kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (01/22/86)
> I realize that this discussion had a reasonable start > (although it has been so long that I don't recall what it was), > but, what does this have to do with Star Trek? > -- > Drew Lawson > As the person who started this discussion (yes, I admit it!), let me say that I'm not sure. My innocent question quickly degenerated into an argument about whether the U.S. Navy had the rank of Commodore or not. My original question was: Since Kirk was unhappy as an Admiral why didn't they make him a Commodore after the events of STAR TREK-THE MOTION PICTURE instead of busting him down to Captain? Many people responded that a Commodore commanded a group of heavy cruisers not one. (See Commodore Wesley in THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER). Well, I think that is not a very good answer for two reasons. First, Commodore Matt Decker in THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE was in charge of one ship, the U.S.S. Constellation. There was no task force or anything else. Maybe this was a mistake by the writer's, BUT it does set a precedent. Secondly, hopefully the Federation is not in the practice of keeping four heavy crusiers together all the time! There were only 12 or 13 (I keep getting conflicting information) when they first came out and as the biggest ships in the Federation they were very important. They basic purpose of these ships was exploration and defense at the edges of Federation space. With such a large area to defend and/or explore keeping four in one area would greatly increase the area one single ship would be expected to be in charge of. This does not seem like intelligent practice. Just think, what would have happened if the Klingons or Romulans had found out that FIVE heavy crusiers were in one place for "wargames". With close to half of the heavy crusiers in one area, the Federation defenses were spread pretty thin. I know they have scouts and other ships, but the heavy cruisers were the ships which kept the balance tilted slightly in the favor of the Federation. Of course, that part of ST history will never change. Kirk was busted down to Captain when the Enterprise went out for its second five year mission and returned only to become an Admiral again. Star Fleet never learns. Star-Lord They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes.
boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (01/24/86)
> From: cvl!kayuucee (Star-Lord) > Of course, that part of ST history will never change. Kirk was busted > down to Captain when the Enterprise went out for its second five year mission > and returned only to become an Admiral again. Star Fleet never learns. Argh! If there was anything that you should have gotten out of all of the discussion about this topic, it's that Kirk wasn't "busted" from Admiral down to Captain. He retained his *rank* of Admiral the whole time. He was referred to as Captain, because he had the *position* of Captain on the Enterprise. While most ship's captains also have the rank of Captain, it ain't *necessarily* so. Position and rank are two separate things. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...} !decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM
kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (01/27/86)
> > > From: cvl!kayuucee (Star-Lord) > > > Of course, that part of ST history will never change. Kirk was busted > > down to Captain when the Enterprise went out for its second five year mission > > and returned only to become an Admiral again. Star Fleet never learns. > > Argh! If there was anything that you should have gotten out of all of the > discussion about this topic, it's that Kirk wasn't "busted" from Admiral > down to Captain. He retained his *rank* of Admiral the whole time. He was > referred to as Captain, because he had the *position* of Captain on the > Enterprise. While most ship's captains also have the rank of Captain, it > ain't *necessarily* so. Position and rank are two separate things. > > --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) If there is anything I have gotten out of this discussion is that there is a small group of childish people on the net who are waiting to pounce on the others with spelling corrections or just because a different idea is expressed. I admit that I have succumbed to this a few times. Also, you are right. Kirk wasn't "busted" from Admiral. He willingly went back to being a Captain. In the book "Star Trek - The Motion Picture", on page 251, in the first paragraph: `... Well, that suited former Admiral James Tiberius Kirk fine.' Looks to me that Kirk wasn't a Admiral anymore. Star-Lord They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes
harry@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (& I. Rubin) (01/31/86)
In article <1140@cvl.UUCP> kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: > Secondly, hopefully the Federation is not in the practice of keeping >four heavy crusiers together all the time! There were only 12 or 13 (I keep >getting conflicting information) when they first came out and as the biggest >ships in the Federation they were very important. How could "heavy cruisers" be the "biggest" catagory of ships? Wouldn't the largest ships be called "battleships" or "dreadnoughts" or something?
don@umd5.UUCP (02/01/86)
In article <11633@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> harry@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes: >In article <1140@cvl.UUCP> kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: >> Secondly, hopefully the Federation is not in the practice of keeping >>four heavy crusiers together all the time! There were only 12 or 13 (I keep >>getting conflicting information) when they first came out and as the biggest >>ships in the Federation they were very important. > >How could "heavy cruisers" be the "biggest" catagory of ships? Wouldn't >the largest ships be called "battleships" or "dreadnoughts" or something? Up until STIII, the largest ship that was ever mentioned (to my knowledge) was the Constellation-class heavy cruiser. I do not recall any references to any larger or smaller ships, although I may have forgotten them. (Such as the old freighter Woden). Only in the Star Trek Reference Manual do we see such ships as the Dreadnought, Destroyer, and Tug. However, in the "offical" world of Star Trek, the new Excelsior-class battleship is the only other "class" ship that I have seen. -- --==---==---==-- "beware the fruminous Bandersnatch" ARPA: don@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!{ seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax }!cvl!umd5!don (NOTE: Please mail to umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don NOT umd5!cvl!umcp-cs!don) umcp-cs ::= mimsy.UMD.EDU | maryland.ARPA | umcp-cs.UUCP
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (02/04/86)
In article <848@umd5.UUCP> don@umd5.UUCP (Chris Sylvain) writes: >In article <11633@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> harry@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes: >>In article <1140@cvl.UUCP> kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: >>> Secondly, hopefully the Federation is not in the practice of keeping >>>four heavy crusiers together all the time! There were only 12 or 13 (I keep >>>getting conflicting information) when they first came out and as the biggest >>>ships in the Federation they were very important. >> >>How could "heavy cruisers" be the "biggest" catagory of ships? Wouldn't >>the largest ships be called "battleships" or "dreadnoughts" or something? > >Up until STIII, the largest ship that was ever mentioned (to my knowledge) >was the Constellation-class heavy cruiser. I do not recall any references to >any larger or smaller ships, although I may have forgotten them. (Such as the >old freighter Woden). Only in the Star Trek Reference Manual do we see such >ships as the Dreadnought, Destroyer, and Tug. However, in the "offical" world >of Star Trek, the new Excelsior-class battleship is the only other "class" >ship that I have seen. In her novel, MY ENEMY, MY ALLY, Diane Duane makes reference to a destroyer-class starship named the Inaieu. To quote from page 45: Inaieu, as one of the destroyer-class starships, had been built large; built to carry a lot of people on very long hauls, and built to carry more power and more amament than any three starships- just in case. Her upper-hull disk was three times the size of Enterprise's; her engine nacelles twice as long, and there were four of them- one above, two on the sidesm one below. Her central engineering hull was a quarter-mile in diameter, and a mile long. -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 571-3451 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Give an ape control of its environment and it will fill the world with bananas.
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (02/05/86)
In article <163@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: >In article <848@umd5.UUCP> don@umd5.UUCP (Chris Sylvain) writes: >>Up until STIII, the largest ship that was ever mentioned (to my knowledge) >>was the Constellation-class heavy cruiser. I do not recall any references to >>any larger or smaller ships, although I may have forgotten them. (Such as the >>old freighter Woden). Only in the Star Trek Reference Manual do we see such >>ships as the Dreadnought, Destroyer, and Tug. However, in the "offical" world >>of Star Trek, the new Excelsior-class battleship is the only other "class" >>ship that I have seen. > >In her novel, MY ENEMY, MY ALLY, Diane Duane makes reference to a >destroyer-class starship named the Inaieu. To quote from page 45: > > [almost ridiculous description follows here] > >Name: John Ruschmeyer Avoiding Diane Duane's [percieved] liberties with the Star Trek universe, as of the last film, we may add the Reliant's type, the Science Ship Grissom (saucer with v-pylons to a single booster, like a modified scout a la tech manual), and of course, the new starfleet hq. On a side note, what other shuttle/pods are there besides 1) the bullet-shaped one from STTMP 2) the smoothed-out shuttle seen flying around hq -dave -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "They were the elite, the vanguard of progress. They would take mankind to the heights...and perhaps beyond." -Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End
m1b@rayssd.UUCP (M. Joseph Barone) (02/07/86)
In article <163@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: > In her novel, MY ENEMY, MY ALLY, Diane Duane makes reference to a > destroyer-class starship named the Inaieu. To quote from page 45: > > Inaieu, as one of the destroyer-class starships, had > been built large; built to carry a lot of people on very > long hauls, and built to carry more power and more > amament than any three starships- just in case. Her > upper-hull disk was three times the size of Enterprise's; > her engine nacelles twice as long, and there were four > of them- one above, two on the sidesm one below. Her > central engineering hull was a quarter-mile in diameter, > and a mile long. The above passage proves to me that Diane Duane does know too much about naval vessels. The majority of the people who post to this group assume that Star Fleet is based on the US Navy (i.e., ranks, ship names, ship classes). If this assumption is true, then why would they call a ship a destroyer when it is obviously bigger than a heavy cruiser. US destroyers are smaller than cruisers in compliment and size. Joe Barone, {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5}!rayssd!m1b Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., 1847 West Main Rd, Portsmouth, RI 02871