Realistic Number of Crew?

[Piatzin]

So as some of you might remember, I'm in the process of writing a science fiction novel (planned trilogy). Interstellar ships are very common, and are actually part of the main focus of the novel, but I've been fretting over the statistics of the warships. Specifically, how much crew is really needed?

I know some (unrealistic) sci-fi's like Star Wars feature thousands of crew and things, while others are slightly more moderated, but my ships have very little people on them even when compared to the smaller crews of already existing craft.

For example, the typical warship in my novel is roughly 600 meters in length (about 100-250 meters in width and height, it depends) and have a crew capacity of 500. Most are soldiers, and only about 50 are engineers, pilots, or people concerned with the workings and maneuvering of the ship. Some others are medical staff, etc, but 500 people in total is the maximum.

The ships have large hangars inside, which take up a lot of space. The interior space is about a third of what you would get if the ships were completely hollow, since a lot of the stuff between the walls is packed with machinery and, near the back, engines. Of the remaining space, a lot of is storage. For me, 50 people working on a ship that could theoretically function on it's own via some sort of algorithm is realistic, but what do you guys think? (Feel free to ask for more details if they're needed).

EDIT: Time period is 2272

Edited January 25, 2018 by Earthlinger

[Kerbinchaser]

Well...

Let's see here. 

The USS Nimitz, (A nuclear carrier) carries 6,000 people. Here is the list of personnel: 

Spoiler

 

Administration

Maintenance Management

Air

Medical

Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance

Navigation

Chaplain

Operations

Communications

Safety

Deck

Supply

Dental

Training

Engineering

Weapons

 

full article here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-command-structure-on-a-Nimitz-class-aircraft-carrier

A Star Destroyer carries 37,000 people. <-- Wait. Thats TOO drastic. 

I'm thinking that a crew of maybe 100/250 would be good. That would be good to control and manage everything. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Lo Var Lachland

[Piatzin]

4 minutes ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

The USS Nimitz, (A nuclear carrier) carries 6,000 people. Here is the list of personnel: 

Nimitz is a carrier, which is usually expected to have more crew than a conventional warship. Also, we're talking about interstellar ships, which means that a lot of the processes that humans carry out today will be automated

I'm not sure exactly what new processes would need human intervention though, so the emerging technologies might actually keep the crew at more or less equal quantities...

[Kerbinchaser]

1 minute ago, Earthlinger said:

Nimitz is a carrier, which is usually expected to have more crew than a conventional warship. Also, we're talking about interstellar ships, which means that a lot of the processes that humans carry out today will be automated

I'm not sure exactly what new processes would need human intervention though, so the emerging technologies might actually keep the crew at more or less equal quantities...

Hmm.... What time period are you talking here?

[Piatzin]

1 minute ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Hmm.... What time period are you talking here?

2272. Probably should have mentioned that lol

[Kerbinchaser]

1 minute ago, Earthlinger said:

2272. Probably should have mentioned that lol

LOL

Edited January 25, 2018 by Lo Var Lachland

[DAL59]

33 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:

So as some of you might remember, I'm in the process of writing a science fiction novel (planned trilogy). Interstellar ships are very common, and are actually part of the main focus of the novel, but I've been fretting over the statistics of the warships. Specifically, how much crew is really needed?

I know some (unrealistic) sci-fi's like Star Wars feature thousands of crew and things, while others are slightly more moderated, but my ships have very little people on them even when compared to the smaller crews of already existing craft.

For example, the typical warship in my novel is roughly 600 meters in length (about 100-250 meters in width and height, it depends) and have a crew capacity of 500. Most are soldiers, and only about 50 are engineers, pilots, or people concerned with the workings and maneuvering of the ship. Some others are medical staff, etc, but 500 people in total is the maximum.

The ships have large hangars inside, which take up a lot of space. The interior space is about a third of what you would get if the ships were completely hollow, since a lot of the stuff between the walls is packed with machinery and, near the back, engines. Of the remaining space, a lot of is storage. For me, 50 people working on a ship that could theoretically function on it's own via some sort of algorithm is realistic, but what do you guys think? (Feel free to ask for more details if they're needed).

EDIT: Time period is 2272

FTL? 

[Kerbinchaser]

5 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

FTL? 

Yeah, I was about to ask. 

[justidutch]

I'm thinking that by 2272, a ship will be completely autonomous.  At the very most, maybe you want a human, or panel of them to make executive decisions, but the execution of menial tasks such as navigation, targeting, scrubbing toilets, etc, would be handled by the ship's computer.  But I guess that wouldn't make for a very interesting story!

[ZooNamedGames]

Around 20 would be sufficient to keep isolationism from sinking in and driving you crazy (I'm not crazy you are!)

[DAL59]

I mean, the BFR is supposed to only carry 10 to Mars on its first flight, and with advancements in AI, larger and larger ships could be controlled.  If you need lots a shuttles for exploring or boarding parties, you obviously need more, but you probably need 12 people, so you can have 4 6 hour shifts of 3.

[Piatzin]

11 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

FTL? 

Warp drives, so technically yes. Takes about a day to travel one light year, and the furthest colonies are about three weeks away from Earth.

6 minutes ago, justidutch said:

I'm thinking that by 2272, a ship will be completely autonomous.  At the very most, maybe you want a human, or panel of them to make executive decisions, but the execution of menial tasks such as navigation, targeting, scrubbing toilets, etc, would be handled by the ship's computer.  But I guess that wouldn't make for a very interesting story!

Advanced AI is actually outlawed (probably should add this to the OP ) so the ship is incapable of making complex decisions. Most of the maintenance is automated, but navigation is not. (Targeting is partly autonomous). FTL communication technology is not a thing though, so you would need at least some people on board

[justidutch]

1 minute ago, Earthlinger said:

Advanced AI is actually outlawed

Hmmm.  I can see rogue programmers making a lot of quick cash in your universe! 

[Piatzin]

2 minutes ago, justidutch said:

Hmmm.  I can see rogue programmers making a lot of quick cash in your universe! 

COugh coUGH already happened, but it's done by extremist-type groups

But otherwise it's nonexistent

The reason for why the general populace is so obedient is related to plot twists

Edited January 25, 2018 by Earthlinger

[Scotius]

I'd say a minimum number of crew is three. This way if something happens to one of them, the remaining two can still keep the ship somewhat functional. One crewmember would be very hard pressed to keep things going 24\7. Maximum number though... do you intend to involve more crewmembers in the plot, or will it be a "core" group of few individuals "Star Trek" style? In the first case, number should be fairly low - a dozen of people or so. This way everyone will have something to do, but you shouldn't lose track of them. In the second case the total number can be arbitrarily high - since 90% of the crew will be only in background anyway. I'd suggest reading a bit about RL submarines - which are closest thing we have that can be compared to spaceships on long cruises. Then you can decide how much automation will be involved and cut down the size of human component

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

I'd say a minimum number of crew is three. This way if something happens to one of them, the remaining two can still keep the ship somewhat functional. One crewmember would be very hard pressed to keep things going 24\7. Maximum number though... do you intend to involve more crewmembers in the plot, or will it be a "core" group of few individuals "Star Trek" style? In the first case, number should be fairly low - a dozen of people or so. This way everyone will have something to do, but you shouldn't lose track of them. In the second case the total number can be arbitrarily high - since 90% of the crew will be only in background anyway. I'd suggest reading a bit about RL submarines - which are closest thing we have that can be compared to spaceships on long cruises. Then you can decide how much automation will be involved and cut down the size of human component

This, you probably want crew independent on automation level. Now its an question on how smart the AI is, known space had human level AI go insane after weeks. 
You can still have an high level of automation but you have to supervise a lot. 
it also depend on the type of ship, frigate or capital ship, if FTL drive is huge or have high requirements having it as an carrier for smaller ships up to destroyer size makes sense. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Earthlinger said:

Warp drives, so technically yes. Takes about a day to travel one light year, and the furthest colonies are about three weeks away from Earth.

Advanced AI is actually outlawed (probably should add this to the OP ) so the ship is incapable of making complex decisions. Most of the maintenance is automated, but navigation is not. (Targeting is partly autonomous). FTL communication technology is not a thing though, so you would need at least some people on board

Oh well, you were doing fine until this. But then again I think most sci-fantasy and sci-fi is really bad with physics and economics (economics really being the post neolithic ecology of humans), except HHGTG because it makes good sport of all the rest of them.

Noone, of course, pays attention to me. I think Stargate Universe was the most realistic (far from being realistic on a physical scope, but does show the cost being done to do instellar things)  and it was quickly cancelled, too dark.

And phrasing it this way we can argue one of several things. FTL may be possible, I seriously doubt that it is, K2 thinks it might be possible. But if it is possible the forces involved are incredibly risky and probably incompatible with living. So from that point of view if you wanted to blow up a ship one good way of [handwaving] is warping to about 100 meters from that ship and stopping.  Of course you would also be dead, and all that matter that was being carried that the gravity, light, muons, nutrinos,  . . . . .carried in its well in front of your craft would suddenly expand into space with the force that particles experience during a supernova. There is no mechanism other than exiting our Universe, whereby you travel FTL and then somehow come out and you are alive. You would have to warp into something (Some call it hyperspace< but hyperspace is just space time). And when they enter hyperspace there is something already in it, which defeats the reason for using it. You want a parallel universe that has no matter or light that only you cross into and exit from that is curling the spot that you want to be to the position where you enter . . .a hyperspace manifold. So again this is if and if and if then so basically it just bunky . Sci-Fi. Jumpgates, Stargates, . . . . . all rely on point energy densities that are incompatible with human existence.

But lets say that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive  is possible first of you need alot of energy, not a little, most of your ship is going to comprise of contained antimatter, you are essentially creating a matter-less black hole in front of you ship and an antigravitational black hole behind it. Your ship is not a warship so much as its a bomb. You would not eject the antimatter container because that container would comprise much of your ship. Not only that the bigger the warp bubble, the more energy you would need, so that you want a really spherical compact ship with energy concentators at the front and antigravity generator at the back.

The third thing is that once you get people into space, unless you are trashing the rif-raff in your society (and it almost always better to recycle their nutrients in space) you don't what to be throwing that at your enemies. So as a matter of fact the better the drive and warship, the less people you want to have on it, and the more automated the systems would have to be. AI is also part of star trek, if you see the new series one of the commanders is transported away from the battle when it was found that the risk of death was too great. The food synthesizer are a form of AI, the transporters are reconstructing the pattern buffers, etc. All this stuff is done by the computer and the users are throttle throwers or button pushers.   Its almost better that if you are space fairing, and you know someone is going to attack you just to leave and mine your space with hard to detect weapons, attacking them at their home planet is pretty dumb unless they are some sort of galactic superthreat. So without AI I don't see a valid sci-fi that also supports a decent crew.

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by PB666

[Thor Wotansen]

I would tend to disagree with @PB666 on the necessity of AI in the form of interstellar travel you describe.  The calculations necessary to run an Alcubier drive accurately can already be done by modern computers, we just don't have the Alcubier drive.  As for the number of crew, you have to make sure you have tasks for the crew to do while they are en route.  This would probably be less for the upkeep of the ship and more to give the people a feeling of usefulness, as well as to get their minds off of whatever war type situation they might be going into.  This might mean that you don't use a toilet scrubbing robot, even if you could.  Without FTL communication, you will definitely need people onboard who know the inner workings of the ship and can fix inflight problems that might cripple the vessel.  I would say not less than 40 full time crew, not including whatever ground forces you would be bringing along.  Having enough people is important psychologically, and as you will invariably need to bring some people, you have to make sure they don't go crazy at some point in the deployment.

[Terwin]

Automation adds complexity to a system and the more complex it is, the easier it is to damage and the harder it is to repair.

While the air-force may have different priorities, the army and navy seem to be very keen on keeping things simple, easy to repair and highly manual.

This means that the vehicles are more robust and require a lot more crew/maintenance.

Following this methodology it would be easy to have a much larger staff of engineers and technicians on military vessels than on similarly capable civilian vessels.

(compare the crew compliment of almost any naval vessel against large cargo vessels for example)

[YNM]

Assuming some sort of FTL (so no "generation ship"), I'd estimate the skeleton crew who needs to run around and ensure stuff happens can be as low as... 10 ? 20 ? Tankers IRL only have a very small amount of crew, and while I know you'd need some people who can bring it into battle mode, with the future tech being there (it's 23rd century ! bet you have no idea what would be there) I guess having them monitors and approve the computer-advised actions in a somewhat central room while cameras and stuff takes care of the ships innards could mean the same run-around crew can be deployed in. Though, as that's only skeleton crew, you might need more (or waay more) for deploying full battle, maybe with crew rotation or so, and maybe for extreme alert mode. AFAIK the only reason why battleships should be capable of handling a lot of people (in this case, hundreds pr even thousands) is for troop transport.

Edited January 25, 2018 by YNM

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

FTL communication technology is not a thing though, so you would need at least some people on board

Can't you have tiny relay drones?  

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

Automation adds complexity to a system and the more complex it is, the easier it is to damage and the harder it is to repair.

While the air-force may have different priorities, the army and navy seem to be very keen on keeping things simple, easy to repair and highly manual.

This means that the vehicles are more robust and require a lot more crew/maintenance.

Following this methodology it would be easy to have a much larger staff of engineers and technicians on military vessels than on similarly capable civilian vessels.

(compare the crew compliment of almost any naval vessel against large cargo vessels for example)

Exactly. People are the most flexible resource you have. A civilian ship tries to operate with as small of a crew as possible, because more people mean more labor costs. A military ship operates with a much, much bigger crew, because more people mean more flexibility and more redundancy in case of need. As mentioned, a large aircraft carrier has a crew of many thousands of people. Even larger supertankers have a crew of fewer than 50.

[radonek]

For travels on the order of weeks, I'd say about a dozen. Commercial vessels could do with much less.

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

While the air-force may have different priorities, the army and navy seem to be very keen on keeping things simple, easy to repair and highly manual.

In other words, air-force proves wrong, so let's just ignore it and focus on something conviniently distant from actual thing. 

[PB666]

6 minutes ago, radonek said:

For travels on the order of weeks, I'd say about a dozen. Commercial vessels could do with much less.

In other words, air-force proves wrong, so let's just ignore it and focus on something conviniently distant from actual thing. 

This is not travel on the high seas where the air is pressurized, autorecycled. . . . . .humas are very expensive in such space craft, the would spend more time tying to keep themselves alive. Voyager probes (both) are still running after more than 40 years without human intervention. 

[kerbiloid]

Don't forget the holy grail of KSP - ProjectRho, Atomic Rockets.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarship.php

Edited January 26, 2018 by kerbiloid