Captain Rachel Garret...

[Gary7]

One episode. That's all she got. That's why she isn't mentioned.


I have to say, I would have preferred to have the actress that played Rachel Garrett as the captain of Voyager. It think she'd have been a splendid alternative to Mulgrew. I must admit, I do not think Mulgrew was horrible. She did alright and had her moments, some very fine ones. But... she wouldn't have been my first choice.

 

[Knight Templar]

I never did care for the the post Generations efforts to "rehabilitate" Harriman.

It always struck me as revisionist wishful thinking. A rebellion against the idea that a clown could've been given command of the Enterprise.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That woman loved her shoulder pads.

But she's Rachel Garrett, she can wear whatever she wants in my opinion

Exactly.

You should see her as a Cardassian...

Korinas

 

[C.E. Evans]

I never did care for the the post Generations efforts to "rehabilitate" Harriman.

It always struck me as revisionist wishful thinking. A rebellion against the idea that a clown could've been given command of the Enterprise.

I think it actually supports an idea that they don't hand out command of starships named Enterprise to just anyone; that Harriman really did have what it took to be a great captain, but unlike his predecessors, got off to the worst possible start.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Exactly. People don't always - in fact they almost never - start out full-tilt with all the potential and ability they will ever have. Not unless it's a JJ Abrams film and they are played by Chris Pine.

And I never thought Harriman was *that* bad. In the end, people hate him simply because he isn't Kirk. A lot of fans think that every captain in Starfleet has to be as badass, as heroic, as flawless, as Kirk, and that anyone who doesn't 100% measure up to Kirk's level is automatically a failure. This is a very unfair standard. Not everyone can be like Kirk. And he'd be the first one to admit this. Kirk would never expect every officer to be like him, and neither should we.

 

[F. King Daniel]

People don't always - in fact they almost never - start out full-tilt with all the potential and ability they will ever have. Not unless it's a JJ Abrams film and they are played by Chris Pine

Pfft! That film just scratched the surface. His abilities will grow exponentially until the next film ends with his promotion to God.

Jim Kirk's hero growing up was his father, George.

Harriman's hero was Captain Esteban.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I have to say, I would have preferred to have the actress that played Rachel Garrett as the captain of Voyager. It think she'd have been a splendid alternative to Mulgrew.

Tricia O'Neil would have been an amazing Janeway. There's a quality to her voice that I just love.

But she's Rachel Garrett, she can wear whatever she wants in my opinion

Exactly.

You should see her as a Cardassian...

Korinas

Or as a Klingon: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kurak

Really wish Korinas had been brought back during the war somehow.

 

[Gary7]

And I never thought Harriman was *that* bad. In the end, people hate him simply because he isn't Kirk. A lot of fans think that every captain in Starfleet has to be as badass, as heroic, as flawless, as Kirk, and that anyone who doesn't 100% measure up to Kirk's level is automatically a failure. This is a very unfair standard. Not everyone can be like Kirk. And he'd be the first one to admit this. Kirk would never expect every officer to be like him, and neither should we.

QFT. He was totally caught off guard, and a rather young captain at that. They were easing the new Enterprise into initial operational status, with many tests still needing to be run and a fully trained crew to be brought on board. And then all of the sudden, they're pulled into a seriously dangerous rescue mission with the crew consisting of mostly raw cadets. Kirk seriously overshadows Harriman in every respect, with no insult to Harriman tendered. So, it only made sense for Kirk to assume command.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, competency doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being high profile. It's likely Harriman excelled as an XO and was so well connected that when his promotion to captain came through he got the flagship. Alan Ruck did say he porttrayed Harriman as someone who got further than they should have due to connections.

Which is funny, because that's pretty much how Jonathan Archer got command of the Enterprise too. If his dad hadn't been so influential in the design of the warp five engine, they wouldn't have let him anywhere NEAR it.

But, getting back to my point the Enterprise is usually considered an important ship. Riker said officers wait years to get assigned to it. So therefore, the captains chose to command the Enterprise would likely be among Starfleet's most notable. Whether the notability is good or bad.

Notable for getting killed in a fit of epic fail doesn't necessarily make you an interesting conversation topic. Unless, of course, your contemporaries are a bunch of cynical jerks who are making fun of you, but I think 24th century Starfleet is too preten... er... I mean, too "evolved" to lower itself to that sort of thing.

I thought Harriman was out of his depth because the Enterprise-B was only heading out for what amounted to a "shakedown cruise". Basically the first mission under power after launching.

In American navy ships, up to a year or more work remains to be done on a ship AFTER it is launched BEFORE it is actually considered operational.

Given that Harriman in the background says something to reporters about "not going to be traveling at warp speeds" I figured this was just he most basic of first cruises.

And IIRC, the "Captain" of a U.S. Navy ship that takes a ship out on its first trip when launched is seldom the captain assigned to command the ship on an operational mission. Instead they are more technical/engineering types who are chosen to work the bugs out of the systems.

I could be wrong. If someone is an old USN hand here perhaps they can correct me.

True as that may be, Starfleet is NOT the U.S. Navy and Starships aint boats.

Actually, from what we've seen of starfleet, most of their ships don't even get NAMES until they've been fully integrated and tested, and the testing is apparently done by its primary crew as a way of familiarizing themselves with the hardware (seeing how they're probably going to be stuck working with it for a VERY long time). It appears the shakedown cruise for starships isn't for the ship, but for the CREW; it gives the captain and the officers a chance to settle in, get used to using their equipment out in space and get used to working with each other under pressure before they have to tackle a real situation. Some adjustments to systems and components take place at the same time, but it's not like there's a whole year's worth of fitting out that still has to be done. In fact, Kirk seemed pretty surprised and annoyed that the Enterprise-B didn't have all its crew and equipment aboard even on that first trip; you'd think he would have known better, otherwise.

 

[Knight Templar]

[It appears the shakedown cruise for starships isn't for the ship, but for the CREW; it gives the captain and the officers a chance to settle in, get used to using their equipment out in space and get used to working with each other under pressure before they have to tackle a real situation.

And do you have any actual on screen evidence for this?

Take the Enterprise-D.

Do we actually have onscreen confirmation that Picard is the absolute first captain of it?

 

[C.E. Evans]

[It appears the shakedown cruise for starships isn't for the ship, but for the CREW; it gives the captain and the officers a chance to settle in, get used to using their equipment out in space and get used to working with each other under pressure before they have to tackle a real situation.

And do you have any actual on screen evidence for this?

Take the Enterprise-D.

Do we actually have onscreen confirmation that Picard is the absolute first captain of it?

The only thing we know for certain is that Picard officially took command of the ship on stardate 41148 and that "Encounter At Farpoint" took place on stardate 41153.

The tricky part might be the ship's dedication plaque which says the Enterprise was launched on stardate 40759. But even if we dismiss that, it's possible that the ship had already completed a shakedown cruise prior to Picard's arrival, or that one was conducted in the interval between Picard taking command and "Encounter..." I guess it may depend on how long a shakedown cruise is supposed to be for a brand-new starship. A week? Two weeks? Several months?

 

[Knight Templar]

Yes. But the Enterprise (starship) was named after a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and a number of early Starfleet ships were clearly named after existing naval vessels.

So yes, it matters because we obviously have no other possible type of comparison to use for starships.

 

[C.E. Evans]

True as that may be, Starfleet is NOT the U.S. Navy and Starships aint boats.

Yes. But the Enterprise (starship) was named after a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and a number of early Starfleet ships were clearly named after existing naval vessels.

So yes, it matters because we obviously have no other possible type of comparison to use for starships.

Inevitably, though, there are times when the comparisons reveal differences as would be the case between two organizations established centuries apart and by different governments.

It's unlikely that "U.S.S." in Starfleet means "United States Ship." The designation could merely be a deliberate homage to the U.S. Navy, though, especially given where Starfleet is headquartered.