Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Auxiliary Complement of a Merchant Ship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Dodge, IA, USA
    Posts
    1,337

    Auxiliary Complement of a Merchant Ship

    A discussion yesterday progressed into the quandary of what auxiliary units would be carried aborad a merchant ship. Some believed it would carry a similar complement of a starship: shuttlecraft, shuttle pods, and cargo shuttles. I agreed that a Starfleet operated cargo or transport would be outfitted with a similar complement to a starship, however, I felt civilian operated vessels would not; unless operated by someone once within Starfleet, but this would be the exception and not the rule.

    Anyway, this got me thinking as to what would constitute the complement of a civilian merchant ship and I came up with:

    Two cargo skiffs, a la Star Wars VI, in case the receiver of the goods will take possession of those goods at a location some distance from the downport docks.

    Four cargo skiffs, a la a anti-grave stretcher (you know, those things that look like an oversized anti-grav stretcher with a railing round them that have a standing controls at one end and perhaps seating for one or two?), in case the receiver of the goods will take possession at a location closer to, but still not at the downport docks.

    Two speeder-bikes, a la Star Wars VI (but less industrial looking and less militaristic), for quick runs around the downport on errands, business or heading to the nearest watering whole, or accompanying the skiffs on delivery runs.

    Four pods, a la the Cobra Flight Pod (but less militaristic), capable of atmospheric flight and quick runs around like the speeder-bike, but primarily a workbee–used primarily outside atmosphere (operator wearing a environmental suit) and incapable of entering the atmosphere (unless the pilot wants to be extra crispy). These would cargo-train cargo between two vessels or act as repair pods while in orbit.

    One shuttlepod, a la Starfleet, for those times atmospheric entry are needed and you want to avoid the extra crispy of entering in a flight pod.

    So, what are you thoughts/ideas. Rejections, additions or revisions?
    Steven "redwood973" Wood

    "Man does not fail. He gives up trying."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    I worked for Section 31 and all I got was this stupid T-shirt!
    Posts
    237
    You need a work bee of course.

    Some concept drawings of the workbee.

    They would have to have nicknames painted on them, and stickers, paint, and personalized in some way, of course.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Idaho Falls, ID, USA
    Posts
    466
    The first, last, and middle things you need to consider is that a civilian vessel is operated for profit- and therefore owners and operators will be looking to cut construction, operational, and maintenance costs wherever possible, while still getting the most use out of the equipment.

    There will be little large/high-ticket-price equipment on a vessel that is not either mandated by law or absolutely essential to the vessel's operation- and even then owners/operators will tend to fudge the numbers downward.

    There are two competing economic factions involved:

    The owners want to build, man, and maintain their vessels as cheaply as is reasonably possible, and tend to pressue prices and costs downward.

    The government- wants to ensure a minimum level of safety in order to keep public outcry to a minimum in order to facilitate re-election, and (secondarily) to save lives. Government mandates tend to pressure the price and costs of vessels upward.

    Generally, the industry manages to maintain a bare-minumum approach- and occasionally manages to chip away at standards- until a major disaster occurs (such as the loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald). At this point the government conducts a semi-frantic review designed chiefly to be seen as "doing something" in order to appease public outcry- after which new, tighter regulations are implemented (usually over much wailing and moaning by the industry experts) and the cycle begins anew.

    A real life example of this is the aforementioned loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The existing regulations were both lax and sporadically enforced.

    At the time of the loss, the law required the crew were required to complete semi-monthly disaster drills- but the Fitzgerald had had only had one that year. Further, "non-critical" maintenance of water-tight integrity was allowed to be deferred for the winter lay-over and maintenance season. Fitzgerald's water-tight hatches (each the size of a tractor-trailer) had been damaged, but it was felt that repairs could wait. Water flowing through these hatches was one of the possible causes of the ship's loss.

    As an example of the chipping away at safety regulations mentioned above, the Fitzgerald was designed with a specific "load-line" in mind- meaning she could be filled with cargo until that line reached the water (ships sit more deeply the more heavily they're loaded).

    Although not one bolt was changed in Fitzgerald's design, this load-line was raised twice in her career, meaning that fully loaded, the ship sat almost fifteen feet deeper in the water than when built.

    The deeper a ship sits in the water, the more likely she will either run aground or have waves wash over her deck- both were cited as possible sources of the flooding that doomed the Edmund Fitzgerald.

    Life saving gear was neglected aboard most of the Great Lakes freighters, and the cost-cutting measures by the government (spurred both by complacency and tightening budgets) ensured that had the Fitzgerald crew survived the sinking, they would have likely frozen to death or drowned before being rescued. There was only one Coast Guard rescue vessel capable of surviving the storm within 350 miles of the Fitzgerald when she was lost- and it was down for repairs.



    Now, you might be thinking that the owners and operators were careless and did not care about the lives of their crews. You'd be right about the former, but incorrect about the latter.

    Trained merchant seamen are expensive commodities, hard to develop, and hard to retain. The bulk of a ship's operational costs are actually in fuel and in salaries- and these companies work hard to recruit and retain the best people they can.

    They tend to take good care of their people and do not discard those lives lightly.

    In the defense of the owners (and in the bureaucrats who slashed Coast Guard funding), it had been decades since the previous accident and loss- and they were making what they felt was the best use of scarce resources.

    They made educated guesses based upon experience and necessity- and the merchant seamen went along with those guesses.

    They gambled- and the crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald lost.

    The price paid to overcome bureaucratic inertia is almost inevitably paid in blood.

    ----------------------


    Most modern civilian will have sufficient life boat and life raft (they're NOT the same thing) capacity to rescue the entire crew and passengers plus a comfortable margin (usually an extra 30 to 50 percent, IIRC).

    They'll usually have one (or perhaps two) work skiffs or punts for maintenance work along the water line, and very little else. And if they can get away with it, owners and operators will try to "double-up"- designating a work skiff as a lifeboat (or the reverse) or other, similar ploys.

    Smaller vessels that can make shallow water port on their own also have less of a need for such auxiliary craft.

    Ship's boats (other than those listed above) have become a rarity on most modern civilian vessels, and merchantmen usually depend upon local lighters and water taxis rather than carry their own.

    So, you'll need to ask yourself "What are the minimum numbers mandated by the Federation?" and then "What does the ship reasonably need to complete her mission?"

    The answer will lie somewhere between the two.

    For a typical (non-atmospheric) merchantman operating along the Federation's mid-rim frontier, I'd expect lifeboats sufficient to carry 130% of the ship's company (with about 80% if those being operational), a pair of work bees (at most) and one operable "administrative" shuttle- probably Starfleet surplus.

    Cargo would be moved either by transporters or by local lighters.

    The further towards the heart of the Federation you go, the more rigidly the rules will be enforced, and the more small-craft/auxiliaries will be carried. As you head further out towards the frontier, more shortcuts will be taken and fewer small craft will be carried.

    Also, a smaller cargo vessel (able to land on a planet) will have less need for such auxiliary craft, and will be lucky to have a single work-bee (in addition to her lifeboats).


    Now, Roddenberry purists will be arguing that such considerations will not apply in a classless, neo-socialist utopia such as the Federation.

    My response is "bull-pockey".

    Ask the typical Soviety merchantmen of the last half century just how the game was played and he'll tell you the same things I just did.
    Last edited by selek; 07-18-2010 at 06:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •