Constitution-class crew complement
Moderator: Vympel
Constitution-class crew complement
A recent discussion about "The Enemy Within" has me thinking about something I remember about "The Cage". In it, Jeffrey Hunter talks about how he's tired of being responsible for 203 lives. Fast forward to Kirk's time, and the Connie has a crew complement of 430 (roughly). So what happened in the ten years between both Captain's command of the Enterprise?
Yes, I am aware of the out-of-universe explanation for this (the details of the setting hadn't been established yet, things were still up in the air). I am more interested in speculating for an in-universe reason as to why or how the Enterprise's crew complement doubled.
Is it, for example, possible that the Enterprise was a prototype or one of the first Connies built, and thus had half the crew and doing a shakedown cruise? Is it possible a refit occurred in between the two time periods? What about being undersupplied with crew? (I doubt this would be the case though) Any ideas?
Yes, I am aware of the out-of-universe explanation for this (the details of the setting hadn't been established yet, things were still up in the air). I am more interested in speculating for an in-universe reason as to why or how the Enterprise's crew complement doubled.
Is it, for example, possible that the Enterprise was a prototype or one of the first Connies built, and thus had half the crew and doing a shakedown cruise? Is it possible a refit occurred in between the two time periods? What about being undersupplied with crew? (I doubt this would be the case though) Any ideas?
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
A refit definitely occurred. The series Enterprise has different engine details and a completely redesigned bridge superstructure, along with a few dozen extra detail changes; there was 80+ hours of work in the redesign before the second pilot started filming.
A shakedown cruise doesn't seem likely considering the time frame. The ship was launched in 2245 and The Cage takes place nearly ten years after; also, if it's a deep-space shakedown cruise, you'd expect more people to be on-board for contingencies, not less.
If you want to get really depressing, remember the lines from the TMP novelisation about how 94 crewmen died on the Enterprise and that this was considered a pretty good result for a five-year cruise. 200 lost on a patrol may be par for the course in Pike's time.
A shakedown cruise doesn't seem likely considering the time frame. The ship was launched in 2245 and The Cage takes place nearly ten years after; also, if it's a deep-space shakedown cruise, you'd expect more people to be on-board for contingencies, not less.
It could be a few factors adding up. Maybe Starfleet underestimated losses in the field - in the pilot, the ship just lost a few men on a mission gone bad, and Pike's reaction suggests it wasn't the first time. Maybe she was on a less exploration-oriented patrol and didn't carry a large science staff. Maybe she offloaded non-critical personnel to restaff another ship.What about being undersupplied with crew? (I doubt this would be the case though)
If you want to get really depressing, remember the lines from the TMP novelisation about how 94 crewmen died on the Enterprise and that this was considered a pretty good result for a five-year cruise. 200 lost on a patrol may be par for the course in Pike's time.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
I gather that. However, the two bridges don't look completely different. They had a different colour screen and the consoles looked like they were modified, but IIRC all the stations remained the same (navigation and helm were where they're supposed to be, Spock's station is still to the Captain's right, comms is still behind him, etc).Bounty wrote:A refit definitely occurred. The series Enterprise has different engine details and a completely redesigned bridge superstructure, along with a few dozen extra detail changes; there was 80+ hours of work in the redesign before the second pilot started filming.
Also, a refit would be pretty significant if it actually allowed the crew to be doubled. Extra habitation? Staterooms, life support etc?
Was the 'launched in 2245' established in TOS or in TNG/some other source? Because I don't remember any line in TOS in particular. Pike was referred to as having completed two 5 year missions though.A shakedown cruise doesn't seem likely considering the time frame. The ship was launched in 2245 and The Cage takes place nearly ten years after; also, if it's a deep-space shakedown cruise, you'd expect more people to be on-board for contingencies, not less.
Those are some good ideas. Could it also be possible that tensions between the Klingons weren't as high in Pike's time as they were in Kirk's? Maybe a lot of the extra hands was to give the Enterprise more combat performance - extra damage control, extra hands in case of boarding. So perhaps it's not just the science crew, though I like that idea too.It could be a few factors adding up. Maybe Starfleet underestimated losses in the field - in the pilot, the ship just lost a few men on a mission gone bad, and Pike's reaction suggests it wasn't the first time. Maybe she was on a less exploration-oriented patrol and didn't carry a large science staff. Maybe she offloaded non-critical personnel to restaff another ship.
If you want to get really depressing, remember the lines from the TMP novelisation about how 94 crewmen died on the Enterprise and that this was considered a pretty good result for a five-year cruise. 200 lost on a patrol may be par for the course in Pike's time.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
It's not just the interior, the shape and size of the model's superstructure changed quite a bit - unless, of course, this has since been fixed in the remastered episodes.I gather that. However, the two bridges don't look completely different. They had a different colour screen and the consoles looked like they were modified, but IIRC all the stations remained the same (navigation and helm were where they're supposed to be, Spock's station is still to the Captain's right, comms is still behind him, etc).
It was set by Roddenberry, used in the Chronology, and appeared on-screen in Enterprise. You can argue that it isn't quite as hard canon as some other facts but for all intents and purposes it's the official, accepted date.Was the 'launched in 2245' established in TOS or in TNG/some other source? Because I don't remember any line in TOS in particular. Pike was referred to as having completed two 5 year missions though.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Ah ok. I still don't know what the particulars are, but I'll take your word for it. Although pictures would be nice.Bounty wrote:It's not just the interior, the shape and size of the model's superstructure changed quite a bit - unless, of course, this has since been fixed in the remastered episodes.
I'm more interested in what "The Cage" implies. It and a lot of TOS was written when things weren't set in stone - "The Enemy Within" discussion being an easy example of this, with the absence of shuttlecraft embarked onboard the Enterprise when they could have been useful - and I'm more intrigued by the possibilities of these sorts of details being 'up in the air' rather than referring to things like the Chronology, or Enterprise, or whatever Roddenberry thought (which I don't really give a shit about, to be honest, I don't particularly think he was what made Trek great).It was set by Roddenberry, used in the Chronology, and appeared on-screen in Enterprise. You can argue that it isn't quite as hard canon as some other facts but for all intents and purposes it's the official, accepted date.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Pilot version: Tall bridge dome, no skylight visible, dark-red Bussard collectors with spikes, large deflector dish.
Series version: Flat bridge dome, swirly-light nacelles without spikes, different markings, small deflector.
The back end of the nacelles was also redesigned.
It's not that big a change, but there's enough here to suggest she spent some time getting upgraded between missions.
Series version: Flat bridge dome, swirly-light nacelles without spikes, different markings, small deflector.
The back end of the nacelles was also redesigned.
It's not that big a change, but there's enough here to suggest she spent some time getting upgraded between missions.
Going only by The Cage the Enterprise is somewhere between a few and 18 years old - she's been out a while (not sure where you get the two five-year missions from), but she's using technology unfamiliar to a crew that crashed 18 years earlier.I'm more interested in what "The Cage" implies.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Pilot version: Tall bridge dome, no skylight visible, dark-red Bussard collectors with spikes, large deflector dish.
Series version: Flat bridge dome, swirly-light nacelles without spikes, different markings, small deflector.
The back end of the nacelles was also redesigned.
It's not that big a change, but there's enough here to suggest she spent some time getting upgraded between missions.
(Completely random aside: I was browsing the The Cage article at Memory Alpha; one of the actors in that episode was one of nine Star Trek cast members born in the nineteenth century. How odd is it that you can be born in the year Jesse James and Charles Darwin died, and end up playing a guy on a show about a spaceship and rayguns?
Series version: Flat bridge dome, swirly-light nacelles without spikes, different markings, small deflector.
The back end of the nacelles was also redesigned.
It's not that big a change, but there's enough here to suggest she spent some time getting upgraded between missions.
Going only by The Cage the Enterprise is somewhere between a few and 18 years old - she's been out a while (not sure where you get the two five-year missions from), but she's using technology unfamiliar to a crew that crashed 18 years earlier.I'm more interested in what "The Cage" implies.
(Completely random aside: I was browsing the The Cage article at Memory Alpha; one of the actors in that episode was one of nine Star Trek cast members born in the nineteenth century. How odd is it that you can be born in the year Jesse James and Charles Darwin died, and end up playing a guy on a show about a spaceship and rayguns?
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Didn't Pike also recently have that issue on Rigel? If it was a larger military operation severe losses could have occurred. Also why he was being protective enough to say something like that.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Ah nutsack, could someone take that double post out back?
IIRC he only mentioned two dead and half a dozen wounded, but if those numbers were par for the course on away mission (his reaction certainly seemed to imply so), they can quickly add up.Didn't Pike also recently have that issue on Rigel?
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
I like the first version. Spikey nacelles and huge fuck-off dish FTW.Bounty wrote:Pilot version: Tall bridge dome, no skylight visible, dark-red Bussard collectors with spikes, large deflector dish.
Series version: Flat bridge dome, swirly-light nacelles without spikes, different markings, small deflector.
The back end of the nacelles was also redesigned.
It's not that big a change, but there's enough here to suggest she spent some time getting upgraded between missions.
There was a throw-away line in "The Menagerie" that puts the events that happened in "The Cage" as occurring 13 years prior to the episode. Memory Alpha says he had a long tour of 11 years as Captain of the Enterprise.Going only by The Cage the Enterprise is somewhere between a few and 18 years old - she's been out a while (not sure where you get the two five-year missions from), but she's using technology unfamiliar to a crew that crashed 18 years earlier.I'm more interested in what "The Cage" implies.
That's pretty cool.(Completely random aside: I was browsing the The Cage article at Memory Alpha; one of the actors in that episode was one of nine Star Trek cast members born in the nineteenth century. How odd is it that you can be born in the year Jesse James and Charles Darwin died, and end up playing a guy on a show about a spaceship and rayguns?
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Conversely, there are people who watched TOS in its original run who have personal communication devices significantly more advanced than as seen on the show. My Nokia 5800 has most of the features of a TNG era PADD.
lol, opsec doesn't apply to fanfiction. -Aaron
PRFYNAFBTFC
CAPTAIN OF MFS SAMMY HAGAR
PRFYNAFBTFC
CAPTAIN OF MFS SAMMY HAGAR
- Themightytom
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2818
- Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
- Location: United States
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
The crew increase could also be better utilization of space from a refit? maybe the consoles look the same, but they're just consoles, computer equipment could have shrank, advancements in transporter techology could have reduced the neccesity for as many shuttles resulting in a reduction in the size of the shuttle bay and the addition of labrotories? Maybe Engineering is smaller?
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
- Batman
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 16429
- Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
- Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Given that modern day aircraft carriers house some 6000 people on a ship that likely has less internal volume than the saucer section of a Connie I seriously doubt lack of space was the reason for the smaller crew complement.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
- Themightytom
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2818
- Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
- Location: United States
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Yeah but do aircraft officers all get their own cabins? According to memory Alpha's description of the technical manual the 1701 is a GIANT waste of space. the Engineering hull doesn't een HAVE crew quarters, and the saucer houses all kinds of other crap as well as living space. Crew quarters is sharing space with the impulse engines, the junior officers are next to the water pumps etc. maybe the Kirk era enterprise just has a more efficient water management system giving twice as much crew space. Sure they could fit a lot more in, but they don't....Batman wrote:Given that modern day aircraft carriers house some 6000 people on a ship that likely has less internal volume than the saucer section of a Connie I seriously doubt lack of space was the reason for the smaller crew complement.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints
Deck Plans 0-1-2-3-4-5 (Top Side Views) as follows:
Deck 0: Upper Sensor Platform
Deck 1: Bridge (with enlarged detail)
Deck 2: Science Laboratories – High Energy, Geology, Ion Study, Chemistry, Biology, Science Officer's Office, Physics [Upper Level]
Deck 3: Science Laboratories – Botany, Communications, Special Studies, Cosmology, Physics [Lower Level]; Photon Torpedo Banks
Deck 4: Junior Officers' Quarters; Fresh Water Tanks & Pumping Machinery
Deck 5: Officers' Quarters; Saucer Section Emergency Battery Rooms; Upper Phaser Bank Rooms
[edit] Sheet 7Deck 6 Plan - Crew's Quarters and Engineering/Impulse Engines Power Units – Upper Section
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
- The Dark
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
- Location: Promoting ornithological awareness
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Three dead, seven wounded.Bounty wrote:IIRC he only mentioned two dead and half a dozen wounded, but if those numbers were par for the course on away mission (his reaction certainly seemed to imply so), they can quickly add up.Didn't Pike also recently have that issue on Rigel?
My own thought would be that the increased crew was a result in the change of Enterprise's mission. Under Pike, she seems to have been patrolling Federation space. Under Kirk, she was exploring new territory, so an increased science crew would make sense.
And heck, it is possible that a high rate of death was accepted and expected - Kirk lost 12 crew in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" alone, which is roughly 3% of the crew, and that was a relatively minor incident.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
Counting what's listed on memory alpha, Kirk lost 55 crew members during the course of TOS. That's about an eighth of the crew.The Dark wrote:
And heck, it is possible that a high rate of death was accepted and expected - Kirk lost 12 crew in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" alone, which is roughly 3% of the crew, and that was a relatively minor incident.
-A.L.
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence...Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." - Calvin Coolidge
"If you're falling off a cliff you may as well try to fly, you've got nothing to lose." - John Sheridan (Babylon 5)
"Sometimes you got to roll the hard six." - William Adama (Battlestar Galactica)
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence...Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." - Calvin Coolidge
"If you're falling off a cliff you may as well try to fly, you've got nothing to lose." - John Sheridan (Babylon 5)
"Sometimes you got to roll the hard six." - William Adama (Battlestar Galactica)
- Sidewinder
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5466
- Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
- Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
- Contact:
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
My guess is the Constitution class was originally designed around a crew of approximately 200, but able to support twice this number in case it's necessary, e.g., to support a Marine Expeditionary Force, to evacuate refugees from a FUBAR planet or space station, etc. As for why the crew was initially small, Starfleet probably intended to shrink starship crews by employing lots and lots of automated systems, only to learn these systems DO NOT WORK, forcing them to reverse this decision. (The US Navy had similar intentions for the Zumwalt class destroyer, and ran into similar problems.)
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
- montypython
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: 2004-11-30 03:08am
Re: Constitution-class crew complement
The later refits did reduce the crew sizes once more, from what I've read from Memory Alpha.Sidewinder wrote:My guess is the Constitution class was originally designed around a crew of approximately 200, but able to support twice this number in case it's necessary, e.g., to support a Marine Expeditionary Force, to evacuate refugees from a FUBAR planet or space station, etc. As for why the crew was initially small, Starfleet probably intended to shrink starship crews by employing lots and lots of automated systems, only to learn these systems DO NOT WORK, forcing them to reverse this decision. (The US Navy had similar intentions for the Zumwalt class destroyer, and ran into similar problems.)