While I agree that the moneyless Federation makes not a lick of sense, I don’t think “I, Mudd,” is a good example. The moneyless bit is a Picard-era them, and is a supposed to be a consequence of the prevalence of replicators and much greater availability of dilithium. Kirk’s era had food synthesizers, but those weren’t nearly as versatile as what was available on the Enterprise-D; and dilithium was in much shorter supply. (I can think of at least three Classic Trek episodes that made the strategic importance and rarity of the resource quite clear.)
And in Kirk’s time there were clearly concerns about money. Mudd’s entire character is based on his being a thief.
And what does it mean to evolve? Star Fleet is still clearly a military organization of some kind even if they do more than break things and kill people. The Federation is a still a government but at least they’ve evolved beyond removing people from their land as we did the Native Americans. Excuse me. They did what? Oh. My. God. Come on, Federation. You’re not even trying!!
In Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home Kirk warned his crew that people were still using money in the 20th century and they needed to find some. He also came right out and told Gillian that they don’t use money in the 23rd century. One could argue that he’s refering to physical currency, but the crew still seems very unfamiliar with the general concept.
It’s been my understanding, and of course I may be wrong, is that Starfleet in particular did not have money. However, the United Federation of Planets, along with the Ferengi Alliance and other major empires did have a currency system (ie: Latinum), as shown well in DS9. Starfleet, being a military/exploration body had no need for money.
That being said, it makes you wonder how every person on the ship had their own special “trinkets” (Picard had his books, Dr. Crusher had her artwork, etc.) which must have acquired somehow, and most likely legally.
It is interesting that you bring up the navy because of course they don’t merely use military terms in the Treks, they use nautical terms.
This shows that at least some of the naming conventions are just there for traditional reasons and aren’t meant to signify anything about the institution.
Nobody actually thinks they’re on an ocean, and, if you’re going to pick a metaphor for space travel, aviation is a more obvious choice.
Not really. The Air Force doesn’t spend months or years away from base or re-supply. The Navy does (or did.) The Air Force undertakes missions that are, in essence “Take off, bomb something, RTB.” The Navy explores, supports, fights, conducts diplomacy, renders aid, etc.
Quoted for truth. There’s a TOS episode–Mark of Gideon, I think–in which Kirk specifically comments that the Enterprise is provisioned for 400 people for five years. Though clearly they weren’t necessarily meant to do that, it was a possibility they had in mind.
In the space Indians episode, the Enterprise goes several months without full warp drive and apparently without contacting Starfleet. They’re clearly ready for it.
I can see this kicking off a thread itself, but I disagree. Aviation is 3D at least, so you have all the terms for 3D direction as well as maneuvers such as banking, barrel rolls etc.
The navy has subs, but it’s not the same; they can’t just pick a 3D vector.
As for all the things you’ve listed, aircraft do all of them (I’m assuming by conduct diplomacy you mean transport people to go and do that…well, aircraft do that too).
I can see this branching into a thread itself, but I disagree. Aviation is 3D at least, so you have all the terms for 3D direction as well as maneuvers such as banking, barrel rolls etc (not that you would often do the latter, but you get the point).
The navy has subs, but it’s not the same; they can’t just pick a 3D vector.
As for all the things you’ve listed, aircraft do all of them (I’m assuming by conduct diplomacy you mean transport people to go and do that…well, aircraft do that too).
I think you missed Silenus’s point. He wasn’t talking about the sort of manuevers individual vessels do, but rather the sorts of missions they go on. All of the Enterprises, and Voyager as well, routinely went months without resupply. The crews (except for DS9) lived not on base or in base housing, but in the ship; the ship was their home. The ships were rarely in range of easy reinforcement. Et cetera.
Starfleet is more analogous to a 19th-century navy than a 21st century air force.
And you missed my point that aside from the journey durations everything else either applies to aircraft equally, or aircraft are the more natural analogy.
“Sorts of missions” is misleading here, as all the mission objectives that have been listed so far are also routinely carried out by aircraft too.
When was the last time an aircraft commander was an independent command?
Never.
Yet the Navy has been, ever since the days of Eric the Red and Prince Henry the Navigator the place where a ship’s captain was The Law. The Air Force is always in communication with higher authority - ships never (or rarely) were. Planes can never “show the flag” in foreign ports. They can’t land and become an instant hospital like the Navy can. Which service was on-site to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy? The Navy.
The longest mission the Air Force has ever undertaken lasted days. The Navy routinely plans on years.
This is an interesting topic for me, but I suspected right away that it would snowball into a hijack.
To be clear, my own opinion is that if space travel became common, and we had some sort of hierarchical institution routinely executing missions, they’d largely invent their own ranks and terminology. Or have a sprinkle of metaphors from wherever.
Keeping to just a nautical or aviation metaphor would be misleading and inadequate.
Good point. I hadn’t factored that one.
(of course “independent” is somewhat relative here as the Enterprise is in contact with starfleet and is given orders from time to time, but I agree it’s not the same as sorties).
This is an interesting topic for me, but I suspected right away that it would snowball into a hijack.
To be clear, my own opinion is that if space travel became common, and we had some sort of hierarchical institution routinely executing missions, they’d largely invent their own ranks and terminology. Or have a sprinkle of metaphors from wherever.
Keeping to just a nautical or aviation metaphor would be misleading and inadequate.
Naval Submarines are a vastly better choice of metaphor than planes. The length of voyage may be different, but there’s immense similarity:
Submarines move slowly - they’re lumbering and rely on out-thinking the enemy or quick, crippling strikes.
Trek takes much of its tension from reflections of WW2-ish submarine thrillers.
They go on long voyages powered by semi-dangerous reactors exploiting our most advanced energy technology.
They’ve got the power to utterly demolish unprotected civilian vessels.
This was a more explicit comparison in Star Trek: Enterprise.
It’s definitely oriented WAY more towards a Naval metaphor. There’s almost nothing related to an aeronautical scheme at all. And the supposed three-dimensional movement is almost completely irrelevant in the series - I can think of exactly two times when it became an issue - and in one of them, the ships were still aligned in two planes. In the other, it was largely irrelvant and was simply the result of two ship being oriented at an unusual angle.
The confusing military ranks in Battlestar Galactica are the result of unifying 12 different militaries into a single Colonial Fleet. They (at least in the revived version) map fairly well to Nato rank codes.
