Spoilers Why wasn't the Franklin and NX class ship?

[Christopher]

Okay, so the UN-like arrowhead was the 21st century UESPA logo. All right then. It would be interesting to know why and how the rough design came under Starfleet's usage, but okay.

Again -- UESPA was first introduced in TOS as the organization that the Enterprise answered to, before the writers came up with Starfleet. That used to be seen as just a continuity error, but the canonical use of UESPA in VGR and ENT (and in the Enterprise-B dedication plaque) suggests that UESPA is a division of Starfleet.

The interpretation I've used in my Rise of the Federation novels, which is what I've been describing here, is that UESPA is the organization that operated the United Earth Starfleet as seen in ENT. (Makes sense to me -- United Earth Space Probe Agency, United Earth Starfleet.) This is suggested by the combined UESPA/Starfleet Command logo seen in "Demons"/"Terra Prime." In the books, as I believe I already stated earlier in this thread, the Federation Starfleet begins as the merger of the founder worlds' respective space services, and the various ship logos seen in TOS represent those various services. I assume that over time, Starfleet becomes more unified, and what started out as separate planets' space agencies become merely administrative subdivisions within Starfleet, thus allowing us to reconcile Kirk's Enterprise answering to UESPA as well as Starfleet.

No, it's neither a race or an election. I'm only making the point that one model is better supported than the other by the evidence.

I disagree. You're accepting the evidence that fits your prejudice and dismissing the evidence that doesn't. I'm trying to construct a model that fairly encompasses all the evidence without bias.

Also, I seem to recall you telling me to ignore the "Matter of Time" (TNG) episode in regards to the phaser/laser/phase weapon question, despite the episode offering relevant evidence to the discussion. How come applying the same reasoning here, is suddenly wrong? How was that not "ignoring data that doesn't fit your preferred model"?

Because it's not the same reasoning. As I explained to you at the time, Worf's statement that phasers didn't exist in the 22nd century is hearsay, and hearsay is not evidence of anything beyond what the speaker believes to be the case. There is no way of assessing its accuracy without additional, objective data. The presence of the arrowhead insignia on non-Enterprise personnel in "Court-Martial" and "The Menagerie" and its pre-TOS appearances in later canon are firsthand, objective visual evidence.

Okay, first of all, it really sounds like your using a double standard. Look, I'm 100% percent sure it's not intentional, but I know we've swapped posts about continuity and how much leeway the creators should have regarding retcons. As I noted above, it feels like you're suddenly arguing the opposite and dismissing your previous position of more flexibility in continuity. Again, I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying how it's coming across here.

And that's a bizarre way of looking at it. What I'm proposing is itself a retcon. It's a reinterpretation that isn't at all what the creators at the various times intended, since those different creators obviously had different, contradictory intentions. Which is the whole reason we need a novel interpretation that can reconcile those contradictory approaches.

It seems overly complex for something that's would be simpler to just explain away as a filming error.

If it were only one instance, I'd agree. But my model is based on multiple data points -- "Friendship One," the ENT enlisted patches, the Kelvin, "Court-Martial," etc. -- that collectively lend themselves to a model where the arrowhead is the UESPA emblem and UESPA is a subdivision of Starfleet. This is what I tend to do in my Trek fiction -- to take various, often conflicting data points from across Trek history and postulate a global model that reconciles them.

Also, it feels like we're trying to twist the franchise to fit the memo

Please stop accusing me of that. I already explained to you once -- my model is based on the visual evidence. I merely cited the memo to contextualize it.

Also, the fact that we suddenly didn't realize it was wrong until the memo showed up doesn't really speak too well for the theory, if the evidence was that obscure. Honestly, would you be advocating this model without the memo?

Yes, I would, because I adopted the model years before I even heard of the damn memo. The memo was first posted here on the TrekBBS in January 2013. But here's a post from 2010 in which I mention the idea that the insignia could be for "subfleets" instead of individual ships. And I wrote the first Rise of the Federation novel in 2012. The memo simply confirmed and clarified what I and others had already concluded based on the onscreen evidence.

 

[The Wormhole]

ships with the Enterprise arrowhead

- U.S.S. Ariel (registry unknown) (“The Eye of the Beholder” [TAS]): A TOS era ship
- Unnamed ship of the hostile officers (“Court Martial” [TOS]): A TOS era ship

Dr. McCoy also wore it on whatever his previous assignment was prior to serving on the Enterprise when he visited Capella IV.

Sure, they didn't give him a real SFMC uniform, and I'm sure there's other explanations as to why he has that rank

Not only does he wear standard Starfleet uniform, it has Admiral's rank which kind of nixes the idea he actually is a Colonel.

(sort of like "Counselor Troi" or "Doctor McCoy" who for whatever reason are never referred to by their ACTUAL RANK).

It's considered acceptable to refer to doctors in the military as "Doctor" saving their actual ranks for formal situations.

 

[WebLurker]

Again -- UESPA was first introduced in TOS as the organization that the Enterprise answered to, before the writers came up with Starfleet. That used to be seen as just a continuity error, but the canonical use of UESPA in VGR and ENT (and in the Enterprise-B dedication plaque) suggests that UESPA is a division of Starfleet.

Makes sense.

The interpretation I've used in my Rise of the Federation novels, which is what I've been describing here, is that UESPA is the organization that operated the United Earth Starfleet as seen in ENT. (Makes sense to me -- United Earth Space Probe Agency, United Earth Starfleet.) This is suggested by the combined UESPA/Starfleet Command logo seen in "Demons"/"Terra Prime." In the books, as I believe I already stated earlier in this thread, the Federation Starfleet begins as the merger of the founder worlds' respective space services, and the various ship logos seen in TOS represent those various services. I assume that over time, Starfleet becomes more unified, and what started out as separate planets' space agencies become merely administrative subdivisions within Starfleet, thus allowing us to reconcile Kirk's Enterprise answering to UESPA as well as Starfleet.

Okay. Given that Earth was a Federation member (and the founder of the original Starfleet), I guess I never had a problem with the Enterprise (or other Starfleet ships) working with the UESPA if it was a separate organization, but hey, since it seems to be a Starfleet department (or at least an organization that works closely with Starfleet), no prob. I think I like your idea of the different fleets merging for the original Federation Starfleet. Kind of a shame that we never saw more alien craft in service in the TV shows.

I disagree. You're accepting the evidence that fits your prejudice and dismissing the evidence that doesn't. I'm trying to construct a model that fairly encompasses all the evidence without bias.

Okay, I'll concede this.

I had always assumed that the non-Enterprise arrowheads were simple mistakes, so it is a knee jerk to chalk them up as simple errors that we (well, I) assumed were "really" something else. There are other cases where we do that (like the inconsistent size of DS9's Defiant, the 200 year figure with Khan, etc.), so, on paper, it didn't seem like a truly different situation.

I think I understand the point you're making (in regards to biases on my part and all), but I'm still not sure I understand why this case is different from a situation where one version can be just labeled as a filming error, esp. since the unique patches are used very consistently after the first season, which suggests a retcon, which if I understand correctly are to supersede any previous information. (I'm referring to multiple ships using the Enterprise patch at the same time in TOS; I have no problem with the pre-TOS ones also using it, since I could see it getting passed down.)

Because it's not the same reasoning. As I explained to you at the time, Worf's statement that phasers didn't exist in the 22nd century is hearsay, and hearsay is not evidence of anything beyond what the speaker believes to be the case. There is no way of assessing its accuracy without additional, objective data. The presence of the arrowhead insignia on non-Enterprise personnel in "Court-Martial" and "The Menagerie" and its pre-TOS appearances in later canon are firsthand, objective visual evidence.

Okay, I see what you mean now. Not sure I agree with your conclusions on how accurate Worf's hearsay was in that instance, but thanks for the clarification. Your reasoning does make sense.

Out of curiosity, can there be cases where the visual info is not accurate or contradicts other stuff and how should that be approached? I was trying to analyze that in the case of the patches and apparently my logic was in error.

And that's a bizarre way of looking at it. What I'm proposing is itself a retcon. It's a reinterpretation that isn't at all what the creators at the various times intended, since those different creators obviously had different, contradictory intentions. Which is the whole reason we need a novel interpretation that can reconcile those contradictory approaches.

Okay. I guess it could be subjective. There are a few retcons like that that I like.

If it were only one instance, I'd agree. But my model is based on multiple data points -- "Friendship One," the ENT enlisted patches, the Kelvin, "Court-Martial," etc. -- that collectively lend themselves to a model where the arrowhead is the UESPA emblem and UESPA is a subdivision of Starfleet. This is what I tend to do in my Trek fiction -- to take various, often conflicting data points from across Trek history and postulate a global model that reconciles them.

Okay.

Please stop accusing me of that. I already explained to you once -- my model is based on the visual evidence. I merely cited the memo to contextualize it.

Look, as I tried to explain before, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything; I was explaining how you were coming across (which I gave you the benefit of the doubt of being unintentional). I'm sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intent. At this point, I'm trying to understand how you go the answer you did, since it's not quite clicking for me.

For what it's worth, I think you've been explaining yourself really well in that last post.

Yes, I would, because I adopted the model years before I even heard of the damn memo. The memo was first posted here on the TrekBBS in January 2013. But here's a post from 2010 in which I mention the idea that the insignia could be for "subfleets" instead of individual ships. And I wrote the first Rise of the Federation novel in 2012. The memo simply confirmed and clarified what I and others had already concluded based on the onscreen evidence.

Okay. In retrospect, I probably should've worded that question differently, since on a re-read, it's kind of accusatory. My main point was my wondering when you had worked out your model and if it had been in response to the memo or not. Just trying to get a better understanding of the sitution

To try and take things in a more positive direction, how would the subfleets work then? It seems like in a lot of the show, the Enterprise is operating independently, which is ironic, given that it's the only ship we've seen that shares its insignia.

Dr. McCoy also wore it on whatever his previous assignment was prior to serving on the Enterprise when he visited Capella IV.

Okay. Forgot about that. One question: Since McCoy was incorrectly wearing a regular season TOS uniform instead of the pilot episodes' turtlenecks that were in use at the time, could it be possible that his wearing the arrowhead patch could be also considered part of the discrepancy?

If not, then I'll guess I'll need to update my list.

 

[Timo]

As regards the arrowheads, out of all the evidence available, "Court Martial" is perhaps the most telling in that Jim confronts Timothy, a man rather clearly not from Kirk's own ship, while both wear the arrowhead symbol.

There is little hope in shoehorning the symbols to denote individual ships. Nor is there hope of pretending that the other symbols did not exist. But the happy medium is easily found in deciding that a specific shape corresponds to a specific fleet. In DS9 era, these are numbered (1st, 9th). In TNG, references to "the fleet" may be divided in two for convenience: those referring to the entire Starfleet, and those referring to the "fleet in question" (so that "The 3rd Fleet" is what Shelby thinks will bounce back in no time flat in "Best of Both Worlds").

All we have to assume is that Kirk's fleet gained symbolic prominence over others around the time of the TOS movies. Did it used to be the 1st Fleet? Who knows. But Kirk's fleet may have had a particularly close association with UESPA, compared with Decker's or Tracey's fleets which may have been associated with some other organizations (Earthly or alien) instead.

There is certainly some satisfaction to be found in the idea that the early Fleets of Starfleet had "national" origins, with symbology to match. This would be the very thing Starfleet would want to get rid of as integration proceeded, either for abstract egalitarian reasons - or then because Earth wanted to assert its utter dominance over the organization, down to stamping its national symbol onto every ship and chest.

OTOH, since the references to our heroes working for UESPA disappear after TOS, we might find more satisfaction in a more unified and egalitarian early Starfleet where certain people just get assigned "mission batches" - Kirk gets the UESPA symbol for his part in a mission of exploration, and so do all others participating in that mission, be it in shipboard or support roles. Again, Starfleet would in a propaganda move prune its patches down to the one that refers to exploration, especially when it sends ships on conquest sorties.

(Oh, as for the McCoy on Capella thing, there's no timestamp on that. Could have happened during his TOS tour of duty as an integral part of his NCC-1701 assignment, as we do hear of starship crew members being sent on assignments offboard/ashore every now and then - even if not in TOS as such.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[starburst]

The Franklin and Kelvin's patches are different enough I would count them as separate patches, IMHO. I don't have a problem with Starfleet reusing variations of the arrowhead over time, esp. as there are decades in between each ship getting there's.

It seems overly complex for something that's would be simpler to just explain away as a filming error. The fact that ENT, the last made project on the subject chose to retcon one use of the arrowhead indicates that the Powers That Be have decided that it's not the way it worked.

Also, it feels like we're trying to twist the franchise to fit the memo, which was never canon in the first place and only reflected in the series proper a handful of times. Also, the fact that we suddenly didn't realize it was wrong until the memo showed up doesn't really speak too well for the theory, if the evidence was that obscure. Honestly, would you be advocating this model without the memo?

For me the original intent of the costume designer is now moot as they intentionally made separate ship patches later (even if they were inconsistant with that detail, I imagine in some cases like the Officers in "The Court Martial" or the TOS footage of the Defiant it was considered a small detail no one would care about and from a production point of view for the other ships where we saw individual insignia it was usually a handful of uniforms which needed to be altered.

I could have accepted a retcon that all ships used the same patch in a "wave of the hand" way like the original intent of TMP that the Klingons always looked as they did in that movie if it wasn't for the fact they used a unique patch during "In a Mirror Darkly". Its not like retcons are out of the ordinary in Trek as there are numerous examples of a later production ignoring details (accidentally and intentionally) of an earlier one; Phaser style weapons in the 22nd Century, Klingons looked like TMP all along till DS9 made a joke of it and ENT tried to give an explanation, the radically different Bird of Prey bridge between TSFS and TVH and the production mistakes of whether the Enterprise-E has 24 or 26 or 29 decks. Mistakes and changes happen.

The big question here will be if Discovery decide to have all Starfleet with a variation of the Delta consistently.

And that still wouldn't explain why they put a former MACO officer in command of it. It's actually more likely that the Franklin was a starship built and operated by MACO and then transferred to Starfleet when Earth joined the Federation; Edison -- who didn't want to leave his ship and accept forced retirement -- was allowed to transfer along with it, owing to his experience and leadership skills. It would make sense, also, if not everyone in Starfleet was comfortable with this and personality conflicts left him feeling like an outsider in his new adoptive organization.

I don't know, Scotty's dialogue seemed to suggest that he was given the rank and Captancy of the Franklin as a reward for his service (and possibly in compensation for MACO being disbanded) and not that he was staying with his previous ship. I don't really see MACO as an organisation with Starships but part of that may be skewed by thinking of the phrase "Fleet does the flying, MI does the dying" from Starship Troopers, there is obviously no reason why they couldn't run their own ships even if they are smaller and less advanced than Starfleets (difference in budget) but to me she seems more of a small cargo runner / courier ship with having a relatively fast Warp engine for the time running up to the Romulan War by Earth standards (was there anything in the novels about the speed output of the Intrepid or Detla ships?) which while not confirmed in the story is from the designer himself.

 

[Christopher]

I think I understand the point you're making (in regards to biases on my part and all), but I'm still not sure I understand why this case is different from a situation where one version can be just labeled as a filming error, esp. since the unique patches are used very consistently after the first season, which suggests a retcon, which if I understand correctly are to supersede any previous information. (I'm referring to multiple ships using the Enterprise patch at the same time in TOS; I have no problem with the pre-TOS ones also using it, since I could see it getting passed down.)

The thing is, we can't treat TOS in isolation. It's part of the larger franchise where everything else, both before and after TOS, has used the arrowhead as the universal Starfleet insignia. So we have to fit the TOS evidence into that larger context. I dislike the idea that all of Starfleet completely changed its way of doing things, going from a single fleetwide patch to individual ship patches and then back to a single fleetwide patch. That's clumsy and illogical. I prefer a model where the fleetwide use of the arrowhead and the existence of other insignias can both be true at the same time. So if there are multiple insignias that are all in fleetwide use, that represent larger subdivisions of Starfleet rather than individual ships, that fits better into the global, franchise-wide pattern of a fleetwide insignia. We can assume that the other subfleet insignias were in use prior to TOS and that we just haven't seen them in the pre-TOS works we've seen so far. (Of course, Discovery could complicate this model, but that's always the peril of having new Trek in production. A theory can only be based on the currently available evidence; if new evidence comes along that conflicts with it, then I will amend my model then.) The reason I don't disregard the evidence from "Court-Martial," "The Menagerie," and "The Tholian Web" is because it fits well into the model that's consistent with the larger franchise.

To try and take things in a more positive direction, how would the subfleets work then? It seems like in a lot of the show, the Enterprise is operating independently, which is ironic, given that it's the only ship we've seen that shares its insignia.

Other than the Defiant, the Ariel, the Kelvin, and the Franklin.

"Subfleet" is not a precise word. I'm thinking they're more like organizational subdivisions of the Starfleet administration. Like, the ships can't all report to a single superior, because any one person or office can only handle so many ships at a time. So different groups of ships and bases would be overseen by different offices responsible for different job specializations or different regions of space or whatever. For instance, in Rise of the Federation, UESPA/Earth is responsible for exploratory starships, the Andorian Guard (which has the Constellation insignia) is responsible for defense and military operations, the Tellar Space Administration is responsible for operational support and supply (which fits neatly with the Justman memo, because I gave them the hoof-like Antares logo, and the memo says that was meant for the merchant marine), and so forth. I figure that in the later Starfleet, these subdivisions become less defined by planet/species of origin and become more just bureaucratic subdivisions focusing on those particular specializations. So maybe the Enterprise is under UESPA because it's on an exploration mission and the Constellation was under the AG (or whatever that division is called in the 23rd century) because it's on more of a patrol/defense mission, or something.

I don't really see MACO as an organisation with Starships but part of that may be skewed by thinking of the phrase "Fleet does the flying, MI does the dying" from Starship Troopers, there is obviously no reason why they couldn't run their own ships even if they are smaller and less advanced than Starfleets

Since ENT portrayed Earth Starfleet as a non-military organization (despite the rank structure), I kinda figure the MACOs must've had their own ships intended for strictly military use, kinda like how the US Air Force was trying to develop its own equivalent of NASA's Space Shuttle.

 

[WebLurker]

The thing is, we can't treat TOS in isolation. It's part of the larger franchise where everything else, both before and after TOS, has used the arrowhead as the universal Starfleet insignia. So we have to fit the TOS evidence into that larger context. I dislike the idea that all of Starfleet completely changed its way of doing things, going from a single fleetwide patch to individual ship patches and then back to a single fleetwide patch. That's clumsy and illogical. I prefer a model where the fleetwide use of the arrowhead and the existence of other insignias can both be true at the same time. So if there are multiple insignias that are all in fleetwide use, that represent larger subdivisions of Starfleet rather than individual ships, that fits better into the global, franchise-wide pattern of a fleetwide insignia. We can assume that the other subfleet insignias were in use prior to TOS and that we just haven't seen them in the pre-TOS works we've seen so far. (Of course, Discovery could complicate this model, but that's always the peril of having new Trek in production. A theory can only be based on the currently available evidence; if new evidence comes along that conflicts with it, then I will amend my model then.) The reason I don't disregard the evidence from "Court-Martial," "The Menagerie," and "The Tholian Web" is because it fits well into the model that's consistent with the larger franchise.

I guess I took the pre-TOS arrowheads to be separate insignias from the TOS arrowhead.

Other than the Defiant, the Ariel, the Kelvin, and the Franklin.

Poor choice of words. I should've said something more like it's odd that the Enterprise is mostly seen working alone despite sharing a patch.

"Subfleet" is not a precise word. I'm thinking they're more like organizational subdivisions of the Starfleet administration. Like, the ships can't all report to a single superior, because any one person or office can only handle so many ships at a time. So different groups of ships and bases would be overseen by different offices responsible for different job specializations or different regions of space or whatever. For instance, in Rise of the Federation, UESPA/Earth is responsible for exploratory starships, the Andorian Guard (which has the Constellation insignia) is responsible for defense and military operations, the Tellar Space Administration is responsible for operational support and supply (which fits neatly with the Justman memo, because I gave them the hoof-like Antares logo, and the memo says that was meant for the merchant marine), and so forth. I figure that in the later Starfleet, these subdivisions become less defined by planet/species of origin and become more just bureaucratic subdivisions focusing on those particular specializations. So maybe the Enterprise is under UESPA because it's on an exploration mission and the Constellation was under the AG (or whatever that division is called in the 23rd century) because it's on more of a patrol/defense mission, or something.

Okay.




Since ENT portrayed Earth Starfleet as a non-military organization (despite the rank structure), I kinda figure the MACOs must've had their own ships intended for strictly military use, kinda like how the US Air Force was trying to develop its own equivalent of NASA's Space Shuttle.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kemaiku]

The USS Franklin *is* a MACO ship, she still has the delta.

 

[Christopher]

The USS Franklin *is* a MACO ship, she still has the delta.

But as stated in the movie, the MACOs were folded into Starfleet when the Federation was founded in 2161. So naturally the crew had Starfleet insignias on their uniforms when the ship was lost in 2164. (Which fits fairly well with my books, since I had the MACOs become Starfleet Security when the services were combined.)

 

[WebLurker]

The USS Franklin *is* a MACO ship, she still has the delta.

What delta and where?

 

[Kemaiku]

What delta and where?

It's how Jayla even realises Scotty is Starfleet, she takes him to the ship specifically to show him the large Starfleet delta on the wall of the ship, did you miss that entire sequence of the movie?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That MACO didn't have combat vessels of its own was NEVER established at all

Neither was it established that they DID.

 

[Christopher]

Also the uniform sleeve patches feature the delta/arrowhead as part of the emblem.

http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/patch-zoom.jpg

 

[WebLurker]

It's how Jayla even realises Scotty is Starfleet, she takes him to the ship specifically to show him the large Starfleet delta on the wall of the ship, did you miss that entire sequence of the movie?

Yeah, I remember that. I didn't make the connection to the word "delta."

However, the Franklin is never described as a MACO ship in the movie. Just the first warp four ship. From that, we can infer that it was originally built by Earth Starefleet and then rechartered into the Federation Starfleet.

The MACO ship idea was only a behind the scenes suggestion that never made it to the big screen (in fact, I'm kind of skeptical of it, since it looks more like an Earth Starfleet design).

 

[Christopher]

However, the Franklin is never described as a MACO ship in the movie. Just the first warp four ship. From that, we can infer that it was originally built by Earth Starefleet and then rechartered into the Federation Starfleet.

It works either way, though, since the movie did confirm that the MACOs were folded in the UFP Starfleet.

The MACO ship idea was only a behind the scenes suggestion that never made it to the big screen (in fact, I'm kind of skeptical of it, since it looks more like an Earth Starfleet design).

The Soviet space shuttle prototype Buran looked almost exactly like the NASA Space Shuttles. I think the US Air Force's prototype shuttle design was very similar too. It stands to reason that if the MACOs did have their own ships, they would have based them on the technologies pioneered by Cochrane and Henry Archer's warp program.

(Indeed, one thing that bugs me about Trek is how it has so many completely different starship designs from different worlds. Realistically, you'd think form would follow function and that starships would tend to have certain design fundamentals in common, just like all watercraft or all aircraft have certain shared elements.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Neither was it established that they DID.

So what? You made the assertion that they DID NOT. That assertion baseless. The facts leave open the possibility that they DID, and Franklin could have been one of them.

 

[WebLurker]

It works either way, though, since the movie did confirm that the MACOs were folded in the UFP Starfleet.

I thought that they said the MACOs were just disbanded; It's the scene were the main characters are looking over Edison's biography, about the point that Scotty points out that Starfleet is not a military (which should finally put that myth to rest).

The Soviet space shuttle prototype Buran looked almost exactly like the NASA Space Shuttles. I think the US Air Force's prototype shuttle design was very similar too. It stands to reason that if the MACOs did have their own ships, they would have based them on the technologies pioneered by Cochrane and Henry Archer's warp program.

Could be.

(Indeed, one thing that bugs me about Trek is how it has so many completely different starship designs from different worlds. Realistically, you'd think form would follow function and that starships would tend to have certain design fundamentals in common, just like all watercraft or all aircraft have certain shared elements.)

Well, cultural aesthetics, different forms of technology, purpose, differing biologies of the users, etc. Aren't most real world space shuttles usually look alike because it costs a lot to send the up and we don't have the means or wish to learn new designs to do it? Star Trek does take place in pretty advanced future, where spacecraft building usually happens in space and is very routine. Honestly, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Christopher]

I thought that they said the MACOs were just disbanded; It's the scene were the main characters are looking over Edison's biography, about the point that Scotty points out that Starfleet is not a military (which should finally put that myth to rest).

Well, first of all; it's not a myth. A lot of TV and movie writers get this wrong -- Starfleet is a military, because it's an armed service empowered by the state, it acts in the state's defense when necessary, it has a rank structure and courts-martial, everything that defines a military. It's just not a combat service unless it needs to be. The mistake people make is to confuse the two. A military service does not have to be dedicated exclusively to waging war. The US Coast Guard is a branch of the military, but it isn't a combat force; it's dedicated to border patrol and sea rescue. The Japan Self Defense Force is a military that's actually prohibited by law from waging war except in defense of the country against invaders (or giant monsters). Something can be a military without being warlike. Starfleet is basically the Coast Guard crossed with NASA. It's a military service dedicated to exploration, science, rescue, colony support, and border defense, as opposed to one dedicated to war and combat.

Second, what I recall Scotty saying (though I've only seen the movie once) was that Edison became a starship captain when the MACOs were folded into Starfleet. Yes, the MACO division was dissolved as a distinct entity, but its personnel were absorbed into Starfleet in new, peacetime roles, which is how Edison ended up commanding a starship in the first place. So no, they weren't disbanded. That would mean that the personnel were let go and sent on their merry way. Rather, the personnel simply became Starfleet personnel and were given new assignments within that organization.

Well, cultural aesthetics, different forms of technology, purpose, differing biologies of the users, etc. Aren't most real world space shuttles usually look alike because it costs a lot to send the up and we don't have the means or wish to learn new designs to do it? Star Trek does take place in pretty advanced future, where spacecraft building usually happens in space and is very routine. Honestly, I don't see what the problem is.

Look at boats. Look at planes. There are only so many shapes that work, regardless of aesthetics. The physics of propulsion through water or air compel certain shapes to be used. As I said, form follows function. Or look at, say, swords. Different cultures around the worlds invented them independently, and there are a lot of superficial differences in design and blade shape, but there are certain universal commonalities as well -- there's a hilt on one end and a long, flat, pointy bit of metal on the other end -- because there's a certain shape it has to have in order to perform its intended function. You'll never see a culture whose aesthetic preferences lead them to use square wheels or to carry water in containers that are open on the bottom. Functional designs are subject to certain physical limits, and aesthetic variation is only possible within those limits.

This is a principle that Matt Jefferies tried to follow in TOS. His Klingon ship design is distinctly different from the Enterprise, but it still shares one fundamental aspect, the use of paired warp nacelles at the rear of the ship, as well as the general approach of a command hull, engineering hull, and nacelles connected by pylons. They differ, but they maintain certain fundamentals suggesting that they use the same physical principles. Indeed, Jefferies's Klingon cruiser even had a deflector dish like the Enterprise, although the makers of TAS and TMP mistook it for a torpedo tube. (The Romulan Bird of Prey had nacelles too, and a saucer-like main hull, but the underlying conceit there, which got cut out of the final episode, was that their spies had copied Starfleet technology.) And that makes more sense than the wild assortment of completely dissimilar ship designs we've had in subsequent productions (including Starfleet ships with no deflector dishes -- curse you, ILM). I could accept that there might be two fundamentally different ways of propelling a ship FTL, like how we have both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air flying craft, but not the countless unrelated types of ship we've seen over the decades. Artists designing imaginary spaceships are limited only by their imaginations, but engineers designing real spaceships would be limited by the laws of physics, so there'd be more common threads unifying the designs.

 

[WebLurker]

Well, first of all; it's not a myth. A lot of TV and movie writers get this wrong -- Starfleet is a military, because it's an armed service empowered by the state, it acts in the state's defense when necessary, it has a rank structure and courts-martial, everything that defines a military. It's just not a combat service unless it needs to be. The mistake people make is to confuse the two. A military service does not have to be dedicated exclusively to waging war. The US Coast Guard is a branch of the military, but it isn't a combat force; it's dedicated to border patrol and sea rescue. The Japan Self Defense Force is a military that's actually prohibited by law from waging war except in defense of the country against invaders (or giant monsters). Something can be a military without being warlike. Starfleet is basically the Coast Guard crossed with NASA. It's a military service dedicated to exploration, science, rescue, colony support, and border defense, as opposed to one dedicated to war and combat.

Well, there are these:

Kirk: "...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales." - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Spock: "I believe the captain feels that Starfleet's mission has always been one of peace." - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Picard: "Your Honor, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life; well, there it sits!" - "The Measure of a Man" (TNG)

Kolrami: "Captain Picard, it is my understanding that you initially resisted Starfleet's request for this simulation [a war games exercise]."
Picard: "Yes."
Kolrami: "May I know why?"
Picard: "Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration."
Kolrami: "Then why am I here?"
Picard: "With the Borg threat, I decided that my officers and I needed to hone our tactical skills. In a crisis situation, it is prudent to have several options." - "Peak Performance" (TNG)

Guinen [about the Enterprise-D: "This is not a ship of war. This a ship of peace." - "Yesterday's Enterprise" (TNG)

Scotty [about the manhunt for "John Harrison]: This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!" - Star Trek Into Darkness

Scotty: "The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency." - Star Trek Beyond

So, yes, a myth. We're outright told it in canon, repeatedly. There's no wiggle room, here.

Second, what I recall Scotty saying (though I've only seen the movie once) was that Edison became a starship captain when the MACOs were folded into Starfleet. Yes, the MACO division was dissolved as a distinct entity, but its personnel were absorbed into Starfleet in new, peacetime roles, which is how Edison ended up commanding a starship in the first place. So no, they weren't disbanded. That would mean that the personnel were let go and sent on their merry way. Rather, the personnel simply became Starfleet personnel and were given new assignments within that organization.

I've only seen the movie once, too, and I apparently drew a different conclusion. Anyone know what the exact quote was? You could very well be right.

Look at boats. Look at planes. There are only so many shapes that work, regardless of aesthetics. The physics of propulsion through water or air compel certain shapes to be used. As I said, form follows function. Or look at, say, swords. Different cultures around the worlds invented them independently, and there are a lot of superficial differences in design and blade shape, but there are certain universal commonalities as well -- there's a hilt on one end and a long, flat, pointy bit of metal on the other end -- because there's a certain shape it has to have in order to perform its intended function. You'll never see a culture whose aesthetic preferences lead them to use square wheels or to carry water in containers that are open on the bottom. Functional designs are subject to certain physical limits, and aesthetic variation is only possible within those limits.

This is a principle that Matt Jefferies tried to follow in TOS. His Klingon ship design is distinctly different from the Enterprise, but it still shares one fundamental aspect, the use of paired warp nacelles at the rear of the ship, as well as the general approach of a command hull, engineering hull, and nacelles connected by pylons. They differ, but they maintain certain fundamentals suggesting that they use the same physical principles. Indeed, Jefferies's Klingon cruiser even had a deflector dish like the Enterprise, although the makers of TAS and TMP mistook it for a torpedo tube. (The Romulan Bird of Prey had nacelles too, and a saucer-like main hull, but the underlying conceit there, which got cut out of the final episode, was that their spies had copied Starfleet technology.) And that makes more sense than the wild assortment of completely dissimilar ship designs we've had in subsequent productions (including Starfleet ships with no deflector dishes -- curse you, ILM). I could accept that there might be two fundamentally different ways of propelling a ship FTL, like how we have both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air flying craft, but not the countless unrelated types of ship we've seen over the decades. Artists designing imaginary spaceships are limited only by their imaginations, but engineers designing real spaceships would be limited by the laws of physics, so there'd be more common threads unifying the designs.

Would starships fall under the same rules, though, given that there were multiple aliens building them, and various ways to make different tech that does the same thing?

 

[Christopher]

So, yes, a myth. We're outright told it in canon, repeatedly. There's no wiggle room, here.

First off, you're doubling down on the same mistake that I just pointed out: Equating "military" with "warlike." Calling something military is not about whether its purpose is war, peace, or exploration. It's about whether it's a government-sanctioned armed service with a rank structure. There are military bodies whose primary purpose is peaceful, like the US Coast Guard or the Army Corps of Engineers, and there are military bodies whose purpose is scientific, exploratory, diplomatic, etc. (Starfleet is largely based on the British Navy in the age of exploration. Its ships did a lot to advance the cause of science and discovery.) After all, it's not like the military ceases to exist when there isn't a war on. Militaries have a wide range of different responsibilities, many of which are peaceful. So your quotes about Starfleet's mission being peaceful or scientific are not relevant to this issue.

Also, if you want to play the quote game, there are canonical quotes that explicitly do define Starfleet as military. In "Errand of Mercy," Kirk tells the Organians what Starfleet can offer them, including "military aid." In "Obsession," he asks Garrovick for his "military appraisal of the techniques used against the creature." Garth of Izar refers to Kirk as "one of the finest military commanders in the galaxy," and though Kirk says he prefers to think of himself as a man of peace, he doesn't refute Garth's characterization. In "The Way to Eden," Kirk says the Romulans will see the Enterprise's presence in the Neutral Zone as "a military incursion." David Marcus twice refers to Starfleet as "the military" in TWOK. In "The Icarus Factor," Picard cited Riker's "military proficiency." In "The Most Toys," Fajo called Data "a military pacifist" and wondered why he was in Starfleet if he didn't believe in taking life. In "Paradise Lost," Sisko refered to Admiral Leyton's plan to impose Starfleet control over Earth as "military rule" and "a military dictatorship."

And while we're at it, there are a number of instances of characters using the word "civilian" to refer to non-Starfleet personnel. In "The Perfect Mate," Picard said "I have confidence in the self-control of my crew, Kamala, but there are guests and civilians on board." In "Lower Decks," Ben said "I'm not Starfleet, I'm a civilian." In "All Good Things," O'Brien referred to "Freighters, transports, all civilians. None of them Starfleet ships."

So the instances of Starfleet being explicitly called military and non-civilian outnumber those few instances where writers mistakenly make characters say that it isn't military. And of course, we've seen that Starfleet does defend the Federation in wartime, plus it has ranks, uniforms, and courts-martial. It overtly and routinely functions as a military. There's nothing else it could be.

Would starships fall under the same rules, though, given that there were multiple aliens building them, and various ways to make different tech that does the same thing?

Good grief, you're not even trying to think about this. You're just ignoring everything I say and repeating your same unquestioned assumptions. I'm talking about the laws of physics. That overrides everything else. Think of wheels. Think of boats. Think of all the things that are always the same shape because they physically have to be, because there is simply no other design for them that can perform that function. Every alien civilization in the universe would be bound by those same laws of physics, and thus their designs would have to conform to certain unavoidable basics.