Dynaverse.net

Taldrenites => Starfleet Command Fan Fiction => Topic started by: Scottish Andy on February 20, 2008, 05:04:07 pm

Title: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 20, 2008, 05:04:07 pm

I need to talk to you about a starship's science department. I've been trying to staff my Hermes-class scout ship Aeolus and come up against something I need input on: How do you see the departmental makeup? My deck plans for the 1701-A has the Enterprise with 12 science officers, 10 researchers, 60 assistants. For my scout, with her crew of 230, I'm shifting the crew ratios around to emphasise the communications and science departments. Security has a whole 2 squads (12 people) with the other 30+ (from the original 70s Saladin/Hermes deck plans) going to Communications and Ship Operations. Ops thus has around 40, (weapons staff replaced by special sensor staff, plus shuttle/deck crew). Engineering will be reduced too, or rather split, with people taken from there and put into the Special Services department (Commissary, Quartermaster, Maintenance).

With the scientists, I need your input badly. I may have to bump up the Science complement from 12 science officers, 12 researchers, and 24 assistants, but I may just be misunderstanding the internal structure of the science department.

Previously I was seeing the Officers as the actual scientists in their separate disciplines with the Researchers being Chief Petty Officers trained in scientific method and just a pool to be used by any scientist/discipline, and the Assistants being basic lab techs, knowing how to operate the equipment and run basic experiments/simulations to get all the jobs done, again as just a pool to be used by any scientist/science project.

After looking at this page, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science
I'm thinking with this model my officer complement was going to be pretty heavy and the researchers/assistants would have to be dramatically reduced.

So, I've come up with an alternative model, where:
1) the Science Officers are scientists in their own field but mostly they are the Life Sciences, Planetary Sciences, Astrosciences, Social Sciences, etc sub-division heads/project administrators,
2) the Lab Researchers/NCOs are the actual science specialists in their particular field or discipline, IE Anthrolpology and Arechaeology scientist under Social Sciences subdivision, and
3) the Lab Technicians/Crewmen are technicians running the equipment and trained in basic scientific method.
This is partially backed up by these Memory Alpha pages:
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Astronomical_sciences
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Geological_technician
It is, however refuted by several eps with junior science officers present with speaking roles and officer ranks.

Adopting this second model would lower my officer count, but also my Lab Assistant/Technician count. Anyone into the science aspects more than me, can you give me your opinions and input?

I was thinking also of the disciplines I should stuff aboard a long-range scout vessel. Bearing in mind my idea of a scout's mission is preliminary investigation for a more detailed follow-up later on by cruisers or science vessels, I wanted a broad range of specialists aboard. I've gone for the following roster, but some of these are subdivisions of primary departments like Life Sciences, Planetary Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Social Sciences, Astrosciences, Computer Science, and Medical Science. On that, I'm saying the Applied Sciences are handled by their parent departments: Physics by Engineering, Medical by, well, Medical. The Doctors and Nurses are their own researchers.


Sciences
Computer Scientist O4 - 1 Department Head
Social Scientist O3 - 1 Assist. Dept. Head
Anthropologist
& Archaeologist O1 - 1
Astrogeologist O1 - 1
Astrophysicist O1 - 1
Biologist O1 - 1
Botanist O1 - 1
Oceanographer O1 - 1
Chemist O1 - 1
Sensor Officer O2 - 1
Sensor Chiefs E7 - 3
Lab Researchers E4 - 12
Lab Assistants E1 - 20
Officers 13
Enlisted 35
Total 48

But have you ever tried to actually break down that complement into actual jobs? Also remembering that a starship is a 24-7 entity, and runs on three 8-hour or four 6-hour shifts (or, if you want to be all Submariner about it, 2 shifts of 12 hours, however unlikely that may be)? For every post aboard a ship, there has to be at minimum 2 people to staff it, and for essential posts there has to be one per shift. Factor into that crew pool the reliefs for the essential posts when they go for lunch or a break. Every time I split the rather large crews into shifts, the officers disappear so damn fast... Plus, all the different positions available mean a big skill set involved. Some of them could probably be amalgamated a la Helm/Navigation and Tactical/Communications, but still leaves a lot of specialisations. How do you stop from becoming over-specialised?
Maybe the following will give you all an idea of what I mean. Check out the Xs in each shift column:
http://www.starbase23.net/Databanks-IllustriousCrew.html
http://www.starbase23.net/Databanks-KestrelCrew.html
http://www.starbase23.net/Databanks-KusanagiCrew.html

It really does get ridiculous the number of science disciplines you can specialise in (see the Wiki Fields of Science page), and picking who you're going to want or need on an exploratory mission is... difficult. I'm kinda thinking that, regardless of how what model I go for, the actual scientists would be, in American parlance, Majoring in one specialisation during their Academy courses, and Minoring in a broad range of related fields to cover some more bases.

I have no scientific training, and only my own Uni experiences from my Computer Science degree to go on. So any input you have could be useful.

What do you think?

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Governor Ronjar on February 20, 2008, 05:17:28 pm

I could see any of the 3, but #1 recieved my vote.

We saw plenty of junior officers as science guys in Trek. I see enlisted personnel doing very specific analytical and experimental work to clear time for the officers. The smaller the ship, of course, the smaller the staff, so in some cases, these figures might go right out the window.

--thu guv

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Hstaphath_XC on February 20, 2008, 06:13:58 pm

Number 1 received my vote.  In my experience, #2 would result in far to much in-fighting over support staff between researchers convinced that their work has the higher priority... come to think of it, that will always happen no matter what.   ;)

Number 3 is workable given the setting.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: kadh2000 on February 20, 2008, 07:59:50 pm

I voted #1 but I'll see if I can find something helpful.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Commander La'ra on February 20, 2008, 08:24:00 pm

I voted for #3.  Chances are your officers, while likely qualified in some scientific field, are going to be kept busy with managing the department and what it does rather than actually doing the research.

I'm actually iffy on stocking smaller ships with actual scientists, though.  Is the Science department on a scout really geared for on-board research, or would you actually be looking at a bunch of guys who record and index sensor data and other such for the guys back at Starfleet Research to go over?

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 20, 2008, 10:03:23 pm

Thanks for the responses so far guys.

Quote

I could see any of the 3, but #1 recieved my vote.

We saw plenty of junior officers as science guys in Trek. I see enlisted personnel doing very specific analytical and experimental work to clear time for the officers.

Guv, this actually sounds if you support option 2, not 1. Care to clarify?

Quote

In my experience, #2 would result in far to much in-fighting over support staff between researchers convinced that their work has the higher priority

That's a good point, Hsta. I am kinda hoping that this being the enlightened 23rd century pseudo-military (military plus? Combined Services?) that kind of infighting is not tolerated or not thought of, but if I'm saying they still want recognition in the form of Rank, I kinda have \to accept other foibles to some degree.

Quote

I voted #1 but I'll see if I can find something helpful.

Thanks for your future input, Kadh.

Quote

Is the Science department on a scout really geared for on-board research, or would you actually be looking at a bunch of guys who record and index sensor data and other such for the guys back at Starfleet Research to go over?

This is a really excellent point I hadn't considered at all. I am still feeling my way about this concept and trying on stuff to see what feels right. This point gives me something new to look at.


The third option is what is giving me headaches. In all the deck plans I have, there are usually around 12 science officers, but scores of enlisted science personnel. What do al these enlisted people do? Cleaning beakers, calibrating equipment, maintaining sensors, collating data for the actual scientists for sure, but just how much of that work is actually available?

Edit:
After a "banal" IM conversation with Larry, I think I've decided on a suitable means of compromise.

I personally lean towards lots of actual scientists and a few lab assistants to do the beaker cleaning as above. But if I have all these scientists, are they officers, NCOs, or enlisted? This is my problem, as we then have far too many generals and not enough soldiers. We have either 30 science officers and 10 enlisted technicians, or 5 science officer department administrators, 25 actual science specialist NCOs and 10 enlisted technicians. This bucks the "lower the rank, the greater the numbers" pyramidal scheme that everyone loves using for hierarchies.

So, I think I'll take those 5 officer sub-department administrators, 25 NCO science specialists, and 10 technicians as my science department. This kinda fits in with my experiences in trying to become a Signals Officer in the Canadian Army, as well as tech support for a large company.

Further discussion and comments are of course welcome. I still have that "too many mid-level employees" issue that hasn't been completely put to rest...

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Governor Ronjar on February 20, 2008, 10:53:35 pm

Quote from: Scottish Andy on February 20, 2008, 10:03:23 pm

Care to clarify?

No. ;D

Wrapped my head around that question all I'm gonna.

--thu guv

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: KOTH-KieranXC, Ret. on February 20, 2008, 11:50:41 pm

The idea of the science department being heavy on enlisted doesn't make much sense to me. I agree with your general line of thought, Andy, but I'd replace 10-15 of those NCOs with ensigns/LTJGs who work under the senior science officers as junior scientists, doing all the scientific 'scut work' as it were. (Not the menial type jobs, those would go to the junior enlisted; I mean things like analyses, supporting research, etc.)

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: kadh2000 on February 21, 2008, 01:00:16 am

After hitting the US Navy website, a typical research ship in the navy has approximately 35-40 crew depending on the mission and 20 civilians on board.  The civilians are the scientists and their support.  You could have then a reasonable size without the military pyramid being messed up.  Searching the different classes of vessel, the scientific team averages 20-25 and the mission crew (regular crew) varies widely depending on the size and mission of the ship.

Larger classes of ships have a slightly larger military crew but a scientific crew seems to run up to about 60 civilians, 35 technicians, and mission crew.  These ships tend to bear the USNS designation. 

Hope this helps.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 21, 2008, 09:16:44 am

Kieran, as I said I originally favoured Option#2 in my poll, with senior officers (Commanders, Lt. Commanders, senior Lieutenants) being the Department Admins and scientists in their own right, junior officers (Ensigns, Lt. JGs, Lieutenants) being the scientists doing the majority of the scientific investigative and collating work, only a comparatively few enlisted NCO personnel being sensor operators and maintainers, and some more but still small number of crewmen being drudge workers, like Geological Technician Fisher running tricorder surveys and such like.

This does lead to at best equal numbers of science officers and and science enlisted crew, which flies in the face of the beloved pyramidal structure but which is actually backed up by my own experiences in tech support. We have 4 Service Desk Agents, (Scut Workers) 4 Onsite Technicians (Equipment Specialists) and easily 20 Tier 3 Application/Infrastructure Support peeps (Scientists). There are a lot of different areas to support, like network infrastructure, email, databases, specific applications, etc.
So, in my organisation, the largest number of support people are the Tier 3 specialists covering as many areas as possible. This is how I am likening the humongous areas of specialisation in science, but it does lead the science department to be 85% officer or 75% NCO, depending on the model you pick.

The compromise Larry and I "agreed" on in last night's IMs was that there would be a few officers as admins, the largest division by far of personnel would be science specialist NCOs, and again, a few crewmen for the menial "scut work". This too flies in the face of pyramidal scheme, but is backed up by what I looked into for the Signal Corps: a junior officer trained in the discipline as an admin charge of a bunch of older, more experienced senior NCO specialists in the discipline.
My only problem with this is that Signals Corps is a technical discipline and these guys operate their own equipment so there is no 'scut work' per say - or rather, there is no 'officer work' as it's all about the tech side, so junior enlisted can be thin on the ground.
 
Kadh, that was exactly the kind of input I was looking for and as such is very helpful. Thanks muchly!
This was the kind of scenario I was arguing with Larry. On a military vessel, scientists are "extra" personnel. For a starship to act as a warship, you can just get rid of the science personnel and your crew drops by 50 or 100, and you could use the quarters for marines or extra boarding parties, or leave them empty.

Having them as regular crew and in the chain of command (if not line personnel) offers unique issues. Can you really have the science personnel, trained as science and sensor specialists, doubling as engineers, aux helmsmen, medical orderlies? Larry was saying they wouldn't be hanging around during their duty shift and ships always have something that needs done aboard her so having a quarter of your on-duty crew goofing off cause there's no science mission is dumb. The same could be said of the weapons crews too. You're not in a battle all the time. I'm sure they have other, scientific things they can do with their time even though he convinced me that they'll not all be doing research projects.

Dragging myself kicking and screaming back to the main issue: we are mostly agreed on lots of scientists and only a few scut workers. We also agree that the admin positions will be officers. But what will the majority of those scientists be? Officer, or senior NCO? We saw plenty of junior science officers on Kirk's Enterprise, but that boosts the officer complement through the roof. Does it make good organisational sense to have a science department of 5 officer-admins, 20 officer-scientists, 5 NCO-equipment specialists, and 10 crewman-scut workers? 5 officer-admins, 25 NCO-scientists, and 10 crewmen-beaker cleaners?

:banghead: I'm going to hurt myself on this, or Larry's gonna kill me.  :'(  Either way, the prognosis is worrying... :D

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: TAnimaL on February 21, 2008, 09:26:05 am

I voted #3, thinking of the scientist/astronauts currently in orbit, with multiple degrees and training. Kinda reflects my favorite kind of ST fiction, the novels of Diane Duane, where the crew were multitalented and diverse, and would know the difference tween a cosmic string and a quatnum filament ;)

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: kadh2000 on February 21, 2008, 02:37:23 pm

Further addendum for my commentary, derived after talking to a couple of navy buddies and a NASA scientist friend.

The scientific crew are civilians under contract to the navy.  They have a command structure based on seniority and pay rank, so they would have a pyramid setup of their own that would be entirely civilian.  Since they're working for the government, they have gs ranks for their pay which makes a very convenient (and thus used) structure for their relative position in the pyramid.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Lieutenant_Q on February 21, 2008, 03:22:26 pm

Also note that the science labs do not have to be fully staffed 24/7.  More than likely the science labs will be fully staffed on "Day" shift only.  A slightly smaller staff would be on hand for the "Night" shift, while only a skeleton crew would be on hand for the "Graveyard" shift.

Also not all of the labs will be staffed all the time, which is why I think there will tend to be a few more officers (with multiple fields of expertise) than NCOs.  You don't need a planetary science lab staffed when your not in a solar system.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Starforce2 on February 21, 2008, 06:01:16 pm

I'm sorry to say I really don't have much to say about rank structure, even after reading your post I am more confused than anything. Sorry I couldn't help ya more, but I tried.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 22, 2008, 08:32:35 am

Lol! I do have that effect on people... Thanks for the effort though.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Governor Ronjar on February 22, 2008, 06:29:13 pm

Quote from: Scottish Andy on February 22, 2008, 08:32:35 am

Lol! I do have that effect on people...

INDEED.

--guv

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Czar Mohab on February 22, 2008, 08:14:45 pm

Didn't vote, skimmed the rest.

If you want a decent % of officers to enlisted just look up any US military command. Most of the websites that are around usually say something like X officers, Y enlisted, Z civilians (if any, or even if it is listed).

An excellent example taken from the best ship in the fleet (currently... there's been and probably will be others that are the 'best') here (https://www.michigan.navy.mil/html/stats.htm).

There's also this crappy ship here (https://www.ohio.navy.mil/html/stats.htm), but its much of the same. (intra-fleet rivalry, I guess, but they do call her O-hydro for a reason...)

I'll let you do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Unfortunately for Star Trek, they didn't do a good job of separating officer and enlisted. Ever. You were either an officer, allowed to be in the show, or a crewman, a future casualty. They tried with Chief O'Brien, but that's not sufficient in my eyes... IIRC, he was an officer first, and I'm pretty sure no one has been officer, then enlisted. TOS, I suppose, tried too, but again, not quite good enough for me. The Guv tries to include enlisted types, and a good job he does, too.

Czar "Better to work down on the deckplates, than to be an officer and never do work" Mohab  :laugh:

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Commander La'ra on February 22, 2008, 10:49:45 pm

Quote from: Czar Mohab on February 22, 2008, 08:14:45 pm

TOS, I suppose, tried too, but again, not quite good enough for me.

While you see evidence of enlisted types on TOS (Technician Fisher, Rands 'Yeoman First class' quarters sign, etc), Gene Roddenberry was actually against the idea of Starfleet having enlisted ranks.  He thought having all officers was more 'astronaut-like' or something.  Hence, they never emphasized it.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 23, 2008, 11:19:49 pm

Quote

If you want a decent % of officers to enlisted just look up any US military command.

This is the problem though, Czar. Modern military gives a good starting point for crew details, but no modern military ship has a complement of dozens of military scientists aboard. The military contracts this out to the civvies, as Kadh's sources state. Starfleet has serving scientists who are full members with career paths. Mentioning for a moment Picard's ridiculous assertion that "Starfleet is not a military organisation" (from 'TNG: The Neutral Zone', I think), Starfleet is a "more-than-military" organisation whose military role is their secondary role, subordinate to exploration (except, obviously, in times of war).

I am attempting to factor in a traditionally civilian role to an at-least paramilitary* organisation. I'm creating HR policy for an exploratory and defensive navy of the 23rd century. There is no or little precedence in our current navy structure, and anyway, new rules have to be made to suit the new organisation. Sticking dogmatically to centuries-old traditional true-military navy policy is dumb for a half-and-half organisation like Starfleet. It is based on those navies, but has to have evolved from them.

*

Quote

paramilitary: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force

I've just decided: screw it. My science Departments are going to have a bunch of science OFFICERS as the scientists and administrators, several CHIEFS as complex equipment operators, and several TECHNICIANS as scut-workers. It's the model that makes most sense to me, and sod traditional and outdated manpower models.

Nyah. So there.  ;D  Thanks to all for your input, it was definitely valuable and I appreciate the time you took to debate me. I look forward to doing this with you more often.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Czar Mohab on February 24, 2008, 01:06:07 am

Quote from: Czar Mohab on October 02, 2007, 12:01:35 am

   Delaware wasn’t the small science vessel of the Oberth line; Starfleet had sent along more researchers and scientists than would fit in that class’ small but capable hull. No, Starfleet had sent along one of its finer ships-of-the-line, a Miranda hull modified with enough lab space and sensor suites to make any starbase’s chief science officer envious.

You don't have to give a direct number. You can just say more than X but less than Y. You don't even have to say that much. A shipload of scientists. Fine by me. Especially in our non-military Federation. :D

AND:

Quote from: Czar Mohab on January 30, 2008, 08:00:29 pm

You know me, you write it I'll read it. You want to say, "Fire the Futon Torpedoes and make the ship go that way!", then I'll buy it.

Said it to the Roginator. I'll say it to you. Put it in text. I'll read it. I think you are pining over this too much. You could have been in the US Navy. Attention to detail, and all. ;)


'nuff said. Now get to writing!


Czar "Me too" Mohab, who apologizes for his own delays.

P.S. Andy, I don't know if you've seen this, but I had to "use" it today, and you came to mind. This is just for fun (http://46an2.com/b3n/pics/funneh/master_english.jpg), OK?[/color]

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Commander La'ra on February 24, 2008, 02:11:09 am

Czar, as I've come to realize, this is HOW Andy has fun. ;D

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 24, 2008, 11:03:31 am

Quote

You want to say, "Fire the Futon Torpedoes and make the ship go that way!", then I'll buy it.

That line is coming in my 'Star Trek: IKEA' parody.  ;D

Quote

You could have been in the US Navy. Attention to detail, and all.

I'll take that as a compliment.  :)

Quote

Andy, I don't know if you've seen this...

I haven't, but that's hilarious. I love it!

Quote

Czar, as I've come to realize, this is HOW Andy has fun.

Took you bloody long enough - especially after repeated tellings! And, here's what I posted on another forum.

Quote

As an aside: I love figuring this stuff out. It gives me great joy. It is also why my story production is so slooow...

And...

Quote

I know this really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I just like to figure out this stuff. We're basically arguing "which captain is better?" Everyone has their own preferences, but we each try to convince the other of our respective viewpoints. Think of this as, if nothing else, an exercise of our debating and communications skills. Are we making our points? Are we communicating our perspective clearly enough, or are we relying too much on out own unexplained assumptions that are not supported by facts? Etc., etc.

Besides, this is important - to us. Well, to me, at least.  ;D  I'm a ship nut first and foremost, probably more so than Ady. I got into telling stories from playing a game where I got to fly Star Trek ships. Don't tell me it isn't important - just because it isn't important to you. It's what I do, and I derive great pleasure from arguing and deciding such trivia. People even more ship-nut that I am put together the blueprints the Intrepid Team and the other fan films use for their sets.
Oh, and just so as you know, since this is text and bereft of tone of voice, I'm not offended, angry or anything like it. Just stating a fact.  ;)

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Governor Ronjar on February 27, 2008, 05:19:22 pm

Futons away, Keptin! Direct hit!!

--guv

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Tus-XC on February 27, 2008, 06:55:05 pm

So since our convo on MSN, i've been thinking about this a bit.  First off it would be hard to have a true rank pyramid, with more enlisted than officer if you don't have contractors. Since you've removed tha possibility in our convo this is what I've come up with a possible solution.

First off let me begine with a break down

---	---	Department Head (O-5)	---	---
---	DCO (O-4)	<______|______>	DO (O-4)	---
|__>		STAFF (11 people, 8 permanent (thoug will probably assigned to a section for duty) 3 Division Chiefs, 1 Enlsited E-8)

Division (showing 1 division)

---	---	Division Chief (O-4)	---	---
---	DCO (O-3)	<______|______>	DO (O-3)	---
|__>		STAFF (4 permanent (also assigned to a section for duty), X Section Chiefs, 1 Enlsited E-7)

Section (1 shown)

---	---	Section Chief (O-3)	---	---
|__>		STAFF (35, 2 O-3, 4 O-2, 8 O-1, 20 Enlisted technicians,)

And now the explanation.

Fito start, forgive the termonlogy, I'm sorta quessing at that, the idear is sound imho.  Not everyone assigned to the department will be working as a scientist, there is always an administrative side of things that is rarely recognized.  I've tried to show that in here as best as i can.    Basically I've broken this down into 3 tiers, the first being the department.  This is mostly administrative, and isn't very large.  I put the department head as an O-5, though it woudl be possible to have an O-6 (just not a common occurance).  From there I think the staff is basically explanatory.  I basically split it into 3 divisions, Life sicences, Physics, and Astrometics...  I'm sure you all can think of somemore large and broad areas to cover.  However, this i think covred most of the stuff I would expect on a ship.  I don't think I have to to go much into what the division level does, its much like the department level, just a bit more closer to the action.

The last level is the section, here there is only a section chief, but no real staff like the other two division.  the numbers I gave are rough guesses, and i would imagine that in most cases the actual size would vary depending on availability and need.  I have more enlisted in this section because they will be the ones running and maintaining the equipment.  while the Officer will be quite a bit more hands on, there will be still alot of work that needs to be done, most of which will only require a technical background and training to accomplish.  I figure about 50% of their stuff will be rather routine, so it would make sense then to have an enlisted staff to help with the work load.    Now my rough estimates put this at 140 officers and 164 enlisted for this department, this is about 2-3 sections per division, with 3 divisions, and some extra manpower thrown into the mix. 

Granted this is very rough, but I think it is a good start. 

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on February 28, 2008, 08:50:01 am

Excellent Rob! Many thanks for this breakdown. It shows officer-enlisted numbers almost at parity, at nearly a 1:1 ratio. This is pretty much what I expected. And yo are right about modern bureaucracies, the breed "admin staff" like nobody's business. As a new ship CO and having sway over who actually comes along on my mission, I'm having the officers double as Admin staff. In this way, they have all their Admin tasks  to perform when on duty even if there is no actual science work to do. This way, numbers are kept down and Larry's idle Science Dept model is held at bay. (I won't say it doesn't happen).

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Czar Mohab on February 29, 2008, 06:07:39 pm

Tus- I'm assuming that "section" is just a further break down of the division. WAY back in boot camp, our division of 90 or so recruits was split 50/50(ish... sometimes we'd get one more, sometimes we'd lose a few) into Port Watch and Starboard Watch Sections. Outside of marching drills and the like, this really served no purpose. I didn't serve on any surface ship, where divisions could easily number 100+, but after the boot, there was no sections.

I'm not sure if the numerical breakdown is a "secret" or not, so I won't get into the actual numbers, but on the good ol' 727, after the CO and XO came the department heads, Nav (navigator), Weps (weapons officer), Eng (engineer), and Chop (supply). Division Officers (Div-O's) were next, usually one officer for each division (there were occasions where we had more officers than divisions, and other occasions where we had less, and some just never got a Div-O).

On the enlisted side, it started with the COB (Chief of the Boat, read: Command Master Chief), next the department master chiefs (not always E9's), and not always chiefs), then division chiefs (Could be E6-E8), then LPO's (Leading Petty Officers, usually a 1st class, but could be 2nd) and then finally the rest of the divisions. Some smaller divisions wouldn't have an LCPO (div. chief) and would report to (through the LPO) to the next closest divisions' chief.

One thing that sticks out is Doc. A one man power division. He was his own LPO, Chief and Div-O. Also usually one of the "cooler" guys on board.

There is a very important thing to note: In the surface fleet, it is an entirely different ball game. Such as two or more divisions of the same type, each with its own div-o, but reporting to yet another officer before reaching the DH. I don't know the full story behind how they ran their show.

For this science vessel, I wouldn't stray too high into the O5-O6 land for DH's. Our DH's were usually only O4's. Even our XO was. (Keeping out of the Movies (Captains Kirk, Spock, Sulu (Pre-Excel, IIRC), and Scott come right to mind...), ST did a good job keeping the officer hierarchy in check. Just remember that O4=Lieutenant Commander. Data, LaForge, older Worf, younger Scott, younger Spock, et al, were all LCDR's, and DH's.

If you need further help, you know how to find me (Email/PM/MSN/Yahoo... should be in profile page).

Czar "Under the Sea..." Mohab, who is only trying to help.

Title: Re: Science Personnel and Ranks on Fed ships
Post by: Scottish Andy on March 01, 2008, 12:57:05 am

Thanks for the additional data Czar, it is much appreciated!

Don't worry about my senior ranks being top-heavy. The captain of my ship is a Commander, and he has 230 crew. About half the Dept heads are Lt. Cdrs (including Science), and divisions or sub-department heads (Planetary Sciences, Astrosciences, Social Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, etc.) will be the senior lieutenants. All other science officers will be Lt. JG or Ens.

For my actual science department breakdown on the Aeolus I decided on:

1x Department Head
- Lieutenant Commander
- Computer Science Division Chief (Computer Scientist)

6x Division Chief
- Lieutenant
- Social Sciences Division Chief (Sociologist, senior Lt., is Asst. Dept. Head)
- Astro Sciences Division Chief (Astrophysicist)
- Planetary Sciences Division Chief (Geologist)
- Physics Division Chief (High Energy (Particle) Physicist)
- Chemistry Division Chief (Physical Chemist)
- Life Sciences Division Chief (Biologist)

17x Junior Science Officer
- Lieutenant JG & Ensign
Computer Sciences
- Mathematician
Social Sciences
- Anthropology & Archaeology
- Economist
- Political Scientist
Astrosciences
- Astronomer
- Physical Cosmologist
- Stellar Cartographer
Planetary Sciences
- Climatologist & Environmental Scientist
- Mineralogist
- Oceanographer
Physics
- Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physicist
- Quantum Physicist
Chemistry
- Biochemist
Life Sciences
- Botanist
- Geneticist
- Microbiologist & Virologist
- Zoologist

9x Lab Researcher - E4 to E7
12x Lab Technician - E1 to E3

Total staff: 45


If you have any suggestions for speciality changes please let me hear them. Bear in mind this is a scout ship on a mission designed to detect, catalogue, and explain encountered phenomena in uncharted space, as well as actually charting that uncharted space, and perform preliminary investigations so that follow-up crews have an accurate base to work from for their in-depth studies.  Also, that Linguistics and Cryptography specialists will be in the Communications Dept. and some of the Life Sciences people will actually be in the Medical Dept., and so are not covered here.