RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,838
Posts: 5,220,309
Members: 24,233
Currently online: 625
Newest member: waqarkeihk

TrekToday headlines

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 8 2013, 09:29 PM   #31
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: Enterprise question

I'd say the phrase 'of the original thirteen Constitution class vessels launched' indicates that more came later.

If not, why use the word original ? Without it you get -

'of the thirteen Constitution class vessels launched'
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 10:36 PM   #32
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise question

All it means is that none of the other previous captains are not admirals on Earth at that time
Am I misreading this? Kirk was qualified despite holding flag rank, so we do have to count people promoted to Admirals.

And his "year class" of starship skippers is not the only one we have to consider: the movie is evidence that the previous commanders of starships did not gain experience on five-year missions against V'Ger like things, either. It's not just twelve people (minus casualties) we are discussing. If assignments lasting five years are exceptionally long, then it's all the more reason to think there are dozens upon dozens of former starship skippers available at Earth, and yet none can outshine Rear Admiral Kirk. (If five-year missions are common, then there might be fewer ex-skippers in existence, but the odds of finding an experienced skipper on Earth as opposed to an inexperienced one would correspondingly increase.)

The next movie already blows out of water the idea that you need one of the dozen Constitutions in order to clock up a five-year mission; the technical readiness for that is available in at least one other type of starship, and nothing indicates it wouldn't be in dozens or perhaps hundreds of types. Add to that ship types preceding the Constitution but still supposedly serving (why would there not be overlap?), and you have preempted the concept that starship availability limitations would prevent one from holding five-year-mission experience.

All this thus dovetails to five years being a really big thing for nuKirk in ST:ID...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 12:12 AM   #33
sariel2005
Lieutenant
 
Re: Enterprise question

And his "year class" of starship skippers is not the only one we have to consider: the movie is evidence that the previous commanders of starships did not gain experience on five-year missions against V'Ger like things, either. It's not just twelve people (minus casualties) we are discussing. If assignments lasting five years are exceptionally long, then it's all the more reason to think there are dozens upon dozens of former starship skippers available at Earth, and yet none can outshine Rear Admiral Kirk. (If five-year missions are common, then there might be fewer ex-skippers in existence, but the odds of finding an experienced skipper on Earth as opposed to an inexperienced one would correspondingly increase.)
Not sure I agree, with twelve or thirteen ships doing deep space exploration of the sort that would give the experience to deal with V'Ger no others on Earth is not unreasonable, especially if some Constitution class ships are still out there, as to previous commanders, well April would be extremely old and Pike not exactly available either. TOS seems to imply only the Constitution ships are "starships" so dozens upon dozens of former skippers seems OTT
sariel2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 12:21 AM   #34
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise question

TOS seems to imply only the Constitution ships are "starships"
Naah - the ancient Archon was considered a starship as well. So it's a continuum of starship classes even back in TOS. And while some of those might not be capable of mounting five-year missions, some others would be: the Constitution class wouldn't have appeared out of nowhere, without direct predecessors.

The idea of a Starfleet solely consisting of Kirk's ship and any copies thereof TPTB could afford to show is not a particularly defensible one. Star Trek could rarely afford to show, but it made up for that by telling. And if Klingons can muster eight (unseen) ships to face a similar Starfleet force over the relatively insignificant Organia, then total fleet strength isn't something we should count in the dozens, but in the hundreds at the very least.

Kirk being unique among the available officers is really evidence of something exceptional. Whether it's 5yr missions being rare, or Earth being exceptionally devoid of officers at that time (and perhaps others), we don't know exactly. It may still simply be evidence of Kirk lying to Scotty, too...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 12:27 AM   #35
The Badger
Fleet Captain
 
The Badger's Avatar
 
Location: Im in ur Tardis, violating ur canon.
Re: Enterprise question

Christopher wrote: View Post
Meaning that sometimes the ship survived but not most of the crew, or most of the crew survived but lost the ship -- and implying that ships that weren't assigned to 5-year missions aren't included.
Or even that their missions may have been curtailed before the five years were up. The Enterprise, after all, was often reassigned to short term defensive tasks before returning to exploration. Perhaps other ships had more permanent missions?

"Hmm, the Romulans have increased their strength along the Neutral Zone. Better take a couple of Heavy Cruisers off their current deployment and add them to the defence fleet."
The Badger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 12:29 AM   #36
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise question

The novel series Vanguard, set concurrently with TOS, has the Constitution-class Endeavour permanently assigned to Starbase 47 and the dangerous region of space it defends.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 10:33 PM   #37
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Enterprise question

Another possibility is that all the other starships were presumed lost in a conflict that took place off screen during the V'ger incident--or that only 12 really good Connies were to survive, the rest being, say, cheaper Achernars or something.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:37 AM   #38
Agonizer
Ensign
 
Re: Enterprise question

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
because the Enterprise transporters weren't operational yet -- the engineering crew was having problems getting them to work. When Kirk arrived in the engine room minutes before the accident, the engineers' chatter was about "faulty modules" in the transporter that kept its sensors from engaging. Cleary was in the process of putting a new backup sensor in the unit, per Scotty's order, when the transporter room started to engage the transport. Essentially, because they were rushing to do a job in 12 hours that should've been done over days or weeks, mistakes were made, and the accident resulted from that. Kirk's hubris, his zeal to use the crisis as an excuse to get his ship back, has resulted in an unready ship being pushed into service, and two people have died as a result. And Kirk has to live with the consequences of his actions.
Why is Kirk responsible here when the sequence of events in the movie points to a mistake on the crew? Yes, we hear some engineers saying something was wrong with the transporters. They should've then locked out the system so no one would use it and test it until corrected - like they did in "The Galileo Seven". Instead no one bothers to do this or inform the transporter room of the problem until the accident happens. Kirk didn't give any order to override safety protocols so this is a crew fault which goes to Shatnertage's comment of an inept Starfleet.
Given that one of the people killed was Kirk's ex-wife, maybe transporter "accident" = no more alimony.
Agonizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 04:15 PM   #39
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise question

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
Kirk's hubris, his zeal to use the crisis as an excuse to get his ship back, has resulted in an unready ship being pushed into service, and two people have died as a result. And Kirk has to live with the consequences of his actions.
Why is Kirk responsible here when the sequence of events in the movie points to a mistake on the crew?
From a legal standpoint, he probably wouldn't be deemed responsible; after all, it was an emergency situation, and it's understood that the lives of military personnel are at risk in any crisis. But I was speaking more from an emotional and dramatic perspective. If Kirk hadn't forced the crew to get ready in a hurry, then they would've been more careful and fewer mistakes would've been made, and the accident wouldn't have happened. Its intention as a dramatic beat in the story was to force Kirk to face the cost of what he was doing -- that there was more at stake than just his own craving to get command back, and that being a commander meant being aware of your responsibility to the people under your command, the people whose lives are in your hands. It was part of Kirk's journey in the film, his arc from covetously and selfishly craving command to actually earning that command again.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 08:58 PM   #40
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise question

Given that one of the people killed was Kirk's ex-wife, maybe transporter "accident" = no more alimony.
Technically, since the other victim besides Commander Sonak did not wear a flag uniform, she couldn't have been the character "Vice Admiral Lori Ciana". (Doesn't mean she couldn't have been Kirk's ex-wife anyway, or one of those at any rate.)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.