But the point here is to refer to the other link from Redditor Mailanka on sub crew duties.
A US Navy sub like the Ohio Class has 155 guys on it per Wikipedia. Just ballparking, the volume of a 170m cylinder 13m wide is 22000 cubic meters, so the crew density is one dude per 150 cubic meters or so. A Jedi Cruiser from TCW at similar values would thus have 100,000 guys on it, but that's way beyond anything we ever saw or had hinted to us, I'd say by a hundred times at least. An ISD has almost five times that volume.
The crew count of smaller vessels like the stealth ship and the Republic Frigate would be huge at such figures. The frigate would need 128 people, but in reality we see a crew of what, maybe half a dozen at best in "Jedi Crash" and elsewhere? I think the crew was more like two or three, so we could probably go even lower. If the frigate suggests 20 times or more fewer people, then 5000 for a cruiser is in the right range, at least.
See also the bottom of this page on volumetrics and crew densities where similar figures result.
About your volumetrics page, have you ever thought of adding the ISV venture star to the list? Its mass is a closely kept secret, and the subject of wild mass guessing. Heres one example: https://youtu.be/6_hOoWfCZGI
I had to google it to even know what it was.
I imagine an accurate length and 3D model could allow a good volume estimate and then one could fight it out over what unobtanium's density might be. Analysis of ground pressure if it lands or terminal velocity if ever seen falling unpowered in an Earth-like atmosphere would be good clues to help guide estimates.
But, as noted on my intro page, Star Trek and Star Wars are topics big enough that I don't see myself expanding anytime soon… though the idea of a Blake's 7 tech site still draws me. That'll be my retirement plan. :-)
The new visual guides might mention crew counts, if your considering those. I'm not a big fan of the new canon; I'd have preferred it if the new eu was officially considered secondary to the films. In my work (if ever I find the time to get back to it..) I'm gonna gonna fly with that.
Then again, all things being equal, I'm quite open about choosing larger, realistic numbers when it comes to the military (in terms of personnell and war machines). A galactic war thought across an entire galaxy with millions of inhabited world's (probably at least thousands of which were quite industrialised) with less soldiers than thought in our own world wars here on earth? This seems totally unbelievable to me. Coruscant's police force would be larger :). - Vince
Oh, my first post has vanished :/
I had pointed out that crew numbers may appear in some of the new canon written sources, and that if I ever get back to my site, I will be using the films as my primary sources. The other post was a continuation... Vince
Your first link is broken.
Your first was caught by Blogger's spam filter for some reason. I have freed it.
I do not consider the visual guides. The Disney publications would've been fine if they'd gone back to the source material. But by trying to mix the universes of Lucas and the EU, they're making a mess.
The galaxy was severely under-militarized from a modern perspective. But, then, *we* are under-militarized from the context of certain parts of history, even outside wartime. The old pre-industrial war-armies of tens and hundreds of thousands are huge even today outside of world wars.
There is an interesting graph of UK force size over only the past century or so. It is generally flat, but for war spikes. But if you took that data and graphed it against the rising population, up by 2/3rds since 1900, the per capita figure has significantly declined.
Both Trek and Wars are probably under-militarized, but TCW-era Wars moreso. Imperial era is just a guessing game.
I thought this might be relavent
Publication: Popular Science
Date: July 2015 US
"Because it's heavily automated, the Zumwalt requires a crew of only 158. A WWII ship of the same size and role needed a crew of 1,196."
Post a Comment