Starfleet Design Bureau

Fair point. All told, I should have remembered, having started watching the movies. I'll make an update to the post after I've considered how to update the prose.
 
That doesn't work like that. Admirals in Star Trek can have their own ships without having to step down.
Eh, not really? Admirals typically act as flag officers and can countermand the captain when needed, but each ship still has its own captain who is responsible for actually running the ship (see, e.g., Kirk v. Deckard in The Motion Picture). And it's an obvious nod to Kirk taking a demotion to regain command of the Enterprise-A at the end of The Voyage Home.
 
Eh, not really? Admirals typically act as flag officers and can countermand the captain when needed, but each ship still has its own captain who is responsible for actually running the ship (see, e.g., Kirk v. Deckard in The Motion Picture). And it's an obvious nod to Kirk taking a demotion to regain command of the Enterprise-A at the end of The Voyage Home.
Typically but not always. Later TNG had Admirals captaining their own ship. Kirk did that because no one wanted to risk a full Admiral in an exploration mission. Where the Federation's many enemies could act and use him as a potential hostage and squeeze him for information. Him taking a demotion eliminates that risk by removing Kirk's access to sensitive data.
 
Last edited:
Starfleet is explicitly not military. We've seen what a Federation military looks like in a couple Dark Timelines caused by various time travel incidents, and it bares only a passing resemblance to the Starfleet of the prime timeline. Roddenberry outright stated that Starfleet as an organization was based heavily on the US Coast Guard - Paramilitary, absolutely, with some military responsibilities, but that is not the Starfleet's primary responsibility.

Granted, they get a bit more militant after the Borg and the Dominion, but are still not really a military in structure, role or function.

Point of Order: The US Coast Guard absolutely is military, and they will get very angry if you tell them they're not.

You can call Starfleet military, just not what we'd think of as now. Starfleet is a military who is devoted to sophont?iarian causes, and peaceful exploration. But they are a military.
 
Typically but not always. Later TNG had Admirals captaining their own ship. Kirk did that because no one wanted to risk a full Admiral in an exploration mission. Where the Federation's many enemies could act and use him as a potential hostage and squeeze him for information. Him taking a demotion eliminates that risk by removing Kirk's access to sensitive data.
How fortunate, then, that Sukuda is being put into Kirk's exploratory role and that exactly the same logic applies.
 
I think part of the thing that might be cause for confusion is a matter of protocol - Captain the rank is not the same as the captain of a ship, and by tradition there's only one captain on a ship, who is the ship's captain and always referred to as "captain" regardless of their actual rank. So a captain might be a Captain or an Admiral or even an Ensign, but they're always The Captain ™ as long as they're commanding the ship.
 
Well, typically no one under Lieutenant Commander is the captain of a ship, and even then it tends to be a smaller/less important ship (to give them experience for commanding).
 
I think part of the thing that might be cause for confusion is a matter of protocol - Captain the rank is not the same as the captain of a ship, and by tradition there's only one captain on a ship, who is the ship's captain and always referred to as "captain" regardless of their actual rank. So a captain might be a Captain or an Admiral or even an Ensign, but they're always The Captain ™ as long as they're commanding the ship.
Exactly.

@Zimmerwald1915 Kirk was desperate to get back out there after years riding the desk and did so voluntarily. This snippet is not voluntary. He could have been sent on detached duty temporarily removing his access to higher level clearance without a demotion in rank.
 
Last edited:
Quite to the contrary I think we failed. We did not build an explorer. Our ship did not end up doing the mission that we got asked to build a ship to do.
I am mystified on how you reached that conclusion. Like straight up. We make a ship with the highest Science rating we have made so far, overpowering even the Curiosity with ease. It's also the fastest ship we've ever made in terms of Warp speed. Was it over armed? Certainly. Perils of a vote wherein we had a lot of people choosing to drop weapons but no common consensus on where.

Even with all that, this ship is without a doubt the best suited we've had to an Explorer. The fact we've not found many new civilizations isn't something to say makes this design a failure. We're still relatively small here and with a limited Warp radius. Much like Exploring Sailors sometimes there just isn't stuff to feasibly find, and frankly Space is MASSIVE, the fact we've found three First contacts is still noteworthy. It gets infinitely easier for us as our speed and sensor technology increase, but we're still in the infancy of Federation and Starfleet at best, we're nowhere near the level where we can find a new civilization every other week.

So other than the unfortunate over arming, how would you have made an Explorer given this isn't one by your reckoning? Because i haven't the foggiest and am curious to know if we all overlooked something.
 
So other than the unfortunate over arming, how would you have made an Explorer given this isn't one by your reckoning? Because i haven't the foggiest and am curious to know if we all overlooked something.
We met the requirements of the design brief according to the Certification update. If Starfleet wanted a different ship it would have set us different requirements.
 
I am mystified on how you reached that conclusion.

I'm guessing the metric which Sword is looking at is specifically our maximum range. Which, fair point, they aren't going as far as we could have made them go, but all told, as you've said, the Federation's a pretty small polity. There's still going to be plenty of unclaimed space to explore when we make a long haul five-year-mission ship.
 
Last edited:
In-universe racial essentialism is not better.
If I'm going to be feverish in temperatures that Species X would find balmy and comfortable, I would very much like and approve of regulations saying I'm not going to be forced to be a crewmember on a ship calibrated for the comfort of Species X where I will probably die of environmental causes in a couple weeks.

Quite to the contrary I think we failed. We did not build an explorer. Our ship did not end up doing the mission that we got asked to build a ship to do.
Given that they built 12 of them, kept them in active service for 70-some years, and the retrospective written by the QM explicitly tells us it helped defined the paradigm for what a "good" Starfleet explorer should be, I think you're wrong.
 
If I'm going to be feverish in temperatures that Species X would find balmy and comfortable, I would very much like and approve of regulations saying I'm not going to be forced to be a crewmember on a ship calibrated for the comfort of Species X where I will probably die of environmental causes in a couple weeks.
This is such post-hoc nonsense rationalization. Neither Spock nor T'Pol nor Tuvok had any more than minor complaints about the temperature on Starfleet ships (T'Pol griped more about the smell). The crew of a Vulcan survey ship were perfectly comfortable in temperate Earth temperatures in Carbon Creek. Conversely, Archer didn't have to bundle up when he went aboard Kumari. Meanwhile, the Xindi built in accommodations for their various member species in their ships (atmosphere sections for the non-Aquatics on Aquatic ships, for instance) -- surely the Federation can do at least as well.
 
Last edited:
We met the requirements of the design brief according to the Certification update. If Starfleet wanted a different ship it would have set us different requirements.
Rather my point, frankly. But given someone said we'd failed; I was curious to see how it'd be improved in their opinion.

I'm guessing the metric which Sword is looking at is specifically our maximum range. Which, fair point, they aren't going as far as we could have made them go, but all told, as you've said, the Federation's a pretty small polity. There's still going to be plenty of unclaimed space to explore when we make a long haul five-year-mission ship.
I mean, we COULD have done that, but in doing so would have cut off a major design synergy and made the ship cost even more. I just don't see how that could be considered better, honestly. We'd be sacrificing quite a bit of scientific potential for extra range where no other ship could come close to following. Boldly going to great and all, but it doesn't really help if you need a massive expansion plan for your less mobile ships to get anywhere near the cool space wedgie or resource that was found.
 
Considering this design was able to decisively best a Klingon D6, a ship which at the time could casually murder its way through entire canon Federation battlefleets, I think this boat has approximately just the right amount of armaments. We should in fact go ahead and put MORE guns on the next one.
 
Back
Top