Re: [FH] Dollars per credit

[snip]
>>Okay, maybe mass is not really the right item to be basing this
>on.  I 'd
>>actually look at this porblem a little differently--in that FT
>ships are not
>>direct analogs of current ships.  In other words, I wouldn't go
>by tonnage
>>but by crew size.
>
>
>I was noticing that.  A supercarrier (Jeanne d'Arc) would be
>approximately the equal of our current carriers but Jeanne d'Arc
>masses something like 250kt whereas current CVA masses 90kt.
>One the other hand a Jeanne d'Arc has a crew of about 260
>officers and crew (plus fighter wing and marines) whereas a
>modern carrier crew is something in the neighborhood of 5000 (I
>don't recall if that includes air wing or not).
>
>Therefore we see the total mass and the price per ton
>increasing, but the crew requirements decreasing.  Presumably
>this is because crew salaries are expensive and it's cheaper to
>automate than add another crewman.

Probably more a function of lifesupport than salary. Lots of supernumary
crew need to be kept alive. The crews are small because humans are used
only where their flexibility is desirable; if a simple job can be done
by a
robotic drone that doesn't eat, breathe or cr*p, then so much the
better.
The human crew are still there to make decisions, and to handle things
when
the unexpected happens and it all turns to poo (and, of course, because
this is SF just like in the movies, and totally automated unmanned ships
are boring IMHO - YMMV....).

This would imply:
>a) a relatively low unemployment rate, which means the world
>isn't all that overpopulated; or
>b) the characteristics (either physical requirements or
>education) for a naval crewman are difficult to find and tend to
>make him valuable in other fields;
>c) in a tight labor market, military forces will tend to be
>small, well equipped and professional.

I see most space naval crew as being quite highly (ie: expensively)
trained. Even Able Spacehand Funk probably stayed awake through a few
lectures....

Jon (GZG)