The Lantree was not the only old lady of the Miranda-class still puttering around in the 2360s and 2370s. There is the USS Trial (NCC-1948) who came to the aid of DS9 in the early 2370s. There are probably others we do not know.
Excelsior Technical Manual (Third Time's The Charm?)
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
Good point! Although, I would argue that it's possible the Trial was sitting in a surplus depot until after Wolf 359, (along with those weirdly compelling Miranda kitbashes that have an AMT Excelsior display stand for a mission pod.) Still, it is worth noting that she was still useful in a pinch, even a century later.
Lantree is likely a better example of an older ship still useful in some way, yet relegated to a lesser role. As Samuel said, it does seem rather like the UFP has hoarding tendencies like the Soviet Union, and the Trial and other ships seen later during the Dominion War were sitting around waiting to be reactivated. I have assumed that a good few of the Excelsiors we've seen were mothballed and brought back into service.
The whole reason I was really asking in the first place is that it does make one wonder what keeps a vessel like ole U.S.S. Repulse in service for so long while there were likely newer ships of the same class that were retired... and perhaps this is where gaps in my knowledge of real world Naval history are showing. Perhaps the Repulse did something very heroic early in her career and became notable for it, thus prompting the brass to keep her in action? Or perhaps she was an oddity and they just wanted to keep her in play to say "we have a ship of the Excelsior class that's been in service for eighty years."
Of course, our lead/hero ships tend to meet untimely fates because that's what hero ships do, particularly ones named Enterprise.
Lantree is likely a better example of an older ship still useful in some way, yet relegated to a lesser role. As Samuel said, it does seem rather like the UFP has hoarding tendencies like the Soviet Union, and the Trial and other ships seen later during the Dominion War were sitting around waiting to be reactivated. I have assumed that a good few of the Excelsiors we've seen were mothballed and brought back into service.
The whole reason I was really asking in the first place is that it does make one wonder what keeps a vessel like ole U.S.S. Repulse in service for so long while there were likely newer ships of the same class that were retired... and perhaps this is where gaps in my knowledge of real world Naval history are showing. Perhaps the Repulse did something very heroic early in her career and became notable for it, thus prompting the brass to keep her in action? Or perhaps she was an oddity and they just wanted to keep her in play to say "we have a ship of the Excelsior class that's been in service for eighty years."
Of course, our lead/hero ships tend to meet untimely fates because that's what hero ships do, particularly ones named Enterprise.
Things like "fame" would be extremely unlikely to affect ship fates in the real world. Big ships are just too damn valuable to be treated willy-nilly like that, and small ships don't deserve the attention.
Say, WWII destroyers were mass-produced and mass-lost. Random factors would dictate survival. But at the end of the war, there'd be little difference between a war veteran or a ship that slid down the slipway on May 10, 1945; the odds of the latter rather than the former being scrapped as surplus to requirement would be equally good.
How to perpetuate a heroic ship, exactly? the Enterprise, CV-6, was too expensive to be turned into a museum; assorted heroic destroyers, too cheap. Neither could continue serving in a changing world. But some of the biggest and most expensive carriers did, despite their handicaps, because not letting their hulls continue serving would have been too expensive.
Would the Excelsiors be big and important enough to deserve special treatment for the reason that building all-new ships in the same size category would be expensive? Probably not - we have the Ambassadors and the Niagaras and soon also the Akiras and whatnot. They would be more like the WWII gun cruisers: medium in every respect. Except the world around them would not actually be changing much - there'd be no need to install all-new types of weapons or propulsion on them (they'd be just over that latter hurdle with all the transwarp nonsense, for the next century or so, and there'd be no real hurdle on the former issue within the timeframe).
Basically, we aren't seeing analogues to fighting ships today surviving for a century. We're seeing the counterpart of warships today surviving for three or four decades, only with the entire world history stretched out in an abnormally long technological plateau. And keeping the four-digit ships alive doesn't necessarily take any effort: they just hold together for the length of time involved, just as designed, unless something happens to them. And nothing ever happened to the Hood.
Timo Saloniemi
Say, WWII destroyers were mass-produced and mass-lost. Random factors would dictate survival. But at the end of the war, there'd be little difference between a war veteran or a ship that slid down the slipway on May 10, 1945; the odds of the latter rather than the former being scrapped as surplus to requirement would be equally good.
How to perpetuate a heroic ship, exactly? the Enterprise, CV-6, was too expensive to be turned into a museum; assorted heroic destroyers, too cheap. Neither could continue serving in a changing world. But some of the biggest and most expensive carriers did, despite their handicaps, because not letting their hulls continue serving would have been too expensive.
Would the Excelsiors be big and important enough to deserve special treatment for the reason that building all-new ships in the same size category would be expensive? Probably not - we have the Ambassadors and the Niagaras and soon also the Akiras and whatnot. They would be more like the WWII gun cruisers: medium in every respect. Except the world around them would not actually be changing much - there'd be no need to install all-new types of weapons or propulsion on them (they'd be just over that latter hurdle with all the transwarp nonsense, for the next century or so, and there'd be no real hurdle on the former issue within the timeframe).
Basically, we aren't seeing analogues to fighting ships today surviving for a century. We're seeing the counterpart of warships today surviving for three or four decades, only with the entire world history stretched out in an abnormally long technological plateau. And keeping the four-digit ships alive doesn't necessarily take any effort: they just hold together for the length of time involved, just as designed, unless something happens to them. And nothing ever happened to the Hood.
Timo Saloniemi
Maybe far from being famous, she was just lucky? She never got into any major battles, never met any strange anomalies or superbeings, never had any random system brakedowns, and continued to receive regular upgrades to her perfectly serviceable frame?
Even an old ship will still be of use to Starfleet in most situations. She may not be able to go toe-to-toe with the latest Romulan cruiser, but she can easily take on puny Cardassian or Tzenkethi annoyances, or those various ships of the week that never really threatened the Enterprise-D.
Even an old ship will still be of use to Starfleet in most situations. She may not be able to go toe-to-toe with the latest Romulan cruiser, but she can easily take on puny Cardassian or Tzenkethi annoyances, or those various ships of the week that never really threatened the Enterprise-D.
Last edited:
Precedent for long, LONG-lived craft are seen in the US Air Force every day, where the very youngest B-52 bombers are 56 years old and projected to fly until they're almost 80. The C-5 Super Galaxy is a similar deal, with its newest examples being almost 30 years old and the entire fleet expected to be hauling stuff around until they're well into their fifties.Large starships are more casually compared to naval vessels, but in many ways the airframes and stresses thereon could be more akin to aerospace constructs.
Rick Sternbach states in the TNG-TM that the Enterprise-D was made to last 100 years, on the general understanding that barring accidents the technology that built her she ought to be able to sustain her that long, so a similar high number shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for an Excelsior. That said, there's a decreasing return on investment as anything gets older, and the experience you get from a vehicular frame will become diminished. The USS Repulse was not seen on screen after the beginning of the second season of TNG, "Unnatural Selection" and various display screen status reports though 2374 notwithstanding; what it could mean though is that while the ship herself is operational, she could be a real bear to manage and a tough one to keep in fighting shape.
By the time the carrier USS Kitty Hawk was retired in 2009 after 48 years of service, despite being called "Battle Cat" in the history books, she'd also earned the moniker "Shitty Kitty" from her otherwise more affectionate crews, based on how difficult she was to keep from breaking down - others dubbed her "USS Zippo" after her startling predilection to catch fire very often. Apparently there's only so many times you can paint the bulkheads or re-weld joints busted from fatigue, and I'd imagine this is also the truth of a starship after so long.
Still, Starfleet probably wouldn't keep the Repulse on front line service all these years if it was counter-productive to keep her flying to minimum standards - otherwise they would have found SOME way to keep the original Enterprise going after Genesis. It thus falls to us to create a reason why... Could she have Bozeman-ed her way to 2364? How about being decommisioned as one of several Excelsiors found to have fatal flaws in her overall construction, only to be re-upped some decades later when technology had advanced to the point where they could fix the problem? Who knows...
Mark
Rick Sternbach states in the TNG-TM that the Enterprise-D was made to last 100 years, on the general understanding that barring accidents the technology that built her she ought to be able to sustain her that long, so a similar high number shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for an Excelsior. That said, there's a decreasing return on investment as anything gets older, and the experience you get from a vehicular frame will become diminished. The USS Repulse was not seen on screen after the beginning of the second season of TNG, "Unnatural Selection" and various display screen status reports though 2374 notwithstanding; what it could mean though is that while the ship herself is operational, she could be a real bear to manage and a tough one to keep in fighting shape.
By the time the carrier USS Kitty Hawk was retired in 2009 after 48 years of service, despite being called "Battle Cat" in the history books, she'd also earned the moniker "Shitty Kitty" from her otherwise more affectionate crews, based on how difficult she was to keep from breaking down - others dubbed her "USS Zippo" after her startling predilection to catch fire very often. Apparently there's only so many times you can paint the bulkheads or re-weld joints busted from fatigue, and I'd imagine this is also the truth of a starship after so long.
Still, Starfleet probably wouldn't keep the Repulse on front line service all these years if it was counter-productive to keep her flying to minimum standards - otherwise they would have found SOME way to keep the original Enterprise going after Genesis. It thus falls to us to create a reason why... Could she have Bozeman-ed her way to 2364? How about being decommisioned as one of several Excelsiors found to have fatal flaws in her overall construction, only to be re-upped some decades later when technology had advanced to the point where they could fix the problem? Who knows...
Mark
Last edited:
Timo, that's very insightful as always. I guess I was thinking more with a writer's brain than a historian's brain, but you're right; practicality and economics combined with simple luck and a general technological adequacy as suggested by Tomalak should probably work out which ships are lost early and which continue service for a long time. It seems like in the Trekverse ships can be re-purposed for some use for a long period of time, even if that use is "beneath" what that original purpose was intended to be, a la the Lantree. Even Captain DeSoto's remarks in "Tin Man" seemed to suggest that the Hood was relegated to a less dignified service ferrying people, thanks to more advanced starships takin' their jerbs.
Mark, that insight about the B-52's is actually exactly what I was thinking of with regard to the Excelsiors; I think of them as Starfleet's B-52. It was also my thinking that their unexpected/unprecedented longevity is what inspired Starfleet to be so ambitious with the Galaxy's centenarian goal. Perhaps really some combination of ship/plane thinking is needed when thinking of Star Trek ships, even though they tend to behave more like ships than planes dramatically. Also, thank you for that insight about the Kitty Hawk; I can easily see that being true of the Repulse and other ships of that age. And you're right, we have no concrete evidence that the Repulse that fought in the Dominion War is the same one, or that it wasn't retired between TNG S2 and un-retired for the Dominion War.
In fact, there are many decommissioned B-52s that are being slowly chopped up over the years but are still capable of being put back into service at nearly a moment's notice. Perhaps I need to extend this analogy further to find a proper explanation of the Excelsior's proliferation. I can't help but find this line from the B-52 wiki page compelling: "Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite the advent of later, more advanced aircraft, including the canceled Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie, the variable-geometry B-1 Lancer, and the stealth B-2 Spirit." I could easily see that being true about the Excelsiors, especially combined with Timo's idea about it being cheaper to just keep them in service than try to replace them.
Mark, that insight about the B-52's is actually exactly what I was thinking of with regard to the Excelsiors; I think of them as Starfleet's B-52. It was also my thinking that their unexpected/unprecedented longevity is what inspired Starfleet to be so ambitious with the Galaxy's centenarian goal. Perhaps really some combination of ship/plane thinking is needed when thinking of Star Trek ships, even though they tend to behave more like ships than planes dramatically. Also, thank you for that insight about the Kitty Hawk; I can easily see that being true of the Repulse and other ships of that age. And you're right, we have no concrete evidence that the Repulse that fought in the Dominion War is the same one, or that it wasn't retired between TNG S2 and un-retired for the Dominion War.
In fact, there are many decommissioned B-52s that are being slowly chopped up over the years but are still capable of being put back into service at nearly a moment's notice. Perhaps I need to extend this analogy further to find a proper explanation of the Excelsior's proliferation. I can't help but find this line from the B-52 wiki page compelling: "Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite the advent of later, more advanced aircraft, including the canceled Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie, the variable-geometry B-1 Lancer, and the stealth B-2 Spirit." I could easily see that being true about the Excelsiors, especially combined with Timo's idea about it being cheaper to just keep them in service than try to replace them.
Last edited:
That makes a lot of sense. It's been written before, but the necessary over-engineering of the hull design to accommodate an unproven engine technology has often been credited with its longevity in the first place. But a ship has to fulfill a need and no-money society or not, there's no way Starfleet would keep a ship around past its best-by date for the feels OR the shizzles. Though I like the notion that, like the B-52, there are literally generations of family members who have served on the same starship / bomber. 
There are "only" 76 B-52s left (out of over seven hundred examples built), which just makes them all the more special. Those currently resting in a boneyard are slowly parted out over time, but are kept in a state such that working planes can be cannibalized together with engines, tail pieces, etc. taken from whichever hull has the best parts. Similarly, the "Shitty Kitty" was sitting idle for eight years following decommissioning, and there was even talk last year of bringing her back to help bolster the fleet when the CIC suddenly said they needed more carriers and told people they had to figure out how; but only last October was the order given to finally scrap her.
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-kitty-hawk-dismantled/
Read the comments to see just how fondly her sailors remember their ship. Incidentally, I like the notion that, like the B-52 and other long-lived carriers, there are literally generations of family members who have served on the same starship / bomber. Plenty of history to mine that Trek rarely has a chance to, as basically all the hero ships are shiny new during their series. There's even a story of an F-8 pilot who forcibly landed his plane on the Kitty Hawk (which was not his carrier), and seventeen years later came back to captain her.
Mark
PS - I just discovered that a B-52 is a gate guardian of the Orlando airport, which I'll be visiting in October. I'm suddenly inspired to make a stop at its park.
There are "only" 76 B-52s left (out of over seven hundred examples built), which just makes them all the more special. Those currently resting in a boneyard are slowly parted out over time, but are kept in a state such that working planes can be cannibalized together with engines, tail pieces, etc. taken from whichever hull has the best parts. Similarly, the "Shitty Kitty" was sitting idle for eight years following decommissioning, and there was even talk last year of bringing her back to help bolster the fleet when the CIC suddenly said they needed more carriers and told people they had to figure out how; but only last October was the order given to finally scrap her.
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-kitty-hawk-dismantled/
Read the comments to see just how fondly her sailors remember their ship.
Incidentally, I like the notion that, like the B-52 and other long-lived carriers, there are literally generations of family members who have served on the same starship / bomber. Plenty of history to mine that Trek rarely has a chance to, as basically all the hero ships are shiny new during their series. There's even a story of an F-8 pilot who forcibly landed his plane on the Kitty Hawk (which was not his carrier), and seventeen years later came back to captain her. Mark
PS - I just discovered that a B-52 is a gate guardian of the Orlando airport, which I'll be visiting in October. I'm suddenly inspired to make a stop at its park.
I think the recent Autobiography of Jean Luc Picard paints a nice picture of the Stargazer - essentially Starfleet never bothered to keep her up to date because she kept doing her job. Despite Picard's urging, the Admiralty never thought it worth doing anything but the bare minimum because her performance was adequate for a ship of her age. It was a case of either make do, or scrap.
I figure a lot of these older Excelsiors would have been in a similar state by the 2370s, kept together by the dedication of their crews and the ingenuity of dockmasters reluctant to scrap an otherwise performant vessel.
I figure a lot of these older Excelsiors would have been in a similar state by the 2370s, kept together by the dedication of their crews and the ingenuity of dockmasters reluctant to scrap an otherwise performant vessel.
I once took a stab at suggesting why the Excelsiors were in service for so long and one of the factors I suggested was that the wide and deep engineering hull was capable of being easily upgraded with newer more advanced technology.
It should be noted that while the Excelsior has what appears to be the same kinds of phaser banks mounted on the move era Enterprise the optical effects for Excelsior class phasers are more akin to those used by TNG era ships.
It should be noted that while the Excelsior has what appears to be the same kinds of phaser banks mounted on the move era Enterprise the optical effects for Excelsior class phasers are more akin to those used by TNG era ships.
That makes a lot of sense. It's been written before, but the necessary over-engineering of the hull design to accommodate an unproven engine technology has often been credited with its longevity in the first place. But a ship has to fulfill a need and no-money society or not, there's no way Starfleet would keep a ship around past its best-by date for the feels OR the shizzles. Though I like the notion that, like the B-52, there are literally generations of family members who have served on the same starship / bomber.
There are "only" 76 B-52s left (out of over seven hundred examples built), which just makes them all the more special. Those currently resting in a boneyard are slowly parted out over time, but are kept in a state such that working planes can be cannibalized together with engines, tail pieces, etc. taken from whichever hull has the best parts. Similarly, the "Shitty Kitty" was sitting idle for eight years following decommissioning, and there was even talk last year of bringing her back to help bolster the fleet when the CIC suddenly said they needed more carriers and told people they had to figure out how; but only last October was the order given to finally scrap her.
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-kitty-hawk-dismantled/
Read the comments to see just how fondly her sailors remember their ship.
Mark
PS - I just discovered that a B-52 is a gate guardian of the Orlando airport, which I'll be visiting in October. I'm suddenly inspired to make a stop at its park.
Ooh, I'm jealous of your opportunity to see one. You should take it.
A co-worker of mine has a relative who works on the B-52s and related a story of how one of the ones from the Boneyard which had sat for many years was reconditioned a while ago. Engines were replaced and other work done on site. They then successfully flew her out of the Boneyard to complete her reconditioning elsewhere. Apparently she had no issues getting in the air with really only minimal work done. From what I'm told, they store them pretty meticulously. Klim Dokachin would be proud.
Those comments about the Kitty Hawk are pretty terrific. As a native North Carolinian, I was of course aware of the campaign to bring her here to become a museum which obviously did not pan out. (Incidentally if you ever swing through, make sure to stop by the U.S.S. North Carolina battleship memorial in Wilmington. She's a sight to see.) I can definitely see some realistic portrayals of Starfleet officers holding their old ships together as a point of pride mirroring real world events.
You make an excellent point about Stargazer, one which I should have remembered as I just read this book not long ago. She was "good enough" and the crew made do, because Captain Picard wanted a ship and it was his only option. I could see this going along with many other Starfleet ships. A similar thing is going on in the Kirk autobiography, where there are plenty of crappy ships such as Republic to go around, but not many Constitution class ships.
I'm of a similar mind, although more along the lines that there was a lot of free space in the ships to add stuff, partially from there being a lot of removed equipment after her transwarp trials ended and that equipment ewas ripped out. As with the phasers, I tend to think that the same hardware form probably held a newer version of phaser... think one segment of a latter day phaser strip.
The DC-3 is older than the B-57 and they are still around flying. There is something like 2,000 of the type or its derivatives still in operational service.
I love this paragraph from wikipedia about the type:
Perhaps unique among prewar aircraft, the DC-3 continues to fly daily in active commercial and military service as of April 2017, more than eighty years after the type's first flight in 1935. There are still small operators with DC-3s in revenue service and as cargo aircraft. The common saying among aviation enthusiasts and pilots is that "the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3". The aircraft's legendary ruggedness is enshrined in the lighthearted description of the DC-3 as "a collection of parts flying in loose formation". Its ability to use grass or dirt runways makes it popular in developing countries, where runways are not always paved.
Current uses of the DC-3 include aerial spraying, freight transport, passenger service, military transport, missionary flying, skydiver shuttling and sightseeing.
I would love to fly in a DC-3. It is a beautiful plane.
I love this paragraph from wikipedia about the type:
Perhaps unique among prewar aircraft, the DC-3 continues to fly daily in active commercial and military service as of April 2017, more than eighty years after the type's first flight in 1935. There are still small operators with DC-3s in revenue service and as cargo aircraft. The common saying among aviation enthusiasts and pilots is that "the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3". The aircraft's legendary ruggedness is enshrined in the lighthearted description of the DC-3 as "a collection of parts flying in loose formation". Its ability to use grass or dirt runways makes it popular in developing countries, where runways are not always paved.
Current uses of the DC-3 include aerial spraying, freight transport, passenger service, military transport, missionary flying, skydiver shuttling and sightseeing.
I would love to fly in a DC-3. It is a beautiful plane.
We have a couple flying out of my local airport (ever seen "Ice Pilots"? It's those guys). One of the icons of aviation, a beautiful machine. The wiki article says that the oldest still-flying examples first flew in 1936 and 1937, though they do so as part of heritage groups and not in regular service, and even only after extensive reconditioning. Still, for the same frame to be airworthy after up to 82 years - wow!
That said, we have the Jenolen / Nash / generic small Federation transports, which seem to be a similar analog in many respects; there's the executive shuttle from STVI that it's based on (i.e. using the original model), that the Excelsior also carries in some configurations too. The Oberth class seems to follow a similar path of being Starfleet at the outset and ending up in non-Starfleet service here and there.
Mark
That said, we have the Jenolen / Nash / generic small Federation transports, which seem to be a similar analog in many respects; there's the executive shuttle from STVI that it's based on (i.e. using the original model), that the Excelsior also carries in some configurations too. The Oberth class seems to follow a similar path of being Starfleet at the outset and ending up in non-Starfleet service here and there.
Mark
IIRC, in World War Two, DC-3s were credited with two separate "kills" of enemy fighters. In one instance a German collided with the DC-3 slicing off its tail. The fighter crashed while the DC-3 made it back home.
In another a Japanese fighter attempted to shoot down a DC-3. When that didn't work it rammed the DC-3 broadside, tearing out most of the middle fuselage. Once again the DC-3 made it home. The fighter didn't.
In another a Japanese fighter attempted to shoot down a DC-3. When that didn't work it rammed the DC-3 broadside, tearing out most of the middle fuselage. Once again the DC-3 made it home. The fighter didn't.
As much as I know that my theory's going to wreak havoc on your timeline, I think I'm going to throw the idea out for debate: Given that Constitution, Enterprise and their sisters were soaring out of the yards in the mid-2240's, how possible is it that Excelsior and her earliest class-sisters had already been in service for at least a decade themselves before the events of Movies 2 through 4? That Excelsior as we knew her was pulled from frontline service as a testbed?
Reasoning involves the "third of the Fleet" remarks from DSC's "The War Without, The War Within". We don't yet know the numbers involved, but I'm thinking of numbers of dead starships in the double-digits. Would that have triggered a crash-rebuilding programme at Starfleet HQ and the various yards building ships for them?
Reasoning involves the "third of the Fleet" remarks from DSC's "The War Without, The War Within". We don't yet know the numbers involved, but I'm thinking of numbers of dead starships in the double-digits. Would that have triggered a crash-rebuilding programme at Starfleet HQ and the various yards building ships for them?
Last edited:
Ah, but if we take into account the mystery dialog that Sulu mentioned in TWOK that was later allegedly cut at Shatner's request, the Excelsior was not only on active duty, but Sulu was serving as her captain at the time Kirk asked him to temporarily rejoin the Enterprise crew.
Actually Sulu wasn't already the Captain in Star Trek 2. Kirks line was something like I signed the orders this morning and by next week you'll be on board your own command. Plus Sulu was still a Commander in rank.
I agree that the ship was vary new in Star Trek 3 and that was clearly the intent in the film.
Yeah, the TWOK line was just about Sulu's impending promotion, it definitely doesn't say he's on active duty.
SULU
I am delighted; any chance to go
aboard Enterprise, however briefly,
is always an excuse for nostalgia.
KIRK
I cut your new orders personally. By
the end of the month, you'll have your
first command: USS EXCELSIOR.
SULU
Thank you, sir. I've looked
forward to this for a long time.
KIRK
You've earned it. But I'm still
grateful to have you at the helm
for three weeks. I don't believe
these kids can steer.
This is pretty consistent with the films - he was due to be promoted, but in the interim he assaulted Federation security officers and was part of a conspiracy to steal and destroy a Federation Starship. Then he hung out in exile on Vulcan for three months, and obviously Starfleet reassigned the Excelsior, or simply extended Styles' command.
By the time the charges were dropped, the Excelsior was a mess, so he chills out on the Enterprise for a bit longer until Starfleet have decided what to do with the transwarp fiasco. Once she's refitted with a standard warp drive and launched, Sulu is given command as originally planned.
SULU
I am delighted; any chance to go
aboard Enterprise, however briefly,
is always an excuse for nostalgia.
KIRK
I cut your new orders personally. By
the end of the month, you'll have your
first command: USS EXCELSIOR.
SULU
Thank you, sir. I've looked
forward to this for a long time.
KIRK
You've earned it. But I'm still
grateful to have you at the helm
for three weeks. I don't believe
these kids can steer.
This is pretty consistent with the films - he was due to be promoted, but in the interim he assaulted Federation security officers and was part of a conspiracy to steal and destroy a Federation Starship. Then he hung out in exile on Vulcan for three months, and obviously Starfleet reassigned the Excelsior, or simply extended Styles' command.
By the time the charges were dropped, the Excelsior was a mess, so he chills out on the Enterprise for a bit longer until Starfleet have decided what to do with the transwarp fiasco. Once she's refitted with a standard warp drive and launched, Sulu is given command as originally planned.
Last edited:
Ah, I stand corrected. I thought he already got the promotion.
More's the point, one does wonder why Starfleet would put a rookie CO like Sulu in charge of the lead vessel of a new class? At the time of filming, there was no inkling that Excelsior would be the next big thing. Had the dialogue made it to screen, for all we know the Excelsior was another Connie (which I'm sure lots of the fans would have assumed from the Franz Joseph manual), or some other ship which could in no way measure up to the art-in-motion of the Enterprise at the time. Sulu certainly had time between TMP and TWOK for command training, a stint as XO on some ship, or even as CO of a small ship aboard which he could have retained a Commander's rank. There's no evidence for or against it... The production decision to make the Excelsior a huge new ship obstensibly meant to replace the Enterprise (movie producer Harve Bennett supposedly wanted this after TSFS) only came after TWOK.
That F-8 pilot I mentioned before? After working his way up to commander of a carrier-borne air wing, he did a year of command training, then skippered an oiler for a tour before being given command of the Kitty Hawk. Sulu must have done some command training... In the comics he was the Excelsior's XO under Kirk, though that was rarely a plot point (let alone mentioned). Still, as fun as it would have been to retain the footage I see why they trimmed it.
The plot point was meant to reinforce how Kirk was getting older and how even his most reliable subordinates were now moving on, and narratively-speaking this was already present in gobs by this point in the film. Plus, as George Takei's autobiography would tell, Shatner's performance in that scene was EXTRA wooden and even he could see that the scene wouldn't have made it in, even after he spoke to the man about how important this was to Takei's character and to please, PLEASE be a little more animated in the second take. He wasn't. :P
Mark
That F-8 pilot I mentioned before? After working his way up to commander of a carrier-borne air wing, he did a year of command training, then skippered an oiler for a tour before being given command of the Kitty Hawk. Sulu must have done some command training... In the comics he was the Excelsior's XO under Kirk, though that was rarely a plot point (let alone mentioned). Still, as fun as it would have been to retain the footage I see why they trimmed it.
The plot point was meant to reinforce how Kirk was getting older and how even his most reliable subordinates were now moving on, and narratively-speaking this was already present in gobs by this point in the film. Plus, as George Takei's autobiography would tell, Shatner's performance in that scene was EXTRA wooden and even he could see that the scene wouldn't have made it in, even after he spoke to the man about how important this was to Takei's character and to please, PLEASE be a little more animated in the second take. He wasn't. :P
Mark
