Why Star Trek vessels are so big, when their crew is so small?

Question

Memory Alpha article about Intrepid class ship says, that for example Voyager had 15 decks and only 141 crew members, when setting off for her maiden voyage to Badlands. That's statistically less than a ten crew members per one deck. Isn't that a huge waste of space and resources?

I understand, that statistical calculation is wrong and that deck are used for many more purposes than just hosting crew members. But still, isn't that a huge waste of space and resources (energy, air etc.) to power up, warm and oxygenate such large areas, when there is such small number of people per deck?

I know, that with new economics, it isn't a matter of how much would that cost, to build such a large ship for such a small crew. So, what are the real reasons? What is the reason for not taking much more crew -- more scientists, support crew members, security officers, etc., etc.,

I don't mean, that Voyager's maiden voyage was actually a rescue mission, on which virtually any hand could be useful. Which we can clearly see, when it turns out, that on a such large ship and for such large crew there is only one doctor. Which -- when killed -- must be replaced by EMH.

The same goes for Enterprise in Star Trek: The Next Generation. The ship is just enormously huge, when to compare it to the number of crew members and again have only one doctor.

So... Why Star Trek vessels are so big, when their crew is so small?

Answer 1

A Galaxy-class starship, at 42 decks, had approximately 1000 crew-members. Assuming a similar concentration for Intrepid-class vessels like U.S.S. Voyager, that would have a crew of roughly 300. As you can see at the link I provided, however, there are only 257 rooms on an Intrepid-class starship. Obviously this type of vessel is not built with families in mind, unlike the Galaxy-class, which could actually hold 3000 on occasion.

I see no reason to believe more than 200 personnel would ever be needed on an Intrepid-class ship. After all, most of the decks would not be used for living space. Bearing in mind that Star Trek: Generations and Encounter at Farpoint both showed that starships don't usually take on their full crew until after the conclusion of their shake-down cruise, and it's not surprising that Voyager had such a low crew compliment.

Also, both ships had more than one doctor. Voyager's medical staff were killed in the pilot, and TNG only ever concentrated on Crusher and Pulaski. Even TOS's Enterprise had more than McCoy; he was just the senior doctor on board. Dr M'Benga appeared in several episodes, and was noted as a xenobiologist who specialised in Vulcan physiology. Presumably such differentiation in skills would be common aboard starships, as it is in hospitals and militaries in our own time.

Answer 2

There are two non-exclusive reasons that come to mind for this.

1. People like their space. Resources don't seem to be a large concern for the Federation (yay replicators), and money isn't either, at least internally. With those two limits removed it becomes possible to build large ships with lots of room for everyone. Although even on a large ship like the Enterprise D ensigns are still assigned two to one cabin.
2. Larger, somewhat empty ships should allow for damage mitigation. Also, with more space you can include more redundant systems. Any damage that penetrates the shields is less likely to hit a critical system if it has to first get through three science labs and a holodeck. And when something critical is damaged, Federation systems are built with three redundant backups.

In a way, Federation vessels are like extremely primitive Borg vessels. Almost every time we see the interior of a Borg ship we see huge open areas. And Borg ships are extremely decentralized in nature, allowing undamaged sections to backup damaged ones.

Answer 3

Simply put, most starships are not built for efficiency - they are built for interstellar research, and often act as longtime living quarters (for entire families, in the case of Galaxy-class starships), with holodecks, bars, and even barber shops all taking up space aboard the ship. The relatively small size of the 'crew' aboard the ship could be compared to an oceanic vacation cruise ship, only instead of a two-week vacation, people are living there for years on end.

And there's considerable variation - the Voyager ship with a ratio of 15 Decks to 141 crewmen, is far more efficent than the Galaxy-Class Flagship Enterprise.

Compare this to the Defiant-Class starship, explicity built for combat, with only 4 decks but a crew compliment of around 50, and you can see the glaring difference in design philosophy.

Answer 4

I refer you also to STTNG 4x05 "Remember Me"

Dr Crusher remarked that deck after deck were empty now. Although most of what takes place is not real, it's inside some alternate universe created by a warp bubble, Captain Picard's answer still stands: the space may be needed for temporary extra crew during certain types of mission, or for carrying ambassadors on diplomatic missions, or emergency evacuations, and any number of scenarios.

Answer 5

Your question hinges on the size of the decks. A lighthouse might have a dozen "decks" but a crew of two; a Nimitz aircraft carrier has a crew of about 6,000, and while I couldn't find an exact figure for number of decks, based on the draft it's probably about the same.

Voyager has about 1/3 the decks of Enterprise-D. So at first approximation, we'd expect it to have 1/27th the crew: if it's about 1/3 the width, volume, and height, it'll have 1/27th the volume. The Intrepid class is more compact than the Galaxy class, so it's probably more like 1/10th the volume. The Enterprise had a complement of roughly 1,000, so at 141 Voyager is actually more densely crewed - which makes sense since it's not a big flagship meant to handle diplomatic encounters and evacuations.

Memory Alpha lets us refine this back-of-the-envelope calculation: the Intrepid masses 700,000 tonnes, compared to 5,000,000 for Enterprise, so one crewman peer 5,000 tonnes of ship seems constant. Is this reasonable? For the modern Nimitz class, the same value is 17 - but presumably the Federation has somewhat better automaton, despite their lack of, say, e-mail.

Answer 6

This is rather attacking your premises, but too long for a comment:

But still, isn't that a huge waste of space and resources (energy, air etc.) to power up, warm and oxygenate such large areas, when there is such small number of people per deck?

This makes little to no sense to me:

• Space itself costs nothing, only walls to surround space do. And they are arguably rather cheap in comparison to all the technology on board.

• Space or rooms do not consume power, people and devices do. If you put the same amount of devices and people in a larger space, this does not cost intrisically more power.

• The same goes for oxygen: Humans, plants, pets and some devices consume oxygen, space doesn’t.

• The cost for maintaining the heat of a room (or spaceship) only depends on the surface and the dissipation of heat through that surface and not on the volume. Once you have heated up a perfectly insulated room to a certain temperature, it stays that way. The costs for the initial heating are negligible. Now, admittedly, increasing the volume of a room also increases its surface, but if reducing surfaces were important for Star Trek ships, they would not be designed the way they are (but rather be round or at least cuboid).

To come from the other way: Suppose you already decided that each crew member shall have a door, computer, bed, bathroom, replicator, etc. Now you have to choose between cramming all of these things in a 15 m³ cabin or a 50 m³ one. This does not change the resources (material, electricity, oxygen) consumed by these things or the crew member. The only difference is that you need more walls and it increases the total surface of your ship. But if either of these were a relevant factor, ships would have dramatically different geometries. 

I know, that with new economics, it isn't a matter of how much would that cost, to build such a large ship for such a small crew. So, what are the real reasons? What is the reason for not taking much more crew -- more scientists, support crew members, security officers, etc., etc.,

Well, one thing has to be the limiting factor: Personnel or resources for ships. And if you assume that the cost (and thus the resources) for building a ship do not matter, it has to be personnel. With other words: There are sufficient resources to build spacious ships for all available personnel. Or: Even spacious and comfortable ships do not suffice to attract more personnel.

Answer 7

This is already a trend in naval warships

Compare a WWII destroyer -- 1500 tons displacement, crew of 300 - to a modern Aegis destroyer like the JMSDF Kongo, 10,000 tons displacement, crew of 300. Both with the same core mission: ASW and light surface combat.

A World War II admiral would take one look at the Kongo and say "Cruiser". (If the admiral didn't say "outlandishly large Coast Guard cutter", since the leviathan has only a single gun.)

That's an example of why. The gun can fire 10 rounds off autoloader before it neeeds to be crewed. The ship's real punch is the hundred or so weapons in the fore and aft Vertical Launch System, which takes an inordinate amount of space on board, but has zero crew. The entire anti-aircraft function, from the SAMs to AA guns, is automated. This high level of automation means less crew.

So you saw this on Star Trek: TOS. They had at least one episode where they couldn't fire weapons becase the 2 people in the phaser bank or photon torpedo rooms were incapacitated, and Spock(?) had to brave toxic gas or fire to get the weapons firing. By the 24th century, those people are gone. 21 seasons of three series, and no repeat of that classic drama.

Mind you, Roddenberry and some of the TOS staff were WWII veterans, and were familiar with crewing levels of ships, and carried that sensibility into TOS. By TNG, naval thinking was to automate those tasks, and that reflected in the shows which followed.

Answer 8

Federation starships come with plethora of powerful sensors and internal circuitry for long term exploratory assignments.... not to mention defensive and offensive systems, life support, etc. That's probably the main reason why they are 'big' in the first place... or at least why most of their ships are as big (exploration and the need to house powerful technologies that would effectively make a starship self-sustaining for a given period)...

However, it is also accurate that as technology advances, you'll be able to create new and much more powerful technology with far less resources and physical space requirements.

I would imagine that in the 23rd century (at least during TOS) we could see internal corridors with some conduits, and would pack a larger crew compliment. In the 24th century, technology advanced (obviously), took up less space, and you could create much more spacious quarters as a result... improving living standards for people on long term missions.

Mission parameters might be dictating the size of the crew for a given ship. Or, a simple matter of crew assignments... so starships are built to a certain size, but crew compliments will vary depending on the mission they have... plus I doubt there's any particular need to fill starships to max capacity... especially if humanitarian aid is needed along with possible evacuation (which can also be handled if you keep some people in transporter stasis in addition to having some of them physically on the ship).

A Galaxy class can easily transport 10 000 people at any given time... but most of the time, it has a crew of just over 1000.

The Intrepid class for example might comfortably fit a crew of say 300, but only half as much were at first assigned for a simple mission to the Badlands as the mission parameters probably didn't require more (might also explain why Voyager launched with only 36 photon torpedoes).

So, its a combination of factors. Ships are big due to being exploratory and suited for multiple things at the same time... Federation ships are also built to be relatively modular... so they can be easily upgraded over time. Crew compliments would depend primarily on types of missions.

We saw the Defiant was a 'warship' and quite small. If you automated the heck out of it, it would likely be able to run with only 1 or 2 people... with computer taking care of maintenance, repairs, upgrades, etc. (using transporters and replicators, or anti-grav drones which would have mini replicators, transporters and even tractor beams for moving stuff around).

Obviously, SF doesn't use extreme levels of automation in its ships (even though its more than doable to do this). I suspect, one of the reasons is to keep everyone well versed in ship functions... but quite honestly, this can be accomplished in a different capacity without having a rigid structure that forces people to do monotonous work all the time just for the sake of it (the needed skills can be maintained via gamification for example while they are doing something else... something more productive).

Answer 9

Automation and extensive machinery inside eliminates a vast majority for needed crew manning. But remember it's crew complement consist of shifts for running the vessel in space 24 hours a day. It has a command hierarchy. Engineers, repairmen, damage control, security guards, medical staff, scientific personnel. Living quarters are far larger than normal quarters in real world naval vessels. The shuttle bay, cargo bays, security complex, engineering, control room. Plus the ship stores thousands of tons of cryogenic deuterium. Several massive tanks of stored antimatter. Not to mention a magazine for the weapons on board