Not a bad idea, Cary. It could explain why Pike's Enterprise had only 203 crew members -- it conformed to the "standard" configuration you postulate. -- RR
TOS Enterprise?
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
Not a bad idea, Cary. It could explain why Pike's Enterprise had only 203 crew members -- it conformed to the "standard" configuration you postulate. -- RR
That's one of the coolest explanations I've read for 203->430 and '12 like her in the fleet', although I back peddle at the replicators bit. BUT I think in general your cargo/consumable thing is a great way to approach both of those 'continuity/logic problems' - it could be some other miniaturization of the waste recycling reprocessing, food storage and processing, water reclamation... making more room for labs, more room (and more food!) for specialists and ship's historians. =)
History majors will finally make it into space.
Right on! Not so much TOS, but later ST really doesn't get it.
Internal Security forces are not the same as Ordnance crew are not the same as Armory personnel are not the same as Tactical personnel.
Small arms are not the same as shipboard weaponry, and starship combat is not the same as hand-to-hand fighting. Ordnance training and expertise is not the same as tactical ability.
Seems much of later ST simply lumps together everything "combat" related.
That's because, at the time of TOS, most of the people working on the show had military experience of their own. Nothing helps you "get it right" better than personal experience.
Basically, we're talking "Military Police" versus "Infantry," in modern land-warfare terms. Today's Trek people, for the most part, have NO experience with the military, whereas virtually everyone involved in TOS did (many were WWII or Korea vets). Roddenberry himself had some limited military experience (which he played up a lot more, turning himself into a "hero" as he'd tell the story, over time) but it was as a transport pilot with minimal exposure to actual military operations. But at least he had SOME knowledge of it... something that latter-day folks lack entirely.
We have to allow for some futurism, however. Some things that we take for granted today will not be that in the real 23rd and 24th centuries, let alone in the Trek ones, as we can tell from the fact that they weren't that in our 18th or 15th or 12t centuries. And a lot of the knowledge of WWII or Vietnam vets may be grossly outdated even today, let alone three centuries from now.
There have been periods in naval combat where the operation of small arms and artillery was indeed the job of one and the same personnel group. There have been periods where the specialization was even more pronounced than it is today. And there are trends from the past century that might suggest that "renaissance men" are the future of armed forces, just as there are opposite trends that suggest that a burly infantryman will die instantly, miserably and helplessly unless paired with a nerd stuck onto his keyboard by pizza and coke remnants, and vice versa.
All this still leaves one wondering whether it is wise to have the same person in charge of important away teams and the main guns of the ship, as odds are that both of those will be needed simultaneously...
Timo Saloniemi
There have been periods in naval combat where the operation of small arms and artillery was indeed the job of one and the same personnel group. There have been periods where the specialization was even more pronounced than it is today. And there are trends from the past century that might suggest that "renaissance men" are the future of armed forces, just as there are opposite trends that suggest that a burly infantryman will die instantly, miserably and helplessly unless paired with a nerd stuck onto his keyboard by pizza and coke remnants, and vice versa.
All this still leaves one wondering whether it is wise to have the same person in charge of important away teams and the main guns of the ship, as odds are that both of those will be needed simultaneously...
Timo Saloniemi
That's exactly right. I can easily see, for instance, "Army" and "Marine" roles being merged into a single organization. Simply due to the fact that, historical context aside, the two organizations do essentially the same job with essentially the same skill set and essentially the same tools.
Realistically, there are three very different tasks we're talking about here, in Trek lore, which serve very different functions and require different skills and tools and so forth.
"Security." These guys are basically policemen. The can serve as guards, but their main duty is to maintain discipline and order and to INVESTIGATE incidents.
"Infantry." This would be, for instance, ENTERPRISE's "M.A.C.O.'s." These guys are not trained or equipped to investigate, or to maintain order and discipline. Their job is purely combat-related... in other words, to "kill people and break things." It makes sense for any ship beyond a certain size to carry a contingent of marines... so the 1701-D certainly should have had a marine detachment aboard.
"Tactical." These guys are trained to operate the ships weapons systems and to be experts in ship-to-ship combat tactics (which are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than man-to-man combat tactics, after all).
It seemed really strange to have all three of these very disparate jobs being handled by one guy on the 1701D. A ship that big should have had specialists who were experts in each area, rather than a single "jack of all trades."
The way I see it, it makes sense to some degree to have only one man as chief security/tactical officer on a starship. Just like the captain's the head of the ship, and has probably some knowledge of each department ( science, tactical, etc), he probably doesn't have enough know-how to do each one of those roles efficiently. He may have specialized in one department in the past ( like Janeway as the science officer on the Al-Batani), so he may know more about one specialty than another.
What I'm getting at here, is that the cheif tactical officer would probably be the "captain" of the security/tac department. He has knowlege of all the different roles, and since there are fewer types of jobs in his department ( as in, they all relate to tac/sec, and not science, or other shipboard duties, that the actuall ship captain would have to worry about), he may specialize in one or two, as there are less to worry about. His job is to coordinate the people under him, who do jobs that he may or may not be very proficient at ( I'm sure that there might be someone on the Enterprise who can load a torpedo tube better than Worf can). If there is a specific security related situation that requires his attention or skills, he would lead the away team, or lead the security squad.
I'd imagine that the same goes for all other departments of the ship, with the exception of the helmsman, because if there was someone more qualified to fly the ship, they should probably be doing it, and not the more generalized department head. The department head runs the show, while the specialists under him or her worry only about their jobs.
What I'm getting at here, is that the cheif tactical officer would probably be the "captain" of the security/tac department. He has knowlege of all the different roles, and since there are fewer types of jobs in his department ( as in, they all relate to tac/sec, and not science, or other shipboard duties, that the actuall ship captain would have to worry about), he may specialize in one or two, as there are less to worry about. His job is to coordinate the people under him, who do jobs that he may or may not be very proficient at ( I'm sure that there might be someone on the Enterprise who can load a torpedo tube better than Worf can). If there is a specific security related situation that requires his attention or skills, he would lead the away team, or lead the security squad.
I'd imagine that the same goes for all other departments of the ship, with the exception of the helmsman, because if there was someone more qualified to fly the ship, they should probably be doing it, and not the more generalized department head. The department head runs the show, while the specialists under him or her worry only about their jobs.
Reading all of your posts on the tactical / security officer I got to wondering, is there a tactical officer in TODAY's navy?
JDW
JDW
It depends on the ship, of course... but there's an ordnance officer on submarines, for instance... his job is to be personally responsible for the operation and condition of the torpedoes and missile systems. Other types of ships may have multiple "gunnery officers" and "gunners," but these people are seldom also "security guards."
It's extremely rare that the entire crew of a ship gets swapped out at once. In fact, that pretty much NEVER happens. I have to view your claim that the Truman's whole crew rotated off with extreme skepticism. Perhaps you are thinking of the fact that the Air Wing (which is a different organization entirely than the ship's crew) never stays with a Carrier when in port.
Individual crew members rotate on and off at relatively regular intervals, but there is always a bit of "continuity of experience" with the crew. A crew member doesn't automatically have to transfer to a different ship when his "tour" is up, either. You can extend your tour and stay onboard the same ship. When I was on the Nimitz, there was a guy there who had been on board for 12 years. The officers are a different story. Most officers will only spend 3 to 4 years in one command before they transfer off to different places. This is because they have to meet career goals and billets for their advancement.
Only missile subs get that treatment. They have two separate fully staffed crews: Blue Crew and Gold Crew. While Blue Crew is on deployment (about 2.5 to 3 months duration) the Gold Crew is ashore, taking leave, training, relaxing, etc. When Blue Crew returns, they have a couple week turnover period and then Gold Crew goes to sea while Blue Crew takes the shore duty. This is because ballistic missile subs generally do not make ANY port calls ANYWHERE. They go sit in the ocean and hide until it's time to launch the nukes. A fast attack sub, however, they operate more like a normal surface ship and only have one crew and have shore/deployment schedules similar to a surface ship.
That's not what I said. I said that the entire crew was rotated off, but I think it's clear that that's not the same as saying that all of them are reassigned. In fact, that's covered in the very next sentence. Go back and reread what I wrote.
The ship was basically handed over to the "ground crew" for maintenance and refitting, and the effectively the entire crew was on land-based duty. That does NOT mean that none of them would be back aboard when the ship next deployed.
Of COURSE there's going to be continuity. But you're also going to regularly rotate crew through. The point was, recall, not that there would be an "all new crew" (which is really a TV show tag line, not really associated with reality, isn't it?). But that you wouldn't have a crew stay together indefinitely... people come, and people go, and the crew on a ship viewed at two different times, say five years apart, would be DRAMATICALLY different in almost every aspect, even if there were a few people who were still there after five years (which would be a pretty rare occurrence).
That's not what I said. I said that the entire crew was rotated off, but I think it's clear that that's not the same as saying that all of them are reassigned. In fact, that's covered in the very next sentence. Go back and reread what I wrote.
The ship was basically handed over to the "ground crew" for maintenance and refitting, and the effectively the entire crew was on land-based duty. That does NOT mean that none of them would be back aboard when the ship next deployed.
"Ground crew"? There's no "ground crew" for an aircraft carrier. That doesn't even make any sense. Are you talking about the shipyard contractors that work in tandem with the regular ship's crew while in port? If so, they don't qualify in any way, shape, or form as "crew" in their own right.
Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but your phrasing suggests that the majority of the crew of the ship was replaced with all new people ("rotated off" means "reassigned"). I'm sorry, even on a second read, that seemed to be your intent, and I do not believe that you got it right. I guess it's a phrasing issue, but your "clarification" didn't do much for me. Sorry!
Well, yeah. That's pretty much what I said.
Last edited:
(sigh) Are you just trying to argue, or have you just locked into what you "think I must've meant" that you can't see what I'm actually saying?
Let's talk about "ground crew" in another sense. NASA, and the Space shuttles. When someone mentioned the shuttle "ground crew" does ANYONE mean... EVER... that there's another "shuttle mission commander" and another "shuttle pilot" and so on?
No... they're talking about an entirely different set of people with an entirely different set of jobs, and yes, those people are in a large percentage "civilian non-governmental contractors" of various sorts.
Doesn't mean that they're not "ground crew," does it?
You're just being argumentative.
"Rotated" and "reassigned" do not mean the same thing. As is clearly indicated by the multi-crew submarines example which you are clearly aware of, just for example.
So, let's put this in very small simple words.
When the ship is at sea, the crew lives on the ship. They do not live in their land-based quarters or in their private homes.
When the ship is at sea, the crew works on the ship. They do not work in land-based facilities.
When the Truman returned to port, the crew was largely (possibly entirely) living off-ship, in land-based facilities. And they were largely working in off-ship, land-based facilities. Not just the flight wing. And other personnel, who you apparently object to being referred to as "ground crew," were working aboard her, replacing and repairing and restocking and in some cases upgrading, with the vessel itself not being in service at the time.
(I can just imagine... next you'll claim that when I said the vessel isn't in service, I REALLY REALLY mean that it's being junked out.
)
And that is what I said, too... and that's what you've been ARGUING WITH for the past couple of posts. I didn't say that in "response to you." I said it, and you responded to me... remember?
I wonder if the thing you describe for the CVN isn't actually typical of Starfleet practices. We never learn that the ST:TMP refit of the hero ship would have been unique or even rare. Also, many ships have odd commissioning dates - perhaps suggesting that Starfleet decommissions ships for the duration of frequent, lengthy refits and then recommissions them at launch, much like navies here did before the 20th century. Such a practice would also help explain Admiral Morrow's "20 years old" comment...
Granted that we don't know whether multi-year sorties with essentially one and the same crew would be usual or exceptional, either. But if the former, Pike's crew might have spent a year or two ashore on a couple of occasions during the supposed dozen years he commanded the hero ship. Or then an all-new would have been welded together while the ship was undergoing her own re-welding, and launched on that multi-year sortie without the prospect for rotation - out of psychological reasons as much as out of logistical ones.
Timo Saloniemi
Granted that we don't know whether multi-year sorties with essentially one and the same crew would be usual or exceptional, either. But if the former, Pike's crew might have spent a year or two ashore on a couple of occasions during the supposed dozen years he commanded the hero ship. Or then an all-new would have been welded together while the ship was undergoing her own re-welding, and launched on that multi-year sortie without the prospect for rotation - out of psychological reasons as much as out of logistical ones.
Timo Saloniemi
I would imagine Star Fleet has some type of "SLEP" (Service Life Extension Program) for their Class One Starships since even in a society "without money", those assets must have some intrinsic value attached to them and it would be wasteful to just send them to the "orbital breakers" after a decade or two of service.
Assuming that Enterprise was not the only Constitution Class starship to survive, it is conceivable that her update was in and of itself a SLEP-type upgrade, replacing older structures and updating systems and propulsion and was intended to be done on her sisters, as well (I can't remember if it was fandom or back-stage "history" that noted the Lexington was supposed to be upgraded first).
Assuming that Enterprise was not the only Constitution Class starship to survive, it is conceivable that her update was in and of itself a SLEP-type upgrade, replacing older structures and updating systems and propulsion and was intended to be done on her sisters, as well (I can't remember if it was fandom or back-stage "history" that noted the Lexington was supposed to be upgraded first).
Similar threads
