Enterprise as flagship
Tigerattack04
carrying an admiral and their entourage, correct? An admiral only comes on
board to bother Picard or the like. Any ideas?
-Pheonix-
GeneK
"Tigerattack04" <tigera...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20021223204259...@mb-fz.wmconnect.com...
> Why is the Enterprise the flagship of the Federation? The flagship is a ship
> carrying an admiral and their entourage, correct? An admiral only comes on
> board to bother Picard or the like. Any ideas?
"Flagship" in Trek appears to have a different meaning, since there appear to
be no admirals personally commanding vessels or groups on a regular basis.
The Enterprise is the "flagship" of Starfleet in the sense that it is the most
prominant vessel.
Here's another example, from: http://www.spiritlinecruises.com/ourfleet.asp
"The flagship of our fleet is the 100 foot Spirit of Carolina, a dinner cruise
vessel delivered in 1998"
GeneK
Justin Broderick
"Tigerattack04" <tigera...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20021223204259...@mb-fz.wmconnect.com...
ship
> carrying an admiral and their entourage, correct?
Correct.
> An admiral only comes on
> board to bother Picard or the like. Any ideas?
>
A misunderstanding on the part of writers who think "flagship" means "the
best" or something like that. Apparently the term has a broader meaning in
TNG's era. We don't know what they call an actual flagship.
--Justin
GeneK
"Justin Broderick" <cyn...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> A misunderstanding on the part of writers who think "flagship" means "the
> best" or something like that. Apparently the term has a broader meaning in
> TNG's era.
As it does in ours:
flag·ship (flgshp) n.
1.. A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears the commander's flag.
2.. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a newspaper chain; the flagship of a
line of reference books.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
GeneK
Justin Broderick
Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
--Justin
GeneK
"Justin Broderick" <justi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
Maybe we should establish this subject as the Trek version of Godwin's
Law.
At any rate, in newtrek, I think my previous example is more fitting:
MistWing SilverTail
> Law.
What's Godwin's Law?
--
MistWing SilverTail
Dragon Code
DC2.Dw Gf L6m3t5w W- T Phfwlt Sks,wl Cau+,bau,bl' Bfl/pl/zz A- Fr+++ Nn
M O/ H--- $ Fo R- Ac+ J+ S+ U! I--# V+++![Power] V---[Control] V++[Food
Fight Magic ++] Q+++[tk] Tc+++[sw] Tc+[other]
Furry Code
FMSmpsw3r A-- C- D H+ M- P R+ T+++ W- Z+ S- RLCT ca++$ d-- e+ f- h- i+
j+ p-- sx--
GeneK
"MistWing SilverTail" <Mist...@erols.com> wrote...
> What's Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is on old saw that holds that most usenet debates will
eventually degenerate into insults and name-calling, and that someone
will eventually compare someone else to Hitler and Nazis. At that
point, all possibility for useful dialog is lost, and the debate should just
be considered ended, with the person who invoked Hitler/Nazis
declared the loser. The "Is Starfleet Military?" debate is one of those
hopelessly insoluable exchanges, though admittedly I haven't heard of
anyone in one of them hurling the moustached one at his/her opponent
yet.
GeneK
Dwayne Day
In article <aua3tf$osf$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "MistWing SilverTail"
<Mist...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Maybe we should establish this subject as the Trek version of Godwin's
>> Law.
>
> What's Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a bit of Usenet culture that is often misunderstood. Most
people think that it means that a thread is (or at least should be) over as
soon as somebody mentions Hitler. The idea is that as a thread goes on,
people get their emotions up, and finally one poster calls another Hitler
(or a Nazi) and then the thread should end. It is like a parent rushing in
and saying "Okay, everybody take a time out!"
(So presumably the person above meant that the question of Starfleet being
military was a subject that nobody should discuss in Trek, because it gets
passions up.)
The reality is that Godwin (whoever he was--you can look it up via Google)
postulated a clever and funny little "law" that said that the longer that a
thread continued, the more likely it was that _eventually_ somebody would
mention Hitler. The reasoning was that long threads (where "long" is
defined by the amount of posts, not the length of time) are naturally
emotional ones--lots of people posting very passionately. So eventually
someone would get so mad that they would call someone else Hitler.
I've always wondered if one could write an exception to Godwin's Law for
groups dealing with World War II.
D
Dwayne Day
In article <f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com>,
justi...@my-deja.com (Justin Broderick) wrote:
>> > A misunderstanding on the part of writers who think "flagship" means "the
>> > best" or something like that. Apparently the term has a broader meaning in
>> > TNG's era.
>>
>> As it does in ours:
>> flag·ship (flgshp) n.
>> 1.. A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears
> the commander's flag.
>> 2.. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a newspaper
> chain; the flagship of a
>> line of reference books.
>> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
> Fourth Edition
>
> Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
But it does not have to be that way. As he already pointed out, definition
2 works just as well.
And as I would point out, you can explain a lot of Trek tech if you think in
terms not of naval/maritime terminology, but in terms of aviation
terminology. In aviation, airlines occasionally refer to certain planes as
their "flagship." This usually means one plane that carries a fancy paint
scheme and flies a certain popular route. It is entirely symbolic and has
nothing to do with rank or who flies the aircraft.
D
Chris Basken
> Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
The answer to this depends less on your definitions of Starfleet and
more on your definitions of "military."
Starfleet is the primary armed defense of the Federation, so far as
we've seen. It is also a hierarchical structure with clear rank and a
chain of command. It's members are called "officers" or "crew" and it
has "trainees" and "cadets." This would make it appear to be military
in nature.
OTOH, insubordination is dealt with loosely, and unless you actively put
someone in danger, the worst that can happen to you is you get "fired"
from Starfleet. Likewise, many organizations (including corporations)
have hierarchical structures with ranking systems (managers, directors,
vice-presidents, etc). Starfleet's terminology mimics our present day
military, but that could more be a reflection of its roots. As it
appears, mainly in TNG, Starfleet's actual hierarchy looks more like a
corporate structure than a strict military one.
I guess one distinction might be in resources -- as in, where does
Starfleet get theirs? Are those shiny pearlescent starships made with
their own scientists and facilities, or are these things "provided" as
part of some kind of "tax" on Federation citizens? IOW, is Starfleet an
autonomous entity? Evidence suggests no, but there are no hard facts
either way. And, of course, Starfleet's degree of autonomy may vary
widely between 2150 and 2380 (becoming less so, and less military in
nature, it seems).
By Picard's time, Starfleet seems to be very non-military in tone. No
real sign of saluting or acknowledgement of superior officers, and the
lifestyle of people on board the Ent-D seems to be one of a mega-sized
office/apartment complex.
CaptJosh
charter for Starfleet seems to be most like that of the US Coast Guard under
normal conditions. It is only in war that they become more like the Navy.
But this is just my opinion.
CaptJosh
CaptJosh
news:Ie1O9.4795$b97.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> The reality is that Godwin (whoever he was--you can look it up via Google)
> postulated a clever and funny little "law" that said that the longer that
a
> thread continued, the more likely it was that _eventually_ somebody would
> mention Hitler. The reasoning was that long threads (where "long" is
> defined by the amount of posts, not the length of time) are naturally
> emotional ones--lots of people posting very passionately. So eventually
> someone would get so mad that they would call someone else Hitler.
>
just for the hell of it, near as I can figure. Last I saw of her, she was
posting under the handle of ToolPackinMama in alt.startrek, but I decided
not to deal with that newsgroup this time around of being back online. Too
time consuming to keep up with it.
CaptJosh
CaptJosh
> ----------
> In article <f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com>,
> justi...@my-deja.com (Justin Broderick) wrote:
> >> 2.. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a
newspaper
> > chain; the flagship of a
> >> line of reference books.
> >> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language,
> > Fourth Edition
> >
> > Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
>
> But it does not have to be that way. As he already pointed out,
definition
> 2 works just as well.
>
> And as I would point out, you can explain a lot of Trek tech if you think
in
> terms not of naval/maritime terminology, but in terms of aviation
> terminology. In aviation, airlines occasionally refer to certain planes
as
> their "flagship." This usually means one plane that carries a fancy paint
> scheme and flies a certain popular route. It is entirely symbolic and has
> nothing to do with rank or who flies the aircraft.
>
lead ship that they call on first for trouble that they call the flagship of
the fleet. Couldn't the flagship of a Navy be the one that's called on to
"go show the flag" in a hotspot all the time? I realize a lot of you are
stuck on dictionary deffinitions, but those aren't always the ones that
matter.
CaptJosh
Dave Griffin
most powerful current ship. Or perhaps the Enterprise crew has carved
out such a legend that they are in some way the standard by which
others are judged. Picard didn't have any trouble seizing control of
the fleet when the Admiral was lost, so perhaps being captain of the
"flagship" conveys some special authority.
Certainly we don't see admirals or commodores on the Enterprise too
often, but perhaps the class has appropriate flag officer facilities
(flag bridge and quarters) too.
A Bag Of Memes
>
> The reality is that Godwin (whoever he was--you can look it up via Google)
He was an argumentative sumbitch I met around 1984 on the Leprechaun BBS in
Austin. He was attending UT law school at the time; went on to become legal
counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I think we almost came to
blows during an argument about multitasking on the Macintosh.
A Bag Of Memes
"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote in message
news:auaa54$5rgcn$1...@ID-107133.news.dfncis.de...
Different Godwin. The Godwin who wrote Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin.
Justin Broderick
"Dave Griffin" <carbon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:456c2978.02122...@posting.google.com...
> They seem to mean flagship as a badge of merit, or perhaps merely the
> most powerful current ship. Or perhaps the Enterprise crew has carved
> out such a legend that they are in some way the standard by which
> others are judged. Picard didn't have any trouble seizing control of
> the fleet when the Admiral was lost, so perhaps being captain of the
> "flagship" conveys some special authority.
>
FWIW, it has long been SOP that if the admiral goes down in action, the
chief of staff (or, absent him, the flag captain and so on down) takes over
and the orders keep coming from the flagship, to avoid confusing the
situation. So at Trafalgar when Nelson was shot, even though VAdm
Collingwood was the next-in-line flag officer, VICTORY still made the
signals until things had settled down and all vessels could be informed of
the change in command.
--Justin
Justin Broderick
> >> flag·ship (flgshp) n.
> >> 1.. A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears
> > the commander's flag.
> >> 2.. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a
newspaper
> > chain; the flagship of a
> >> line of reference books.
> >> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language,
> > Fourth Edition
> >
> > Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
>
> But it does not have to be that way. As he already pointed out,
definition
> 2 works just as well.
>
What I'm saying is that using the other definition to refer to a naval
vessel would be technically incorrect. I'm not talking Trek.
> And as I would point out, you can explain a lot of Trek tech if you think
in
> terms not of naval/maritime terminology, but in terms of aviation
> terminology. In aviation, airlines occasionally refer to certain planes
as
> their "flagship." This usually means one plane that carries a fancy paint
> scheme and flies a certain popular route. It is entirely symbolic and has
> nothing to do with rank or who flies the aircraft.
>
No argument, that seems to be the Trek usage. The only problem is that,
unlike airlines, Starfleet has flagships in the original sense. They either
use the same term for two different things or have a new term for the
admiral's vessel, "command ship" or "lead ship" or something like that
perhap
--Justin
Justin Broderick
>
> "Justin Broderick" <justi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
>
> Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
>
I hope not, I was responding to the dictionary definition, not its Trek
implications.
> At any rate, in newtrek, I think my previous example is more fitting:
>
> from: http://www.spiritlinecruises.com/ourfleet.asp
>
> "The flagship of our fleet is the 100 foot Spirit of Carolina, a dinner
cruise
> vessel delivered in 1998"
>
I agree, that is how they seem to use the term.
--Justin
Justin Broderick
> >
> I've still not heard anything official that says that a Navy can't have a
> lead ship that they call on first for trouble that they call the flagship
of
> the fleet.
I guess they could, but they don't in the real world. "Flagship" in the
naval sense refers to a vessel that a flag officer (eligible to command at
sea) is on, or a vessel designated for a flag officer to command from at
sea.
> Couldn't the flagship of a Navy be the one that's called on to
> "go show the flag" in a hotspot all the time?
The flag in the term "showing the flag" is the national flag or, more
properly, ensign flown by any warship. The flag in "flagship" is the
personal rank flag of the flag officer.
And the ship that gets called upon for trouble is the one that can get there
first. It doesn't make much sense to have one vessel designated for every
emergency as she couldn't be everywhere at once.
--Justin
GeneK
> Personally, I would define Starfleet as a paramilitary orginization. The
> charter for Starfleet seems to be most like that of the US Coast Guard under
> normal conditions. It is only in war that they become more like the Navy.
> But this is just my opinion.
I would agree with your comparison of the two organizations' charters,
however, the US Coast Guard is not "paramilitary."
From http://www.uscg.mil/overview/essence_of_the_coast_guard.htm
"The U.S. Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service."
GeneK
GeneK
> > I've always wondered if one could write an exception to Godwin's Law for
> groups dealing with World War II.
We could probably compare various groups in Trek (Klingons, Romulans,
Cardassians, etc.) to Nazis til the cows come home, so long as we don't
actually descend to calling each other by the term. It seems to me that a
discussion specifically about WWII and the Nazis would certainly require
someone to do that.
With regard to the original intent of Godwin's Law, While it is true that the
common mutation of "Godwin's Law" is not exactly what Godwin originally
said, it is nevertheless the commonly used interpretation. Below is what
Godwin himself had to say about it.
GeneK
Mike Godwin (mnem...@well.com)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:21:10 -0500
Certainly I never said anything originally about whether the mention of
Nazis means the discussion is over -- there are countless instances to the
contrary.
The primary mutation of Godwin's Law (not discussed, infra, for obvious
reasons) states that when such a reference or comparison occurs,
*meaningful* discussion is over.
Speaking empirically, I think there is a lot of truth to this mutation.
It is a common mistake to interpret the original version of Godwin's Law as
primarily a probability statement. If that were so, it would never have had
any currency. It is intended, of course, as a statement about online
rhetorical excesses, and as an implicit criticism of one of those excesses.
--Mike
Dwayne Day
In article <zw5O9.135868$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>, "GeneK"
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
> Mike Godwin (mnem...@well.com)
> Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:21:10 -0500
>
> Certainly I never said anything originally about whether the mention of
> Nazis means the discussion is over -- there are countless instances to the
> contrary.
>
> The primary mutation of Godwin's Law (not discussed, infra, for obvious
> reasons) states that when such a reference or comparison occurs,
> *meaningful* discussion is over.
>
> Speaking empirically, I think there is a lot of truth to this mutation.
>
> It is a common mistake to interpret the original version of Godwin's Law as
> primarily a probability statement. If that were so, it would never have had
> any currency. It is intended, of course, as a statement about online
> rhetorical excesses, and as an implicit criticism of one of those excesses.
>
> --Mike
Thanks for reprinting that. It's an excellent post. And he's right--if it
was just a probability statement, then it wouldn't have had much point.
D
CaptJosh
>
> "CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote in message
> news:auaa01$5o6cv$1...@ID-107133.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Personally, I would define Starfleet as a paramilitary orginization. The
> > charter for Starfleet seems to be most like that of the US Coast Guard
under
> > normal conditions. It is only in war that they become more like the
Navy.
> > But this is just my opinion.
>
> I would agree with your comparison of the two organizations' charters,
> however, the US Coast Guard is not "paramilitary."
>
the Coastguard. Nearly as I can tell, the Coast Guard is the Navy's version
of a National Guard. They handle mostly coastal work. Kinda like how the
National Guard takes over at army and airbases when the regulars are called
up. And in answer to "What about the reserves?" They get called directly to
action.
Not sure if I made this any more clear, if not, let me know.
CaptJosh
CaptJosh
news:Nv4O9.5282$b97.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
starts. You notice which carrier group was closest when it hit the fan on
9/11? Enterprise's. They were headed home when they got the news of 9/11 The
CO of the carrier group, on his own initiative, brought the group about and
headed back to station and remained there until we were done with major
military action in Afghanistan.
The flagship in the sense in which it is used in starfleet, is the ship that
would be sent to patrol the Neutral Zone when the Romulans were acting up
because just by the reputation of the Ship, and her captain and crew, the
Romulans would be intimidated and back off. The ship that says, "These are
our best and brightest. Watch yourselves." Does that explain what I mean any
better?
CaptJosh
machf
<capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote:
>Personally, I would define Starfleet as a paramilitary orginization. The
>charter for Starfleet seems to be most like that of the US Coast Guard under
>normal conditions. It is only in war that they become more like the Navy.
>But this is just my opinion.
>
Uh... What does your Navy do in times of 'absence of war'? Ours dedicates its
resources to exploration, scientific research, helping victims of natural
disasters, patroling the borders, fighting terrorists and drug smugglers (who
are nothing but heavily-armed criminals, against whom the police doesn't have
the adequate means of defending itself), and some other stuff. Pretty much what
we've seen Starfleet do.
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
machf
<capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote:
>"Dwayne Day" <zirc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Ie1O9.4795$b97.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
><snip>
>> The reality is that Godwin (whoever he was--you can look it up via Google)
>> postulated a clever and funny little "law" that said that the longer that
>a
>> thread continued, the more likely it was that _eventually_ somebody would
>> mention Hitler. The reasoning was that long threads (where "long" is
>> defined by the amount of posts, not the length of time) are naturally
>> emotional ones--lots of people posting very passionately. So eventually
>> someone would get so mad that they would call someone else Hitler.
>>
>Godwin is a SHE. Laura Godwin, to be exact. She's a slasher. K/S. Does it
That's Laura GOOdwin, then...
>just for the hell of it, near as I can figure. Last I saw of her, she was
>posting under the handle of ToolPackinMama in alt.startrek, but I decided
Yep, she's there all right. There's troll named PROMETHEUS who seems to have
a personal grudge against her... I haven't been following any of those threads
lately, though...
>not to deal with that newsgroup this time around of being back online. Too
>time consuming to keep up with it.
>
Only if you read each and every message... and it has less than 100 a day.
[well, right now with Nemesis its daily traffic may have increased somewhat]
Other NGs to which I'm subscribed have far more than that (a couple bordering
500, or even more sometimes). Try rec.arts.sf.written or soc.history.what-if
Keith Morrison
There already is. As you mentioned, Godwin's Law is that the longer the
thread, the more likely a participant in it will be compared to the Nazis
and/or Hitler. If you're talking *about* Hitler and/or the Nazis, it
doesn't apply.
(I'm in soc.history.what-if where middle 20th Century German dictators and
their ideologies come up all the time.)
--
Keith
Dave Griffin
> FWIW, it has long been SOP that if the admiral goes down in action, the
> chief of staff (or, absent him, the flag captain and so on down) takes over
> and the orders keep coming from the flagship, to avoid confusing the
> situation. So at Trafalgar when Nelson was shot, even though VAdm
> Collingwood was the next-in-line flag officer, VICTORY still made the
> signals until things had settled down and all vessels could be informed of
> the change in command.
>
I don't know enough about the navy to know if this is true while the
battle is going on, but this seems unlikely once things settle down.
Unless otherwise directed by command authority the most senior officer
would I think take command.
Jack Bohn
>> Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
>
>I guess one distinction might be in resources -- as in, where does
>Starfleet get theirs? Are those shiny pearlescent starships made with
>their own scientists and facilities, or are these things "provided" as
>part of some kind of "tax" on Federation citizens? IOW, is Starfleet an
>autonomous entity? Evidence suggests no, but there are no hard facts
>either way.
The phrase that leaps to mind is Nils Barris's "I pay your
salary!" (and Kirk's "In that case, I want a raise.") which may
have been used in "The Trouble with Tribbles" (memory fails).
Of course, this pushes the "Economics in Star Trek" button, which
also generates much heat and very little new information.
--
-Jack
Jack Bohn
>At any rate, in newtrek, I think my previous example is more fitting:
>
>from: http://www.spiritlinecruises.com/ourfleet.asp
>
>"The flagship of our fleet is the 100 foot Spirit of Carolina, a dinner cruise
>vessel delivered in 1998"
"You're comparing the Enterprise to a cruise ship?!?"
-Picard, "The Neutral Zone"
--
-Jack
ssrat
wrote:
I have to go with the general idea that everyone has an excelent 2- 3
bedroom condo(by our standards-no slum lords) with all expenses
covered, good food (replicated), clothing,computer access,
"entertainment acess" (tv or eqivilent etc.)
Working for a dangerous organasation like starfleet gets you for
perks (but it is not required)
It seems to be a little like the IDEA of communisim with everyone
getting a very good free base and working up from there
The problem is when you get to peons like me, what do we do ?
apart from the tourism industry (hotels assorted tours) it woould
seem there would be a lot of people with nothing to do.
Starfleet itself is probably alloted a pre-negotioated percentege of
a planets resources to allow for operations (IE planet X has dilithium
starfleet gets %,, planet Y has Titanium based metals, for a planet
with little resources,or a low sulture rating it is ok you get a vote
but as a minor member (like the UN top 5 then the rest) probably a top
4? then a 2/3 then a 1/3 depending on contibution and or stratigic
location.
Ok thread returned alive and unharmed
Liam Slider
>
>
> "Justin Broderick" <justi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com...
>> Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
>
> Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
Of course it is though, regardless of arguments to the contrary. Do they
fight wars? Yes we've seen they do. Are most of their ships heavily armed
combat capable ships.....why, yes they seem to be. Do they use a military
command structure? Yes again. Are they primarily responsable for the
national (U.F.P. being the nation of course) security and defense? Yep.
The fact that they carry out humanitarian, scientific, and diplomatic
missions in peacetime is irrelevant....so does our modern military.
They can say they are "The Happy Fun Ship Gay Orgy Brigade" for all I care,
they are still military.
--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume
The man, the music, the man pimping the music...
www.liamslider.com
CaptJosh
"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
news:a1ki0vkhgelt8e32n...@4ax.com...<snip>
> Only if you read each and every message... and it has less than 100 a day.
> [well, right now with Nemesis its daily traffic may have increased
somewhat]
> Other NGs to which I'm subscribed have far more than that (a couple
bordering
> 500, or even more sometimes). Try rec.arts.sf.written or
soc.history.what-if
>
Saturdays and Sundays. And I don't read every post, but I do still have to
go through amd mark the threads I don't read as read so that I know when
there are no more new posts to read in the group. Not to mention I am also
subscribed to four other groups in addition to this one.
CaptJosh
Justin Broderick
That is pure coincidence. It could have been Vinson or Stennis or
Connie etc., and if the implication is that another BG would not have
been adequate to the situation I have to disagree.
> The flagship in the sense in which it is used in starfleet, is the ship that
> would be sent to patrol the Neutral Zone when the Romulans were acting up
> because just by the reputation of the Ship, and her captain and crew, the
> Romulans would be intimidated and back off. The ship that says, "These are
> our best and brightest. Watch yourselves." Does that explain what I mean any
> better?
>
I see what you mean. It doesn't sound realistic. The post-TOS
mythologizing of Enterprise and her crew in their own time has never
sat right to me. Really you would want a potential adversary to
believe that any of your ships, captains and crews were as good as any
other. Otherwise, if you're planning something, why not wait until
the golden boys go in for an overhaul?
--Justin
Chris Basken
> "CaptJosh" wrote...
>>The flagship in the sense in which it is used in starfleet, is the ship that
>>would be sent to patrol the Neutral Zone when the Romulans were acting up
>>because just by the reputation of the Ship, and her captain and crew, the
>>Romulans would be intimidated and back off. The ship that says, "These are
>>our best and brightest. Watch yourselves." Does that explain what I mean any
>>better?
>>
>
>
> I see what you mean. It doesn't sound realistic. The post-TOS
> mythologizing of Enterprise and her crew in their own time has never
> sat right to me. Really you would want a potential adversary to
> believe that any of your ships, captains and crews were as good as any
> other. Otherwise, if you're planning something, why not wait until
> the golden boys go in for an overhaul?
I'd have to agree. As I've said elsewhere, I think the mythologizing of
the Enterprise was largely done for the benefit of Starfleet's public
image *within* the Federation, almost as a marketing ploy to get more
recruits. Most enemies (especially Romulans) put an edge of satire in
their voices when referring to the "mighty Enterprise," as if they had
heard the hype but didn't really believe it.
GeneK
"Chris Basken" <n...@chance.com> wrote in message news:euHO9.516827$NH2.34595@sccrnsc01...
> I'd have to agree. As I've said elsewhere, I think the mythologizing of
> the Enterprise was largely done for the benefit of Starfleet's public
> image *within* the Federation, almost as a marketing ploy to get more
> recruits. Most enemies (especially Romulans) put an edge of satire in
> their voices when referring to the "mighty Enterprise," as if they had
> heard the hype but didn't really believe it.
And the there are the Klingons who actually went looking for a shot at
Kirk.
GeneK
Justin Broderick
> ...
> > FWIW, it has long been SOP that if the admiral goes down in action, the
> > chief of staff (or, absent him, the flag captain and so on down) takes over
> > and the orders keep coming from the flagship, to avoid confusing the
> > situation.
>
> I don't know enough about the navy to know if this is true while the
> battle is going on, but this seems unlikely once things settle down.
> Unless otherwise directed by command authority the most senior officer
> would I think take command.
Sorry, I should have made that clearer. This applies only during
action, the idea being that battle is confusing enough without
compounding it by a sudden change of command.
An interesting example was the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Nov. 1942,
when a group of US cruisers and destroyers were caught in a savage
night action with a Japanese force that included two battleships. The
task group commander, RAdm Daniel Callaghan, was killed when the
flagship SAN FRANCISCO took a brutal shelling. The CO and XO were
also injured, and 33 year old LCdr Bruce McCandless found himself the
ranking officer on the bridge. Seriously wounded himself, he
continued not only to direct the ship's fire, but to make signals to
the rest of the group. The other flag officer in the group, RAdm
Norman Scott, was also killed, but there were several captains in the
other ships. In fact, there was a senior LCdr in SAN FRANCISCO, but
he was busy with damage control and told McCandless to keep the conn.
McCandless got the Medal of Honor, and a frigate was named for him.
His son Bruce McCandless II was also a navy officer and made the first
untethered spacewalk.
This is still covered in USN Regulations, which say that if the flag
officer commanding is killed or incapacitated in battle, the next
officer in the flagship takes command until it is practical to inform
the next senior officer in the group and notify the other ships that
command has been shifted.
--Justin
Timo S Saloniemi
>Why is the Enterprise the flagship of the Federation? The flagship is a ship
>carrying an admiral and their entourage, correct? An admiral only comes on
>board to bother Picard or the like. Any ideas?
The flagship of a cruise line is the ship that has the greatest PR value.
I gather this is the meaning of the word when applied to the Galaxy class
Enterprise-D. She is technologically advanced, and even has a large number of
gee-whiz gadgets of dubious utilizability but great showcase value, like
the saucer separation and redocking capability. She's big, perhaps larger
than she need be. And she's plush, far plusher than any other ship we've
seen, save perhaps for Kirk's E-A in ST5.
That Starfleet chooses to use a line officer instead of a flag officer
as the commander of that ship is just their decision. Perhaps it's
another concession to marketability: "We're so good that even our
lower-ranking officers get to fly hot rods like this!" Perhaps it's
a general policy of not using flag ranks for starship command, not
even when the ship regularly performs cutting edge diplomacy.
As for the E-E, there is less justification for calling her a flagship.
For one, she hasn't been called that yet, or has she? And she ain't
plush, even if she has gadgetry to put James Bond's vehicles to shame.
Starfleet also seems to operate "flagships" of more traditional kind.
Our guest-star Admirals sometimes specify a vessel as their flagship,
i.e. the ship where their flag will fly during the operation. Almost
invariably, the VFX people decide that this ship is of Excelsior
class - and virtually never do we see a ship of "Enterprise class"
(a Constitution, E-B-variant, Ambassador, Galaxy or Sovereign) used
as a flagship in this sense.
There may be various reasons to this. In the era of poor ship-to-ship
communications, flag officers tended to choose either some well-protected
battlebarge that could safely sit in the very heat of the battle and
take her time to send the required signals - or then a relatively fast
and agile vessel that could zip between locations and allow the admiral
to give orders where they were needed the most. The Excelsiors could
be better armored than the "peaceful" mid-24th century vessels. Or they
could be more agile than the overbloated Galaxies and Nebulas.
Later on, as communications tech improved, flag officers usually chose
ships that had the most extensive comm systems. That is, ships with a lot
of internal volume, but not necessarily much in the way of armor or
armament. Perhaps the Excelsiors excel in this? Perhaps they were
"overengineered" originally to meet unknown growth requirements (like
groundbreaking ships often are), and currently are the ships with the
best ratio of free modular volume to vital fixed volume? (Much like the
oversized Spruance destroyers that later became Ticonderoga cruisers,
the favored flagships of the USN)
Any other ideas? Perhaps the admirals just prefer the sort of ships
that were hot back when they themselves were starship captains...
TImo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote in message
>news:auaa54$5rgcn$1...@ID-107133.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Dwayne Day" <zirc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ie1O9.4795$b97.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > The reality is that Godwin (whoever he was--you can look it up via
>> > Google) postulated a clever and funny little "law" [..]
>> Godwin is a SHE. Laura Godwin, to be exact. She's a slasher. K/S. Does it
>> just for the hell of it, near as I can figure. Last I saw of her, she was
>> posting under the handle of ToolPackinMama in alt.startrek, but I decided
>> not to deal with that newsgroup this time around of being back online. Too
>> time consuming to keep up with it.
>Different Godwin. The Godwin who wrote Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin.
'Sides, isn't our TPM a Laura Goldwin, with "l"?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
Interesting... In the "First Contact" scenario, though, I think we could
be better off looking at Trek's own rules and definitions than seeking
for real-world advice. Although I'm convinced that the writers of "FC"
were not aware of this, VOY once did reveal that in a tactical situation
of poorly established chains of command, the captain of the most powerful
vessel always gains overall tactical command - even over the seniority
of other starship commanders of identical rank. And supposedly even over
the seniority of other starship commanders of higher rank, if for some
reason the captain of the powerful ship is a low-ranking one.
Assuming that Adm. Hayes was the only flag officer involved in the battle,
and assuming that the destruction of his ship deprived the fleet both
of contact with the Admiral (who did not die, as we later saw in VOY)
and of a powerful starship, it would be quite plausible that Picard's
vessel would be the most powerful starship present, and Picard a relatively
senior captain compared to the average. That would give him the instant
right to usurp overall command as per Starfleet regulations.
Even if there were more powerful ships *and* more senior captains present,
I doubt they would strongly have objected, not when Picard was able to
deliver a convincing "trust me, I know what I'm doing" message. And
Picard's ship wasn't battle-damaged, so she would still have outranked an
identical vessel that had already spent hours or days in the battle...
And it makes perfect sense to me that Hayes would be the only flag
officer involved, despite the proximity of Earth and the supposedly
hundreds of admirals down there. Starfleet wouldn't be so stupid as
to deliberately confuse the chains of command at the crucial moment
when the Cube was nearing its target. (OTOH, Starfleet *could* have
had more than one flag officer in the defensive fleet originally,
hopefully situated on separate ships. But who knows how many flag
officers the Borg had already eliminated prior to the climax of the
battle?)
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
> Starfleet also seems to operate "flagships" of more traditional kind.
It might be worth noting that the E-D was referred to as the flagship of
the *Federation,* which may be a largely ceremonial function entirely
different from that of being a flagship in Starfleet.
GeneK
Timo S Saloniemi
Here, however, we have the possibility of an argument "X is clearly
military, and Y is less so". There are military services in the US
that hold a greater claim to being military than the USCG does -
services that are actually controlled by the DoD and not peacetime-
shared by the DoT, services that have a more limited and more
violent scope of duties. In that regard, "paramilitary" for USCG
makes semantic sense, even if it doesn't necessarily flatter the
organization. And if "paramilitary" cannot be used here, where can
it be? In connection with the Salvation Army?
In the case of Starfleet, we cannot make this argument. Starfleet is
the best analogy of a military service available to us in the Trek
universe, not the second best. If 24th century people don't want to
call anything "military", fine. But if they want to call something
military, then Starfleet obviously is this something. Thus,
"paramilitary" makes less semantic sense. Unless one wants to say
Starfleet is "para" in comparison with foreign military services...
Timo Saloniemi
CaptJosh
ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
officers apparently. Archer asked for and got the best for his Enterprise.
Kirk surrounded his command with the best he could find. This tradition
seems to have carried through even into Picard's day. Even so, it is true
that other crews can handle most things as well, it's just that ships named
Enterprise seem to hit the weirder situations. For example, in the Trek
universe, ships named Enterprise have been involved in more temporal
anomalies than any other. Oddly enough, ships named Intrepid get destroyed
more often. Guess when you name a ship for fearlessness, she forgets to fear
even when it is necessary. Add to that a crew of Vulcans, and it's a recipe
for disaster. *grin*. Anyway, Enterprises seem to be the sorts of bears that
things just happen to in the Star Trek continuum, so they develop
reputations. With a reputation comes an intimidation factor for enemies, or
in the case of klingons, hopes to meet the Mighty Enterprise and her
intrepid crew in glorious battle. Not to mention that up until Excelsior,
Enterprise was the fastest ship in Starfleet, courtesy of Scotty's
tinkering, and often could get to a place first even if another ship was
closer in distance. So you end up with one ship getting tasked with a lot of
hot spots, first of all, and then, they also often have to respond to other
trouble because their speed makes them closer in time than other ships are
in distance. Though I would imagine that since there were originally only
12(or 13 depending on who you ask) constitution class vessels, each one
probably earned quite the reputation in its own typical patrol area anyway.
Ok, rambling done. Let me know what you think of my thoughts on the issue.
CaptJosh
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:22:17 +0000, GeneK wrote:
>> "Justin Broderick" <justi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:f603cb5e.02122...@posting.google.com...
>>> Sure, but only definition 1. is properly used when discussing warships.
>> Uh oh, you just pushed the "Is Starfleet Military?" button.
>They can say they are "The Happy Fun Ship Gay Orgy Brigade" for all I care,
>they are still military.
I can easily see why they would choose not to call themselves that, though.
("military", that is!) Just look at it from an "enlightened" 24th century
viewpoint, and reapply the above statement to what these people would
see when they look back at us.
"They can say they are 'military' for all I care, they are still a bunch
of murderers."
This is a factually true statement, but one that does not flatter those
who would prefer the name "military". It is obvious for us why the
militaries choose *not* to call themselves in that other factually
correct manner. Just as obviously, the Trek people might have a pressing
motivation to play semantic games of subterfuge. And their counterreaction
to calling them by their other "correct" name would be quite predictable
as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
Indeed. Sinking the Deutschland would probably have been a favorite
hobby project for the Royal Navy in WWII, had the vessel not been
renamed. (USS America might have been a similar red flag for those
red-flag guys a few decades ago, too.) Publicity and fame can be a
multi-edged sword.
I, too, suspect Starfleet keeps up the Enterprise tradition mainly
for "internal use". It's just one inbred tradition among many, some
probably dating from the days of sailing-ship navies. And as long
as that tradition exists, Starfleet also likes to kill multiple avians
with a single missile - the Enterprise is always decorated into the
plushest and most gadget-laden assignment in Starfleet, so naturally
she also makes for an excellent ship for missions of frontline diplomacy.
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote...
> Traditionally, apparently even since before the formation of the Federation,
> ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
> officers apparently.
That would seem to be the case, thanks to "Enterprise." Personally, I think
it has the effect of lessening the mythos of James T. Kirk and the NCC-1701,
and of undermining the whole reason for the A,B,C,D,E on the registry, but
I don't seem to be having any problems so far ignoring everything that happens
on "Enterprise." :)
GeneK
Joseph Nebus
>Traditionally, apparently even since before the formation of the Federation,
>ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
>officers apparently. Archer asked for and got the best for his Enterprise.
>Kirk surrounded his command with the best he could find.
Point of order: is there canon evidence that Kirk took more than
ordinary effort in assembling his crew? That is, did he go out seeking
the Best of the Best, or did he simply take whoever was posted or whoever
was best-qualified of the currently available sorts?
This is probably a small point, but one of the things I like about
the original show is the sense that it's sort of a blue collar neighborhood,
your average folks sharing in something wonderful. In Next Generation and
onward we got crews of Really Veddy Special People Indeed, and while it's
kind of neat to meet the Only Android In The Federation and the Only
Klingon In Star Fleet and the Way Smartest Teenager In History serving
under the Way Darned Bestest Captain Ever Known, that serves to diminish
the specialness of any of them.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptJosh
the chartering of Starfleet. However, I much prefered the way Enterprise
came to be in the book _Final Frontier_ and how it was developed more in
_Best Destiny_. Please, no canon/non-canon arguement. I'm talking about
which story line I prefer. Though it's not impossible to fit Enterpise NX-01
into that timeline, as the NCC-1701 was supposedly the first Warp 7 vessel
ever. However, discrepancies do exist between the two story lines because
according to Final Frontier, ships up until Enterprise without the benefit
of the invention of Duotronics had to warp, stop, scan to see what was in
front of them, warp, stop, scan some more to make sure they weren't going to
pile into somone's planet. But that wouldn't make for a good tv show, now
would it?
ssrat
>"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> writes:
>
>>Traditionally, apparently even since before the formation of the Federation,
>>ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
>>officers apparently. Archer asked for and got the best for his Enterprise.
>>Kirk surrounded his command with the best he could find.
>
> Point of order: is there canon evidence that Kirk took more than
>ordinary effort in assembling his crew? That is, did he go out seeking
>the Best of the Best, or did he simply take whoever was posted or whoever
>was best-qualified of the currently available sorts?
>
SInce we join "in progress" the only thing we get is that a few of
the crew knew Kirk
Mitchell - Old friend
Mccoy- (unfilmed story that had Mccoy's daughter which fits with him
being invited by Kirk after a divorce) plus the ease at which he could
haraunge the captain without getting kicked off
Finney- served with Kirk before (did the ep say he had him assigned
or was it coincidence)
as far as anyone else even the novels have never stuck with who
served with pike/who came after (except spock of course)
The only "single story" is Sulu who Kirk picks personally
GeneK
> according to Final Frontier, ships up until Enterprise without the benefit
> of the invention of Duotronics had to warp, stop, scan to see what was in
> front of them, warp, stop, scan some more to make sure they weren't going to
> pile into somone's planet. But that wouldn't make for a good tv show, now
> would it?
I dunno, seems to work OK for Star Wars.
GeneK
CaptJosh
mapped in detail. Courses are plotted from beginning to end, barring the
need to use a transfer point to switch hyperspacelanes. There are a few
places they call nodes where you drop out of hyperspace whether you want to
or not, so they put nav beacons there and use them as transfer points. Other
than that, it's totally different. Especially since with a good hyperdrive,
you can cross the SW galaxy in a week. And no, I have no reason to think
that the SW galaxy is any smaller than ours.
Liam Slider
<snip>
> There are a few
> places they call nodes where you drop out of hyperspace whether you want to
> or not, so they put nav beacons there and use them as transfer points.
Actually I think that's due to having to jump around certain obsticles. SW
ships have trouble with gravity wells.
>Other
> than that, it's totally different. Especially since with a good hyperdrive,
> you can cross the SW galaxy in a week.
For the slower ships, like Victory-class Star Destroyers. Some ships (like
the Sith Infiltrator, or the Falcon) can do it in a couple days.
>And no, I have no reason to think
> that the SW galaxy is any smaller than ours.
It's actually bigger. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across,
while the one in Star Wars is officially 120,000 light-years across.
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, CaptJosh wrote:
> Um, they don't do that in Star Wars. In SW, they have the whole galaxy
> mapped in detail. Courses are plotted from beginning to end, barring the
> need to use a transfer point to switch hyperspacelanes. There are a few
> places they call nodes where you drop out of hyperspace whether you want to
> or not, so they put nav beacons there and use them as transfer points. Other
> than that, it's totally different. Especially since with a good hyperdrive,
> you can cross the SW galaxy in a week. And no, I have no reason to think
> that the SW galaxy is any smaller than ours.
Uh, no. Star Wars ships DO not have that ability, no matter what teh EU
material says. George Lucas himself and Steve Sansweet of Lucasfilm have
gone on record several times as having said that the EU material is
essentially non-canon, and the only true story of Star Wars IS what we see
in the films (SE versions), the novelizations of the films, scripts, and
the radio broadcast versions. All else is happening in a parallel
universe, and is not the true SW story.
That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the "Outer
Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as Obi Wan can
clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the Galaxy well within
it's bounderies. And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A 120,000
ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size. So whatever speeds the SW
ships do, it's well under the fanwank comic book and novel idea that the
ships are millions of times c. Rather it seems, according to AoTC, that
the ships are probably at best tens of thousands of times c, which is
fairly impressive, but not anywhere near what some of the EU material
would have you think. Certainly even the EU material can't decide what
exactly the speeds are anyways; in "Heir to the Empire", there are clear
references class 4 hyperdrives being able to do up to 2.9 ly per hour...
That's waaaaaaaaay below the millions of times c you need to cross even a
modest sized galaxy like our own in a week's time. In fact, it only gets
you about 487 ly in one week, and not tens of thousands. And those are the
best speeds that top of the line capital ships like a type-II ISD can
manage.
So don't believe all the fanboy hype you've been hearing about. It just
ain't true.
-Mike
Liam Slider
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, CaptJosh wrote:
>
>> Um, they don't do that in Star Wars. In SW, they have the whole galaxy
>> mapped in detail. Courses are plotted from beginning to end, barring the
>> need to use a transfer point to switch hyperspacelanes. There are a few
>> places they call nodes where you drop out of hyperspace whether you want to
>> or not, so they put nav beacons there and use them as transfer points. Other
>> than that, it's totally different. Especially since with a good hyperdrive,
>> you can cross the SW galaxy in a week. And no, I have no reason to think
>> that the SW galaxy is any smaller than ours.
>
> Uh, no. Star Wars ships DO not have that ability, no matter what teh EU
> material says. George Lucas himself and Steve Sansweet of Lucasfilm have
> gone on record several times as having said that the EU material is
> essentially non-canon, and the only true story of Star Wars IS what we see
> in the films (SE versions), the novelizations of the films, scripts, and
> the radio broadcast versions. All else is happening in a parallel
> universe, and is not the true SW story.
Actually you have that partially correct. The films, the novelizations,
and the radio play are the only canon sources, that much is true. But the
EU is not a "parallel universe" in any sense. Lucus is on record saying it
*is* part of the Star Wars universe....except when it explicitly
contradicts canon. Unlike Star Trek, Lucas and Lucasfilm seperate Official
and Canon into different categories. Canon rules, but the official still
stands as Star Wars.
>
> That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the "Outer
> Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as Obi Wan can
> clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the Galaxy well within
> it's bounderies.
Yes, the outer part of the galaxy. Nobody ever claimed that the Outer Rim
was entirely outside the galaxy for crying out loud.
>And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
> which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A 120,000
> ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size.
Actually it is, ours would also qualify, and it's not too much smaller and
has two small compainion galaxies.
>So whatever speeds the SW
> ships do, it's well under the fanwank comic book and novel idea that the
> ships are millions of times c. Rather it seems, according to AoTC, that
> the ships are probably at best tens of thousands of times c, which is
> fairly impressive, but not anywhere near what some of the EU material
> would have you think.
That would make the Star Wars galaxy a few thousand light-years across.
Which is idiotically small and doesn't fit with the canon and official
maps of it we've seen. It also doesn't fit with the canon speeds we've
seen on screen.
>Certainly even the EU material can't decide what
> exactly the speeds are anyways; in "Heir to the Empire", there are clear
> references class 4 hyperdrives being able to do up to 2.9 ly per hour...
A class 4 is at the very slow end. As the numbers go higher on hyperdrive
classes, the speed decreases.
> That's waaaaaaaaay below the millions of times c you need to cross even a
> modest sized galaxy like our own in a week's time. In fact, it only gets
> you about 487 ly in one week, and not tens of thousands. And those are the
> best speeds that top of the line capital ships like a type-II ISD can
> manage.
No, that's the average speed on an outdated Victory-class. And at any rate
the "millions of times c" is established as canon fact, while the number
you state as the fastest comes from official material anyway. Canon
overrules official.
>
> So don't believe all the fanboy hype you've been hearing about. It just
> ain't true.
> -Mike
You seem to have some fanboy delusions yourself.
GeneK
"Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.28...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com...
> Actually you have that partially correct. The films, the novelizations,
> and the radio play are the only canon sources, that much is true. But the
> EU is not a "parallel universe" in any sense. Lucus is on record saying it
> *is* part of the Star Wars universe....except when it explicitly
> contradicts canon. Unlike Star Trek, Lucas and Lucasfilm seperate Official
> and Canon into different categories. Canon rules, but the official still
> stands as Star Wars.
All that is irrelevant to the original discussion, because in all of these
hyperdrive still works essentially the same regardless of its range, you
jump from one point to another and have to make a bunch of calculations
before you do to avoid ending up inside a heavenly body because you
can't change course while you're in the jump, while in Trek they can set
course in the general direction of their destination, engage warp drive
and make minor course corrections without having to drop back to
sublight. Or have I missed some occaision in Star Wars where they did
that?
GeneK
Liam Slider
It has been suggested that course changes in hyperspace are possible, but
it's hard on the engines and the course change is very minor. I forget the
where that was said though. It's easier to just drop out of hyperspace,
change course (including new calcs of course) at sublight, and then jump
again. Still the overall effect is the same either way. And yes, in Star
Trek they can change course pretty much at will, except when they can't
(damn B&B and their "Faster than light, no left or right" garbage). Still,
it's essentially comparing apples to oranges here. I don't even see why it
was brought up...
Jack Bohn
>On 28 Dec 2002 00:20:39 -0500, neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
>>"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> writes:
>>
>>>Traditionally, apparently even since before the formation of the Federation,
>>>ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
>>>officers apparently. Archer asked for and got the best for his Enterprise.
>>>Kirk surrounded his command with the best he could find.
>>
>> Point of order: is there canon evidence that Kirk took more than
>>ordinary effort in assembling his crew? That is, did he go out seeking
>>the Best of the Best, or did he simply take whoever was posted or whoever
>>was best-qualified of the currently available sorts?
>>
> SInce we join "in progress" the only thing we get is that a few of
>the crew knew Kirk
> Mitchell - Old friend
> Mccoy- (unfilmed story that had Mccoy's daughter which fits with him
>being invited by Kirk after a divorce) plus the ease at which he could
>haraunge the captain without getting kicked off
> Finney- served with Kirk before (did the ep say he had him assigned
>or was it coincidence)
He probably also knew Kevin Riley. Being only one of nine
survivors would seem to form a tight bond, although we're given
no canon evidence that it caused either one of them to choose his
post based on that of the other.
Who, exactly, did Picard seek out for his crew? Tasha Yar, we're
told (also perhaps shepherding her career through the Academy),
and Geordi LaForge, who at that time was not best of the best,
but a confused j.g. bouncing from position to position. Picard
didn't seem familiar with Data at first, and definitely knew
Riker only by reputation (and I don't even know that he asked for
Riker).
--
-Jack
WILL GILLIES
> Why is the Enterprise the flagship of the Federation? The flagship is a ship
> carrying an admiral and their entourage, correct? An admiral only comes on
> board to bother Picard or the like. Any ideas?
>
I've often thought the FLAGSHIP was meant to be the pride of the
fleet.I was watching a program about the Hood the other night and the
subject of what is considered a flagship comes to mind.The E-E is
certainly considered a Flagship,though it has no Admiral or a
Commodore.
However if the rank of Commodore still existed in Starfleet,Picard
ould probably be considered due to his seniority.
I'm no expert,but i these are my musings.
GeneK
> It has been suggested that course changes in hyperspace are possible, but
> it's hard on the engines and the course change is very minor. I forget the
> where that was said though. It's easier to just drop out of hyperspace,
> change course (including new calcs of course) at sublight, and then jump
> again. Still the overall effect is the same either way. And yes, in Star
> Trek they can change course pretty much at will, except when they can't
> (damn B&B and their "Faster than light, no left or right" garbage). Still,
> it's essentially comparing apples to oranges here. I don't even see why it
> was brought up...
Someone mentioned a Trek novel where it was postulated that early, less
advanced warp drives worked in this way, there was speculation that such
drives wouldn't serve dramatic needs well, and I noted that such FTL drives
didn't seem to impair Star Wars.
GeneK
Dave Griffin
reasons
why I never became a Voyager fan. This is a ludicrous rule, not merely
because
it is different from the rules in our own military, but because it
doesn't put the
best captain or even the captain with the most experience in charge of
the fleet.
Now granted if Kirk is in a battle and there are other senior
captains, I'd rather
see him in command (and the 1701 was among the most powerful ships of
that time), but in general you're probably better off having the
admiral in charge
of the fleet indicate what the chain of command should be if he's
incapacitated
(before the battle) and barring that you're probably better off with
the most
experienced captain than you are with some captain who happens to have
the
meanest ship. Consider the captain of the 1701B. Do you want him in
command
just because at the time the 1701B was probably the most powerful ship
they
had?
Now it's possible to envision a navy so rigid that the most
experienced captains
ALWAYS have the largest ships, but that doesn't seem to be the case in
Star Trek.
If it were, we would have seen Picard move slowly up the ladder to
bigger and
bigger ships. Instead, he goes right from the Constellation class to
the Galaxy class
which is a pretty big leap. It's more likely that when the new ships
come along,
Starfleet picks the best person they can from the available captains.
This isn't
conducive to relying on the captain of the largest ship to
automatically be the
best person to command the fleet when the whole existance of the
Federation
is at stake.
To me this is a rule dreamed up by a scriptwriter with zero knowledge
of how
actual fleets work just as a script convention to get Janeway in
charge. And the
thing of it was that it would have been just as easy to just say
Janeway had
date of rank on the other captain.
tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote in message news:<augumq$6tg$1...@nntp.hut.fi>...
...
> Interesting... In the "First Contact" scenario, though, I think we could
> be better off looking at Trek's own rules and definitions than seeking
> for real-world advice. Although I'm convinced that the writers of "FC"
> were not aware of this, VOY once did reveal that in a tactical situation
> of poorly established chains of command, the captain of the most powerful
> vessel always gains overall tactical command - even over the seniority
> of other starship commanders of identical rank. And supposedly even over
> the seniority of other starship commanders of higher rank, if for some
> reason the captain of the powerful ship is a low-ranking one.
> ...
Mike Dicenso
Which is actually false. I have heard, while at San Diego Comicon from
Sansweet himself what the actual policies are, and there is no such
divider line. The idea that the EU material is somehow canon unless
contradicted is a mistaken belief held by many people. I used to think
that until I found out for myself what Lucasfilm's actual policies on the
amtter are.
> > That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the
> > "Outer Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as
> > Obi Wan can clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the
> > Galaxy well within it's bounderies.
>
> Yes, the outer part of the galaxy. Nobody ever claimed that the Outer Rim
> was entirely outside the galaxy for crying out loud.
Obi Wan is practically pointing to a spot so well within the boundries
of the galaxy that it looks like the so-called Outer Rim is actually
somewhere near the edge of the galactic core! But some of the EU material
DOES in fact claim that the Outer Rim Territories are on the galactic rim
(note that I never said that the Outer Rim was outside the SW galaxy,
either).
> >And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
> > which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A 120,000
> > ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size.
>
>
> Actually it is, ours would also qualify, and it's not too much smaller and
> has two small compainion galaxies.
A galaxy of 120,000 ly barely qualifies as "modest sized", and your own
examples of the Milky Way, and the Lesser and Greater Magellanic cloud
galaxies only goes to prove that. But even being generous and allowing for
120,000 ly, the SW boundries for what qualifies as territory for the
former Galactic Republic turned Galactic Empire is far, far smaller than
what is shown in the EU material maps. So it's irrelevant the galaxy's
size, since the territory involved is much smaller, and the hyperdrives
are far slower than the EU material gives in some sources.
> >So whatever speeds the SW
> > ships do, it's well under the fanwank comic book and novel idea that the
> > ships are millions of times c. Rather it seems, according to AoTC, that
> > the ships are probably at best tens of thousands of times c, which is
> > fairly impressive, but not anywhere near what some of the EU material
> > would have you think.
>
> That would make the Star Wars galaxy a few thousand light-years across.
> Which is idiotically small and doesn't fit with the canon and official
> maps of it we've seen. It also doesn't fit with the canon speeds we've
> seen on screen.
That's not making the galaxy idiotically small, all it requires is that
the territory be much, much smaller, and hence the travel routes vastly
smaller than the EU material's representation. And the only true canon
maps we've seen to date ARE in AOTC, and nowhere else. Obi Wan with one
stroke of the finger basically wiped out the EU material from any vague
sembalence of canon.
> >Certainly even the EU material can't decide what
> > exactly the speeds are anyways; in "Heir to the Empire", there are clear
> > references class 4 hyperdrives being able to do up to 2.9 ly per hour...
>
> A class 4 is at the very slow end. As the numbers go higher on hyperdrive
> classes, the speed decreases.
>
> > That's waaaaaaaaay below the millions of times c you need to cross even a
> > modest sized galaxy like our own in a week's time. In fact, it only gets
> > you about 487 ly in one week, and not tens of thousands. And those are the
> > best speeds that top of the line capital ships like a type-II ISD can
> > manage.
>
> No, that's the average speed on an outdated Victory-class. And at any rate
> the "millions of times c" is established as canon fact, while the number
> you state as the fastest comes from official material anyway. Canon
> overrules official.
Nope. You have everything backwards. The Chimera's best speed was around
2.9 ly per hour. Go reread the books.
> > So don't believe all the fanboy hype you've been hearing about. It
> > just ain't true. -Mike
>
> You seem to have some fanboy delusions yourself.
No child, I'am giving you the straight up real facts. The Warsies are
about to go through what Trekkies and ST fandom did over a decade ago when
all but a handful of material will be considered the true story for their
francise's universe. Live with it.
-Mike
GeneK
> of how actual fleets work just as a script convention to get Janeway in
> charge.
I believe that pretty much describes everybody in TPTB. TOS'
creative team was laden with WWII vets, but most of the current
team hails from the generation that equates "the military" with the
minions of Satan. Learning something about how a real chain of
command might work would probably make them feel unclean.
GeneK
Dwayne Day
In article <vgmP9.136012$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>, "GeneK"
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>> To me this is a rule dreamed up by a scriptwriter with zero knowledge
>> of how actual fleets work just as a script convention to get Janeway in
>> charge.
>
> I believe that pretty much describes everybody in TPTB. TOS'
> creative team was laden with WWII vets, but most of the current
> team hails from the generation that equates "the military" with the
> minions of Satan. Learning something about how a real chain of
> command might work would probably make them feel unclean.
Yep. You'll notice that Enterprise, although it supposedly pre-dates TOS,
has everyone acting much more like bumbling guys from the TNG time period.
They're always screwing up and then apologizing for it. Kirk's attitude was
much more confident, in keeping with a post-war (pre-Vietnam) America.
D
machf
No, she's GOOdwin, with two 'O's.
Should we inform her how she's becomeing a sort of celebrity? ;-)
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Dave Griffin
Well a commander does tend to set the tone for a ship. If Kirk was in charge
of the NX-01 it would be more to your liking. Still, you have to wonder just
how many people are actually in Starfleet. Earth just has this one ship, some
more on the assembly line, and some freighters and short range ships
(probably) right? Maybe they just don't have much in the way of rules or
tradition to fall back on. Maybe the evil vulcans write the rulebook before the
TOS era.
GeneK
"Dave Griffin" <carbon...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> Well a commander does tend to set the tone for a ship. If Kirk was in charge
> of the NX-01 it would be more to your liking.
That would be true if we were talking about real ships and real people. But
in Trek, it's TPTB who set the tone, and my guess is that even if you could
somehow find an exact clone of a 35 year old Bill Shatner and put him
aboard the NX-01, the fact that the plots and dialog are still being done by
the folks who are doing them now would result in an Enterprise that wasn't
any better than the one we have now.
GeneK
Dwayne Day
In article <ytpP9.136017$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>, "GeneK"
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
Right, the point being that the show's _attitude_ is determined by the
producers/writers. The attitude of Enterprise is much more liberal than the
attitude of TOS. The humans are not the best, most moral race in the
galaxy, going around showing everybody else how to do things. Instead,
they're a bumbling minor race that always has to apologize for mucking up
other cultures. This very much reflects the attitude of modern Hollywood.
Whereas TOS was very much a product of its times, when the United States was
out rebuilding a devastated world and bringing culture and fresh drinking
water to the unwashed masses. TOS was the Peace Corps and the US Marines
rolled into one.
D
Liam Slider
So you heard from one guy, answering half-assed questions of drooling
fanboys, who said that there is no such division. Wow, I guess he rules
above what Lucas *himself* has said, and what *Lucasfilm* (you know, the
owners of SW, just like Paramount owns ST) itself has to say about such
matters....
>The idea that the EU material is somehow canon unless
> contradicted is a mistaken belief held by many people.
It's a belief based on written Lucasfilm policy, and what George Lucas has
said.....and not when he's just pandering to geeks at a comicon.
>I used to think
> that until I found out for myself what Lucasfilm's actual policies on
> the amtter are.
You obviously didn't find out yourself. You relied on what this one guy at
a freaking *comic* *book* *convention* said. Yeah, very reliable.
>
>> > That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the
>> > "Outer Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as
>> > Obi Wan can clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the
>> > Galaxy well within it's bounderies.
>>
>> Yes, the outer part of the galaxy. Nobody ever claimed that the Outer
>> Rim was entirely outside the galaxy for crying out loud.
>
> Obi Wan is practically pointing to a spot so well within the boundries
> of the galaxy that it looks like the so-called Outer Rim is actually
> somewhere near the edge of the galactic core!
Like James Kirk said about Kahn....you are thinking 2 dimensionally.
>But some of the EU material
> DOES in fact claim that the Outer Rim Territories are on the galactic
> rim (note that I never said that the Outer Rim was outside the SW
> galaxy, either).
You implied it. And those worlds *are* on the outer rim, even by your
definition.
>> >And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
>> > which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A
>> > 120,000 ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size.
>>
>>
>> Actually it is, ours would also qualify, and it's not too much smaller
>> and has two small compainion galaxies.
>
> A galaxy of 120,000 ly barely qualifies as "modest sized", and your own
> examples of the Milky Way, and the Lesser and Greater Magellanic cloud
> galaxies only goes to prove that.
The LMC and GMC are hardly examples of your average galaxy either, they
are on the extremely small size. They are also not spiral galaxies, which
the SW galaxy *is* by both canon and official maps. Spiral galaxies do
*not* come in the size you are claiming for the SW galaxy. Use a little
common frickin sense.
>But even being generous and allowing for
> 120,000 ly, the SW boundries for what qualifies as territory for the
> former Galactic Republic turned Galactic Empire is far, far smaller than
> what is shown in the EU material maps.
The Empire extended the borders to include the backwater systems then.
After all *Imperial* *Stormtroopers* had complete authority on
Tatooine....an area usually considered outside the Republic proper. And
there has *always* been an emphasis on the worlds at the Core, that's
where most of the population is, and it's where the seat of power is.
>So it's irrelevant the galaxy's
> size, since the territory involved is much smaller, and the hyperdrives
> are far slower than the EU material gives in some sources.
This is bunk. We have 2 different Canon examples of high speed travel from
the galactic core to the extreme outer rim.
>> >So whatever speeds the SW
>> > ships do, it's well under the fanwank comic book and novel idea that
>> > the ships are millions of times c. Rather it seems, according to
>> > AoTC, that the ships are probably at best tens of thousands of times
>> > c, which is fairly impressive, but not anywhere near what some of the
>> > EU material would have you think.
>>
>> That would make the Star Wars galaxy a few thousand light-years across.
>> Which is idiotically small and doesn't fit with the canon and official
>> maps of it we've seen. It also doesn't fit with the canon speeds we've
>> seen on screen.
>
> That's not making the galaxy idiotically small, all it requires is that
> the territory be much, much smaller, and hence the travel routes vastly
> smaller than the EU material's representation. And the only true canon
> maps we've seen to date ARE in AOTC, and nowhere else. Obi Wan with one
> stroke of the finger basically wiped out the EU material from any vague
> sembalence of canon.
A few minutes lines up you were claiming that entire galaxy to be only a
few thousand light-years across. So you were in fact claiming an
idiotically small size for it. And yes, we've seen the maps in AOTC, and
all you've proven is that systems considered to be "Outer Rim" might
include systems that are located above the plane of that galaxy, that were
still remote backwaters. We only saw a top down view remember.
>> >Certainly even the EU material can't decide what
>> > exactly the speeds are anyways; in "Heir to the Empire", there are
>> > clear references class 4 hyperdrives being able to do up to 2.9 ly
>> > per hour...
>>
>> A class 4 is at the very slow end. As the numbers go higher on
>> hyperdrive classes, the speed decreases.
>>
>> > That's waaaaaaaaay below the millions of times c you need to cross
>> > even a modest sized galaxy like our own in a week's time. In fact, it
>> > only gets you about 487 ly in one week, and not tens of thousands.
>> > And those are the best speeds that top of the line capital ships like
>> > a type-II ISD can manage.
>>
>> No, that's the average speed on an outdated Victory-class. And at any
>> rate the "millions of times c" is established as canon fact, while the
>> number you state as the fastest comes from official material anyway.
>> Canon overrules official.
>
> Nope. You have everything backwards. The Chimera's best speed was around
> 2.9 ly per hour. Go reread the books.
Go re-watch the movies. They overrule the books by your own argument.
Hyperdrive speeds are much faster than you are stating.
>> > So don't believe all the fanboy hype you've been hearing about. It
>> > just ain't true. -Mike
>>
>> You seem to have some fanboy delusions yourself.
>
> No child, I'am giving you the straight up real facts. The Warsies are
> about to go through what Trekkies and ST fandom did over a decade ago
> when all but a handful of material will be considered the true story for
> their francise's universe. Live with it.
*cough* AOTC: ICS *cough*
Liam Slider
Ah yes. Well SW-like drive systems in Trek would impede the exploration
bit, since in SW everything is already pretty much mapped. So it would, in
a way, cut something out of Star Trek to have drive systems like that.
Dave Griffin
real life, Star Trek reflects modern sensibilities (rather than cold war
sensibilities) and the people in charge don't understand how militaries work
nor do they care nor is consistency important to them. That's a real shame
because Star Trek could be so much better if it wasn't in the hands of such
people. But that's life and sometimes life sucks.
In game, it is reasonable to assume that Starfleet having not yet fought a war
has not yet become as "militarized" or perhaps "radicalized" as they would
become by the time of the TOS era. Things are a bit fast and loose and they're
still finding their way through a pretty hostile universe.
It's interesting to compare the Earth/Federation battle with the Klingons and
Romulans with the Larry Niven Known Space battles between the Humans
(monkeys) and the Kzinti (ratcats, pussies). In a way, the Kzinti remind me
quite a lot of the Klingons. The Klingons eventually came around to our way
of thinking before they beat their brains completely out against the humans.
The Kzinti weren't quite so bright.
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message news:<ytpP9.136017$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
GeneK
> Ah yes. Well SW-like drive systems in Trek would impede the exploration
> bit, since in SW everything is already pretty much mapped. So it would, in
> a way, cut something out of Star Trek to have drive systems like that.
Absolutely. You'd only be able to warp as far out as your sensors could
define a clear path of travel. But it would have made for some interesting
viewing in a "pre-Kirk" era. It would also explain how 100 years later the
Romulans could field ships into space but still seem at first glance to have
only "simple impulse" power - a jump drive would be useless in a battle.
GeneK
Justin Broderick
news:<augs2j$abc$1...@nntp.hut.fi>...
> Our guest-star Admirals sometimes specify a vessel as their flagship,
> i.e. the ship where their flag will fly during the operation. Almost
> invariably, the VFX people decide that this ship is of Excelsior
> class - and virtually never do we see a ship of "Enterprise class"
> (a Constitution, E-B-variant, Ambassador, Galaxy or Sovereign) used
> as a flagship in this sense.
>
> There may be various reasons to this. In the era of poor ship-to-ship
> communications, flag officers tended to choose either some well-protected
> battlebarge that could safely sit in the very heat of the battle and
> take her time to send the required signals - or then a relatively fast
> and agile vessel that could zip between locations and allow the admiral
> to give orders where they were needed the most.
Also high on the list of requirements was accomodation. The admiral brought
any number of extra bodies with him, the number increasing with the size of
the command. In the sailing Royal Navy, first- and second-rate three
deckers were preferred so the admiral and captain could both have large
windowed cabins in the stern and extra space for the staff. The US
battleships PENNSYLVANIA and CALIFORNIA were designed with extra
accomodation for a fleet commander and staff, and the later SOUTH DAKOTA
sacrificed a few AA emplacements for the same reason. The 1930s cruisers
AUGUSTA, HOUSTON and CHICAGO were designed with extra space to serve as
back-up flagships for the battle fleet or for CinC Asiatic Fleet, which had
no battleships. President Roosevelt used these ships on a number of
official occasions, also.
> Later on, as communications tech improved, flag officers usually chose
> ships that had the most extensive comm systems. That is, ships with a lot
> of internal volume, but not necessarily much in the way of armor or
> armament.
In the USN this was an outgrowth of the successful WW2 amphibious flagships
(AGC) of the Mount McKinley class. Communications and plotting facilities
for ground forces and air support were stressed, but as they would not be in
combat themselves they were built to merchant standards. After the war, this
concept was extended in the conversion of the CVLs SAIPAN and WRIGHT into
"national emergency command posts afloat" that looked like floating antenna
farms. This has continued into today's command ships with facilities for
regional joint forces command.
Of course with effective real-time communications there is less need for a
commander to be near his ships, and fighting ability/survivability is less
important than for a combatant vessel. And if emissions control is
important, there is some advantage to an overall commander being able to
give orders from afar. Adm Yamamoto was flying his flag in YAMATO with the
battle force for the Midway operation, but could give no orders to the
carrier force for the whole trip because of radio silence.
Subspace radio certainly gives Starfleet the capability to command a fleet
from a base or distant ship, but it seems that having a flag officer in
immediate tactical control of the situation would be a good practice. Fleet
battles seem to happen at relatively close quarters, perhaps there is a
tightly directional, short-range communication system for fleet maneuvering,
a Starfleet equivalent of a blinker lamp.
> Perhaps the Excelsiors excel in this? Perhaps they were
> "overengineered" originally to meet unknown growth requirements
(like
> groundbreaking ships often are), and currently are the ships with the
> best ratio of free modular volume to vital fixed volume?
Perhaps no longer being front-line combatants, some of their offensive
hardware has been replaced by more C4I gear, though they might retain speed
and radius comparable to the current line ships.
> (Much like the
> oversized Spruance destroyers that later became Ticonderoga cruisers,
> the favored flagships of the USN)
>
The favored combatant flagship of the USN is the carrier. Even when the
battle group commander is a black shoe Cruiser-Destroyer Group commander, he
and the flag staff are set up on a carrier.
> Any other ideas? Perhaps the admirals just prefer the sort of ships
> that were hot back when they themselves were starship captains...
>
As Commander Third Fleet in WW2, Adm Halsey used the battleship NEW JERSEY
or a carrier as his flagship. His counterpart commanding the same forces as
Fifth Fleet, Adm Spruance, usually used the cruiser INDIANAPOLIS. An older
treaty cruiser, INDIANAPOLIS was far from ideal as far as accomodation for
the staff was concerned. Spruance thought it was better to have a less
valuable ship in case he wanted to go in close to an amphibious operation or
had to suddenly leave and go to another area.
--Justin
Cory C. Albrecht
Saloniemi) wrote:
>In article <tm5O9.135866$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net> "GeneK"
> <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> writes:
>>"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote in message
>>news:auaa01$5o6cv$1...@ID-107133.news.dfncis.de...
>>> Personally, I would define Starfleet as a paramilitary orginization. The
>>I would agree with your comparison of the two organizations' charters,
>>however, the US Coast Guard is not "paramilitary."
>Here, however, we have the possibility of an argument "X is clearly
>military, and Y is less so". There are military services in the US
>that hold a greater claim to being military than the USCG does -
>services that are actually controlled by the DoD and not peacetime-
>shared by the DoT, services that have a more limited and more
>violent scope of duties. In that regard, "paramilitary" for USCG
>makes semantic sense, even if it doesn't necessarily flatter the
>organization. And if "paramilitary" cannot be used here, where can
>it be? In connection with the Salvation Army?
When I hear the word "paramilitary" my first thought is of non-official
groups of civilians who have banded together in a military-type fashion
(i.e. strict chain of command, not democracy), acquire weapons, and
engage in armed conflicts against rebels or other anti-government,
anti-military groups.
--
Cory C. Albrecht
http://ratings.fenris.dyndns.info/ - go add your votes for various
Star Trek episdoes! (I need testers for things I add to client sites :-)
CaptJosh
"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
news:9q2s0v41otg8p4r4s...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Dec 2002 07:00:48 GMT, tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>
> >In article <Sz3O9.46152$6H6.1...@twister.austin.rr.com> "A Bag Of
Memes" <a@b.c> writes:
> >>
> >
> >>Different Godwin. The Godwin who wrote Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin.
> >
> >'Sides, isn't our TPM a Laura Goldwin, with "l"?
> >
> No, she's GOOdwin, with two 'O's.
> Should we inform her how she's becomeing a sort of celebrity? ;-)
>
name. *grin* She'd probably try to beat me.
CaptJosh
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/26/2002
Chris Basken
This sub-thread tangent speaks *very* well to what has gone wrong over
the past eight years or so (basically, since Roddenberry's death) with Trek.
Dwayne Day
In article <laCP9.153396$qF3.11206@sccrnsc04>, Chris Basken <n...@chance.com>
wrote:
>> Right, the point being that the show's _attitude_ is determined by the
>> producers/writers. The attitude of Enterprise is much more liberal than the
>> attitude of TOS. The humans are not the best, most moral race in the
>> galaxy, going around showing everybody else how to do things. Instead,
>> they're a bumbling minor race that always has to apologize for mucking up
>> other cultures. This very much reflects the attitude of modern Hollywood.
>> Whereas TOS was very much a product of its times, when the United States was
>> out rebuilding a devastated world and bringing culture and fresh drinking
>> water to the unwashed masses. TOS was the Peace Corps and the US Marines
>> rolled into one.
>
> This sub-thread tangent speaks *very* well to what has gone wrong over
> the past eight years or so (basically, since Roddenberry's death) with Trek.
Well, I doubt that Roddenberry's death had much to do with it, since he had
given up creative control long before that.
But I do think that this is indeed a problem with the show. Instead of a
bold, confident Earth, we get a bumbling, incompetent, and above-all
apologetic one. How many episodes have we seen where Archer approaches a
planet thinking that he has done the right thing and then is forced to see
that, oops, the Law of Unintended Consequences has kicked in, or worse, his
cultural superiority is blinding him to reality?
And this attitude seems to permeate virtually every episode. There have
been two episodes concerning the Kreetassans (those dreadlock aliens) where
Archer has had to apologize to them (in the second one he also had to
apologize to the doctor and to T'Pol--is this the guy you want running your
ship when he is always getting things wrong?). There was that infamous
episode where the whole race was dying of some disease and Archer ultimately
decided NOT to save them, but to "let nature take its course" and allow them
to slowly die. (If we allowed nature to take its course here on Earth,
people would still be regularly dying from polio and smallpox, and nobody
would wear glasses.)
And it has subtle variations too. Look at the Romulan episode. The
Enterprise encounters the Romulans for the first time and what does it do?
It turns tail and runs.
As I noted before, these stories represent a very post-Vietnam Hollywood
attitude toward the use of power, whereas the early Star Trek reflected its
times, when the United States was bringing drinking water to impoverished
people in Africa and fighting communism.
D
Chris Basken
> As I noted before, these stories represent a very post-Vietnam Hollywood
> attitude toward the use of power, whereas the early Star Trek reflected its
> times, when the United States was bringing drinking water to impoverished
> people in Africa and fighting communism.
We're still doing that, aren't we? At least the drinking water thing.
Dwayne Day
In article <e3OP9.497598$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Basken
<n...@chance.com> wrote:
Yeah, but you're modern Hollywood liberal now thinks that this kind of bold
American intervention abroad is wrong.
My point is, TOS reflects its time, when almost nobody in the US felt that
this country had anything to apologize for. But Enterprise also reflects
its time, when many people think that the exercise of American power abroad
is something to be embarrassed about.
D
Dwayne Day
In article <cpOP9.2410$9N5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Dwayne
Day" <zirc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <e3OP9.497598$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Basken
> <n...@chance.com> wrote:
>
>>> As I noted before, these stories represent a very post-Vietnam Hollywood
>>> attitude toward the use of power, whereas the early Star Trek reflected its
>>> times, when the United States was bringing drinking water to impoverished
>>> people in Africa and fighting communism.
>>
>> We're still doing that, aren't we? At least the drinking water thing.
>
> Yeah, but you're modern Hollywood liberal now thinks that this kind of bold
> American intervention abroad is wrong.
Blech. I meant "your" modern Hollywood, not "you're"--that's what happens
when you get tired and try to type on the keeeboard.
D
Chris Basken
>>Chris Basken wrote:
>>>We're still doing that, aren't we? At least the drinking water thing.
>>
>>Yeah, but you're modern Hollywood liberal now thinks that this kind of bold
>>American intervention abroad is wrong.
>
> Blech. I meant "your" modern Hollywood, not "you're"--that's what happens
> when you get tired and try to type on the keeeboard.
Heh, that's probably one of the most common typographical mistakes. Up
there with its/it's, they're/their/there, and using apostrophies for
plurals.
Speaking of making the world free for capitalism, Hunt For Red October
was on TBS tonight. Damn, if that wouldn't have made a great Trek movie
or pilot (Romulans design a new "warmaker" cloak ship not unlike the
Scimitar, Romulan Commander with some kind of scruples steals it and
defects to the Federation...).
Timo S Saloniemi
>"CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> writes:
>
>>Traditionally, apparently even since before the formation of the Federation,
>>ships named Enterprise have been the most desired posting of promising new
>>officers apparently. Archer asked for and got the best for his Enterprise.
>>Kirk surrounded his command with the best he could find.
> Point of order: is there canon evidence that Kirk took more than
>ordinary effort in assembling his crew? That is, did he go out seeking
>the Best of the Best, or did he simply take whoever was posted or whoever
>was best-qualified of the currently available sorts?
Well, Gary Mitchell seems to have been there not by chance, but because he
was a friend of Kirk's. Ditto for McCoy. But that doesn't mean they were
otherwise specifically qualified. Spock was the one member of Kirk's crew
known to be exceptionally bright, but was he handpicked by Kirk, or shoved
down his throat? We don't really know. Some enjoyable novels tend to suggest
the latter, which would justify the "distrust" and "disagreement" seen in
"Where No Man...". But those aren't canon, and IMHO Kirk and Spock must
have been best buddies in that episode, so as not to strangle each other
outright for the extreme opposite views they represented.
> This is probably a small point, but one of the things I like about
>the original show is the sense that it's sort of a blue collar neighborhood,
>your average folks sharing in something wonderful. In Next Generation and
>onward we got crews of Really Veddy Special People Indeed, and while it's
>kind of neat to meet the Only Android In The Federation and the Only
>Klingon In Star Fleet and the Way Smartest Teenager In History serving
>under the Way Darned Bestest Captain Ever Known, that serves to diminish
>the specialness of any of them.
Agreed on most of this - except that Worf's being "special" didn't make
him any less special in the end. It was the storylines that made or broke
the characters, and the bluecollar Yar was one of those broken. The even
more bluecollar O'Brien in turn was very much made...
Were Picard's crewmates all that special in the end, really? Will Riker was
only the 8th best in his Academy course, a welcome change to a silly rule
(Out how how many, though? A class of 78?). He rose up a long ladder. LaForge
had little in the way of heritage, and was "handpicked" more or less randomly.
Not because Picard thought "Now there would be a nifty Chief Engineer!" but
because he thought "Now this shuttle pilot seems to know his stuff!"...
Yar's family wasn't highly placed, either. And Crusher mainly seemed to have
advanced her career through marriage to the man who knew Picard. There's
little indication that she'd have made Chief of SF Medical had she not been
assigned aboard the E-D first. Pulaski was the doctor described as "famous
for her work", not Crusher.
Only Troi was nobility, and Worf and Data were showcase freaks - that's a
minority when we consider that Picard himself was a "self-made man" of
originally limited fame.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>I remember that episode, it's one of my pet peeves and one of the
>reasons why I never became a Voyager fan. This is a ludicrous rule,
>not merely because it is different from the rules in our own military,
>but because it doesn't put the best captain or even the captain with the
>most experience in charge of the fleet.
It pretty much depends on whether battles are resolved on basis of tactical
expertise or firepower. So far, it seems the latter is closer to the truth,
since we have seen little in the way of "tactical finesse". (No, IMHO
out-of-the-blue tricks and technobabble don't count as "tactical finesse"!).
And it always makes sense that you should avoid separating a captain from
the direct managing of his ship if possible, so as not to decrease the
battleworthiness of the ship. So perhaps it would be best to pick the captain
with the weakest ship to manage fleet combat, as his ship's direct input to
the battle is the least missed?
>Now granted if Kirk is in a battle and there are other senior captains,
>I'd rather see him in command (and the 1701 was among the most powerful
>ships of that time), but in general you're probably better off having the
>admiral in charge of the fleet indicate what the chain of command should
>be if he's incapacitated (before the battle) and barring that you're
>probably better off with the most experienced captain than you are with
>some captain who happens to have the meanest ship. Consider the captain
>of the 1701B. Do you want him in command just because at the time the
>1701B was probably the most powerful ship they had?
Well, he knew what his ship could do. AND what she could NOT do. Give
Kirk the command of a fleet that includes the E-B and you are toast.
"All right, now we have them cornered. Now, the Enterprise fires a torpedo
volley, and in the confusion, the other, weaker vessels can safely move in
with phasers in surprise pincers. Then we can..." "Uh, sir, the Enterprise
has no torpedoes."
Knowledge of the capabilities of your most important ship is likely
to be vital to you. Thus, giving the captain of that ship a say could
be a smart thing to do. OTOH, giving him overall command could distract
him from his primary duties at a crucial moment...
>To me this is a rule dreamed up by a scriptwriter with zero knowledge
>of how actual fleets work just as a script convention to get Janeway in
>charge. And the thing of it was that it would have been just as easy to
>just say Janeway had date of rank on the other captain.
Agreed on that.
The dramatic reason for this piece of Trek writing seemed to be that
Janeway first had to have a reason to look up to Ransom. Seniority
provided the writers with that reason. A situation with Ransom a
young whippersnapper of great fame might have served the story
better - but then again, it was part of the story that Ransom first
look unthreatening and even avuncular, and not an obvious challenger
to Janeway's rule.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>On 27 Dec 2002 07:00:48 GMT, tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>>In article <Sz3O9.46152$6H6.1...@twister.austin.rr.com> "A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> writes:
>>>Different Godwin. The Godwin who wrote Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin.
>>'Sides, isn't our TPM a Laura Goldwin, with "l"?
>No, she's GOOdwin, with two 'O's.
>Should we inform her how she's becomeing a sort of celebrity? ;-)
You mean, reveal to her that I can't even spell her name right?
And have me end up on the wrong side of her cat-o'nine-tails?
Mmm... On second thought, go right ahead. ;)
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>Speaking of making the world free for capitalism, Hunt For Red October
>was on TBS tonight. Damn, if that wouldn't have made a great Trek movie
>or pilot (Romulans design a new "warmaker" cloak ship not unlike the
>Scimitar, Romulan Commander with some kind of scruples steals it and
>defects to the Federation...).
That was pretty much the plot of TNG "Face of the Enemy", until a
final rewrite changed the object to be delivered by the defector
from a ship to a bunch of frozen politicians...
Timo Saloniemi
Dave Griffin
...
> It pretty much depends on whether battles are resolved on basis of tactical
> expertise or firepower. So far, it seems the latter is closer to the truth,
> since we have seen little in the way of "tactical finesse". (No, IMHO
> out-of-the-blue tricks and technobabble don't count as "tactical finesse"!).
> And it always makes sense that you should avoid separating a captain from
> the direct managing of his ship if possible, so as not to decrease the
> battleworthiness of the ship. So perhaps it would be best to pick the captain
> with the weakest ship to manage fleet combat, as his ship's direct input to
> the battle is the least missed?
>
Not sure how you can say that. Maybe Picard seems to win by getting lucky,
I don't know, but Kirk certainly seemed to have a lot of tactical expertise. And
Riker showed it too. That's why you have the admiralty choose the leader of
the fleet and that's why you establish a chain of command so that everyone
knows who takes over and in what order to avoid confusion. Confusion is
deadly. Choosing a captain on the basis of how powerful his ship is is little
better than random. You might get lucky but you might not.
...
> Well, he knew what his ship could do. AND what she could NOT do. Give
> Kirk the command of a fleet that includes the E-B and you are toast.
> "All right, now we have them cornered. Now, the Enterprise fires a torpedo
> volley, and in the confusion, the other, weaker vessels can safely move in
> with phasers in surprise pincers. Then we can..." "Uh, sir, the Enterprise
> has no torpedoes."
>
Oh give me a break. Kirk was retired and just a guest on the ship. If he were
in command of another ship in the squadron he would know the capabilities
of the other ships too (and the Enterprise B wouldn't be in the battle with no
weapons to speak of). ANY person in charge of the fleet needs only general
knowledge of each ship's capabilities and leaves the details up to the captains
of the ships.
> Knowledge of the capabilities of your most important ship is likely
> to be vital to you. Thus, giving the captain of that ship a say could
> be a smart thing to do. OTOH, giving him overall command could distract
> him from his primary duties at a crucial moment...
>
That is ridiculous. Consider the DS9 battles with hundreds of ships. How is
knowledge of the one galaxy (or 2 or 4) you have more vital than the other
96 ships all of which are far more powerful together than the Galaxies? You
need good command and control facilities and a fleet commander who is
good with fleet tactics. So, like I said, you establish a chain of command so
everyone knows who is in command if the fleet commander is incapacitated.
...
> The dramatic reason for this piece of Trek writing seemed to be that
> Janeway first had to have a reason to look up to Ransom. Seniority
> provided the writers with that reason. A situation with Ransom a
> young whippersnapper of great fame might have served the story
> better - but then again, it was part of the story that Ransom first
> look unthreatening and even avuncular, and not an obvious challenger
> to Janeway's rule.
>
Frankly if Janeway wasn't such an incompetent, she could have maybe
made Ransom see that he was doing the wrong thing (though at the time
they didn't know the creatures were sentient) and the last show might
have seen both ships return to the alpha quadrant. Perhaps Ransom
would have been courtmartialed, but he would gotten back with his ship.
Same thing with the "Dauntless." Granted it was a trick by the owner of
the ship, but with a bit more tactics and diplomacy the crew of Voyager
could have arrived back years earlier with a revolutionary new technology
for the Federation. Instead, Janeway allows herself to be outmaneuvered
by the alien even though she catches him by surprise.
Dwayne Day
In article <JsQP9.556077$QZ.80700@sccrnsc02>, Chris Basken <n...@chance.com>
wrote:
>>>Yeah, but you're modern Hollywood liberal now thinks that this kind of bold
>>>American intervention abroad is wrong.
>>
>> Blech. I meant "your" modern Hollywood, not "you're"--that's what happens
>> when you get tired and try to type on the keeeboard.
>
> Heh, that's probably one of the most common typographical mistakes. Up
> there with its/it's, they're/their/there, and using apostrophies for
> plurals.
Yeah, but a) I've got so much higher-education that I'm not allowed a pass
on these things, and b) I make my living as a writer. So I'm going to lash
myself with a wet noodle or something. I know the difference between you're
and your, I just screwed up when typing.
> Speaking of making the world free for capitalism, Hunt For Red October
> was on TBS tonight. Damn, if that wouldn't have made a great Trek movie
> or pilot (Romulans design a new "warmaker" cloak ship not unlike the
> Scimitar, Romulan Commander with some kind of scruples steals it and
> defects to the Federation...).
I noticed that it was running simultaneously with Patriot Games on another
channel.
Trek, as Timo pointed out, has done something similar. I'd also point to
that episode with the Romulan ("The Defector"?) who thinks that he is
bringing a dangerous weapon to the Federation but discovers that it is
simply a ruse.
Lots of these themes have been done in different variations over the years.
Hunt for Red October, while a good book, was not a totally original idea.
Stealing the Superweapon is an old espionage/thriller storyline. Look at
Firefox, for instance, where an American pilot goes behind Soviet lines to
steal its top of the line fighterplane.
D
Chris Basken
Chris Basken wrote:
>>was on TBS tonight. Damn, if that wouldn't have made a great Trek movie
>>or pilot (Romulans design a new "warmaker" cloak ship not unlike the
>>Scimitar, Romulan Commander with some kind of scruples steals it and
>>defects to the Federation...).
>
> I noticed that it was running simultaneously with Patriot Games on another
> channel.
Yeah, for a much less fun movie than Red October.
> Trek, as Timo pointed out, has done something similar. I'd also point to
> that episode with the Romulan ("The Defector"?) who thinks that he is
> bringing a dangerous weapon to the Federation but discovers that it is
> simply a ruse.
>
> Lots of these themes have been done in different variations over the years.
> Hunt for Red October, while a good book, was not a totally original idea.
> Stealing the Superweapon is an old espionage/thriller storyline. Look at
> Firefox, for instance, where an American pilot goes behind Soviet lines to
> steal its top of the line fighterplane.
Of course. I think what gets me thinking of this when I see bits of
HfRO is Ryan's visit to the Enterprise. When the movie came out (1989?)
TNG had just started and it was a thrill to see the "real world" ship on
screen. So that got me thinking (at the time) that if you converted
HfRO to a Trek environment, you'd have the carrier Enterprise be
replaced by the Ent-D and focus the story on the U.S.S. Dallas
(NCC-19822 or something), a smaller ship with a "buckaroo" captain.
That wild burst of imagination still resonates with me today when I see
the movie.
It would work better as a Trek novel, of course, since the Enterprise
would have to sit in the background.
Chris Basken
> Dwayne Day wrote:
>> I noticed that it was running simultaneously with Patriot Games on
>> another
>> channel.
>
> Yeah, for a much less fun movie than Red October.
Speaking of literary competency... That sentence should have been
"Yeah, for me a much less fun movie than Red October."
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Liam Slider wrote:
> >> and the radio play are the only canon sources, that much is true. But
> >> the EU is not a "parallel universe" in any sense. Lucus is on record
> >> saying it *is* part of the Star Wars universe....except when it
> >> explicitly contradicts canon. Unlike Star Trek, Lucas and Lucasfilm
> >> seperate Official and Canon into different categories. Canon rules, but
> >> the official still stands as Star Wars.
> >
> > Which is actually false. I have heard, while at San Diego Comicon from
> > Sansweet himself what the actual policies are, and there is no such
> > divider line.
>
> So you heard from one guy, answering half-assed questions of drooling
> fanboys, who said that there is no such division. Wow, I guess he rules
> above what Lucas *himself* has said, and what *Lucasfilm* (you know, the
> owners of SW, just like Paramount owns ST) itself has to say about such
> matters....
Steve Sansweet does not pander to fanboys. He was asked specifically if
any of the characters like Admiral Thrawn and so on would make appearences
in AoTC or the movie thereafter, and he responded quite clearly that that
all the EU material is "taking place in a seperate universe". Sansweet is
a major domo at Lucasfilm, he would know what George Lucas' vision and
intent for what is vaild in the SW universe, especially over fanboys like
yourself.
> >The idea that the EU material is somehow canon unless
> > contradicted is a mistaken belief held by many people.
>
> It's a belief based on written Lucasfilm policy, and what George Lucas has
> said.....and not when he's just pandering to geeks at a comicon.
He is not pandering, there were quite a few nasty mumbles from the
audiance when he (Sansweet) said what he said. That's not pandering,
that's shoving the fans expectation down the toilet. To pander to the fans
WOULD be to say the novels are all canon... to pander would be to have
Admiral Thrawn and a young Daala, or Pellaeon make an appearance in the
movies. But they are not, and they will not because they exist in another
universe as far as GL and Lucasfilm are concerned.
> >I used to think
> > that until I found out for myself what Lucasfilm's actual policies on
> > the amtter are.
>
> You obviously didn't find out yourself. You relied on what this one guy at
> a freaking *comic* *book* *convention* said. Yeah, very reliable.
For your own information, Sansweet is in a real damn good position to know
all this stuff. Go find out more on the guy. If you don't like what he has
to say as Lucasfilm and GL's represenative... You're Shit Out of Luck.
As for GL himself, there are numerous interviews in which GL himself
pretty much describes the EU material as being in either a "parallel
universe", or "a seperate universe" from his own.
In time, I suspect, after all the movies are finished and every last
dollar can be squeezed out of the fans, GL is just going to come right out
and openly declare the novels and the rest of the EU material non-canon.
> >> > That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the
> >> > "Outer Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as
> >> > Obi Wan can clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the
> >> > Galaxy well within it's bounderies.
> >>
> >> Yes, the outer part of the galaxy. Nobody ever claimed that the Outer
> >> Rim was entirely outside the galaxy for crying out loud.
> >
> > Obi Wan is practically pointing to a spot so well within the boundries
> > of the galaxy that it looks like the so-called Outer Rim is actually
> > somewhere near the edge of the galactic core!
>
> Like James Kirk said about Kahn....you are thinking 2 dimensionally.
I would, if it weren't for the "zoom in" that occurs well after he points
and locates the position of what he was looking for.
> >But some of the EU material
> > DOES in fact claim that the Outer Rim Territories are on the galactic
> > rim (note that I never said that the Outer Rim was outside the SW
> > galaxy, either).
>
> You implied it. And those worlds *are* on the outer rim, even by your
> definition.
They are on a rim all right, but not on the edge or anywhere near it. Even
if we placed it above the galactic plane, it's still far too short a
distance to justify such insane speeds as implied by some of the EU
material.
>
> >> >And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
> >> > which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A
> >> > 120,000 ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size.
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually it is, ours would also qualify, and it's not too much smaller
> >> and has two small compainion galaxies.
> >
> > A galaxy of 120,000 ly barely qualifies as "modest sized", and your own
> > examples of the Milky Way, and the Lesser and Greater Magellanic cloud
> > galaxies only goes to prove that.
>
> The LMC and GMC are hardly examples of your average galaxy either, they
> are on the extremely small size. They are also not spiral galaxies, which
> the SW galaxy *is* by both canon and official maps. Spiral galaxies do
> *not* come in the size you are claiming for the SW galaxy. Use a little
> common frickin sense.
I am. You are not. You pulled one example out, and are now desperately
trying to backtrack on it once it failed to show what you claimed. And
even IF we use the 120,000 ly number, the actual locations of places like
Kamino, Tatooine, Geonosis, and Naboo are relative to each other. It's
just too damn small a territory to justify speeds in the millions of times
c!
>
> >But even being generous and allowing for
> > 120,000 ly, the SW boundries for what qualifies as territory for the
> > former Galactic Republic turned Galactic Empire is far, far smaller than
> > what is shown in the EU material maps.
>
> The Empire extended the borders to include the backwater systems then.
> After all *Imperial* *Stormtroopers* had complete authority on
> Tatooine....an area usually considered outside the Republic proper. And
> there has *always* been an emphasis on the worlds at the Core, that's
> where most of the population is, and it's where the seat of power is.
But they only did so because an extreme situation required it, otherwise
no one would have bothered (see Bigg's comment to Luke in the ANH novel).
> >So it's irrelevant the galaxy's
> > size, since the territory involved is much smaller, and the hyperdrives
> > are far slower than the EU material gives in some sources.
>
> This is bunk. We have 2 different Canon examples of high speed travel from
> the galactic core to the extreme outer rim.
And your delusional. We do not. We have modestly high speed range travel
in the tens of thousands of times c at best from a so-called Core planet,
which is not nearly as far from the so-called Outer Rim planet as the EU
material had misled us to believe.
>
> > maps we've seen to date ARE in AOTC, and nowhere else. Obi Wan with one
> > stroke of the finger basically wiped out the EU material from any vague
> > sembalence of canon.
>
> A few minutes lines up you were claiming that entire galaxy to be only a
> few thousand light-years across. So you were in fact claiming an
> idiotically small size for it. And yes, we've seen the maps in AOTC, and
> all you've proven is that systems considered to be "Outer Rim" might
> include systems that are located above the plane of that galaxy, that were
> still remote backwaters. We only saw a top down view remember.
No stupid. It's a shame to see a poor little Warsie lie about someone
else's postion on a matter because their own canon material is
contradicting them. That may work in the ASVS ng, but it don't fly here.
NEVER did I claim any such thing. I claimed the territory was much, much
smaller because we now have canon, on-screen positioning of a planet's
location relative to the others, and it ain't pretty. The Galactic
Republic's territory is only at best a few tens of thousands of ly in
diameter, occupying an area near the galactic core.
> >> >Certainly even the EU material can't decide what
> >> > exactly the speeds are anyways; in "Heir to the Empire", there are
> >> > clear references class 4 hyperdrives being able to do up to 2.9 ly
> >> > per hour...
> >>
> >> A class 4 is at the very slow end. As the numbers go higher on
> >> hyperdrive classes, the speed decreases.
> >>
> >> > That's waaaaaaaaay below the millions of times c you need to cross
> >> > even a modest sized galaxy like our own in a week's time. In fact, it
> >> > only gets you about 487 ly in one week, and not tens of thousands.
> >> > And those are the best speeds that top of the line capital ships like
> >> > a type-II ISD can manage.
> >>
> >> No, that's the average speed on an outdated Victory-class. And at any
> >> rate the "millions of times c" is established as canon fact, while the
> >> number you state as the fastest comes from official material anyway.
> >> Canon overrules official.
> >
> > Nope. You have everything backwards. The Chimera's best speed was around
> > 2.9 ly per hour. Go reread the books.
>
> Go re-watch the movies. They overrule the books by your own argument.
> Hyperdrive speeds are much faster than you are stating.
Why? I already know what's there, and it's even less flattering than the
EU material I've cited for SW hyperspace travel speeds.
For a great collection of less-than-flattering EU material, go check out
the Obsidian Order Project at "www.st-v-sw.net/STSWObsidian.html"
For the relevant example:
"It took the Chimaera nearly five days at it's point four cruising speed
to cover the three hundred fifty light-years between Myrkr and Wayland."
["Heir to the Empire". p. 39]
> > No child, I'am giving you the straight up real facts. The Warsies are
> > about to go through what Trekkies and ST fandom did over a decade ago
> > when all but a handful of material will be considered the true story for
> > their francise's universe. Live with it.
>
> *cough* AOTC: ICS *cough*
Non-canon. Only what's on-screen is the true story, and books written by
rabid fanboys are not. It's that simple.
-Mike
CaptJosh
news:456c2978.02123...@posting.google.com...<snip>
> Frankly if Janeway wasn't such an incompetent, she could have maybe
> made Ransom see that he was doing the wrong thing (though at the time
> they didn't know the creatures were sentient) and the last show might
> have seen both ships return to the alpha quadrant. Perhaps Ransom
> would have been courtmartialed, but he would gotten back with his ship.
>
there. They would have kept trying to destroy Ransom's ship, I think. At
least they did get his crew, which I'm sure was very helpful, given the
level of casualties they had suffered since entering the Delta quadrant and
making their way to the Beta quadrant vs the number of original crew, even
counting the integrated Maquis.
CaptJosh
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
Cory C. Albrecht
You want "pretty much the plot of"? :-) Ever read "Rules Of Engagement"
by Peter Morwood? It was #40 in Pocket Books' TOS novel series, came out
in 1990. I bought it back then, but about 18 months ago I happened to
reread it shortly after reading Clancy's "The Hunt For Red October"
(1988). About half way through RoE something clicked and I realized I
was reading a modified, trekified version of THfRO. Dunno why it took 12
years to click as THfRO is one of my favourite books. :-)
--
Cory C. Albrecht
machf
<capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote:
>
>"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
>news:9q2s0v41otg8p4r4s...@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Dec 2002 07:00:48 GMT, tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Sz3O9.46152$6H6.1...@twister.austin.rr.com> "A Bag Of
>Memes" <a@b.c> writes:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>Different Godwin. The Godwin who wrote Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin.
>> >
>> >'Sides, isn't our TPM a Laura Goldwin, with "l"?
>> >
>> No, she's GOOdwin, with two 'O's.
>> Should we inform her how she's becomeing a sort of celebrity? ;-)
>>
>Nah. It'd just go to her head. And please don't tell her I screwed up her
>name. *grin* She'd probably try to beat me.
>
No problem, I was just teasing you... I *know* it would go to her head.
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
machf
<capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote:
>
>"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
>news:a1ki0vkhgelt8e32n...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:48:16 -0800, "CaptJosh"
>> <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> Only if you read each and every message... and it has less than 100 a day.
>> [well, right now with Nemesis its daily traffic may have increased
>somewhat]
>> Other NGs to which I'm subscribed have far more than that (a couple
>bordering
>> 500, or even more sometimes). Try rec.arts.sf.written or
>soc.history.what-if
>>
>Um, you obviously don't pay attn to the weekends. I've seen 300+ posts on
>Saturdays and Sundays. And I don't read every post, but I do still have to
>go through amd mark the threads I don't read as read so that I know when
>there are no more new posts to read in the group. Not to mention I am also
>subscribed to four other groups in addition to this one.
>
>CaptJosh
>
BTW, I was more careful this last weekend: friday night there were 108 messages,
saturday it was 112 and sunday 127, I think (maybe it was 107 and 128), but I'm
attributing it to Nemesis and the reactions it's sparked... But 300+ on that NG?
Liam Slider
>
> Steve Sansweet does not pander to fanboys. He was asked specifically if
> any of the characters like Admiral Thrawn and so on would make appearences
> in AoTC or the movie thereafter, and he responded quite clearly that that
> all the EU material is "taking place in a seperate universe".
Which directly contradicts Lucasfilms written policy.
> Sansweet is
> a major domo at Lucasfilm, he would know what George Lucas' vision and
> intent for what is vaild in the SW universe, especially over fanboys like
> yourself.
Well he clearly made a mistake, or misquoted. And I have only your word
that this so called quote was even said.
<snip>
>
>
>> >I used to think
>> > that until I found out for myself what Lucasfilm's actual policies on
>> > the amtter are.
>>
>> You obviously didn't find out yourself. You relied on what this one guy at
>> a freaking *comic* *book* *convention* said. Yeah, very reliable.
>
> For your own information, Sansweet is in a real damn good position to know
> all this stuff. Go find out more on the guy. If you don't like what he has
> to say as Lucasfilm and GL's represenative... You're Shit Out of Luck.
>
> As for GL himself, there are numerous interviews in which GL himself
> pretty much describes the EU material as being in either a "parallel
> universe", or "a seperate universe" from his own.
Where, I've never heard of them. I have heard he declared that the EU "is
Star Wars." Doesn't sound like a seperate universe to me...
>
> In time, I suspect, after all the movies are finished and every last
> dollar can be squeezed out of the fans, GL is just going to come right out
> and openly declare the novels and the rest of the EU material non-canon.
Sure, keep praying. The EU is part of Star Wars, period.
>
>
>> >> > That being said, we know that what the SW people refer to as the
>> >> > "Outer Rim" has nothing to do with the actual rim of their galaxy as
>> >> > Obi Wan can clearly be seen in AoTC pointing to a section of the
>> >> > Galaxy well within it's bounderies.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the outer part of the galaxy. Nobody ever claimed that the Outer
>> >> Rim was entirely outside the galaxy for crying out loud.
>> >
>> > Obi Wan is practically pointing to a spot so well within the boundries
>> > of the galaxy that it looks like the so-called Outer Rim is actually
>> > somewhere near the edge of the galactic core!
>>
>> Like James Kirk said about Kahn....you are thinking 2 dimensionally.
>
> I would, if it weren't for the "zoom in" that occurs well after he points
> and locates the position of what he was looking for.
Yes it did zoom in, but at can you honestly say that it didn't zoom in on
someplace above or below the galactic plane?
>
>
>> >But some of the EU material
>> > DOES in fact claim that the Outer Rim Territories are on the galactic
>> > rim (note that I never said that the Outer Rim was outside the SW
>> > galaxy, either).
>>
>> You implied it. And those worlds *are* on the outer rim, even by your
>> definition.
>
> They are on a rim all right, but not on the edge or anywhere near it. Even
> if we placed it above the galactic plane, it's still far too short a
> distance to justify such insane speeds as implied by some of the EU
> material.
The "insane speeds" are justified in CANON material. The speeds shown in
the EU are usually slower.
>
>
>
>>
>> >> >And the ANH novelization clearly refers to the galaxy in
>> >> > which the SW story is taking place in as "a modest size galaxy". A
>> >> > 120,000 ly wide galaxy is not exactly modest in size.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Actually it is, ours would also qualify, and it's not too much smaller
>> >> and has two small compainion galaxies.
>> >
>> > A galaxy of 120,000 ly barely qualifies as "modest sized", and your own
>> > examples of the Milky Way, and the Lesser and Greater Magellanic cloud
>> > galaxies only goes to prove that.
>>
>> The LMC and GMC are hardly examples of your average galaxy either, they
>> are on the extremely small size. They are also not spiral galaxies, which
>> the SW galaxy *is* by both canon and official maps. Spiral galaxies do
>> *not* come in the size you are claiming for the SW galaxy. Use a little
>> common frickin sense.
>
>
> I am. You are not. You pulled one example out, and are now desperately
> trying to backtrack on it once it failed to show what you claimed. And
> even IF we use the 120,000 ly number, the actual locations of places like
> Kamino, Tatooine, Geonosis, and Naboo are relative to each other. It's
> just too damn small a territory to justify speeds in the millions of times
> c!
And Tatooine was shown relative to those locations on what map exactly? It
certainly wasn't the one in the film. Neither was Naboo or Genosis for
that matter. Only Kamino.
>>
>> >But even being generous and allowing for
>> > 120,000 ly, the SW boundries for what qualifies as territory for the
>> > former Galactic Republic turned Galactic Empire is far, far smaller than
>> > what is shown in the EU material maps.
>>
>> The Empire extended the borders to include the backwater systems then.
>> After all *Imperial* *Stormtroopers* had complete authority on
>> Tatooine....an area usually considered outside the Republic proper. And
>> there has *always* been an emphasis on the worlds at the Core, that's
>> where most of the population is, and it's where the seat of power is.
>
> But they only did so because an extreme situation required it, otherwise
> no one would have bothered (see Bigg's comment to Luke in the ANH
>novel).
Yes I'm aware of the comment, and realise that Imperial ships and
Stormtroopers weren't exactly a common sight on Tatooine, that usually
nobody cared what happened on that remote little backwater dustball. That
doesn't mean it wasn't part of the Empire.
>
>
>> >So it's irrelevant the galaxy's
>> > size, since the territory involved is much smaller, and the hyperdrives
>> > are far slower than the EU material gives in some sources.
>>
>> This is bunk. We have 2 different Canon examples of high speed travel from
>> the galactic core to the extreme outer rim.
>
> And your delusional. We do not. We have modestly high speed range travel
> in the tens of thousands of times c at best from a so-called Core planet,
> which is not nearly as far from the so-called Outer Rim planet as the EU
> material had misled us to believe.
Bull, you are using the so-called "outer rim boundry" to declare
arbitrarily that Tatooine must have been right there. There is plenty of
canon evidence that Tatooine is very remote.
>
>
>>
>> > maps we've seen to date ARE in AOTC, and nowhere else. Obi Wan with one
>> > stroke of the finger basically wiped out the EU material from any vague
>> > sembalence of canon.
>>
>> A few minutes lines up you were claiming that entire galaxy to be only a
>> few thousand light-years across. So you were in fact claiming an
>> idiotically small size for it. And yes, we've seen the maps in AOTC, and
>> all you've proven is that systems considered to be "Outer Rim" might
>> include systems that are located above the plane of that galaxy, that were
>> still remote backwaters. We only saw a top down view remember.
>
>
> No stupid. It's a shame to see a poor little Warsie lie about someone
> else's postion on a matter because their own canon material is
> contradicting them. That may work in the ASVS ng, but it don't fly here.
1) I don't frequent the ASVS newsgroup.
2) Whoever said I'm a "warsie?"
I'm merely pointing out facts.
> NEVER did I claim any such thing. I claimed the territory was much, much
> smaller because we now have canon, on-screen positioning of a planet's
> location relative to the others, and it ain't pretty. The Galactic
> Republic's territory is only at best a few tens of thousands of ly in
> diameter, occupying an area near the galactic core.
Again, this doesn't help establish speed. Further you were making the
claim for the entire galaxy and not just the Galactic Republic. And you do
not know that the boundry line was the Republic's border, you are just
assuming it was. It may have simply been a marking to designate the Core
worlds for some political reason.
You don't get my point. The EU is actually *less* flattering to hyperdrive
speeds than the Movies. They show flights from Coruscant (a core world) to
Tattooine (a very distant rim world) in less than a day. Similarly there
is the Falcon's flight to Alderaan (again, a core world), from Tattooine
(the same very distant Outer Rim world). Therefore there is absolute canon
support for "insane speeds."
>
>> > No child, I'am giving you the straight up real facts. The Warsies are
>> > about to go through what Trekkies and ST fandom did over a decade ago
>> > when all but a handful of material will be considered the true story for
>> > their francise's universe. Live with it.
>>
>> *cough* AOTC: ICS *cough*
>
> Non-canon. Only what's on-screen is the true story, and books written by
> rabid fanboys are not. It's that simple.
> -Mike
Sorry but I've addressed this point.
Timo S Saloniemi
>tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote in message news:<auosj0$c3p$1...@nntp.hut.fi>...
>> Well, he knew what his ship could do. AND what she could NOT do. Give
>> Kirk the command of a fleet that includes the E-B and you are toast.
>> "All right, now we have them cornered. Now, the Enterprise fires a torpedo
>> volley, and in the confusion, the other, weaker vessels can safely move in
>> with phasers in surprise pincers. Then we can..." "Uh, sir, the Enterprise
>> has no torpedoes."
>Oh give me a break. Kirk was retired and just a guest on the ship. If he were
>in command of another ship in the squadron he would know the capabilities
>of the other ships too (and the Enterprise B wouldn't be in the battle with no
>weapons to speak of). ANY person in charge of the fleet needs only general
>knowledge of each ship's capabilities and leaves the details up to the
>captains of the ships.
Agreed, of course. I just wanted to imply that Capt. Kirk need not be
superior to Capt. Harriman in any way - the "weakness" Harriman showed
in "Generations" was actually a corollary to his knowledge of his ship's
(lack of) capabilities, and would support rather than impede his performance
in fleet ops. In other words, I just *might* take Harriman over Kirk for
fleet commander, were a battle to be fought at a time when both captains
were in active service (say, just prior to ST6). Clearly Starfleet had
some reason to trust the fellow, as they gave him this big bad ship to
play with; and out of the Kirk-era captains, he'd be the more up-to-date
one. Who knows, perhaps he could even be a seasoned war veteran, given the
"There shall be no peace as logn as Kirk lives" situation.
>> Knowledge of the capabilities of your most important ship is likely
>> to be vital to you. Thus, giving the captain of that ship a say could
>> be a smart thing to do. OTOH, giving him overall command could distract
>> him from his primary duties at a crucial moment...
>That is ridiculous. Consider the DS9 battles with hundreds of ships. How is
>knowledge of the one galaxy (or 2 or 4) you have more vital than the other
>96 ships all of which are far more powerful together than the Galaxies? You
>need good command and control facilities and a fleet commander who is
>good with fleet tactics. So, like I said, you establish a chain of command so
>everyone knows who is in command if the fleet commander is incapacitated.
...And make damn sure that Sisko isn't in that chain. His ship has the
lousiest C3I facilities in Starfleet, he himself is subject to sudden
black-outs to the Orb Realm, and he's an outpost paper-pusher by training
and experience. :)
Otherwise agreed. But it is a chore to set up a chain of command, and
both "Equinox" and "First Contact" might represent situations where
orderly setting up was not an option. There has to be a fallback
scheme when communications cannot be established even at the stage when
the fleet is assembled - and unlike you, I think the one based on the
capabilities of the ships is far from arbitrary, and certainly far less
arbitrary than one based on the capabilities of the officers.
One should note that a fighting formation in RW naval warfare typically is
a carefully preassembled thing. Starfleet ships are subject to completely
different relative deployment times and initial deployment patterns,
and many of their fleets are assembled pretty much at random (and
often include a major contingent of kitchen sinks). The plan of who
gets to do what virtually *has* to be improvised on the field in such
cases, without intervention by the Admirality back on Earth or Starbase
123. So either all captains have to be carefully "pre-graded" for such
contingencies, or then some other guidelines have to be in place for
rapid assembling of an all-new chain of command.
>Frankly if Janeway wasn't such an incompetent, she could have maybe
>made Ransom see that he was doing the wrong thing (though at the time
>they didn't know the creatures were sentient) and the last show might
>have seen both ships return to the alpha quadrant. Perhaps Ransom
>would have been courtmartialed, but he would gotten back with his ship.
>Same thing with the "Dauntless." Granted it was a trick by the owner of
>the ship, but with a bit more tactics and diplomacy the crew of Voyager
>could have arrived back years earlier with a revolutionary new technology
>for the Federation. Instead, Janeway allows herself to be outmaneuvered
>by the alien even though she catches him by surprise.
In both cases, though, the opposite player was a pretty desperate fellow
who played with the suicide card. It seems unlikely that reason would have
prevailed. OTOH, an all-out hijacking of the respective vessels by force
might have succeeded - Janeway obviously had the upper hand in that respect,
as both the Equinox and the Dauntless were undermanned and underdefended.
Timo Saloniemi
CaptJosh
> >Um, you obviously don't pay attn to the weekends. I've seen 300+ posts on
> >Saturdays and Sundays. And I don't read every post, but I do still have
to
> >go through amd mark the threads I don't read as read so that I know when
> >there are no more new posts to read in the group. Not to mention I am
also
> >subscribed to four other groups in addition to this one.
> >
messages,
> saturday it was 112 and sunday 127, I think (maybe it was 107 and 128),
but I'm
> attributing it to Nemesis and the reactions it's sparked... But 300+ on
that NG?
>
all the groups I was signed up to at the time.
Dave Griffin
...
> Agreed, of course. I just wanted to imply that Capt. Kirk need not be
> superior to Capt. Harriman in any way - the "weakness" Harriman showed
> in "Generations" was actually a corollary to his knowledge of his ship's
> (lack of) capabilities, and would support rather than impede his performance
> in fleet ops. In other words, I just *might* take Harriman over Kirk for
> fleet commander, were a battle to be fought at a time when both captains
> were in active service (say, just prior to ST6). Clearly Starfleet had
> some reason to trust the fellow, as they gave him this big bad ship to
> play with; and out of the Kirk-era captains, he'd be the more up-to-date
> one. Who knows, perhaps he could even be a seasoned war veteran, given the
> "There shall be no peace as logn as Kirk lives" situation.
>
It seemed to me that Harriman was just a caretaker captain, probably
someone
in charge of the upgrades. I'd like to hope that someone as indecisive
as that
wouldn't have been the permanent captain. The point is that Starfleet
knows
who it's best tacticians and strategists are and is in the best
position to choose
who it wants to command it's fleets. At least date of rank is, as
defaults go, one
way to assign responsibility on the basis of experience. No system of
choosing
leaders based on their mounts does this.
...
> ...And make damn sure that Sisko isn't in that chain. His ship has the
> lousiest C3I facilities in Starfleet, he himself is subject to sudden
> black-outs to the Orb Realm, and he's an outpost paper-pusher by training
> and experience. :)
>
Well given that Sisko was commanding in the Defiant kind of upsets the
theory doesn't it? He was commanding Galaxy class ships from the
Defiant.
Why? Perhaps because Starfleet assigned him as fleet commander?
Actually
Sisko's first "ground" assignment was DS9. We know he was a ship
crewman
at least as late as Wolf 359.
> Otherwise agreed. But it is a chore to set up a chain of command, and
> both "Equinox" and "First Contact" might represent situations where
> orderly setting up was not an option. There has to be a fallback
> scheme when communications cannot be established even at the stage when
> the fleet is assembled - and unlike you, I think the one based on the
> capabilities of the ships is far from arbitrary, and certainly far less
> arbitrary than one based on the capabilities of the officers.
>
They had plenty of time in First Contact and there was an admiral in
charge
of the fleet. There was plenty of opportunity to set up a chain of
command.
How Picard fits into it is difficult to know for sure. Whoever was in
command
when the Admiral was killed or incapacitated obviously decided to
trust
Picard. In the Equinox's case, date of rank would make more sense,
though
in Kirk's time we learned that a captain's personal authority overrode
even
an admiral (though he might be court martialed for doing it later). If
the captain
is out of line, his crew is expected not to follow him.
> One should note that a fighting formation in RW naval warfare typically is
> a carefully preassembled thing. Starfleet ships are subject to completely
> different relative deployment times and initial deployment patterns,
> and many of their fleets are assembled pretty much at random (and
> often include a major contingent of kitchen sinks). The plan of who
> gets to do what virtually *has* to be improvised on the field in such
> cases, without intervention by the Admirality back on Earth or Starbase
> 123. So either all captains have to be carefully "pre-graded" for such
> contingencies, or then some other guidelines have to be in place for
> rapid assembling of an all-new chain of command.
>
We know they have tactical exercises (we saw one on screen). The
deeper
into war they go the more "military" they end up. With an "every ship
in the
area converge on this point" kind of deployment, the admiralty would
just
assign the captain they want in charge, and he would assign deputies.
...
> In both cases, though, the opposite player was a pretty desperate fellow
> who played with the suicide card. It seems unlikely that reason would have
> prevailed. OTOH, an all-out hijacking of the respective vessels by force
> might have succeeded - Janeway obviously had the upper hand in that respect,
> as both the Equinox and the Dauntless were undermanned and underdefended.
>
But Janeway knew both would be desperate. And in my opinion she
bungled both,
though in different ways. I would have told Ransom "Look you didn't
determine
whether these creatures were sentient. I know you were desperate, I
understand
that because I feel the same way. Let's determine if they ARE sentient
first. If they
are not, we'll both use that system to get back to the Alpha quadrant.
If they are
sentient, we stop using that method and find another way back. As to
whether you
have acted improperly, I'll let Starfleet decide that when we get
back." This doesn't
back Ransom back into a corner and it doesn't require that his crew
make instant
decisions of who to follow or who to support. Janeway's way almost got
them all
killed and the crew she did absorb from the other ship probably hated
her for
running roughshod over their crew and captain.
In the case of the Dauntless, the plan to capture the real owner of
the ship should
have been more effective, at which time they could have tried to
convince him to
help them and if he wouldn't they could have let him and his ship go.
Justin Broderick
"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsal...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:aurckk$lmf$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
> In article <456c2978.02123...@posting.google.com>
carbon...@yahoo.com (Dave Griffin) writes:
> >tsal...@cc.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote in message
news:<auosj0$c3p$1...@nntp.hut.fi>...
>
> Clearly Starfleet had
> some reason to trust the fellow, as they gave him this big bad ship to
> play with; and out of the Kirk-era captains, he'd be the more up-to-date
> one. Who knows, perhaps he could even be a seasoned war veteran, given the
> "There shall be no peace as logn as Kirk lives" situation.
>
Or he's just one of those peacetime officers who went through his career
doing everything cautiously, correctly, and politically safely, and was
lucky enough never to be put to a real test.
>
> ...And make damn sure that Sisko isn't in that chain. His ship has the
> lousiest C3I facilities in Starfleet, he himself is subject to sudden
> black-outs to the Orb Realm, and he's an outpost paper-pusher by training
> and experience. :)
>
It is pretty ridiculous that so many of these multi-ship task forces seen in
Trek are commanded by the captain of one of the ships. Given the difficulty
of commanding on both levels, perhaps the XO takes on more of the
reponsibility for the commander's ship in battle?
> Otherwise agreed. But it is a chore to set up a chain of command, and
> both "Equinox" and "First Contact" might represent situations where
> orderly setting up was not an option. There has to be a fallback
> scheme when communications cannot be established even at the stage when
> the fleet is assembled - and unlike you, I think the one based on the
> capabilities of the ships is far from arbitrary, and certainly far less
> arbitrary than one based on the capabilities of the officers.
>
The capabilities of the commanders are all that matters, as the ships don't
fight autonomously. The most powerful ship is useless if the commander
can't employ her firepower effectively. It seems only unquestionable that
command of the more important vessels would be given to the more experienced
senior captains.
> One should note that a fighting formation in RW naval warfare typically is
> a carefully preassembled thing. Starfleet ships are subject to completely
> different relative deployment times and initial deployment patterns,
> and many of their fleets are assembled pretty much at random (and
> often include a major contingent of kitchen sinks). The plan of who
> gets to do what virtually *has* to be improvised on the field in such
> cases, without intervention by the Admirality back on Earth or Starbase
> 123.
I don't see the difficulty. There must be orders going out to assemble the
force, a simple order of battle would be easy to append.
> So either all captains have to be carefully "pre-graded" for such
> contingencies, or then some other guidelines have to be in place for
> rapid assembling of an all-new chain of command.
>
Seniority is a way to "pre-grade." More senior commanders would have more
experience and training. Of course, this is no guarantee of performance,
but there never is until the shooting starts. Until then all you can do is
play the odds, promote your best commanders, see how they do, move some of
them up to bigger commands, see how they do, and so on.
Succession by seniority has been the rule for 300 years, given Starfleet's
not-radically-different structure I can't see why it wouldn't work there.
--Justin