Well, the fact that the Klingon weapons fire was even able to hit and destroy the Grissom - in ONE SHOT, no less - would seem to indicate that shields weren't up.
Stand by for evasive!
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
Well, the fact that the Klingon weapons fire was even able to hit and destroy the Grissom - in ONE SHOT, no less - would seem to indicate that shields weren't up.
^The thing is, it's never been proven that the shields are instantly raised just because someone gives an order or enters a command into a console; we've seen several graphics (like those depicted in TWOK) that show the shields being raised fairly quickly, but perhaps the real process takes more time then we've been led to believe. Esteban may have ordered the shields raised, but they may have not have been by the time the torpedo hit.
Another thing to consider: events in films may happen more quickly than shown; directors often use cutting between scenes to add drama, but the actual events may be happening more quickly for the characters. For all we know, Kruge's torpedo may have already been on the way by the time Esteban gave any sort of order.
--Sran
Another thing to consider: events in films may happen more quickly than shown; directors often use cutting between scenes to add drama, but the actual events may be happening more quickly for the characters. For all we know, Kruge's torpedo may have already been on the way by the time Esteban gave any sort of order.
--Sran
Does it make an ounce of sense to equip a ship with shields that would not withstand a single shot from a BOP-class vessel? It should should have been expected, as Starfleet is certainly not prepping ships for defense and/or combat with other member vessels, so the shields (in a universe where Esteban actually raised them) should hold up against the 1st shot.
^Except that not all ships are alike. We've seen that different ships are equipped with different features and capabilities; the Oberth-class vessels were undoubtedly intended for scientific research only. Esteban even describes his ship as as science vessel rather than a starship.
Of course, this begs the question of why Grissom didn't have an escort with more firepower. Perhaps the plan was for Excelsior to join Grissom at Genesis once her tests were complete--plans foiled as a result of Scotty's sabotage. As for why Starfleet sent Grissom to Genesis ahead of time, who the hell knows?
It doesn't appear as though Grissom was in the vicinity of Genesis for more than a day when she was destroyed, but it's hard to understand why she'd have been there alone, regardless of how sensitive the Genesis information was. Although Starfleet's concern about Genesis becoming public knowledge was legitimate, one has to wonder why they trusted their own people so little when it came to keeping the planet and its information under wraps.
--Sran
Of course, this begs the question of why Grissom didn't have an escort with more firepower. Perhaps the plan was for Excelsior to join Grissom at Genesis once her tests were complete--plans foiled as a result of Scotty's sabotage. As for why Starfleet sent Grissom to Genesis ahead of time, who the hell knows?
It doesn't appear as though Grissom was in the vicinity of Genesis for more than a day when she was destroyed, but it's hard to understand why she'd have been there alone, regardless of how sensitive the Genesis information was. Although Starfleet's concern about Genesis becoming public knowledge was legitimate, one has to wonder why they trusted their own people so little when it came to keeping the planet and its information under wraps.
--Sran
Why? The Grissom was in Federation space, Krudge committed what was an act of war and got away with it.
Couple of points to be made here.
First, the "Stand by for evasive" might actually mean we aren't giving Esteban enough credit. Look at the situation. Grissom is presumably outgunned by the Bird of Prey, and Kruge has gotten the drop on them to boot. Esteban knows he's about to be fired upon, and rather than just shout "EVASIVE!" and trust his helmsman to wing it, he tells him to be prepared to execute a presumably specific action as soon as the BoP shows its hand. Unfortunately for Esteban, the BoP's gunner had his "lucky shot."
As to the issue of why send Grissom to Genesis vs say an Connie or a Miranda, recall Morrow's comment "Until the Federation Council sets policy..." Genesis wasn't just a Starfleet problem, but apparently a very sensitive political question within the Federation, for obvious political reasons. Those same political motivations, and a desire to be low key, would presumably drive the decision to send a relatively unimportant ship rather than divert something really visible like a heavy cruiser. Grissom is also very clearly referred to as a science vessel, and given the nature of Genesis, it would be hard to argue that a dedicated science vessel wasn't both the necessary and appropriate ship for the task.
First, the "Stand by for evasive" might actually mean we aren't giving Esteban enough credit. Look at the situation. Grissom is presumably outgunned by the Bird of Prey, and Kruge has gotten the drop on them to boot. Esteban knows he's about to be fired upon, and rather than just shout "EVASIVE!" and trust his helmsman to wing it, he tells him to be prepared to execute a presumably specific action as soon as the BoP shows its hand. Unfortunately for Esteban, the BoP's gunner had his "lucky shot."
As to the issue of why send Grissom to Genesis vs say an Connie or a Miranda, recall Morrow's comment "Until the Federation Council sets policy..." Genesis wasn't just a Starfleet problem, but apparently a very sensitive political question within the Federation, for obvious political reasons. Those same political motivations, and a desire to be low key, would presumably drive the decision to send a relatively unimportant ship rather than divert something really visible like a heavy cruiser. Grissom is also very clearly referred to as a science vessel, and given the nature of Genesis, it would be hard to argue that a dedicated science vessel wasn't both the necessary and appropriate ship for the task.
Today, most armored vehicles cannot withstand a single shot from their counterparts let alone their superiors; armor in various infantry carriers is for stopping shrapnel only, and can be pierced by heavy machine guns let alone cannon, and even light tanks seldom fare any better. Would it make more sense to build APCs and IFVs out of plywood (it's cheaper and allows for much more agile and capable vehicles, after all)? Evidently not.
We don't know the penalties of carrying heavy duty shields, but some must exist, or else shuttlecraft would shrug off battleship fire just like the battleships themselves do. Again ITRW, light utility and recce vehicles are built totally without ballistic protection, and become much less capable when provided with add-on armor.
In that other universe, there's an interesting mirror to the existence of seemingly useless shields. The Cardassian transports of DS9 are armed with weapons that cannot hurt even unshielded BoPs... What's the point of those? Well, the BoP isn't the universal yardstick of combat performance, and opponents of lesser powers abound.
Timo Saloniemi
If we assume so-named "science" vessels also travel beyond Federeration space, Grissom should have been equipped with stronger shields as a rational security measure--the expectation that it could run into something hostile. With 23rd century Romulans & Klingon tensions on high (the legacy of TOS), it would be suicidal to design any ship with less than adequate defense systems.
Grissom was not said to be designed to only operate within the comfort zone of Federeration space.
...which does not make sense IF the Cardassians ever experienced conflict with any species with Klingon-level weapons. If you disover your offense is, well, not much of one at all, what wide awake group would not work to increase their weapons capabilities?
One of the best Starfleet/Federation excuses was found in the Borg situation, as Starfleet never encountered that assimilated technology before, so even the formidable weapons of a Galaxy class ship would not inflict the damage intended, and their shields were rather easy to break down.
Then-unknown Borg technology is not the BoP (which is a recognized class, thanks to Sulu's call out), so Starfleet of the late 23rd century should not send vessels out without the expectation that they could run into their longtime enemies--or something similar.
Yet again ITRW, many vessels and vehicles intended to operate in the battlefield are incapable of withstanding any sort of enemy fire. The penalties for protection are immense, resulting in crippling increase of mass. Is an analogous penalty dictating Starfleet protection? Apparently so, because shielding does vary greatly from vessel to vessel. A science vessel might not be able to run any instrumentation with the shields hogging all the power, say.
The RW analogies get confusing because different starships are forced to fight different types of historical battle. Big cruisers and explorers slug it out like 17th century warships, with possibly hundreds of shots exchanged before attrition decides the winner. But smaller ships may fight like WWI vessels, with a dozen shots fired until one scores a good hit and immediately ends the fight. A naval battle today would look more like the latter sort, and probably a lot like the Grissom fight, too.
Is the United States Army asleep, then, for leaving most of its battlefield vehicles unarmored and unarmed? Is the US Navy asleep for omitting armor from all of its vessels and leaving ashore AAW and ASW systems except for specific escort-dedicated vessels?
Increasing of weapons capabilities is a daydream that few can afford to turn into any sort of reality. We know Starfleet cannot afford all it would wish for, as our heroes so often arrive a tad too late for shortage of ships, and our sidekicks perish despite being equipped with standard Starfleet gear.
This is pretty much the same as saying that nobody in government employ should step outside without a flak jacket, an automatic weapon and a gas mask, because the risks of armed assault are well known and omnipresent. In reality, relatively few soldiers do that, and it's pretty exceptional for a police patrolman let alone a forensics specialist to do so.
...The Federation is still a tad short of that!
Timo Saloniemi
The rules of real world defensive / protective capabilities do not apply in Star Trek. The very nature of Trek-an shield technology has no mirror application / function in reality, so one cannot make an accurate comparison.
We must use examples in the world for which it was created...
They have been criticized for that, considering the IEDs which have destroyed land vehicles (lives within) in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns.
Then you have rendered Starfleet incompetent--a deserved criticism if you have decades of knowledge about your enemies offensive capabilities, yet you consciously design ships to have no effective defense, but oh yeah, they will send weaker Starfleet crews into areas where this well understood enemy might be lurking.
..unless Starfleet Command is populated by individuals getting their kicks from the possibility of disaster.
The President of the U.S. travels everywhere with the Secret Service, and is still protected after his time in office concludes. Why--because the nature of the position carries with it the expectation of possible assault or assassination attempts. Presidential candidates are offered protection as well. That is not overreach, but a rational acknowledgement of the dangers of the job.
In Trek terms, running around space carries with it well known dangers of the job; we have a history of ships suffering such attacks (see: the Huron in TAS - "The Pirates of Orion"). So again, no functional, allegegdly intelligent space-faring organization would shortchange (lives) due to some notion of expense or SF misguided perception of a vessel classification.
At the end of it all, the Grissom crew seemed like they were designed to be expendable--for no good reason whatsoever.
They do not not need to be God-like to have common sense when designing ships for use in a known hostile universe.
Clearly, some sort of rules apply in the Trek universe, as there exist weak and strong shields. And those seem to be a rather exact match for real-world rules, for whatever reason: small ships have weak shields, and combat-strength shields are the privilege of actual combat-dedicated vessels.
..And that's armchair quarterbacking by dilettantes, as not even the US (long, and by far, the top spender in expeditionary military forces) is rich enough to actually make its logistics and patrol vehicles mine-resistant. And that's not even touching the issue of making them resistant to the weapons of dedicated combat vehicles.
Not incompetent - merely not omnipotent. Effective defenses in the real world are extremely expensive (and typically not particularly effective anyway), and Trek displays considerable verisimilitude in portraying a military force subject to pseudo-realistic limitations.
...And this helps with protecting the remaining millions of US citizens, how? Protecting the Presidents is hideously expensive, and still often fails - it's not something one could extend to people in actual tactical need, such as police officers or paramedics.
J. T. Esteban was not the President of the Federation (unless there are several simultaneously). We don't know if he was a candidate. Are you seriously claiming he was?
How does "some notion of expense" differ from plain "expense"?
All military organizations shortchange lives - they are the cheapest element in the mix, and it's the moral obligation of the organization anyway to make death acceptable and even desirable lest it lose the legitimacy of the killing it performs.
Also, let's not ignore the fact that the capabilities and fate of the Grissom were highly consistent with everything else portrayed in Star Trek, as per your own examples.
For affordable space exploration? Esteban might still be alive if he lived in a fortress two kilometers beneath Earth's surface, but that's not the occupation he chose.
Timo Saloniemi
They do need to be God-like in order to afford those, though.
Yet the movie also introduced a hierarchy the audience had no trouble assimilating: Grissom is weaker than Klingons, Klingons are weaker than Enterprise, Enterprise is weaker than Excelsior.
It's a satisfying dramatic twist, then, that Kirk's ship trumps Styles' after all. And a shocking twist that Kruge's ship trumps Kirk's, contrary to what dialogue on both sides initially establishes.
Timo Saloniemi
It's a satisfying dramatic twist, then, that Kirk's ship trumps Styles' after all. And a shocking twist that Kruge's ship trumps Kirk's, contrary to what dialogue on both sides initially establishes.
Timo Saloniemi
"What are you preparing?! You're always preparing! Just go!"
-- Spaceballs
-- Spaceballs
It has no parallel in reality. the Grissom's pointless weakness was a poor plot device designed to elevate the "evil" / destructive nature of Klingons--the first time movie Klingons would be seen that way, since TMP's versions were victims.
Wounded soldiers were among those who complained about it. Their experience exposed the irresponsible carting out of vehicles that so easily paid a price with human flesh. IEDs have been used for decades--it is nothing new, so knowing this--and the habits of the enemy, willfully sending troops without better protection says something else...
In the Star Trek example, that fictional world falls under stronger scrutiny, as we are led to believe that future Federation (of the TOS movie era) is one without the same money-based system of the present day; IOW, there's no want from the billions of earth's population at any level--which logically must extend to its galaxy-spanning government (founded on earth), and at no point in TSFS are we led to believe technology is granted / applied based on budgetary concerns, so any idea suggesting it must be rejected.
Grissom destruction was not due to weaker shields (the film does not say that), it was the result of a bad plot device which made Esteban seem incompetent (is that not the question of this thread?), and not anything else.
You miss the point:
1. the dangers of the job require protection which acknowledges said danger. There's no skipping around how potential influences planning.
2. Your "and still often fails" is grossly incorrect. In the history of the Service--since being tasked to protect the president (after McKinley's assassination in 1901) the ultimate failure--assassination--occurred one time. However, you seem to be suggesting that if one cannot guarantee 100% protection, the investment is not worth it. They do not play with life that way, and certainly, the Secret Service was not dissolved after suffering their one, ultimate failure to protect the president.
What? Who is talking about Esteban being a presidential candidate. We only deal with what was on screen, and from that, Esteban--a high priority member due to his being the commander of the investigation into the Genesis planet--was inexplicably ill-prepared (by Starfleet)to face the potential of threats.
There's no excuse: TWOK established that Project Genesis was top secret. Do you think it was to keep its existence hidden from Federeration member spiecies--or were they cognizant of the astoundingly dangerous nature of the technology if it fell into enemy hands?
Kruge's interest in Genesis is the very reason it was a once-secret project, hence the fact that Starfleet/UFP considered the entire Genesis affair a potential magnet for enemy governments, spies, et al.--exactly what happened in the film.
Really? not in the world of ST: Kirk faced a court martial for alleged malfeasance in the Finney "death" case. Garth of Izar's attempted genocide was not made "acceptable."
Why would you say such a patently false thing?
And? What do wounded soldiers know about equipping an army? If they had that sort of expertise, they'd be writing the budget or sitting in Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Complaining won't change the fact that armor is expensive and soldiers are surprisingly cheap. Trying to give each soldier a personal tank is a surefire way to lose a war, so a soldier insisting on that is a traitor working for the enemy.
Beyond that point, it's a matter of preferences whether one wants to tackle businesses making too much money on too little equipment, politicians engaging in too many wars at the same time, or the general injustice of wars, weapons and death existing in the first place. It won't make much of a difference either way.
You mean there are always starships available when there's an emergency?
If not (when not!), then the UFP government must be refusing to build sufficient numbers of ships simply because it is eeeeeevil and rotten to the core...
You are good at sprouting keywords. This has little or no bearing on how the world works, though. Dangerous jobs in the real world are extremely seldom compensated for with effective protection, simply because this is not affordable. And affordability isn't merely something one measures in dollars: firemen don't wear truly fireproof suits because those are too expensive in terms of mechanical inconvenience, and warships and battlefield vehicles don't carry impenetrable armor because that is too expensive in terms of mass.
Sure, Starfleet may wish it had combat shields on science vessels, personal shields on landing parties, and a pony. Wishing so doesn't make it so. This is consistently evident from Star Trek in all its forms, and rightly so: it's both realistic and dramatically satisfying.
Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out that in the real world (which you seem to ignore about as consistently as Star Trek imitates it), some parties get 100% protection, others get 25%, many get 1%, and most get 0%. This is based on hard, cold mathematics in which "need" is only one of the variables; if other variables were ignored in favor of "need", missions would not be accomplished, armies would lose wars, and crime, fires and disease would run rampant.
Well, guess who. You use PotUS as an example of a person who gets the protection he deserves, which is about as relevant as using Jesus Christ as an example of a person who performs miracles and resurrects. It simply means squat as regards how the real world functions: troops in the field, in much greater need of personal protection than some figurehead politician, get basically none.
Yet Kirk was always expected to give his life for this or that; Kirk's opponents were supposed to die for their sins (say, Tracey's attempted stopping of genocide). The military needs to glorify and condone death, but obviously it must also uphold double standards in doing so, as common sense or George Patton so self-evidently tell us: it's the other poor bugger who has to die, and you aren't supposed to notice you are the other poor bugger by another name.
Why only twelve like Kirk's, then? Starfleet obviously needs hundreds. Somebody ought to tell them - say, the ghosts of all those dead Denevans or Malurians or, if civilian deaths don't matter, the ghosts of the personnel of the Defiant, the Constellation or the Cestus III outpost.
There's no point in arguing that Starfleet can afford everything it can dream up, because that simply isn't true. You need to watch some Star Trek to get your facts straight.
Timo Saloniemi
Niiiice. Love this post. Well done.
You know, it just occured to me that an "outdated" BOP took down the Federation flagship in Generations, which was a Galaxy class vessel.
So it stands to reason that the "lucky shot" in III would've laid waste to a smaller science vessel. Kruge did target the Grissom's engine, which obviously caused a warp core breach.
23rd century shield technology does not exist, thus there's no parallel. Moreover, the 20th and 21st centuries rely on money and concerns of budgets which do not exist in the fictional 23rd century, so the entire dilemma of "budget concerns" in the Grissom matter is utterly false...unless you have a secret TSFS script the rest of us do not know about.
So, you reject those who actually serve and experience the deficiencies (effectively making them experts), but believe---who--exactly? You?
You would need one if the ship sent into a region was equipped to handle know dangers--the entire point of the failed plot gimmick of the Grissom.
You are off on some tangent.If not (when not!), then the UFP government must be refusing to build sufficient numbers of ships simply because it is eeeeeevil and rotten to the core...
Again, your entire premise is false: there's no budget concerns stated or suggested in TSFS. None. Why you insist on creating false dilemmas in order to defend a poorly constructed, ST-contradicting plot gimmick is anyone's guess.
You have to demonstrate how your false budget dilemma in ST mirrors the real world in TSFS / Grissom matter. I'm still waiting for the evidence from the film.
It is all to convenient that the one time a relevant real world example is presented--which supports how poor the "budget / no protection" plot was, you attempt to reject it. You cannot cherry-pick reality in order to support something that never existed in the film.
Who said they "obviously" needed hundreds? No one on TOS, TAS, TMP, TWOK or TSFS. In fact, as many starships were lost during the course of TOS, no Starfleet representative expressed a concern for the imagined great "expense" of building starfleet. No one said:
"Damnit Kirk! Your risk-taking butt better be careful, 'cause we're being bankrupted trying to replace all those lost starships! Maybe we need to cut back on exploring the final frontier...it's DANGEROUS out there! And we sure as hell cannot afford to keep this up. After all, those 12 ships nearly had us on the bread lines!"
Nowhere to be found, otherwise, you would have posted the hard evidence, instead of going on and on with your false dilemma.
Take your own advice, as there's no evidence to support your asinine "budget" claim regarding starships. Frankly, you you pulled that out of your butt--arguing for the sake of arguing.
Next time you actually watch TSFS (or anty ST, for that matter), tell us the exact line where anyone states Grissom was designed to be a sitting duck in a universe where established threats exist, and while you're at it, point to that other magical scene where someone justifies the sense in sending a weak vessel to investigate a project that was--almost overnight--the object of espionage, hence its classified nature. That status was not hiding it from member worlds, so one can conclude the Federation had a fear of enemy governments learning about it. If that was the case, you do not send a weak vessel into a region that could be (and in fact, was) compromised at any time by said enemies.
Similar threads
