There's a contest...which ship died worst? That's depressing...
USS Grissom - why?
- Thread starter Kirby
- Start date
And have it never make it away from Earth because of technical malfunction? and you're trying to avoid historical irony?
Why? Since Grissom never got to the moon, his Mercury flight was famous for a mishap, and nobody realizes he flew any Gemini, the main thing he is remembered for is going up in flames. Surely a repetition of that would be "fitting homage" rather than "bad taste"?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
His Mercury flight may be remembered for the hatch incident but the fact he was tapped to command both Gemini and Apollo's first manned missions is a testament to the regard with which he was held in the astronaut corps. Had the Apollo 1 fire not occurred it's been speculated that in all likelyhood it would be Gus Grissom and not Neil Armstrong who was the first man on the Moon.
That the ship was destroyed never really bothered me. What bothered me was they put Grissom's name on a junk ship like the Oberth. He deserved a ship like a Constitution, something pushing the edge of the envelope.
Still, if blowing up a POS ship named after him is a fitting homage, would another be phasering the Captain of the Kennedy in the back of the head?
Or might that be bad taste?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Grissom's story was fresh in folks' minds given RIGHT STUFF had come out within the last year. Plus, as noted, NASA and Trek have a good relationship. It is a tribute to have any ship named after you, not a 'burn' (except maybe Edsel.)
A better argument could be made for undermining the name ENTERPRISE by giving one to Harriman (or, if you're inclined to pursue this further, to Picard, who probably would have been more at home on a GRISSOM.)
A better argument could be made for undermining the name ENTERPRISE by giving one to Harriman (or, if you're inclined to pursue this further, to Picard, who probably would have been more at home on a GRISSOM.)
^How so (in regards to Picard being more at home on a Grissom)?
In an eerie case of life imitating art, the ship whose survivors Enterprise is searching for in "The Cage" was the Columbia.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
It's a science vessel, like STARGAZER ... plus for me, I think Picard was usually a marginal commander, somebody whose arrogance was not necessarily qualified or vetted by his abilities, yet also somebody who was often too bound by protocol, which puts him more in line with the late 23rd century bureaucrats who seemed to have risen way too high in Starfleet.
Esteban and Styles and Harriman don't seem to represent 'best & brightest,' and probably wouldn't even in the mirror universe. I always thought Harriman had potential because he would be working off the guilt of thinking he got Kirk killed for his whole career, which might inspire him the way Garrovick's death impacted Kirk. In fact, I have a whole E-b storyline for miniseries that has been rarin' to go in my head ever since I stumbled out of GENERATIONS back in '94, one that works with the xfiles-political paranoia feel of SFS-TUC but would still let Harriman and co bootstrap themselves out of the gutter and get the E-b its name back after the shameful first trip out.
^The Stargazer wasn't a science vessel...and how was Picard bound by protocol? (I don't mean this negatively, I'm genuinely curious)
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I thought it was based on my recollections of TNG ... didn't he tell scotty it was an underpowered science ship (or was that in the Gerrold novelization of farpoint?) at any rate, I found Picard to be bound in just about every way ... he had a very backward (as in english middle ages royalty) notion of command, he seemed to be conveniently enslaved by regs whenever a bad script needed him to be, and he basically was almost always unlikeable or not admirable. Sometimes I think most of the decent 24th century commanders were at opposite ends of the spectrum from one another - riker and jellicoe, with Sisko striking the only sane middle ground.
Now if Picard had actually learned some humility from Q WHO, he might have become an interesting character. but for me, I wish he'd died during assimilation.
edit add-on: i just searched for STARGAZER and SCIENCE VESSEL and got the following quote at the URL
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/starbase117/cast.html
"He rose through the ranks quite quickly, and within a few years was given command of the USS Stargazer, a lowly science vessel."
Clearly I'm not the only one thinking that the STARGAZER was a science vessel. Here's somebody who has a webpage that is apparently TNG bios coming to the same conclusion.
But I will readily admit I'm no TNG expert ... except for DS9 and a half-handful of TNGs, I have no use for the 24th century of trek at all.
Now if you'd done a show from the point of view of the Maquis, I'd be really interested ...
Last edited:
^The Stargazer was never described as being a science vessel, much less underpowered. The Tsiolkovsky or Lantree might have been described that way...
All starships seem capable of assuming just about any role required of them, even though the Oberth class ships almost always assume the role of a damsel in distress.
And of course, in complete reversal of how it happens in the real world, the names given to the ships reflect their dramatic roles, not their design or intended mission. The ships receive their names when they appear on screen, not when they are fictionally launched back in the mists of fictional history. The Grissom may have been named that way exactly because it was known that the ship would helplessly suffer a fiery, undeserved death and would be sorely missed. Similarly, it would be likely and fitting to see a starship named John F. Kennedy be sneak-attacked and quickly destroyed while on her way to some great deeds, so that she could never actually perform any such deeds. "Bad taste"? "Fitting symbolism" would be how the people behind the show would put it. Although generally they'd probably be subtler than that.
Timo Saloniemi
And of course, in complete reversal of how it happens in the real world, the names given to the ships reflect their dramatic roles, not their design or intended mission. The ships receive their names when they appear on screen, not when they are fictionally launched back in the mists of fictional history. The Grissom may have been named that way exactly because it was known that the ship would helplessly suffer a fiery, undeserved death and would be sorely missed. Similarly, it would be likely and fitting to see a starship named John F. Kennedy be sneak-attacked and quickly destroyed while on her way to some great deeds, so that she could never actually perform any such deeds. "Bad taste"? "Fitting symbolism" would be how the people behind the show would put it. Although generally they'd probably be subtler than that.
Timo Saloniemi
Yes, they would be more subtle.
When was a starship destroyed without becoming a fireball??
trevanian
Rear Admiral
In the good old pre-star wars days, when fireballs in space were not only scientifically invalid, but rarely depicted that way in drama.
TOS usually had a flash of light (like a poor man's version of the nuke blasts we saw later in SILENT RUNNING, which always looked to me the way stuff should blow up in space, i.e., LIGHT based, not fireball based.)
I don't think B5 started doing fireballs till the 2nd year or so either, but I might be wrong there.
If JT Estaban had allowed Saavik, David and young Spock to beam up as they'd recommended, they'd all be dead too.
Kruge's gunner (#1) was ordered not to destroy the Federation ship, but to fire a warning or disabling shot. He missed, much to Kruge's ire.
Four nacelles are useful for exploration ships going on longterm missions, far from Federation repair depots.
Similar threads
