "operated". I doubt there's any science equipment on board. Weapons would be minimal.
So... say you've got 4 people on standard bridge shift (CO, XO/Tactical, Conn/Ops, Cargo Ops). Times threes shifts, that's 12 people. Now, say 4 people on a standard engineering shift. Another 12 people. We're up to 24. That leaves 2 for, say, shuttle ops and CMO.
I agree... it's still too slim for a fully operational starship, but that's how it might work. Remember too that these people's range of duties would probably be quite varied and there wouldn't be very many amenity jobs like chef, or ship's Betazoid hottie.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: there wouldn't be very many amenity jobs like chef, or ship's Betazoid hottie.
So that's what she was there for. I did wonder.
I think the 26 crew is a little on the low side, although not by much. All you'd really need on a transport ship is command and engineering personnel.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We tend to go over this a couple times every year...
I strongly disagree with Sternbach's Miranda crew estimate of 220. For the TOS movie era, I can live with that. In TNG, I think everything would be suffficiently automated - even in an older refit like the Miranda - that low crews would be the norm on older ships. Given the two primary examples we have (Lantree with 26 crew, and Br!ttain with 34), I think that Mirandas that stay close to the core of the Federation have a core crew of twenty, and additional payload specialists (6 on the Lantree) or scientists (14 for the Br!ttain). Even during the Dominion War, I doubt that the average Miranda would carry more than 40 crew, adding people for tactical support duties and damage control. Regarding the core crew count posted above, you gotta remember that there is only one CO and XO, which are unique positions in the TNG era - the second officer, who'd normally be in charge on the third shift, usually heads up his own department as well.
It's been speculated that Saratoga would be carrying up to a hundred people, including civilians, and that makes sense to me. I figure that Saratoga was configured for medium-duration scientific missions on the edge of, but still within Federation space, and would thus have space for more crew redundancies plus their families.
posted
Well, look at it this way: 7 of 9 and the Doctor mananged to keep an Intrepid Class together for a month with no help at all.
But wait... that was Voyager. We don't count Voyager...
Another position that I will assert every Starfleet ship staffs is that of a Medical Officer. For a ship with a crew count as low as the Lantree, I could see this position being filled by a crewman or a "medical specialist" as opposed to an actual physician. This would also make sense given the fact that this kind of ship would always be near to Federation outposts.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Since I'm not an expert on naval engineering, my guesses may be completely off the mark here. But I've always thought that a lot of effort aboard a starship would go into systems maintenance and efficiency enhancement.
For example -- just how many of the 1,012 people on the Enterprise-D were actually there to run the ship? I seem to recall a semi-official figure saying that there were 400 civilians on the ship; factor in maybe 200 mission specialists, and the whole ship could be running with 400 people (or less). Despite the often obsessive focus on regular characters and disregarding the non-senior staff, I'm sure that all the extras in the background are doing something other than Pong when the camera's not on them.
Other examples: We know that the Defiant was a fairly small ship and ran with only 50 officers -- but I'm wondering if the Defiant might have actually been a maintenance-intensive ship since it was a work-in-progress (originally, anyway). Also, though I hate to admit it, Voyager frequently managed to run on a seriously reduced crew complement -- Doc, Seven, and Chakotay each managed to keep things running by themselves for a while.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I should also remind everyone the Enterprise was run by a crew of 5 (Kirk, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov, McCoy), and even then McCoy wasn't doing much. The ship was automated, so all non essentials were maintained by the computer. If they can do this in the 23rd century with a ship larger then a Miranda, then a Miranda ought to be able to do it with 26 people in the 24th century.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If we're talking about ST III, then remember that it took one photon torpedo to knock the ship out (now, I know that realistically a single photon torpedo should probably be able to destroy the ship if the shields aren't up, but this is the hero ship, and therefore almost indestructible). In battle situations, it's reasonable to assume that the computer might not be able to repair damaged systems if it is itself damaged. So you'd need crew for that. In war time, you'd have a LOT of crew for that.
In the TOS "Aliens become humans and try and fly the Enterprise to the Andromeda Galaxy" episode, the ship ran with a seriously reduced compliment. I recall their being some sort of line about "Well, we're not going to meet anything travelling between galaxies, we're flying in a straight line, so we don't need lots of people", but did the Kelvins (I think that was their name) stick a cardboard box onto a panel and say "That makes the computer better", or not?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
One viewpoint to add: today's real seagoing ships do reflect the crew size figures given for Starfleet's vessels. A large container ship is typically run by 25 people or less, whereas a frigate one-fourth her size may carry 250 crew, every single one of whom has a specific, vital job aboard.
Now, all the above arguments about automation should hold. There's nothing to prevent Starfleet from running a ship with zero crew for cargo hauling missions (and indeed, we've seen this both in TOS and TAS). Crew is only required for an escalating list of contingencies: engine trouble or autonav mishap; unscheduled encounter; hostile action; combat damage. As long as we buy into the concept that Starfleet's ships can perform a wide variety of missions, then a wide variety of crew sizes should also be accepted.
Not that I really think a Miranda would make for a good supply ship. Perhaps a special "armed supply ship" for high-risk supply runs - but then there ought to be a little more "contingency crew" aboard. Still, better to have a cargo Miranda than a cargo Constitution or Excelsior. The ratio of apparent shuttlebay volume to ship volume is more palatable.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: One viewpoint to add: today's real seagoing ships do reflect the crew size figures given for Starfleet's vessels. A large container ship is typically run by 25 people or less, whereas a frigate one-fourth her size may carry 250 crew, every single one of whom has a specific, vital job aboard.
Now, all the above arguments about automation should hold. There's nothing to prevent Starfleet from running a ship with zero crew for cargo hauling missions (and indeed, we've seen this both in TOS and TAS). Crew is only required for an escalating list of contingencies: engine trouble or autonav mishap; unscheduled encounter; hostile action; combat damage. As long as we buy into the concept that Starfleet's ships can perform a wide variety of missions, then a wide variety of crew sizes should also be accepted.
Not that I really think a Miranda would make for a good supply ship. Perhaps a special "armed supply ship" for high-risk supply runs - but then there ought to be a little more "contingency crew" aboard. Still, better to have a cargo Miranda than a cargo Constitution or Excelsior. The ratio of apparent shuttlebay volume to ship volume is more palatable.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps a "low risk armed transport" is more consistent, something for running important but not vital cargo near known pirating zones or disputed borders within the federation.
I'm sure that in time of war the crew aboard armed transports would increase the closer to they are assigned to the front lines. However in peace time I doubt that Starfleet would divert too many resources or personnel to coffee and cake runs.
posted
In support of such an idea, consider that one of the places being served by the Lantree was the Darwin Research Station, whose work seemed (well, totally contradicted by later episodes) sensitive enough to warrent having a ship which could, if necessary, defend it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I forget, did the Lantree have the usual Miranda roll bar or was it one of those that went without? If it was lacking in the torpedo & phaser cannon department then this adds further weight to it being a lightly armed transport/freighter since it would only have those six pairs of phaser turrets on the saucer.
posted
The Lantree was the only Miranda class vessel without a rollbar (minus the Saratoga, which had those kickass side guns instead). The 'pedia states that the Brattain didn't have a rollbar either, but that's wrong.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Because, of course, Saratoga had her lower sensor array removed and replaced with those outboard pods. This naturally allowed a more powerful phaser mount than her standard rollbar types to be installed in a strategic location.
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic