At least the Moclans appear to have their own fleet. I'm not 100% sure they are a full member of the union?
Is the Planetary Union in "Orville" a military?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
A mid-level exploratory vessel.
To add a bit more as to what the Orville ship is take a look at the Wikipedia entry for the HMS Beagle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Beagle
A British naval vessel used to explore and chart the world. Charles Darwin was on it during it's voyage to the Galapagos islands. During the age of exploration most of the exploring was done by the military. It was an exploratory type ship.
This is the type of military role that the Orville fills. They are exploring the edge of known space.
Some people seem to be taking the term military to mean it should be a modern warship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Beagle
A British naval vessel used to explore and chart the world. Charles Darwin was on it during it's voyage to the Galapagos islands. During the age of exploration most of the exploring was done by the military. It was an exploratory type ship.
This is the type of military role that the Orville fills. They are exploring the edge of known space.
Some people seem to be taking the term military to mean it should be a modern warship.
I remember it as "cruiser" since the Star Trek connection, and mentions of the heavy cruiser was designed for us to make a comparison with the Enterprise.
In any case the Orville seems to have the same role in the Union as Voyager has in Starfleet. Only we don't know if she carries the latest technology like Voyager did or is an older model comparable to say Reliant in The Wraith Of Khan.
There's no real reason to think they aren't "full members" whatever the hell that means. The presence of a separate Moclan fleet could just mean something as simple as the individual worlds keep their own militaries with the Union Fleet being more of a joint military service that anyone in the Union can serve in.
They are. Dialog supports this.
Different militaries have different rules. Do we say that the U.S. Navy isn't a full military organization because they don't keelhaul people?
And why don't they keelhaul people any more?
We're probably giving this just about as much thought as they are. Like the original Trek, they're making it up as they go, with reference to other versions of similar things that they've seen. "Does that make sense? Do we do it that way, or this way?" Because it'll be quite a while before they run across some aspect of life in this supertechnological future that hasn't already been touched on by another series. That's a big difference than 1964, when the Trek people were mainly looking at a few movies and a lot of pulp sf fiction for guidance.
David Goodman actually is a registered member of this forum. These days he usually hangs out in the Trek Lit forum responding to the threads about his books like the Kirk and Picard autobiographies, but it wouldn't shock me if he did check out the various Orville threads.
They have certainly abandoned most of Churchill's "Royal Naval Traditions."
I think we are just so used to the rigid military formality shown in all the Star Trek series that anything casual seems to mean a lack of unprofessionalism or discipline, but they have shown to be capable in any crisis they have faced so far.
A critical barnacle shortage due to global climate change. Future ships will be fitted with artificial barnacles.
Twice in one episode!
If you ask me, the Star Trek shows overdo it with the militaristic rigidity and formality of the characters. Which only further makes the "Starfleet isn't military" claims ironic and laughable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
