as far as i know it's canon that it was 1.5 years after the 3rd season of TOS
and 15 years after TMP for TWOK....so...
that sounds about right....
The Passage of Time in the Movies
- Thread starter Komack
- Start date
as far as i know it's canon that it was 1.5 years after the 3rd season of TOS
and 15 years after TMP for TWOK....so...
that sounds about right....
Not really; as stated upthread, the movie had a scene establishing that it had been 2.5 years after Kirk had last "logged any star hours", but there was no reference to how much time had passed since TOS. 2.5 years is merely the minimum.
At the time, the movie was probably supposed to take place about a decade after TOS, much like the shooting of the movie took place a decade after the shooting of TOS.
Timo Saloniemi
Another Stardate conversion scheme, Timo?
...However, in that case Kirk couldn't say to Scotty that his special qualifications for the TMP mission include "five years out there". He would have to say "ten years out there".
Indeed, the very fact that Kirk boasts on his special five-year experience suggests to me that Starfleet virtually never sends its skippers on five-year missions, and that Rear Admiral Kirk thus trumps all those hundreds of Captains available to defend Earth...
We'd have to construe some other kind of adventures for Kirk between TOS and TMP. And since even the observed five-year mission wasn't one long cruise out and back, but instead included numerous pit stops, patrol assignments, and even a couple of returns to Earth, this "other kind of adventure" would probably have to be really discontinuous or intermittent in order not to count as another five-year sortie!
Timo Saloniemi
Indeed, the very fact that Kirk boasts on his special five-year experience suggests to me that Starfleet virtually never sends its skippers on five-year missions, and that Rear Admiral Kirk thus trumps all those hundreds of Captains available to defend Earth...
We'd have to construe some other kind of adventures for Kirk between TOS and TMP. And since even the observed five-year mission wasn't one long cruise out and back, but instead included numerous pit stops, patrol assignments, and even a couple of returns to Earth, this "other kind of adventure" would probably have to be really discontinuous or intermittent in order not to count as another five-year sortie!
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps we could conceive of a workable system for 23rd century Starfleet where a starship spends five years 'out there' and then as they come back into the inner Federation sphere they are assigned various schlepping duties as they make their way back to homebase? Similarly, an 'outbound' starship might have to perform the same duties, in reverse order.
That still wouldn't describe TOS very well. Kirk was out there in the middle of nowhere when S1 began, then went back to patrolling the Neutral Zone or twice visiting SB 11, then went out again, got back for wargames, did a time travel mission at Earth, then went out again, etc.
Perhaps it's just "5 tightly packed years working on diverse assignments, but with the same ship and crew", as opposed to "5 more leisurely packed years on diverse assignments, each of them with a crew gathered for the mission"?
Many of the TOS novels that are our main reason for wishing for another 5-year mission in fact describe relatively isolated sorties where the supporting crew consists of never before seen "guest stars" (probably as per Richard Arnold's "avoid all cross-references" orders). Perhaps those missions "don't count", while the ones where definite TOS elements are used are in fact part of the original 5-year mission, not of a separate second one?
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps it's just "5 tightly packed years working on diverse assignments, but with the same ship and crew", as opposed to "5 more leisurely packed years on diverse assignments, each of them with a crew gathered for the mission"?
Many of the TOS novels that are our main reason for wishing for another 5-year mission in fact describe relatively isolated sorties where the supporting crew consists of never before seen "guest stars" (probably as per Richard Arnold's "avoid all cross-references" orders). Perhaps those missions "don't count", while the ones where definite TOS elements are used are in fact part of the original 5-year mission, not of a separate second one?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo makes a good point here. The real question is, what made the "Five Year Mission" different from any other deployment?
I had always envisioned it as a five-year deployment, and upon return from the cruise, the ship would go through some degree of overhaul and allow significant crew transitions. While many of the same crew may stay aboard for the next cruise, many will not.
I would see at least six months of post-deployment overhaul (whatever the space equivalent of scraping the barnacles off the hull and the like) combined with proper repair or replacement of degraded or outdated systems.
Crew members not staying with the ship for the next cruise would be reassigned "ashore" in such slots as a tour in Starfleet Operations or the Academy or whatever else. The crew brought together for the next tour would then spend another six months to a year or so working up, going on short "Training cruises" (note the line in TWOK: "Admiral? Wouldn't it be easier to just put an experienced crew back on the ship?" seems to me that implies the ship was working up a new crew for her next 5 year mission).
After about two years the ship would go on the next 5 year mission, with the crew largely remaining the same personnel throughout.
Every N cruises, the ship would go through a Major Refit with a substantial tear down and modernization (replacing Warp Nacelles, Impulse Engines etc., deflector screens etc.) On screen evidence shows that Enterprise in The Cage has slightly different Nacelles and some other structural differences than in the main series run. I would surmise that a ship launched in the early to mid '40s would likely go through one major overhaul by the '60s, and another one by the '80s. Exact timing is not explicit, but the basic premise can be inferred.
I can easily see Enterprise going through several 5-year missions and subsequent dwell time's (as well as one major refit) before Kirk took command, with another major refit immediately after that mission. As we see in TMP, Kirk had taken an assignment at Starfleet Operations, Spock had gone on at least a sabbatical (note he had been on at least two 5-year deployments in a row - having served under Pike and Kirk, but stepping up to first officer under Kirk having been of lesser pay-grade under Pike). Bones had retired. Sulu, Checkov, and Uhrua stayed aboard, along with Scotty who was mastering the refit (Personally, I can envision a Ship's Engineer being the most likely individual to remain with a single ship for the remainder of his or her career). With the reunification of the crew at the end of TMP, I would envision another 5-year mission under Kirk, followed by another dwell-time cycle and we catch up to an early "working up" phase with a largely trainee crew liberally sprinkled with veterans doing the training. While it may also be standing in as a Training Vessel (i.e. most of the trainees are NOT slated to serve aboard Enterprise but Adm. Kirk plans to pick the best of them to be the new additions when his ship goes out without him on the next 5-year mission (and to provide his good friend Spock the best new crewmen possible). Kahn interrupts these plans, and things flow from there. (Battle damage leads to the early decommissioning of Enterprise, and the replacement is likely the End of the Run of Constitution Class construction largely made out of spare assemblies. Hat Tip to Praetor for how -A came to be)
In my head, following TFF (which I largely ignore) they go on another 5-year mission, though it my only be the 3-year "gaseous anomaly" mission mentioned earlier in the thread. At the end of TUC, Enterprise is also retired for largely lingering construction issues (again, HT to Praetor) and battle damage. Enterprise-B fits in nicely a few years after TUC, but not hot on the heels of TUC.
Anyway, that's my $0.02 (or quite a bit more)
But this again runs into the issue that Kirk somehow thinks his five years were special.
That is, he's apparently telling Scotty that his winning argument for getting the ship back was that he had the five-year mission "out there" under his belt. That is, he used that argument at Starfleet HQ to win his ship back (he's not arguing with Scotty, trying to defend himself - Scotty is already on his side!). Was it merely a contest between himself and the supposed relative greenhorn Decker? That makes very little sense: Earth should have been teeming with Captains who had five-year experience if this indeed was a standard Starfleet mode of operations, and Decker should have been competing with those, knocking Admiral Kirk out of the game altogether.
This in mind, I'd be happier if Starfleet before TOS had mainly performed one-year missions (whatever the definition), and that Kirk had been the first to up the ante to five years (keeping the definition), making him an exceptional celebrity.
That way, I could also believe in the backstage/novel insistence that Kirk's ship was the only one to return from a five-year mission relatively safely. Lots of ships, and lots of Constitutions, must have returned safely. But if five-year sorties are a rarity, it's statistically possible that NCC-1701 was the only one to finish one of those; perhaps the only other ships to ever attempt such a thing were the Defiant and the Constellation?
Timo Saloniemi
That is, he's apparently telling Scotty that his winning argument for getting the ship back was that he had the five-year mission "out there" under his belt. That is, he used that argument at Starfleet HQ to win his ship back (he's not arguing with Scotty, trying to defend himself - Scotty is already on his side!). Was it merely a contest between himself and the supposed relative greenhorn Decker? That makes very little sense: Earth should have been teeming with Captains who had five-year experience if this indeed was a standard Starfleet mode of operations, and Decker should have been competing with those, knocking Admiral Kirk out of the game altogether.
This in mind, I'd be happier if Starfleet before TOS had mainly performed one-year missions (whatever the definition), and that Kirk had been the first to up the ante to five years (keeping the definition), making him an exceptional celebrity.
That way, I could also believe in the backstage/novel insistence that Kirk's ship was the only one to return from a five-year mission relatively safely. Lots of ships, and lots of Constitutions, must have returned safely. But if five-year sorties are a rarity, it's statistically possible that NCC-1701 was the only one to finish one of those; perhaps the only other ships to ever attempt such a thing were the Defiant and the Constellation?
Timo Saloniemi
Fair point, to which one could also extrapolate that either they had been 3-year missions or some such, or that space being such a dangerous place few actually survive the full 5 years (suffer significant damage/casualties and have to return early or are lost outright). Further, wasn't Kirk supposed to have been the youngest Captain in Starfleet when he took command? That would make him the youngest most experienced man available - one who was not only willing and able, but outright campaigning for the job. I almost see Nagura conceding the experience point, and just giving Kirk back Enterprise to shut him up (or get him out of his hair). There may have been others able and available, but with as few of the Constitutions around for any substantial length of time the list of those with experience with them may have been much shorter than after the buildup we see evident later on. Think of them like US Battleships in the 80's and early '90s. Very few of them. Very choice assignments. Admirals volunteered for demotions to Captain to command them - then retired upon the conclusion of their tour. Kirk got his first command of one at a relatively young age - and had a long career in Starfleet ahead of him. When your first command is what most officers would consider the crowning achievement for a career, what do you do for an encore? That Kirk went on to (apparently) unprecedented successive tours before his retirement is what makes him so legendary. While they might consider his first 5-year tour to be quite successful, and borderline special - the successive tours sometimes at least matching if not exceeding that success are what make him in the eyes of "Future Historians" - even if it just boils down to his wearing out Nagura to give him back his former command allowing him to build upon his previous success.
Not as far as is canonically known. That is, we never heard he would have been the youngest officer to be promoted to Captain rank; nor the youngest officer given the command of a starship on a regular basis; nor the youngest officer to take over the command of a starship in an emergency situation. But all of the above are still possible - just not established.
I wonder how seriously Nogura took the V'Ger threat. I mean, a menacing cloud several AU wide, headed for Earth at high warp, is bound to be a big problem; would Nogura have time for petty politics with Kirk? Or would he just say "You are aboard as an expert advisor only, and Decker has the ship because he's qualified for her, and you don't have any negotiating room: if you decline during a galactic emergency, you will a) be fired, b) be beheaded, c) be dragged on the streets naked, and d) be posthumously disgraced in the official Starfleet Magazine for posterity. Don't think I don't have enough incriminating holograms of you."?
OTOH, V'Ger was bad but, judging by what was known of it when Kirk got his ship, Starfleet might have faced worse. Perhaps this was exactly the right time for petty politics, as far as Nogura or Kirk knew?
Sounds good, and I'd bite, but my personal preference is for a somewhat bigger Starfleet where Kirk's TOS ship was just a bread-and-butter vessel, not a celebrity capital ship. TNG was all about celebrities on the big flagship; TOS had more of a bluecollar feel for me.
Agreed with the rest of the sentiment, certainly.
Timo Saloniemi
Except in TOS, it was established that there were only 12 or so Constitution class ships... I can certainly buy Starfleet getting larger as part of a buildup or general expansion by the time of TMP and later. I do agree about the "blue collar" feel though. TOS is one ship among several. Kind of "A [year or two ] in the life" of a Starship.
I imagine there were the planned 5-year missions for each starship as they were built, probably early on only one built every year or so, but with decades long (or longer) operational lifespans, and increasing building capacity more and more ships being in the fleet by the later movies and into TNG.
RE: Kirk's Age, Shatner was in his early to mid 30s during the TOS production, it is not a large leap to infer that Kirk was also in his 30s. That is a bit young to become a Captain in a choice assignment (my only good frame of reference is the US Military structure, where one makes O-6 i.e. COL or CAPT somewhere around 20-25 years time in service as an officer, which assuming an age of 20-22 upon completion of the Academy or ROTC training, makes them i.v.o. 42-47 when becoming Captain). I would certainly say that Kirk was by no means ready to retire from Starfleet after his 5-year mission - as many would likely be.
Ok, so 34 in season two; that means he was 33 in season one, and 35 in season three (assuming a 1 year/season progression - which is not clearly evident). Just using 33 as an anchor point at one end or the other means he was between 29 and 37 for the five-year mission. Using it as the middle makes him 31 at the start and 35 at the end. Any way you cut that, it is quite young to command a ship of such stature. I'm in that age range, and while I have some command and leadership background, in no way do I think 99.9% of those I've ever worked with in that age range were ready for such a weighty command. Kirk would have to have been exceptional to even come close to rating such a command so early in his career. I think that would also play into Nagura's decision to give him back Enterprise
One might factor in Kirk's first known mission in command of NCC-1701: a sortie through the galactic barrier and to the unknown outside. Perhaps Starfleet hand-picked a young hotshot for this near-suicidal sortie because he was a) more expendable than the experienced skippers and b) more likely to stay alive and active through the possibly decades-long mission? And perhaps taking back what had been given was too much of a hassle, even after the out-of-galaxy mission flopped?
Regarding Kirk's age, we might remember that Kirk was mentally handicapped when claiming that he was 34. He had made other errors with numbers just moments ago, and his friends and colleagues had been too embarrassed to correct him. So perhaps Kirk was just daydreaming about being 34, and in fact was closer to 44? A theoretical possibility, to be sure, but a possibility nevertheless.
And the USN only had six Pegasus class patrol hydrofoils in the eighties and nineties. Still doesn't mean the USN only had a few dozen ships, or that the Pegasus was as big as they got.
Timo Saloniemi
Regarding Kirk's age, we might remember that Kirk was mentally handicapped when claiming that he was 34. He had made other errors with numbers just moments ago, and his friends and colleagues had been too embarrassed to correct him. So perhaps Kirk was just daydreaming about being 34, and in fact was closer to 44? A theoretical possibility, to be sure, but a possibility nevertheless.
And the USN only had six Pegasus class patrol hydrofoils in the eighties and nineties. Still doesn't mean the USN only had a few dozen ships, or that the Pegasus was as big as they got.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps it was 15 Ceti Alpha years.
