Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Mar 8, 2013.
And by a wide margin, too...
I'm just glad that no one thinks the Enterprise is of the Constipation class, named for the NCC-2.
On that note, a blast from the past
The Adventures of the Starchair Enterpoop
That would give a whole new meaning to fire torpedoes!
I agree. It's fun, but also a little .... disturbing.
Really. I think it's an unsolvable puzzle because there is literally no right answer, in other words, the creators did not create a right answer so it does not exist. I doubt there is going to be a memo that materializes that explains the whole thing, so speculation is all you could have.
Now you understand why fans have been making and remaking these plans since then. None of them have been quite accurate or complete enough.
Our understanding and experience with regard to space travel has certainly matured since then. Although the launch pad disaster of Apollo 1 in late 1967 had shown us a glimpse of what could happen - it didn't really inform the production personality of the show - but Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster and the Columbia crash would really sober our enthusiasm and tempered our attitude towards headlong space ward advance.
It unfortunately says something about the modern mind that those of us who would be intrigued by the creative challenge of doing so, aren't necessarily those most likely to make their/our work available for free on the web.
Well, January 27, 1967. (It wasn't all that late.)
I misread that as December. My mistake.
Still, point made. :P
Is the prologue considered "in-universe"? Including the theme song?
I kinda think the prologue should be "in-universe". The spin-off series Voyager calls their Kirk's voyage a "five year mission".
In TMP Kirk makes an "in universe" reference to his "five years out there." But the prologue is also a succinct saga cell informing the viewer of what the series is supposed to be about.
I like to think that the prologue is "out-universe" from the point of view of TOS, but "in-universe" from a later point of view - the POV of the telling of these stories.
That is, Kirk at the time of his adventures had no idea that they would last for five years. He didn't tick off days in a calendar: he just stayed out there, heroically defending the UFP ideals against bug-eyed monsters and scantily clad temptresses, until the call came to do something else.
What this "else" was, we don't know. A refit that spiraled out into a massive reworking that took years upon years and put Kirk behind a desk? A mandatory desk job for Kirk that sent the ship sailing under a different skipper? All we know is that it ended the heroic spell in the career of the Enterprise, and justified the retroactive labeling of the heyday as "the five-year mission".
The ship only had food for five-years for a full crew as well
Yep. From TOS: The Mark Of Gideon:
Well, not if Odonna starts to pork out.
If the ship has five years of food left as of SD 5423, doesn't that sort of suggest a ten-year mission?
I kind of accept that Kirk was speaking in general terms rather than specifically at that moment.
As I have said before, the line that specifies Enterprise's gross tonnage as nearly a million versus its stated mass of 180,000 is likely referring to denenerate matter held for conversion to consumibles for crew and ship. 800,000 tons of it. Enough for the mission and more if needed. So yeah. Maybe.
As for ignoring the "five year" part, sure, whatever. It's there. It's stated. You can finesse it with the deft touch of a fan trying to make 800,000 tons fit in a 180,000 ton ship, but Occam and all. Do we assume he says it but that he really didn't have a "five year mission" or that he said it and did have a "five year mission"? To each his own.
Not to me. If you're going on a five-year mission, you wouldn't just take what you think you'll need for five years. You plan for the unexpected and take as much as you can practically carry with you, and still meet all your other mission/logistical requirements.
Separate names with a comma.