csdeptaa@unm-cvax.UUCP (09/22/84)
>Subject: Re: Ships complement (ie. Blueprints) - (nf) >From: elb@hou5e.UUCP >Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ >Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 07:14:17 MDT >I'm a little surprise that there are 93 engineering specialists >and only 74 science technicians. Isn't the mission of the enterprise >such as to require significant numbers of scientists?? and only 4 >lead scienctists (I forget what they were labeled) ? >Am I the only one who thinks this is strange? >Ellen Bart I don't think Ellen is the only one who thinks it's strange, that is if they did not understand logistics very well! There would be no scientific mission if the ship did not function right. Usually, the supply & support needs (logistics) are larger than those of the mission. The ratio is more like 426 for support to 4 lead scientist and these 4 are, they have to be, the tops in their fields. If another scientist was added, the ship used would have to be larger than it is now and that design may have been unfeasible. On the other hand, a special case might warrant adding one or more other scientist. eg., an all vulcan crew could have five or six scientist without effecting the ship's efficiency, however an all tellarite crew could only have two or three scientist on board without causing problems. Chris Wayne @ UNM
hardie@uf-csg.UUCP (Peter T Hardie [stdnt]) (11/02/84)
As to the ratio of scientists:crew on a starship. Remember, Darwin was almost alone on the Beagle when it sailed, and it was a lowly aquatic vessel. Pete Hardie -- Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould username: hardie