Admiral/Captain Kirk Question

[Christopher]

Spock relinquished command in TWOK due to the ship going out on an actual mission.

Which really shouldn't have been necessary. There's no reason Captain Spock couldn't have stayed in command of the ship while Admiral Kirk commanded the mission -- kind of like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea where Captain Crane was in charge of the ship while Admiral Nelson directed its missions.

...Star Trek V had Spock on shore leave with Kirk. If you wanted to, you could assume that Spock may have not actually been serving on Enterprise at this point, but joined his friends when they were needed for the Nimbus III mission.

Nice theory, but again, it assumes that Starfleet officers are free to serve wherever they feel like. They're officers in a military hierarchy. They serve where they're ordered to serve.

By Star Trek VI, the crew wasn't really out on missions anymore, and it could be argued that Spock wasn't really part of the Enterprise crew. He was working with the diplomatic corps.

That much is true. In TUC, it was implicit that the crew hadn't been serving together regularly but had been reunited for this specific mission. That would've been made far more clear in the planned opening where Kirk tracks them down individually and recruits them for the mission.

It's really just the end of TVH and TFF that are a problem, and a credible explanation is the one BillJ proposed, or a variation thereof. I see it as Starfleet making the best of a problematical situation. "These seven people work exceptionally well together, but they're too insular and close-knit and too prone to go off and do their own thing, so we're better off keeping them together in one place rather than split them up and risk them being loose cannons."

Sometimes, though, I wish the movies had followed the path they were experimenting with in TWOK -- bringing in new Enterprise crewmembers like Saavik and phasing out the old guard. It would've been nice to have a movie series that really embraced change rather than one that made temporary changes and then reversed them one or two films later. It would've been nice to see these characters move on with their lives and adopt different roles throughout Starfleet rather than be stuck on one ship forever.

 

[Paris]

^I like BillJ's theory as well. It makes the most sense...As for officers going where they are sent and not where they want, one could assume that since Kirk, Spock, and crew saved the planet, SF let them serve together. Worf showed up on the E-E in Insurrection and stuck around for the mission to the Briar Patch. All it took for Worf to stay was Picard saying "...Mr. Worf... I would like you to delay going back to DS9...". Who cares if Sisko or Martok were expecting Worf for some mission dealing with the war. Maybe Kirk said off screen in TFF, "...Mr. Spock, for old time's sake I would like you join us for this, as you aren't busy..."

And remember; that "military hierarchy" is not as strict as modern day militaries. Starfleet isn't a military first, its main goal is exploration, not military conquest. But I agree that the everyday crew member doesn't just get to choose where they go. Genuine heroes may have more leaway...

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

And remember; that "military hierarchy" is not as strict as modern day militaries. Starfleet isn't a military first, its main goal is exploration, not military conquest. But I agree that the everyday crew member doesn't just get to choose where they go. Genuine heroes may have more leaway...

Well, Starfleet aside, and I do not want to derail this thread into a diatribe from both sides of the current state of the US military. However, a modern military's role is not conquest, it's primary role and goal is national defense.

 

[Paris]

^Of course. No disrespect was intended towards to US military. Conquest was the wrong word in this situation. No derailment is neccesary. Let's get back to our regularly scheduled discussion

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Of course. No disrespect was intended towards to US military. Conquest was the wrong word in this situation. No derailment is neccesary. Let's get back to our regularly scheduled discussion

Well, I was taking about the modern military in general, not just the US. Although, there are few dictatorships and such that have and will use their armed forces for conquest as you say.

And I apologize if I accidentally implied that you were trying to disrespect the US military. My intention was only to clarify.

In any case, back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[Christopher]

Also, the question of organizational hierarchy has nothing to do with the goals of the organization. Generally in any field of employment, not just the military, you're assigned a task by those above you in the hierarchy, or on the basis of what jobs are currently unfilled, rather than being free to do whatever job you feel like.

 

[Paris]

Also, the question of organizational hierarchy has nothing to do with the goals of the organization. Generally in any field of employment, not just the military, you're assigned a task by those above you in the hierarchy, or on the basis of what jobs are currently unfilled, rather than being free to do whatever job you feel like.

Fine. You win.

...but maybe because Spock had died and all, SF was just being generous and let them serve together no matter the rank as long as both (Kirk & Spock) wanted to. In any modern military this probably wouldn't fly, but we're talking about two bona fide galactic heroes. If all they asked for after going back in time and saving the planet was to serve together on the same ship, then maybe SF just said, "...f*ck it. Go ahead. You do your best work together anyways." This also fits nicely with BillJ's theory. Keep them on one ship as long as they want, with the added bonus that one won't chase the other one (TSFS) like last time!

 

[Ronald Held]

It still seems unusual for three officers of Captain's rank to be serving on the same ship. perhaps this is another anomaly due to the ship being the Enterprise?

 

[Paris]

It still seems unusual for three officers of Captain's rank to be serving on the same ship. perhaps this is another anomaly due to the ship being the Enterprise?

Seriously? This is what we've been debating. Check out the last page or so...

And yes. Because it's Star Trek and a ship called Enterprise, three officers of Captain rank on the same ship can be chalked upto giving the fans the crew what they always loved to see. What we are sussing out is whether we can make it make sense for the real world. A daunting task, I know...A lot of things can been explained as , "...it's Star Trek," but that's not enough for us. We are trek-fans after all...

 

[Paris]

I'm currently on the third book of Mere Anarchy (Christopher's "The Darkness Drops Again"), and on page 270 Kotyar of the Payav says that Kirk is a "former Admiral". Dr. Lon says he accepted the demotion in order to take command of the Enterprise...

So there we have it ! Christopher - you did include it in one of your stories, just not the one you thought.

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, kind of, except I didn't mention the aspect of it being a trade-off with Nogura. I guess it's kind of implied, though.

 

[Paris]

^Yeah, kind of, except I didn't mention the aspect of it being a trade-off with Nogura. I guess it's kind of implied, though.

Absolutely. Dr. Lon says that Kirk took the demotion willingly, and since Nogura was Kirk's superior, it is implicitly implied. You're covered

 

[T1tanterry]

Does anyone know if there has been a story detailing why Kirk was a captain during the second FYM instead of an admiral? We know that an admiral can command a ship, so why was Kirk demoted?...and when was he made an Admiral again for that matter? Why would he accept promotion a second time?

Memory Alpha credits Kirks rank as Captain being his refusal to return to the Admiralty. If you look at SF during 2270 if Kirk is Chief of Starfleet Operations as only a Rear Admiral, SF is still relatively small. The logic of Kirk accpeting a demotion to captain for the MP may be that there just arent that many rear admiral slots, and those positions are based on job postings and not seniority. Really Kirk being a captain for the second FYM isn't so strange, look at how long Picard remains a captain aboard the D and E, it certainly fits the idea that rear admiral is by posting not seniority. He again accepts a promotion to Vice Admiral to oversee command track cadets...if this is 2284, then SF has gotten MUCH bigger in 14 years if they can spare a 3 star to teach. Then he gets permanantly demoted to captain for disobeying the orders of a superior which I'm pretty sure they say outloud in TVH.

It still seems unusual for three officers of Captain's rank to be serving on the same ship. perhaps this is another anomaly due to the ship being the Enterprise?

For item number 2:
During the Age of Sail it was common to allow the master of a King's vessel to chose his senior officers as long as they were available, the logic being that if they trust him enough to send him hundreds to thousands of miles away to make independant decisions, maybe he could choose a group of officers that worked well together. Since SF is sending Constitution class cruiser on FYMs, they probably allow the captains to chose thier department heads...what reason would they have to turn Kirks requests down if the officers themselves accepted even if they are overly senior for thier positions.

What is odd about the officers posted aboard Kirks enterprise is how MANY there are. The show "Shore Leave" credits the Enterprise as Having 433 crewmembers, I dont know where they pulled it from but one site credits a Constitution as having 72 officers, thats one officer per 5 crewmembers. In TNS the Enterprise has 1013 crewmembers and 187 officers, that's 1 officer for 4.5 crewmembers! Talk about micromanaging. By comparison a Nimitz class Carrier has 3187 crewmembers in the ship's company with 366 officers, that works out to 1 officers for almost 8 crewmembers.

Just to logic out what I saw earlier about how many Captains are aboard a USN nuclear carrier. You can discard the CAG and DCAG since the starships arent carriers, it's still logical that a starship would carrier a second officer in the rank of captain as the first officer. The XO aboard a nuke carrier has completed surface nuclear training and is getting needed experience aboard a similar ship before recieving his own command. With ships in the Galaxy range it would make sense that the circumstances were similar, why would you be the XO (who essentially runs any naval vessel so the captain can concentrate on commanding) of a Galaxy to captain say an Defiant, or to go back to our present in the USN, why XO a nuclear carrier to commander a missle cruiser. Essentially guys like Riker are being groomed to command the same type or size of vessel.

I really need a new hobby...

 

[DarthPipes]

We rarely see enlisted officers in Starfleet. Almost everyone seems to be an officier. O'Brien aside and even he started out as an officer before being retconned to an enlisted man. Nicholas Meyer was the first one to really show enlisted personel with Star Trek II.

 

[Christopher]

Nicholas Meyer was the first one to really show enlisted personel with Star Trek II.

Not by a long shot. There were enlisted personnel in TOS, though mostly in the first season. In addition to dozens of yeomen, we had CPO Garrison, Crewman Barnhart, Crewman Green, Specialist Robert Tomlinson, Specialist 2/C Angela Martine, Crewman Compton, Technician Wilson, Technician 1/C Thule, plus various characters who were referred to by job description (Geologist Rawlins, Astrobiologist Phillips) and were thus probably enlisted ratings. Not to mention supporting players with no rank stripes, such as Mr. Lemli. There were also a ton of enlisted personnel visible in the ST:TMP crew, notably Chief Rand and Chief DiFalco.

 

[JD]

IMO that's one of the nice things about the books, they're actually starting to show more of the enlisted personell. Especially in Titan and SCE, the latter of which has (I think) more enlisted main characters than officers.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Not by a long shot. There were enlisted personnel in TOS, though mostly in the first season. In addition to dozens of yeomen, we had CPO Garrison, Crewman Barnhart, Crewman Green, Specialist Robert Tomlinson, Specialist 2/C Angela Martine, Crewman Compton, Technician Wilson, Technician 1/C Thule, plus various characters who were referred to by job description (Geologist Rawlins, Astrobiologist Phillips) and were thus probably enlisted ratings. Not to mention supporting players with no rank stripes, such as Mr. Lemli. There were also a ton of enlisted personnel visible in the ST:TMP crew, notably Chief Rand and Chief DiFalco.

Just to nit-pick a tiny bit, wasn't Tomlinson a lieutenant?

Which of course doesn't invalidate your point, which I'm totally on board with.

It would have been nice if TOS had introduced some sort of rating insignia for NCOs other than just "no stripe". Good to see that the movies corrected that oversight.

 

[T1tanterry]

TOS was primarily focused on the officers of the Enterprise and avoided cluttering the scene with to many characters by mostly avoiding ratings. But all those redshirts that died, enlisted. Chief Miles O'brien was ALWAYS an enlisted person, TNG also didnt deal too much with the ratings so they just gave him a collar blip. Late into DS9 you start seeing chevrons on the collars of main player enlisted folk. When you involve the enlisted personnel of a ship like Enterprise you get a show more like the reimagined BSG where there are so MANY characters its tough to keep up.

And since the later shows have been so successful at fixing minor oversights like not addressing the enlisted crew. With the dismal failure I feel like Star Trek: Enterprise was...I would love to see a "reimagined" TOS. ENT episode " In a mirror darkly" was nostagically spectacular. Much like BSG in reimaging a series the producers and wirters have the oppourtunity to use familiar elements and enhance them with modern special effects and current issues. TOS provides so many ways to go after it too, a FYM with April or Pike...following another Constitution class ship.
Sprry I drifted off topic

 

[Christopher]

Just to nit-pick a tiny bit, wasn't Tomlinson a lieutenant?

Hmm, his uniform had lieutenant's stripes, which must be why Memory Alpha calls him a lieutenant, but according to the Star Trek Concordance, whose information was probably based on the script, he was a Specialist. Maybe there was a uniform mixup, like Chief O'Brien's lieutenant pips in TNG. He was never referred to by any rank or title in the episode, which leaves it ambiguous, but if you ask me, a lack of title is evidence of enlisted status, since I think military decorum would pretty much require referring to an officer by his or her rank.

 

[Timo]

But several scientists have been referred to by their profession, rather than by their obvious commissioned rank. Say, Senior Geologist D'Amato, with Lieutenant's stripes, is never called "Lieutenant" by his colleagues - only Losira calls him that. And some department heads such as Chief Engineer or Chief of Security don't have the word "officer" attached to their titles, nor do they necessarily get referred to by their rank if their title is more informative in the context. Spock seldom gets called "Commander", either - but his title features the telltale word "officer", unlikely to fit enlisted status (even though I guess that could also be possible in certain special cases).

I'd thus see enough leeway to let Tomlinson be both a Lieutenant and a Specialist at the same time...

Timo Saloniemi