Trek Fleet counts

[Junghalli]

Yes I knew what you where thinking but that does not fact the facts provided.
Earth is the Headquarters of the UFP, and the driving force behind it.
Vulcan is about a dozen LYs from earth, and I do believe that it was said they did not explore as much as you would think, if not the series implied it massively.
Andoria could not be much farther, putting the 3 main parts of the federation within 20lys of Earth. (although it has not been said to be such look at the flag or seal of the federation in the old books that could be used as a map)

I agree that the show generally does present the Federation's core as being the region of Earth. On the other hand, there are apparently over 150 member planets and we've never seen most of them, so we really don't know all that much about what the Federation looks like; there's room for alternate hypothesis.

[Wyrm]

150 member planets doesn't mean that they're all equally developed, or participate equally in the Federation. Starfleet seems to be dominated by Earth design — I can't even recall a Starfleet ship that doesn't follow the saucer-nacelle schema. Perhaps Earth ripped a page from their own history and were like the Athenians: they supported the overall Federation by providing for the common defense, just as the Athenians always provided ships in their annual tribute to the Delian League, so much that the league became known as the Athenian Empire because their ships dominated the navy.

[Kythnos]

I agree that the show generally does present the Federation's core as being the region of Earth. On the other hand, there are apparently over 150 member planets and we've never seen most of them, so we really don't know all that much about what the Federation looks like; there's room for alternate hypothesis.

Yes but remember at least one of those members is an Earth colony that opted for self-government and joined the Federation separately. So the reverse can also be true.

[Junghalli]

Starfleet seems to be dominated by Earth design — I can't even recall a Starfleet ship that doesn't follow the saucer-nacelle schema.

While Starfleet does appear to be heavily human-dominated for some unknown reason (maybe Earth is just the China of the Federation, massively populated - do we ever get any population estimates for different Federation worlds?), this can just as easily be explained as simple standardization. Think of the unnecessary logistical complications that might result if Starbases had to accomodate and service dozens of radically different Starfleet ship types from different member worlds, all of them requiring different sets of spare parts (just as the most obvious difficulty). Getting everyone to use the same designs makes a lot of sense.

Yes but remember at least one of those members is an Earth colony that opted for self-government and joined the Federation separately. So the reverse can also be true.

Which world was this, just out of curiousity?

[Kythnos]

Which world was this, just out of curiousity?

Alpha Centauri, I can't remember which episode it was in I think one of the ToC, Metamorphosis or the episode where they travel back in time to Earth. (so considering it was ToC it maybe of lesser canon)

[Stofsk]

Zephram Cochrane settled on Alpha Centauri but there was no mention of it being an Earth colony in the episode 'Metamorphosis'. Kirk quipped that he was a 'little green man from Alpha Centauri' to an Air Force colonel in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' but he was being a smartass. It is possible though that there are little green men from Alpha Centauri, which is I think the assumption Starfleet Battles made (as in, Kirk was being sarcastic but didn't lie about the Centauri ), but that's I think the only reference (weak as it is) from TOS.

[Baffalo]

I hesitate to rehash ideas but this came to me reading something ironically said by picard578. While trying to prove against many of Wong's arguments, he made an off-hand reference to member worlds and not just the number of planets actually included in the general population of the Federation. Since I hate to strain anyone's brain trying to make sense of his horse shit, I've conveniently kept it dark unless you really, really want to look at it.
Spoiler

150 planets from Picard's quote are (given context, and fact that Federation had 1000 worlds as of 23rd century) only member planets. Which means that Earth is in that count, but Alpha Centaury colonies (being Earth's colonies) are not, regardless of their size. Also, he lies that 600 ship count for Federation fleet in „Operation Return“ included fighters. He again uses non-canon sources as opposed to analysis of canon. In end, however, he drops his estimates in favour of Federation having 5000 ships, which is closer to canon estimates (which range from 7000 to 30 000 capital ships).

Anyway, I got to thinking about that and wondered... could that be true? I mean, granted there are huge parts of the world that we claim are ours, but no one actually lives there (Extremely northern Canada for example), and while it gets tossed into official counts of the amount of land, it serves zero purpose otherwise. So did Kirk just toss out the number of every single planet under the Federation's control, even the ones that were completely worthless? I doubt it... but then what about Picard's quote? Is there a way that BOTH are correct?

I did a little thinking and came up with this idea. What if Kirk was correct, that there were over 1000 worlds in the Federation, and he actually meant those that are inhabited by members? But rather than give every planet a seat on the Federation Council, what if the Federation were divided into sectors that operated as the equivilent of states? Each sector had representatives from each world, and they met and functioned as a small Council, and either someone was appointed or elected to go serve as the entire sector representative on the Federation Council? If that's the case, if the Federation had approximately 150 sectors, there would be 150 members of the Council representing all these thousands of worlds.

To back up my claim, I present a picture from Star Trek IV



Here we see approximately 23 members not wearing Starfleet uniforms while sitting in the rows. Given that there already is a member of Starfleet seated behind the President, and the Federation might be operating under the rule that no one in a military position may also serve as a civilian representative, I think it's safe to say that these 23 might be representatives of all Federation worlds. Now, to make things a bit more fair, I'll count everyone seated and say there are approximately 41 people here, and thus the room can easily accommodate around 50 council members. If we use Kirk's quote of 1000 worlds, spread across 50 members, that's roughly 20 stars per member, or 40 for only 25 members. 40 worlds may not sound like many, but that's assuming ONLY class M planets. There might be numerous other worlds beyond that simply not colonized because of the costs or difficulties involved. So that means the Federation grew substantially between Kirk's time and Picard's.

One thing I will admit is that some worlds, like Earth, Andoria, other key members, might get direct representation. If this is true, it throws most of my argument out the window, so I'll let you guys decide on that one.

[Norade]

I hesitate to rehash ideas but this came to me reading something ironically said by picard578. While trying to prove against many of Wong's arguments, he made an off-hand reference to member worlds and not just the number of planets actually included in the general population of the Federation. Since I hate to strain anyone's brain trying to make sense of his horse shit, I've conveniently kept it dark unless you really, really want to look at it.
Spoiler

150 planets from Picard's quote are (given context, and fact that Federation had 1000 worlds as of 23rd century) only member planets. Which means that Earth is in that count, but Alpha Centaury colonies (being Earth's colonies) are not, regardless of their size. Also, he lies that 600 ship count for Federation fleet in „Operation Return“ included fighters. He again uses non-canon sources as opposed to analysis of canon. In end, however, he drops his estimates in favour of Federation having 5000 ships, which is closer to canon estimates (which range from 7000 to 30 000 capital ships).

Anyway, I got to thinking about that and wondered... could that be true? I mean, granted there are huge parts of the world that we claim are ours, but no one actually lives there (Extremely northern Canada for example), and while it gets tossed into official counts of the amount of land, it serves zero purpose otherwise. So did Kirk just toss out the number of every single planet under the Federation's control, even the ones that were completely worthless? I doubt it... but then what about Picard's quote? Is there a way that BOTH are correct?

I did a little thinking and came up with this idea. What if Kirk was correct, that there were over 1000 worlds in the Federation, and he actually meant those that are inhabited by members? But rather than give every planet a seat on the Federation Council, what if the Federation were divided into sectors that operated as the equivilent of states? Each sector had representatives from each world, and they met and functioned as a small Council, and either someone was appointed or elected to go serve as the entire sector representative on the Federation Council? If that's the case, if the Federation had approximately 150 sectors, there would be 150 members of the Council representing all these thousands of worlds.

To back up my claim, I present a picture from Star Trek IV



Here we see approximately 23 members not wearing Starfleet uniforms while sitting in the rows. Given that there already is a member of Starfleet seated behind the President, and the Federation might be operating under the rule that no one in a military position may also serve as a civilian representative, I think it's safe to say that these 23 might be representatives of all Federation worlds. Now, to make things a bit more fair, I'll count everyone seated and say there are approximately 41 people here, and thus the room can easily accommodate around 50 council members. If we use Kirk's quote of 1000 worlds, spread across 50 members, that's roughly 20 stars per member, or 40 for only 25 members. 40 worlds may not sound like many, but that's assuming ONLY class M planets. There might be numerous other worlds beyond that simply not colonized because of the costs or difficulties involved. So that means the Federation grew substantially between Kirk's time and Picard's.

One thing I will admit is that some worlds, like Earth, Andoria, other key members, might get direct representation. If this is true, it throws most of my argument out the window, so I'll let you guys decide on that one.

Now how much do these worlds contribute rather than drain the economy? For every North America there is an Africa or Middle East draining resources, or an Antarctic research post that does interesting research but contributes nothing? We see few high population worlds in the series most seem to have a city or two for the entire world and some planets can be evacuated by a single start ship. It also begs the question of why worlds don't have any starships of their own?

[Baffalo]

Now how much do these worlds contribute rather than drain the economy? For every North America there is an Africa or Middle East draining resources, or an Antarctic research post that does interesting research but contributes nothing? We see few high population worlds in the series most seem to have a city or two for the entire world and some planets can be evacuated by a single start ship. It also begs the question of why worlds don't have any starships of their own?

That's certainly a quandary in that if the Federation is that inept, their economy would've collapsed years ago. I believe an answer might be provided in the final book of the Star Trek: New Earth series Challenger. In it, the Enterprise is finally being recalled after escorting a fleet of colony ships to Belle Terre, a world that wishes to establish itself independently from the Federation but has still requested Federation support until they're properly established. They have an entire fleet of tiny ships and most end up collectively in a pile of junk after they land. Ultimately, they build their own warship after another Federation starship ended up trashed in a fight.

While the novels have never been established as canon, it does paint an interesting picture. Worlds on the frontier certainly know that Federation support might be difficult to come by, and thus might take matters into their own hands and build their own ships. Richer worlds, such as sector capitals near the heart of the Federation, might buy older Starfleet ships and crew them with an armed militia or merchant marine. It'd be similar to how there's an established US Army, but each state has a National Guard if necessary. Some systems can probably handle their own problems and rarely need to call on Starfleet, so that's why we rarely see them. That's my take on the situation anyway.

As far as your statement regarding systems that are a drain on the economy, that's certainly true, but I think that overall, it would be better to compare the situation to that of the state governments here in the United States. Some states, such as Vermont, have very small economies (Gross State Production: $26.4 billion) compared to other states like California (GSP: 1,936.4 billion). [Link] The point I'm trying to make is that every colony, even the tiny agricultural colonies, produce a tiny amount that adds up to allow the Federation to be the big spenders on fleets. At $1 trillion a piece, a Nimitz class carrier is a big hit to the coffers, yet we maintain a fleet of those, not counting the support ships that sail with them, and part of it does come from even the tiny economies such as Vermont. Yes, some colonies will cost money, but in the long run anyone with a brain will hopefully be trying to get the colony to at least make enough money to grow and expand with time and not become stagnant or remain a drain.

I know someone's going to chime in with the whole no-money thing but even so you still have tons of resources needed just to put something together. You need steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, ceramics, carpeting, lights, plastics, paint, dilithium, anti-matter, oxygen, nitrogen, water, food, everything has to come from somewhere. The Federation works as a united whole, same as the United States, and that means that each colony in some small part trades with each other, part of that trade gets taxed by the government, that taxed income goes towards the common defense and other government spending, so even without money, you still have a need by the government to at the very least take some of what gets traded and put it towards building a starship. It's a long, drawn out process that takes months or years, and that's just the starship itself. You still need people with the proper training to step aboard and know how to fly the damned thing.

The point I'm ultimately making is that since we know the Federation has the fleets to engage threats like the Dominion and other major powers, obviously enough colonies are producing enough taxable goods to justify taking part of it as payment to build starships and defend themselves. Without those colonies, the Federation would collapse, and we'd have to bow down and worship the Founders or the Klingon High Council or whoever came along with enough firepower to kick our asses.

[Norade]

Now how much do these worlds contribute rather than drain the economy? For every North America there is an Africa or Middle East draining resources, or an Antarctic research post that does interesting research but contributes nothing? We see few high population worlds in the series most seem to have a city or two for the entire world and some planets can be evacuated by a single start ship. It also begs the question of why worlds don't have any starships of their own?

That's certainly a quandary in that if the Federation is that inept, their economy would've collapsed years ago. I believe an answer might be provided in the final book of the Star Trek: New Earth series Challenger. In it, the Enterprise is finally being recalled after escorting a fleet of colony ships to Belle Terre, a world that wishes to establish itself independently from the Federation but has still requested Federation support until they're properly established. They have an entire fleet of tiny ships and most end up collectively in a pile of junk after they land. Ultimately, they build their own warship after another Federation starship ended up trashed in a fight.

While the novels have never been established as canon, it does paint an interesting picture. Worlds on the frontier certainly know that Federation support might be difficult to come by, and thus might take matters into their own hands and build their own ships. Richer worlds, such as sector capitals near the heart of the Federation, might buy older Starfleet ships and crew them with an armed militia or merchant marine. It'd be similar to how there's an established US Army, but each state has a National Guard if necessary. Some systems can probably handle their own problems and rarely need to call on Starfleet, so that's why we rarely see them. That's my take on the situation anyway.

As far as your statement regarding systems that are a drain on the economy, that's certainly true, but I think that overall, it would be better to compare the situation to that of the state governments here in the United States. Some states, such as Vermont, have very small economies (Gross State Production: $26.4 billion) compared to other states like California (GSP: 1,936.4 billion). [Link] The point I'm trying to make is that every colony, even the tiny agricultural colonies, produce a tiny amount that adds up to allow the Federation to be the big spenders on fleets. At $1 trillion a piece, a Nimitz class carrier is a big hit to the coffers, yet we maintain a fleet of those, not counting the support ships that sail with them, and part of it does come from even the tiny economies such as Vermont. Yes, some colonies will cost money, but in the long run anyone with a brain will hopefully be trying to get the colony to at least make enough money to grow and expand with time and not become stagnant or remain a drain.

I know someone's going to chime in with the whole no-money thing but even so you still have tons of resources needed just to put something together. You need steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, ceramics, carpeting, lights, plastics, paint, dilithium, anti-matter, oxygen, nitrogen, water, food, everything has to come from somewhere. The Federation works as a united whole, same as the United States, and that means that each colony in some small part trades with each other, part of that trade gets taxed by the government, that taxed income goes towards the common defense and other government spending, so even without money, you still have a need by the government to at the very least take some of what gets traded and put it towards building a starship. It's a long, drawn out process that takes months or years, and that's just the starship itself. You still need people with the proper training to step aboard and know how to fly the damned thing.

The point I'm ultimately making is that since we know the Federation has the fleets to engage threats like the Dominion and other major powers, obviously enough colonies are producing enough taxable goods to justify taking part of it as payment to build starships and defend themselves. Without those colonies, the Federation would collapse, and we'd have to bow down and worship the Founders or the Klingon High Council or whoever came along with enough firepower to kick our asses.

So most systems are settled by a few smaller than Enterprise vessels which are then scrapped upon landing and a world might be able to scrape up a ship for its own defense. Not exactly a stunning endorsement of Federation shipbuilding. We also never see any civilian ships fleeing from disaster of the week, nor even hear of any such attempts. Nor do we see space traffic over even the most major worlds though to keep an economy going we should see many such ships.

Also, nice try with comparing states to what we see of outlying worlds in Trek, try comparing some small city of under 100,000 citizens, to Earth. That's even being generous to the Federation worlds we see as many consist of tiny outpost and handful of people as sole inhabitants. Never do we even hear of other worlds with even close to the wealth and status of the Major federation worlds and we can really only list off Earth and Vulcan as major as we rarely hear or see any other worlds on the same scale. Care to show any other worlds that have the resources of these worlds and show what they might contribute to the Federation as a whole?

[Norade]

As for the economy failing, one solar system has enough mineral wealth to build ans sustain every ship ever built by starfleet and likely enough to keep every member of the entire federation at a high standard of living. There is entirely zero reason for expanding besides exploration and ensuring no single disaster will destroy your species.

[Baffalo]

So most systems are settled by a few smaller than Enterprise vessels which are then scrapped upon landing and a world might be able to scrape up a ship for its own defense. Not exactly a stunning endorsement of Federation shipbuilding. We also never see any civilian ships fleeing from disaster of the week, nor even hear of any such attempts. Nor do we see space traffic over even the most major worlds though to keep an economy going we should see many such ships.

Also, nice try with comparing states to what we see of outlying worlds in Trek, try comparing some small city of under 100,000 citizens, to Earth. That's even being generous to the Federation worlds we see as many consist of tiny outpost and handful of people as sole inhabitants. Never do we even hear of other worlds with even close to the wealth and status of the Major federation worlds and we can really only list off Earth and Vulcan as major as we rarely hear or see any other worlds on the same scale. Care to show any other worlds that have the resources of these worlds and show what they might contribute to the Federation as a whole?

I'm going to use the word presumably, though I know that's a favorite among noobs here, presumably due to the sheer size of a planet and the comparative size of Federation starships, we don't hear about civilian ships fleeing a disaster because 1) the ships are so small they can't be seen on screen, since Federation ships tend to head towards the problem rather than away, 2) the comm chatter is filtered out so that only comms from other Federation ships and command can get through, to keep from getting useless information, 3) the shows simply don't bother showing every tiny ship, since each one costs money and they might need the money for other effects down the line.

Yes, I know what appears on screen is supposed to be canon, but we also have to understand the limitations being placed upon both the show and the writers. I'm not implying there are millions of ships flying around all the time like Coruscant, but at the same time I'm not so sure it's the same as having no ships at all. And while I know we see places like Paris and San Fransisco, even with Enterprise's CGI of cars and trains, but we might not see the ships because they'd be directed towards spaceports farther away from the planet or, probably, in orbit. With transporters, why would you need to keep a ship on the ground when you can dock a freighter in orbit to some outpost, offload, and have it beamed down? Working outside of a significant gravity well means you can trim out some of the supports, which saves money, meaning a civilian shipyard would be able to sell the freighters for less and thus, get more contracts.

I know this sounds like I'm just pulling reasons out of my ass at this point, but I don't think Starfleet is so controlling they won't allow civilian traffic. Even in DS9, we saw the occasional freighter (the only reference comes from DS9:For the Uniform) and all those starbases and outposts need supplies from time to time. The episode TNG:Unnatural Selection did show the USS Lantree as a Class 6 Supply Ship, so Starfleet does supply some of its own freighters, but I'd think they'd need more than a few emptied out Mirandas to haul enough supplies for a fleet the size we saw in several episodes of DS9.

As for the economy failing, one solar system has enough mineral wealth to build ans sustain every ship ever built by starfleet and likely enough to keep every member of the entire federation at a high standard of living. There is entirely zero reason for expanding besides exploration and ensuring no single disaster will destroy your species.

I agree with this one except for the case above. I mentioned the Lantree because while most natural disasters, such as radical climate change, asteroid strike, Chuck Norris, etc can cause untold damage, disease seems to be the one thing that Starfleet drops the ball on a bit. We saw in ENT:Acquisition that Commander Tucker was able to override and escape from the decontamination chamber FROM INSIDE THE CHAMBER. Not only that, but the device that knocked the crew out passed through decontamination AND STILL TOOK OUT THE CREW. Jesus Christ... that's shitty. And my example above shows that even with filters on the transporters, the crew of a starship can still be taken out by airborne pathogens.

And just for shits and giggles, I also found TNG: Lonely Among Us (mind-altering gas) and TNG: Power Play (Alien being). Seems to me that if there's something fucked up inside someone when they beam aboard, like IN THEIR BRAIN they might take the time to say, "Hey, Commander? There's some sort of slug in this guy's brain. Should we beam it back out into space?" But in true Star Trek fashion, they'd probably say, "No, let it eat away at his brain. You never know if he didn't put it there himself, and we have to respect his wishes, no matter how fucked up they might be."

[Norade]

So most systems are settled by a few smaller than Enterprise vessels which are then scrapped upon landing and a world might be able to scrape up a ship for its own defense. Not exactly a stunning endorsement of Federation shipbuilding. We also never see any civilian ships fleeing from disaster of the week, nor even hear of any such attempts. Nor do we see space traffic over even the most major worlds though to keep an economy going we should see many such ships.

Also, nice try with comparing states to what we see of outlying worlds in Trek, try comparing some small city of under 100,000 citizens, to Earth. That's even being generous to the Federation worlds we see as many consist of tiny outpost and handful of people as sole inhabitants. Never do we even hear of other worlds with even close to the wealth and status of the Major federation worlds and we can really only list off Earth and Vulcan as major as we rarely hear or see any other worlds on the same scale. Care to show any other worlds that have the resources of these worlds and show what they might contribute to the Federation as a whole?

I'm going to use the word presumably, though I know that's a favorite among noobs here, presumably due to the sheer size of a planet and the comparative size of Federation starships, we don't hear about civilian ships fleeing a disaster because 1) the ships are so small they can't be seen on screen, since Federation ships tend to head towards the problem rather than away, 2) the comm chatter is filtered out so that only comms from other Federation ships and command can get through, to keep from getting useless information, 3) the shows simply don't bother showing every tiny ship, since each one costs money and they might need the money for other effects down the line.

Yes, I know what appears on screen is supposed to be canon, but we also have to understand the limitations being placed upon both the show and the writers. I'm not implying there are millions of ships flying around all the time like Coruscant, but at the same time I'm not so sure it's the same as having no ships at all. And while I know we see places like Paris and San Fransisco, even with Enterprise's CGI of cars and trains, but we might not see the ships because they'd be directed towards spaceports farther away from the planet or, probably, in orbit. With transporters, why would you need to keep a ship on the ground when you can dock a freighter in orbit to some outpost, offload, and have it beamed down? Working outside of a significant gravity well means you can trim out some of the supports, which saves money, meaning a civilian shipyard would be able to sell the freighters for less and thus, get more contracts.

I know this sounds like I'm just pulling reasons out of my ass at this point, but I don't think Starfleet is so controlling they won't allow civilian traffic. Even in DS9, we saw the occasional freighter (the only reference comes from DS9:For the Uniform) and all those starbases and outposts need supplies from time to time. The episode TNG:Unnatural Selection did show the USS Lantree as a Class 6 Supply Ship, so Starfleet does supply some of its own freighters, but I'd think they'd need more than a few emptied out Mirandas to haul enough supplies for a fleet the size we saw in several episodes of DS9.

So aside from out of universe issues you have nothing to say why we didn't see engine flares leaving worlds or why the Enterprise had to evacuate worlds that should have had their own vessels to leave in. You're not really making a case here.

As for the economy failing, one solar system has enough mineral wealth to build ans sustain every ship ever built by starfleet and likely enough to keep every member of the entire federation at a high standard of living. There is entirely zero reason for expanding besides exploration and ensuring no single disaster will destroy your species.

I agree with this one except for the case above. I mentioned the Lantree because while most natural disasters, such as radical climate change, asteroid strike, Chuck Norris, etc can cause untold damage, disease seems to be the one thing that Starfleet drops the ball on a bit. We saw in ENT:Acquisition that Commander Tucker was able to override and escape from the decontamination chamber FROM INSIDE THE CHAMBER. Not only that, but the device that knocked the crew out passed through decontamination AND STILL TOOK OUT THE CREW. Jesus Christ... that's shitty. And my example above shows that even with filters on the transporters, the crew of a starship can still be taken out by airborne pathogens.

And just for shits and giggles, I also found TNG: Lonely Among Us (mind-altering gas) and TNG: Power Play (Alien being). Seems to me that if there's something fucked up inside someone when they beam aboard, like IN THEIR BRAIN they might take the time to say, "Hey, Commander? There's some sort of slug in this guy's brain. Should we beam it back out into space?" But in true Star Trek fashion, they'd probably say, "No, let it eat away at his brain. You never know if he didn't put it there himself, and we have to respect his wishes, no matter how fucked up they might be."

What? That doesn't even address my point that the entire fleet in Trek could be built only out of what is found in the Asteroid belt and that Earth could provide every crewman and officer easily. Obviously the Federation doesn't use resources very well because with holographic workers they could easily pull a fleets out their asses and ensure that every world has at least a few craft guarding it.

[Baffalo]

What? That doesn't even address my point that the entire fleet in Trek could be built only out of what is found in the Asteroid belt and that Earth could provide every crewman and officer easily. Obviously the Federation doesn't use resources very well because with holographic workers they could easily pull a fleets out their asses and ensure that every world has at least a few craft guarding it.

Yes and no. Yes in that the materials are there, but no for the same reason we have yet to mine every deposit of materials here and now. Accumulating the resources of an entire planet, even when in large deposits, takes a long, long time. Holographics, as we've already seen, require projectors that must be set up to work. Unless they plan to have giant ships that roam up and down the asteroid belt using these large holo-projectors to strip-mine the asteroids, they'd be limited to very short ranges as the holo-projectors only go so far.

Also, while I agree that holograms would do all the work without space-suits and just using the equipment, it's more than just throwing holo-workers at the problem. Starships are big, and being big means they sometimes require big pieces and little pieces. Armor weighing several tons might be beyond the ability of the holo-projectors to manipulate correctly, and even with the large pieces in place, you'd still need to roam up and down the ship installing everything from lamps to carpeting to the little letters on signs. Yes, I know you can argue why not use transporters, but you run the risk of beaming something into something else, which I believe is bad.

And also, if you're going to build a giant ship to strip-mine the asteroid field, why use holographics at all? Just build a giant floating mine and have it draw in entire asteroids and melt them down. Much easier than trying to get thousands of little holographic men to do it, even if it did use a crew of actual people. And constructing starships, why not specialized machines designed to roam all over a ship and do everything you need to construct it? Holographics sound nice, but I'm not sure they're best utilized for the purposes we've seen.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, I have a massive headache. And finally, I'd like to request anyone with actual ship-building experience to please chime in regarding how ships are built. I think that even with thousands of people working on a project, it'd still take a while to build and then man and equip a starship.

[Azron_Stoma]

Why would the holograms have to be anthropomorphic in any way shape or form? Rather than simply like holographic assembly line arms and mining equipment designed specifically for being used as a simple forcefield projection applying force (IE no moving parts or anything that takes more effort to do and serves no practical application), only having any visible component so that people can see where they are. Still it would be nice to have an actual physical mechanism in case there is a power failure, better to have the mechanisms not move and keep whatever they are working on in place rather than vanish and let it go.

Making them Holographic men just cultivates images of slavery.

[Norade]

What? That doesn't even address my point that the entire fleet in Trek could be built only out of what is found in the Asteroid belt and that Earth could provide every crewman and officer easily. Obviously the Federation doesn't use resources very well because with holographic workers they could easily pull a fleets out their asses and ensure that every world has at least a few craft guarding it.

Yes and no. Yes in that the materials are there, but no for the same reason we have yet to mine every deposit of materials here and now. Accumulating the resources of an entire planet, even when in large deposits, takes a long, long time. Holographics, as we've already seen, require projectors that must be set up to work. Unless they plan to have giant ships that roam up and down the asteroid belt using these large holo-projectors to strip-mine the asteroids, they'd be limited to very short ranges as the holo-projectors only go so far.

Also, while I agree that holograms would do all the work without space-suits and just using the equipment, it's more than just throwing holo-workers at the problem. Starships are big, and being big means they sometimes require big pieces and little pieces. Armor weighing several tons might be beyond the ability of the holo-projectors to manipulate correctly, and even with the large pieces in place, you'd still need to roam up and down the ship installing everything from lamps to carpeting to the little letters on signs. Yes, I know you can argue why not use transporters, but you run the risk of beaming something into something else, which I believe is bad.

And also, if you're going to build a giant ship to strip-mine the asteroid field, why use holographics at all? Just build a giant floating mine and have it draw in entire asteroids and melt them down. Much easier than trying to get thousands of little holographic men to do it, even if it did use a crew of actual people. And constructing starships, why not specialized machines designed to roam all over a ship and do everything you need to construct it? Holographics sound nice, but I'm not sure they're best utilized for the purposes we've seen.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, I have a massive headache. And finally, I'd like to request anyone with actual ship-building experience to please chime in regarding how ships are built. I think that even with thousands of people working on a project, it'd still take a while to build and then man and equip a starship.

Why not just use mining lasers and tractor beams then? Cut a chunk and suck it into the pulverization chamber where it is scanned and each component mineral is beamed into a separate processing bays. There you have automatons or holograms work them into whatever is needed. With the range on both lasers and transporters it seems like the entire asteroid belt should be mined, sorted, and stacked ready to be turned into ships by now.