What's so bad about crew quarters?

[Stofsk]

I wonder how much enlisted in SF would like "hot bunking?" "Hot bunking" is where 2 crew members would share the same bunk. One crew member would be sleeping in the bunk while the other is on duty.

Am I the only one who thinks that sounds like a porno title?

I take it this is how it's done in wet navies? If so then shouldn't it be considered perfectly normal by Starfleet - assuming they have bunks in the first place. There's no reason it shouldn't be considered normal.

[Stormbringer]

That's actually a very good point, I didn't think of it that way. In any case, I do think the size quarters they have is somewhat excessive, but I like the idea of putting 4 or so to a room and perhaps cutting down on wasted space. I was thinking that people wanted it to be submarine style where there's 16 bunks to a room or something.

No one here, I don't think, is talking about sardine canning them. Especially with the long range exploration mission in mind, though the Ent-D seemed to do precious little with that.

What is generally suggested is sharing the quarters among a few people which as noted increases the chances for social interaction and friendship, as would large scale communal messes. A few genuinely senior officers who both deserve and would need the space would get single quarters though by no means such large ones. In addition to actually helping out the crew that frees up an enourmous amounts of volume for other systems as well as easing the life support load (you have to provide air, power, and circulation to all that space after all).

[Tsyroc]

I wonder how much enlisted in SF would like "hot bunking?" "Hot bunking" is where 2 crew members would share the same bunk. One crew member would be sleeping in the bunk while the other is on duty.

Hot Racking sucks and these days it only happens in emergency circumcstances like when my last ship evacuated US Military personel from the Phillipines when Mt. Penatubo errupted burrying the Air Force base in ash.

Having had to live closely with 18 guys (that was our berthing size) for a long time I find that I like the idea of the super huge quarters, especially since most of the TNG era people don't have real homes away from the ship. Granted they supposedly don't aquire a bunch of stuff like we do now and they don't seem to have to have much in the way of personal supplies but it gets tiring being around people in such close quarters for so long.

There is something to be said for building camaraderie but that generally gets done in the lounge, when you're in port. When on deployment there's always someone who is trying to sleep and the lounges are either part of or very close to the berthing areas so you can't be too loud. That's why something like 10 Forward is a good idea, although considering the size of the crew I like the ide of the Recreation Deck in Star Trek the Motion picture better because of the amount of space.

I do agree that the quarters in TNG are still excessive in size for one person for most of the crew but may not be entirely inappropriate for the higher ranking people (Commander and above). The ship could make much more use of the space and I think that the alternate version of the Ent-D in "Yesterday's Enterprise" did so since they supposedly had a bunch of troops on board.

Incidently, I thought that the Galaxy design had a lot of unused space in it and that didn't mean the excessive crew quarters but that may have been a leap on my part.

[CDiehl]

I assumed that the standard USS Enterprise and the warship version were identical, since the warship's interior looked identical to the standard. As a result, I would have guessed that the standard version had space for 5,000 passengers, since the warship could carry 5,000 infantry. Ideally, the warship would use space more efficiently, but just as ideally, Enterprise-D in the other timeline would not be a Galaxy.

[General Zod]

the biggest differences were in the weapons and warp core upgrades. simply keeping the same aesthetic look means very little.