Kirk's First Command?

SO! The whole reason I started this thread was to arrive at a name for the ship. I have built a model in response to the current Art forum challenge. I built a model of this ship to have supposedly sat on Kirk's shelf in his cabin. You can follow the construction here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=240469


The final model is this:



In my personal Star Trek universe, this little ship was Kirk's first command. I named it Sutherland, as you can see.

--Alex

 

^ Wonderful. I knew I should know where those air scoops came from, but I couldn't place it till I looked at the building thread. Very well done indeed.

 

Very interesting design, Albertese.

 

I always thought Mendez was referring to Pike's age when he commanded the Enterprise, not how old he is 'now'. Meaning: Pike was the same age when HE commanded the ship as Kirk is in the 'present'.

Kirk could have served as Pike's XO, perhaps as a LCDR, then been promoted to full Commander and taken command of a smaller destroyer/scout ship. (As for the word 'destroyer': that doesn't imply warlike intent. It's just a general name for the size and capabilities of a smaller vessel.)

 

Or a larger one. Designations like this change their meaning over time: "frigate" originally meant the same thing that "cruiser" came to mean in the late 19th, early 20th century, then was again adopted to mean tiny little boats used for escort purposes, then was redefined to mean ships larger than cruisers, then was again redefined to mean little escorts in some navies, but multipurpose capital ships in others. The USN today has basically given up on it, and we have no idea what the word "frigate" is going to mean fifty years from now.

FWIW, as already mentioned, "destroyer" in Diane Duane's novel referred to a ship at least thrice as large as Kirk's TOS cruiser, and certainly lived up to her designation.

Ditto. It's a case of "happened to him, could happen to you": in this episode, Kirk is going where one man has gone already, and this hammers home the point.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Nice work!

 

Very nice indeed and a perfect name choice, IMHO.

The other night I learned that Ronald D. Moore (TNG screenplay writer) was also a big, big fan of C.S. Forrester's Horatio Hornblower novels, which is usually assumed to equally apply for Gene Roddenberry and therefore used the Sutherland name for a starship.

However, it's well documented that Ron Moore felt TNG should have a much more different approach than what Gene Roddenbery wanted it to be, so in a manner of speaking USS Sutherland unites "the best of both worlds".

(Alhough it sounds somewhat weird I like the ambiguity of the USS Horatio mentioned in TNG, could be a reference to either Hornblower or Lord Nelson of the Royal Navy).

I also like the configuration of your model, Albertese, looks exactly what I would have envisioned a TOS destroyer to look like (although I'm somewhat sceptical regarding the registry, but that's a diferent story).

Bob

 

Thanks guys!

I'm not sure it's the one I would've chosen either. But, given the nature of the Art Challenge, I wanted to remain constrained by the vintage decals. "NCC-871" could be easily generated out of "NCC-1701" with some simple rearranging and clever trimming of the "0" and pieces of the other "1" to make the "8."

Personally, I would probably have used other letters,... maybe NCD... and then a 5 digit number.... Or not. I'd be willing to discuss that point...

--Alex

 

Thank you, interestingly I had similar thoughts.

Call me a deciple of Matt Jefferies or something like this, but he stated on this TOS Enterprise production sketch that the "17" of "1701" stood for "17th cruiser design" which suggests that previous cruiser designs included an 8th design, too (e.g. 871).

A 5 digit number for other vessels than starships could be an approach, especially since we never learned a destroyer registry in TOS.

If in TOS lingo the umbrella term was "cruiser", that could theoretically be one of the "Cs" in "NCC". And for a destroyer the registry could have been "NCD(estroyer)" which you seem to have had in mind, too.

Bob

 

^ Oh, blah! You just made me wonder what the "NC" stands for, all over again!

 

^ I'm actually very much of this mindset. In my theory, the "N" means it's a Star Fleet ship, and the "C" means it's equipped with an FTL drive. PURE CONJECTURE I' will happily admit, but it works for me.

But maybe a five digit number would be overkill. You would then be open to just about 100,000 ships... which seems like a lot for just destroyer-type ships...

Then again, if you want to open up to TAS, then we have the option of inserting a letter into the after-dash region of the registry....

Uh.... waitaminute... was this thread about registry numbers? Ah, crap.

--Alex

 

Maybe not just destroyers, but tugs and scouts and other vessels as well.

We see in TNG that all ships then have a five digit number, except for the supposedly "flagship" of the Federation: 1701-D.

Bob

P.S. Bob Brown's website is "on the air" again: http://www.synicon.info/SW/ (thought you might like to know)

 

But in TNG, every ship from Runabouts on up have NCC registries. So it makes sence to allow for 100,000 ships if they all have the same prefix. (which makes one wonder why even include the prefix...)

But we're suggesting narrower vision as soon as we give the prefix meaning and change it from the standard NCC...

--Alex

 

The Immunity Syndrome did have Kirk requesting that a different starship undertake a mission. The Alternative Factor had Kirk asking for addition starships to help in his mission.

Some yes, but can you imagine a modern day US Navy supercarrier stopping by a small archaeological dig to give two people medical exams, or transporting a bride between two points?

 

Yeah, the Enterprise and her sister ships seem to be the "work horses" of the fleet, doing all sorts of jobs and not just the glamour ones.

 

Might be the Fleet has a number of workhorse types, and it's advantageous to operate one particular type in one particular... Dunno, region? I mean, it would make sense to use ships of a given speed and range at a zone extending from X to Y parsecs from the UFP core, and slower and shorter-legged ships at a zone closer to home. Or to use ships with a given level of armament and shielding in a certain zone of wilderness, and more/less affordable ships with lesser/higher levels of such in a zone of lesser/higher risk.

Whether these famed "starship captains" get their reputation from their overall versatility, or from one narrow type of mission among the many, or from the zone in which they operate, or something else altogether, it's difficult to tell. But it's easy to postulate fame for commanders of ships that aren't exactly top of the line technologically or size-wise.

Timo Saloniemi

 

But I don't equate Kirk's ship exactly to the modern Navy. IMO the Enterprise was more equivalent to Captain Cook's ship in the 1600 or 1700's Navy. Where the Captain was on his/her own making decisions, not like the modern Navy where the Captain can pick up a phone and dial up their superiors at any time.
If there were English colonies that needed supplying along the way then Captain Cook would do that maybe.

The thing is though Kirk was given two important missions that could have started interstellar war with the Romulans and Klingons.
And you can say just coincidence or the other more important ships were in the Laurentian system on both occasions or Kirk was lying in his logs or that minor Captains routinely faced risking interstellar war.
If you dismiss the Enterprises' importance then why not once when she was investigating the death of billions in the Deneva or giant amoeba or doomsday machine situations, or in 'Arena' or any other situation when they were in dire trouble didn't Spock or Scott suggest calling on reinforcements, a bigger and better ship to handle the gravity of the situation?

When the M5 was destroying Constellation ships left right and centre why didn't they call up a superior ship to challenge it?

Also why did the female Romulan Commander think the Enterprise was such a prize? Why would its capture bring her such glory?

And why send the delegates to Babel in an inferior ship? Surely a bigger, faster more prestigious ship would be better suited?
And I can't see Elaan of Troyus not mentioning that she was insulted by the choice of the Enterprise if there were better ships in Starfleet.

Still back to the thread's question. I think there's as much evidence to show that Kirk had an earlier command as there was to prove that Gary Mitchell was Kirk's XO in WNMHGB. No canon proof either way.

 

A supercarrier is a modern capital ship, whose services are historically reserved for the top national defense priorities. But in an earlier age far-flung, wide-ranging missions were right near the heart of the cruiser's brief (real cruisers, not the big US destroyers that inherited the name). Before air travel a cruiser was generally the fastest way to transport a diplomat, and was prestigious enough to fill ceremonial requirments. A cruiser assigned to colonial patrol could be a connection to civilization for distant settlers, traders or explorers. Cruisers frequenting foreign ports were a prime source of intelligence for other nations' activities and naval movements. If war broke out, a cruiser on a foreign station could be in position to shadow the enemy's warships or attack their shipping. The weren't the biggest or most powerful warships, but in many was the most versatile and most important in peacetime.

 

Umm, what were those?

In "Balance of Terror", Kirk had no known mission - he just helped out when the RNZ outposts came under attack. He did so in a region of space that had been neglected for a century, and nothing suggested the Enterprise wasn't a continuation of said neglect. Nor was any mission involved in "The Deadly Years". So that seems to leave "The Enterprise Incident", and there's no particular reason why a powerful and valued ship should have been sent on this mission of subterfuge. I'd rather say Starfleet checked the box for "expendable" there...

In "Errand of Mercy", war with the Klingons was reality already, and Kirk's ship was being sidelined, sent to deal with a primitive planet with orders to avoid combat. All the other episodes had Kirk stumbling onto Klingons without any Starfleet preplanning.

We have no support for the idea that calling of reinforcements of any sort, big or small, would be possible in the TOS universe. To the contrary, even calling home base for instructions may take longer than the adventure allows for! So such things tell us absolutely nothing about the relative worth of Kirk's ship. They merely establish that the ship operates outside safety nets - but not that this would be because she's expected to cope, as opposed to her simply being expendable.

What, and ask M5 to wait for two weeks for said ship to arrive? The entirety of TOS stands proof that summoning even the humblest of transport ships is a matter of careful organizing and lots of waiting.

Because she was the only ship to have fought and defeated Romulans in the past hundred years?

And remember that that bit happened in an episode based on a movie about a lowly destroyer escort, the least impressive of all warships, defeating a submarine. A humiliation in battle need not be the fault of a top-of-the-line enemy supership in real life, so we have no real reason to think this would have been the case in Trek, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Voyager's writers guide described Tuvok as an elderly Vulcan who was something of a mentor to B'Elanna. The guide also stated that the EMH would eventually take the name Doctor Zimmerman.

Writers guides, especially in the early days, are just rough drafts that can and will be changed as a series finds its voice. They are by no means authoritative--and are probably obsolete and irrelevant by the end of the first season.

Ditto for pilots like "Where No One Has Gone Before"--which are also best seen as rough drafts, not the Bible.