Creating a realistic crew manifest for a Starship. Ideas & comments?

[Bry_Sinclair]

It is a ship designed for scientific, surveying and research work, so I would assume they would be the dominant department onboard. You would need specialists in: astrophysics, stellar cartography, physics, chemistry, botany, exobiology, xenobiology, archaeology, astrogeology, mineralogy, oceanography, just to mentions a few.

Yes, some of those could be combined and you will get officers with a diverse number of degrees, but then there would be other scientific fields that could include as well (cosmology, ecology, anthropology, geochemistry, etc), most of which would be needed when on a survey mission.

But that is just the way I staff my ships.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Yes, they have three or four shifts, but that doesn't mean three or four people. They will have to have days off too. With four people filling a post each will end up with 42 hours a week, with five 34 hours; with only three each ends up with 56 hours a week. And there's probably always filing reports, training and other stuff what you cannot do while doing your main job, so you need to add few hours for that sort of stuff. Normal work week today is around 40 hours, I really don't see them pulling much more than that in the enlightened hippy future of Star Trek.

So how would that work on Defiant- and Sabre-Class ships with only 40 onboard?

 

[Sgt_G]

The Defiant wasn't built to go on five-year missions. They expected it to spend most of its time docked to a Base Station / Star Base. When they do go out, it's for battle or a specific mission. They might go with a two-team crew on 12-hour shifts.

In the case of the Police Cutter that I wrote about, they go on patrols of three or four months, then spend a month at a base. And while on patrol, they make frequent stops at planets and such, thus giving the crew a bit of down time. That's how I explain how they can get away with a three-team crew. For ships that go on extended missions (more than a year), you NEED to have a four-team if not a five-team crew. But you also do not need to man every job 24/7 365 days a year. There are a lot of jobs (e.g., supply,) that can work M-F dayshift.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I'm sure there was a line in "Equinox" that said that Nova-Class ships were only for short-duration missions as well, after all they're research ships not explorers--they go into places that the likes of the Enterprise initially discover and do the hard graft of finding out all the facts and details about what was found.

So having a science-heavy crew for a six month tour makes sense, especially as they could likely visit numerous planets (even landing on them) so many of the non-science crew would have plenty of downtime.

 

[Longinus]

It is a ship designed for scientific, surveying and research work, so I would assume they would be the dominant department onboard. You would need specialists in: astrophysics, stellar cartography, physics, chemistry, botany, exobiology, xenobiology, archaeology, astrogeology, mineralogy, oceanography, just to mentions a few.

This is true, but the numbers just don't work. It is unfeasible to have a science staff as big as you suggested.

So how would that work on Defiant- and Sabre-Class ships with only 40 onboard?

Four people on bridge, two minding the engines. I think those are always needed, so that's 24 or 6 people depending on whether you have four or five people per post. And of course when you actually get into combat (the main purpose of those ships) you can have the entire crew to be working at the same time.

 

[Longinus]

So having a science-heavy crew for a six month tour makes sense, especially as they could likely visit numerous planets (even landing on them) so many of the non-science crew would have plenty of downtime.

Sure, but three people per post is still way too few. Four is absolute minimum. And even if you were floating safely on the orbit, and expected nothing to happen, I still think that the bridge and engine rooms need to be manned. Then again, maybe you can reduce some of the crew on those posts. Are four people absolutely needed on the bridge all the time? If you're on orbit, you really don't need the flight controller, and I'm sure tactical has nothing to do most of the time. Maybe two people on the bridge could manage during quiet hours, though this is not something we ever see happening in Trek.

 

[J.T.B.]

I think Roddenberry's idea of everyone being an officer makes sense if you think Starfleet less as a navy and more as NASA. Everyone aboard is a highly trained astronaut. However, no-enlisted got already contradicted in TOS, so that's bygones. Then again, I think it is mistake to assume that Starfleet operates completely like modern militaries, it is combined military-scientific-diplomatic service and is not directly analogous to any modern organisation.

In one of his last interviews, Roddenberry said that he had been influenced by the Robert Heinlein book Space Cadet, in which the Patrol that policed the solar system was composed only of officers and officer-cadets. Which, even if he hadn't contradicted himself in TOS, is fine, but ignored a couple of things: One, the Patrol was complemented by space marines which had a traiditional enlisted structure, and two, the Patrol's ships only had a crew of a dozen or so.

I think the "enlisted" component by Star Trek's day would likely be so technically skilled that they would be almost like a parallel specialized set of officers without broader command responsibilities. Which is indeed already happening today for senior enlisted. In the early days of spaceflight, there would be no need or room for unskilled labor and the service would evolve from that. In our current US terminology, Starfleet might be more like a certain number of commissioned officers, a larger number of warrant officers, and a smaller number of entry-level, in-training enlisted.

I often think that there is probably more of a "developing yourself policy", I think Starfleet - due to having no real limits on size of fleet and amount of personnel, insist that a Fleeter is "competent at their role, and improving their skills if needed to reach their highest "point of competency". So Tapestry!Picard who is a competent analyst but lacks the confidence and drive need for command can stay at the lower ranks (Barclay for the most part would be similar), but by contrast officers like LaForge, Crusher, Troi and Pulaski can advance Chief of Department and stop there, and Captain (even potentially "Skipper", holding more junior rank) can be held for years or decades for those who want to be at the "frontlines" because for the most part new ships/slots are made available fast enough that no-one is "held back" even if someone doesn't progress.

How would that even work? First of all, I know the Federation is expanding, but there has to come a time when they have all the ships they can use. Second, each new ship has to be crewed with its own little pyramid of lieutenants, JGs, ensigns and so on. That means more slots needed for them to move up. If nobody is forced out, that means more ships built for them to advance, which means more officer positions needing more slots for them to move up and so on and on. Unless Starfleet exists first and foremost to provide career advancement for officers, it doesn't seem plausible.

I know that there were examples of COs of the same ship for 20 years, etc., but IMO those were written without thinking through all the implications and aren't very realistic.

 

[Pauln6]

Do you really need a nine-man science team 24/7, or can you cut it back to perhaps three or four persons during the second/third watches ad keep the full team for first watch?? That would save you about a dozen personnel.

Yeah you might want a staff physicist and an astrophysicist on duty every shift plus technicians on duty to monitor experiments and systems but generally speaking you would only need a single specialist in most disciplines. How often are you visiting planets after all?

 

[Longinus]

I think the "enlisted" component by Star Trek's day would likely be so technically skilled that they would be almost like a parallel specialized set of officers without broader command responsibilities. Which is indeed already happening today for senior enlisted. In the early days of spaceflight, there would be no need or room for unskilled labor and the service would evolve from that. In our current US terminology, Starfleet might be more like a certain number of commissioned officers, a larger number of warrant officers, and a smaller number of entry-level, in-training enlisted.

I was actually thinking about what sort of jobs enlisted would have on Nova class ship. I think actual scientists would be (mostly low ranking) officers. Enlisted would be research assistants. Then we can have some enlisted tech people, security people and medics. The bridge positions usually seem to be manned by officers.

How would that even work? First of all, I know the Federation is expanding, but there has to come a time when they have all the ships they can use. Second, each new ship has to be crewed with its own little pyramid of lieutenants, JGs, ensigns and so on. That means more slots needed for them to move up. If nobody is forced out, that means more ships built for them to advance, which means more officer positions needing more slots for them to move up and so on and on. Unless Starfleet exists first and foremost to provide career advancement for officers, it doesn't seem plausible.

I know that there were examples of COs of the same ship for 20 years, etc., but IMO those were written without thinking through all the implications and aren't very realistic.

The Starfleet probably has a pretty good idea about how much officers they will need. The academy will not train more people than is needed. Some people staying in the same position even for decades is not a problem. It is perfectly clear that they won't kick anybody out for failure to advance. If you're good at thing X you can keep doing thing X.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I would think you'd also have non-com scientists as well, people who gained various scientific honours at other universities/institutes and then decided to enlist into Starfleet to put them to use, instead of undergoing four years at the Academy.

The S.C.E. books have the likes of Crewmen Abramowitz and Faulwell, both of whom hold PhD's in their chosen fields but only then decided to enter Starfleet.

 

[Sgt_G]

No, not really. If someone has a four-year degree, he/she could get a commission by going to Officer Training School, aka the "Ninety Day Wonders". If they have a MS or PhD, they might even get a direct commission with a two-week Officer's Orientation Class.

On the other hand, a majority of enlisted earn degrees in their specialty. Their technical schools are worth a ton of college credits, and it's easy to pick up the electives to round out an Associate's degree in quick order. Indeed, in the modern military, you can't make the top-two ranks (E8/E9) without said degree, and most will have a Bachelor's or even a Master's degree.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

No, not really. If someone has a four-year degree, he/she could get a commission by going to Officer Training School, aka the "Ninety Day Wonders". If they have a MS or PhD, they might even get a direct commission with a two-week Officer's Orientation Class.

On the other hand, a majority of enlisted earn degrees in their specialty. Their technical schools are worth a ton of college credits, and it's easy to pick up the electives to round out an Associate's degree in quick order. Indeed, in the modern military, you can't make the top-two ranks (E8/E9) without said degree, and most will have a Bachelor's or even a Master's degree.

In fact, I believe one of the quickest ways to make it to make E4 in the Army or Air Force (as a Specialist or Senior Airman), is to enlist with at least an Associate's Degree already (tho not in the Navy, CG, or MC as their E4 pay grades require the experience to act as an NCO in addition to a subject matter expert (as does the Army NCO rank of Corporal) whereas as SPC or SrA do not).

 

[Longinus]

No, not really. If someone has a four-year degree, he/she could get a commission by going to Officer Training School, aka the "Ninety Day Wonders". If they have a MS or PhD, they might even get a direct commission with a two-week Officer's Orientation Class.

Yeah, this was my reasoning as well.

On the other hand, a majority of enlisted earn degrees in their specialty. Their technical schools are worth a ton of college credits, and it's easy to pick up the electives to round out an Associate's degree in quick order. Indeed, in the modern military, you can't make the top-two ranks (E8/E9) without said degree, and most will have a Bachelor's or even a Master's degree.

But couldn't those with a master's degree go to the earlier mentioned Officer Training School and get a commission?

 

[Sgt_G]

But couldn't those with a master's degree go to the earlier mentioned Officer Training School and get a commission?

Yes, there are a fair number of prior-enlisted officers. They tend to come in two shades: most are very good, but sadly I've seen a few very Very bad ones who forgot their roots. There aren't very many just-okay mustang officers. The odd thing is, it seems to be harder to get into such a enlisted-to-officer program than it is to simply sign up for OTS after getting a four-year degree as a civilian. I've known many kick-butt enlisted who applied and were turned down.

In fact, I believe one of the quickest ways to make it to make E4 in the Army or Air Force (as a Specialist or Senior Airman), is to enlist with at least an Associate's Degree already (tho not in the Navy, CG, or MC as their E4 pay grades require the experience to act as an NCO in addition to a subject matter expert (as does the Army NCO rank of Corporal) whereas as SPC or SrA do not).

Can't speak for the Army, but Air Force will give you one or two stripes walking in the door depending on how many college credits you have. Being as SrA is automatic, that will cut a year off the time requirement. And there is a Below The Zone (BTZ) process whereby selected Airmen get bumped up six to nine months early. The Navy has the same rules to come in as an E-2 / E-3, and will also jump you up to Petty Officer Third Class right out of A-school if you're at the top of the bell curve.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I've also been wondering whether Starfleet operates something similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Warfare_insignia#United_States (perhaps Starship Exploration Specialist?) requiring all personnel (with the possible exception of Engineers and Medics?) to cross-train in most areas of ships functions, especially if they want to get promoted to Chief or above (maybe even Petty Officer to a (limited?) extent. One upshot of this is that unlike on Surface ships, where there are two or three dedicated ratings associated with navigating the ship, the "helmsman" role is largely a collateral duty (mostly Admin/Logistics sailors who aren't needed in their main rating during "Battle Stations") and the "navigator" role is essentially taken by an engineer (specialised ET).

 

[Sgt_G]

I agree with the first part, but not with the second. I plan to include in my stories that to make higher enlisted ranks, one must earn basic certifications in other jobs. A comm tech might learn how to run the sensors, a sensor tech might learn basic navigation, etc, etc. Earning combat certifications is a bonus, too, as would be learning to fly a shuttle craft.

I think that being a Quartermaster (helmsman / navigator) on a starship is far more complex than on a modern wet-navy ship. It's not a job you give to your Yeoman as an extra duty. (See above, however.) I would think that during Battle Stations, most Yeomen and Storekeepers become Corpsmen and Firefighters / Damage Control techs. But that's in my world-view of things. Yours may differ.

Also, my ship has dedicated Gunner's Mates to run the phasers & photons, but if you want cooks and Yeomen to do that stuff and you explain it logically in your world-setting, again perfectly fine.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I agree with the first part, but not with the second. I plan to include in my stories that to make higher enlisted ranks, one must earn basic certifications in other jobs. A comm tech might learn how to run the sensors, a sensor tech might learn basic navigation, etc, etc. Earning combat certifications is a bonus, too, as would be learning to fly a shuttle craft.

I think that being a Quartermaster (helmsman / navigator) on a starship is far more complex than on a modern wet-navy ship. It's not a job you give to your Yeoman as an extra duty. (See above, however.) I would think that during Battle Stations, most Yeomen and Storekeepers become Corpsmen and Firefighters / Damage Control techs. But that's in my world-view of things. Yours may differ.

Also, my ship has dedicated Gunner's Mates to run the phasers & photons, but if you want cooks and Yeomen to do that stuff and you explain it logically in your world-setting, again perfectly fine.

I think it probably depends on the manning levels of the ship and the role that it usually fills. The USCG has a lot less specialisation than the USN (even including the fact they have no need for Nuc Engineers and borrow at least half of their Staff Corps enlisted personnel from the USN) and navies that operate few if any ships larger than a destroyer or an old cruiser will have a greater need for generalists than the USN does.

Even on Submarines there will still be at least one Officer or Senior Enlisted Navigator (usually the First Lieutenant who also supervises the general deck crew) and would be responsible for the Navigation side of things, but the "helmsman" role is taken by BMs if available (the RAN combines some of the GM, QM and BM functions into the BM rating (the RN calls this a Seaman Specialist or Seamanship Rating with), with the others going to the "Swain" [combination of BM, HM and MA]), with unrated or junior ratings filling in otherwise, and the closest the RN gets to a dedicated Navigator rating is the Hydrographic & Meteorological Specialist (basically the "weatherman") and as you've noted Damage Control is another role mostly filled by cross-trained personnel, in fact the USN/CG are rare in that they have DC as a distinct rating at all, certainly within the Commonwealth, these functions are AFAICT usually filled via cross-training with a BM, ET or Engineer as supervisor (depending on the task).

 

[Sgt_G]

Well, I have my bias that I'm going to stick with. I'm not saying your view is "wrong" at all. It's perfectly valid and may make writing stories set on smaller ships easier. I may be USAF (retired now) but oh by the way, my wife was US Navy / Navy Reserves (Yeoman). Your H&M specialists are what we call Aerographer's Mates. They went to the same USAF schools I did to become a Weather Observer and later Weather Forecaster. Ergo I do have some, albeit mostly second-hand, experience in how the Navy works. I just feel that starships would be complex enough that it would require more specialists and not so many generalists, and a fair amount of cross-training and combat augmentation. It's just as easy to claim that technology will be so advanced as to allow for less specialization.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Well, I have my bias that I'm going to stick with. I'm not saying your view is "wrong" at all. It's perfectly valid and may make writing stories set on smaller ships easier. I may be USAF (retired now) but oh by the way, my wife was US Navy / Navy Reserves (Yeoman). Your H&M specialists are what we call Aerographer's Mates. They went to the same USAF schools I did to become a Weather Observer and later Weather Forecaster. Ergo I do have some, albeit mostly second-hand, experience in how the Navy works. I just feel that starships would be complex enough that it would require more specialists and not so many generalists, and a fair amount of cross-training and combat augmentation. It's just as easy to claim that technology will be so advanced as to allow for less specialization.

Fair enough, what about this as a compromise? Flight/Tactical Specialist (at CPO level includes the ratings of BM, QM, GM and requires at at least familiarity with OS) which would be the primary pilots and gunners (ie the "on-shift") and responsible for cross-training other ratings (esp MA, SK, Mess and YN) to act as back-up or emergency operators onboard ship and (esp on smaller vessels) to pilot shuttlecraft and workbees so as not to cut into the downtime of the main specialists and keep them as fresh as possible? [NB Prime!Uhura, Prime!Sulu, Prime!Chekov in TOS and Worf in TNG support this for officers and O'Brien's background suggests this (at a minimum) for (senior) enlisted via O'Brien.

 

[Sgt_G]

Don't confuse officers with enlisted. The modern military tends to move officers around a lot to give them a wide breadth of experience so that when they become senior officers (i.e., ship captains and fleet admirals) they have some idea of what goes on around them. Yes, they have a field of expertise, a career path that they tend to stay in, but it's hardly set in stone. I knew a weather officer who ran the cop shop for six months (long, ugly story how that happened), and several others who became commanders of non-weather units. Aircraft pilots in particular fill a lot of non-flying jobs.

It's even more true for Navy officers. I know one who over the course of 16 years went from CIC operations to engine room to bridge watch officer to weapons and then was tapped to be a ship captain. I'm sure he knows his ship very well, but I dare him to try to man a radar scope or restart the main engines. Even when he worked CIC or the engine room, he had enlisted to do those things. He probably never got his hands dirty.

Enlisted specialize and get down in the weeds of one job. They do the day-to-day job and become very good at it. (It was laughable to watch two Lieutenants try to figure out how to fill out a Flight Weather Briefing form.) Yes, as enlisted move up in rank they expand their skill set and may even be placed in jobs that seem outside their realm, like when I promoted myself out of being a Forecaster and went first to the Operations Center and later to Plans & Programs.