StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not wanting to pollute another tread with my questions I have created this topic if it is okay.

So what if Star Fleet was more like the US Navy of today using it ranks, ship classification and the sort , how much would Star Fleet be different from what we now.

Morons who insist that everything look like the US armed forces would be happier.

What you've proposed tend to just be cosmetic things, so not much would change.

If Starfleet was more like the US Navy I guess they wouldn't be flying around the galaxy in starships would they?

Why does it have to be like a modern day military force anyway? Why do away teams need to be running around in BDU wielding tacticool rayguns and saying shit like DANGER CLOSE ENTERPRISE ACTUAL RECOMMEND GENERAL ORDER 24!!!1

For example, is the phaser a stupid weapon? Sure. It has two immediate flaws - no sights and no trigger guards. But really, that's it. Everything else about the weapon is actually very good for what it does. You could change the prop item so that it looks more reasonable, but that would basically only involve putting sights on the thing and giving it trigger guards.

What else is there? The uniforms are fine, if a tad colourful. The ships are fine even if they're multi-role. The only thing that really could stand to be changed is if they made more Defiant-class ships. But that's about it. Even the Galaxy-class is an effective combatant and is still the most powerful vessel in Starfleet in the TNG/DS9 time period.

Should they start saluting? Why? That's a centuries-old tradition that really doesn't serve much of a purpose. I'm still baffled why we do it today. Even so, would adding in saluting officers affect things for the better?

The role of Starfleet isn't as clear-cut as a modern military, and even then most militarizes also operate similar to starfleet in some form or function. Starfleet is militant in that they outfit starships with weapons capable of both defensive and offensive roles, but they are not strictly military vessels like a modern day cruiser or destroyer, and it's precisely because of how they're intended to function.

Remember, each starship is multi-role, which means when they lay down the keel, they're intending this vessel to have no single specific function. Some are built with heavier weapons, sure, but many ships like the Galaxy Class are intended to operate alone or in small groups to handle most issues that arise. Take for example the episode TNG: Up the Long Ladder, when the Enterprise needs to evacuate Bringloid V's colonists because of solar flare activity. The ship was able to beam the entire colony up and take them elsewhere.

We've also seen where the Enterprise uses her onboard science labs to find cures for disease, study galactic phenomina, and a myriad of other uses. Starfleet's intended goal seems to be that rather than build dedicated warships and dedicated science ships, just make each ship a little of both. It means you don't have as many brilliant minds at work on a problem, but you can spread the problem out over several ships via subspace communication, and still be able to take action as necessary. It keeps Starfleet from needing to build a fleet of ships just to hunt down scientific issues while the guns stay home. And if you're on a distant colony, knowing a starship can fix most of your problems is welcome news.

lordroel wrote:Not wanting to pollute another tread with my questions I have created this topic if it is okay.

So what if Star Fleet was more like the US Navy of today using it ranks, ship classification and the sort , how much would Star Fleet be different from what we now.

Ever since SDN first started (and even before then, in the ASVS days) it has always been dogma that the Federation, especially in the TNG era, isn't militaristic enough. Just look at any of the fan fics written then, or even more currently (the TGG series, for example). The criticism of Starfleet is that its not militaristic enough, not that it isn't exactly similar to the 21st century American military.

Perhaps SDN culture has changed a bit, I'm not sure. But take a look through the archives and fanfics, and you'll find plenty of references to this.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2#p3587812

Beastro wrote:

EnragedSith wrote:Roddenberry would probably "disown" his creation as it kept a more military bent (keep in mind that The Motion Picture [novelization to be specific] and the first four seasons of TNG expressed Roddenberry's 'true' vision of Star Trek)

Which is why the only good episodes of the franchise are the military focused TOS ones and the DS9 ones focusing on the Dominion War.

This is actually the wrong sort of thinking about the flaws in the writing of ST. It isn't that SF needs to be more militaristic, but that the stories with a certain militarism have better conflict. And the conflict isn't just from an external source, it is internalized idealization of humanity that the characters profess and the externalized military environment they are supposed to survive in.

Partially the problem with star trek comes down to bad characterizations, especially in modern trek. When your basic characters can never have realistic disagreements that have realistic conclusions then you have run up against a very basic problem in your story.'

On the other hand a little bit of hints taken from the running of an actual ship could lend themselves well to story telling. It doesn't need to be much, but having the main cast running everything and not having a specialist for running the shuttles (EDIT opposite of what I say here, having the main cast do everything is a bad thing) can give a better sense of the crew having purpose and events outside of the episodes that are shown in the television show. Immersion is important and just a little bit of military trappings can help a fair bit.

THIS DOESN'T Mean the story has to be all war all the time. That is another problem with later star trek, that there are constant threats that absolutely will destroy the federation and Earth. It is just a cheap shot at trying to get your audience sympathizing with your characters and why Star Trek 2009 is a cheap and flashy movie, though it is nice to see a planet besides Earth take the brunt of the threat. If you can't get your audience to sympathize with your characters you really need to just quit, ie the entirety of ENT. Note of course that they actually had to go and grab a threat to Earth to even try to save the series. <FAIL>

A little immersion is a good thing, but you can get it from other sources besides just militarism.

For example, is the phaser a stupid weapon? Sure. It has two immediate flaws - no sights and no trigger guards. But really, that's it. Everything else about the weapon is actually very good for what it does.

Which phasers are we talking about, TOS/Movie Era or TNG+? Those apply to the former, but not the latter. The Dustbuster has shitty ergonomics for starters. It also, in my mind at least, is dangerously designed as the firing mechanism seems awfully close to the other controls. I believe most modern firearms are designed in such a way that the you can't mistake the firing selector/safety for the trigger, while the mechanisms on the phaser seem quite similar.

The phaser rifles are even worse. One of the biggest flaws is lack of a stock. Hell, I believe most carbines, which are designed to be compact, have stocks, if only collapsible ones. This lack of a stock will make long range fire more difficult, due to both not being able to steady the weapon from the users own muscular movements and recoil.* Honestly, phaser rifles remind me more of SMGs than anything in their design and how they are wielded. Certainly, they don't remind me of rifles. Mind you my knowledge of firearms is quite limited and very cursory. I am sure some of our other members could point out more flaws if they wanted.

Should they start saluting? Why? That's a centuries-old tradition that really doesn't serve much of a purpose. I'm still baffled why we do it today. Even so, would adding in saluting officers affect things for the better?

I believe that the modern salute is more of an honor/respect for the chain of command and helps reinforce discipline within the military.

Note *: Phasers should have recoil, as we routinely see those who are shot with phasers fly backwards to varying degrees. The only explanation I can see for that is that the phaser beam must be transferring some momentum to the target.

Edit: Spelling & Grammar.

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Agent Sorchus wrote:Partially the problem with star trek comes down to bad characterizations, especially in modern trek. When your basic characters can never have realistic disagreements that have realistic conclusions then you have run up against a very basic problem in your story.

I think this is not accurate. In plenty of TNG episodes, the characters have their disagreements and sometimes lose their temper, and DS9 much more so. (I haven't seen much of Voyager and Enterprise.) There's a lot of times where they represent different points of view to debate.

But, they always maintain respect for each other, which is a good thing.

I am mostly talking about VOY and ENT. TNG has a similar problem, that is used to an advantage by DS9. Namely that there has been an explosion of additional characters who form an ensemble cast. It subtracts only a little from TNG and mostly towards the end of TNG where they were making up things for their characters to do because they were too lazy to fully explore the relationships of the TNG crew. You can kind of see what I am trying to say when you look at DS9, a fair bit of the primary plots for episodes resolved around character interaction rather than falling in to the always used B plot. Also how often are the disagreements solved in unrealistic ways by having Picard make a speech. It happened more than it should've on TNG.

As for always maintaining respect being a good thing, it isn't. Maintaining Professionalism is a good thing in the story.

I'm not saying that this is a major problem with TNG, but a small amount of that is that TNG is less modern than it's successors, and has a lot of its roots in Phase Two. The worst misstep of DS9 on the character front is the Ezri Dax episodes taking up excess airtime in the final season so that there could be almost no conclusion to the series.

Oh and Yeah ENT has a lot of disagreements, especially versus the vulcan, but these conflicts have no reasonable conclusion because the Captain is always right. Which is a flaw that can be seen in VOY and you might see just a little bit of it in Picard. If I were to produce a series the first change I would do is to make someone who isn't the captain be the main character, mostly because I believe that the character roles have become stagnate in the series as a whole.

Wing Commander MAD wrote:

For example, is the phaser a stupid weapon? Sure. It has two immediate flaws - no sights and no trigger guards. But really, that's it. Everything else about the weapon is actually very good for what it does.

Which phasers are we talking about, TOS/Movie Era or TNG+? Those apply to the former, but not the latter. The Dustbuster has shitty ergonomics for starters. It also, in my mind at least, is dangerously designed as the firing mechanism seems awfully close to the other controls. I believe most modern firearms are designed in such a way that the you can't mistake the firing selector/safety for the trigger, while the mechanisms on the phaser seem quite similar.

I've never understood the trigger guard thing. In the entirety of Star Trek continuity, has a phaser ever discharged accidentally because someone bumped it wrong? Anyone ever fired the thing when they were just trying to change a setting? Ever?

Wing Commander MAD wrote: The phaser rifles are even worse. One of the biggest flaws is lack of a stock. Hell, I believe most carbines, which are designed to be compact, have stocks, if only collapsible ones. This lack of a stock will make long range fire more difficult, due to both not being able to steady the weapon from the users own muscular movements and recoil.* Honestly, phaser rifles remind me more of SMGs than anything in their design and how they are wielded. Certainly, they don't remind me of rifles. Mind you my knowledge of firearms is quite limited and very cursory. I am sure some of our other members could point out more flaws if they wanted.

Note *: Phasers should have recoil, as we routinely see those who are shot with phasers fly backwards to varying degrees. The only explanation I can see for that is that the phaser beam must be transferring some momentum to the target.

You're new to science fiction, aren't you?

Agent Sorchus wrote:I'm not saying that this is a major problem with TNG, but a small amount of that is that TNG is less modern than it's successors, and has a lot of its roots in Phase Two. The worst misstep of DS9 on the character front is the Ezri Dax episodes taking up excess airtime in the final season so that there could be almost no conclusion to the series.

Oh and Yeah ENT has a lot of disagreements, especially versus the vulcan, but these conflicts have no reasonable conclusion because the Captain is always right. Which is a flaw that can be seen in VOY and you might see just a little bit of it in Picard. If I were to produce a series the first change I would do is to make someone who isn't the captain be the main character, mostly because I believe that the character roles have become stagnate in the series as a whole.

I can kind of see were you're coming from, because we don't see characters played to their obvious strengths and weaknesses, but some stories involving the characters may not directly revolve around the actual work environment. If we have an episode of Jake Sisko, for example, he's not an officer, he's a civilian. Quark is a civilian. Yet we have plenty of episodes involving them. I think you're assuming that the captain is the main character throughout the series, when in fact it depends on the episode in question. Some episodes of Voyager focused on Seven, others on Janeway, some on Paris, etc.

If you're concerned about that, then you need to find a small crew, maybe on a freighter, and have them going about their business every day and share the responsibility equally. That, or find a character and have them move around from base to base, ship to ship, and follow him/her. Problem with the former option is by focusing on just one character, you don't allow the others to be more than background fluff. In the latter case, it'd be expensive to follow around a single person and change sets, costumes, crew, etc. You'd have a single bright gem in the center of a field of mediocre at best.

Baffalo wrote:

Agent Sorchus wrote:I'm not saying that this is a major problem with TNG, but a small amount of that is that TNG is less modern than it's successors, and has a lot of its roots in Phase Two. The worst misstep of DS9 on the character front is the Ezri Dax episodes taking up excess airtime in the final season so that there could be almost no conclusion to the series.

Oh and Yeah ENT has a lot of disagreements, especially versus the vulcan, but these conflicts have no reasonable conclusion because the Captain is always right. Which is a flaw that can be seen in VOY and you might see just a little bit of it in Picard. If I were to produce a series the first change I would do is to make someone who isn't the captain be the main character, mostly because I believe that the character roles have become stagnate in the series as a whole.

I can kind of see were you're coming from, because we don't see characters played to their obvious strengths and weaknesses, but some stories involving the characters may not directly revolve around the actual work environment. If we have an episode of Jake Sisko, for example, he's not an officer, he's a civilian. Quark is a civilian. Yet we have plenty of episodes involving them. I think you're assuming that the captain is the main character throughout the series, when in fact it depends on the episode in question. Some episodes of Voyager focused on Seven, others on Janeway, some on Paris, etc.

It isn't that the episode is about these other characters so much as the captain has to be a part of the episode, especially a major part. DS9 did a fair job of making things spread throughout all the characters, but Voyager had to have Janeway be a part of every conflict (outside of one or two episodes in the entire run where she is in suspended animation and either the Doctor or Seven are the only ones doing anything.)

If you're concerned about that, then you need to find a small crew, maybe on a freighter, and have them going about their business every day and share the responsibility equally. That, or find a character and have them move around from base to base, ship to ship, and follow him/her. Problem with the former option is by focusing on just one character, you don't allow the others to be more than background fluff. In the latter case, it'd be expensive to follow around a single person and change sets, costumes, crew, etc. You'd have a single bright gem in the center of a field of mediocre at best.

I really like the bolded idea, and yeah it would be harder, but it doesn't have to be one person by themselves. Maybe some classmates right out of academy who grow together from ship to ship, occasionally losing touch with each other due to promotion or death via redshirt or something. And it could all be located in the same region of space to keep costs down, it isn't like there aren't a lot of sets of the week or ship of the week that can't be reused. 'Sides costumes are all reused anyway.

Actually I was thinking of having the central conflicts of the show be shown from the first officers point of view, the Captain is omnipresent in the story, but distant to the majority of characters. Also to make this work you would need something like a Ambassador on board to take care of some of the politics, which is one of the reasons I think the Captain is too much of a character. He simply has so many roles and is a rule unto himself that he becomes nearly necessary in almost every star trek story since mid-TNG.

Cesario wrote:

Wing Commander MAD wrote:

For example, is the phaser a stupid weapon? Sure. It has two immediate flaws - no sights and no trigger guards. But really, that's it. Everything else about the weapon is actually very good for what it does.

Which phasers are we talking about, TOS/Movie Era or TNG+? Those apply to the former, but not the latter. The Dustbuster has shitty ergonomics for starters. It also, in my mind at least, is dangerously designed as the firing mechanism seems awfully close to the other controls. I believe most modern firearms are designed in such a way that the you can't mistake the firing selector/safety for the trigger, while the mechanisms on the phaser seem quite similar.

I've never understood the trigger guard thing. In the entirety of Star Trek continuity, has a phaser ever discharged accidentally because someone bumped it wrong? Anyone ever fired the thing when they were just trying to change a setting? Ever?

Wing Commander MAD wrote: The phaser rifles are even worse. One of the biggest flaws is lack of a stock. Hell, I believe most carbines, which are designed to be compact, have stocks, if only collapsible ones. This lack of a stock will make long range fire more difficult, due to both not being able to steady the weapon from the users own muscular movements and recoil.* Honestly, phaser rifles remind me more of SMGs than anything in their design and how they are wielded. Certainly, they don't remind me of rifles. Mind you my knowledge of firearms is quite limited and very cursory. I am sure some of our other members could point out more flaws if they wanted.

Note *: Phasers should have recoil, as we routinely see those who are shot with phasers fly backwards to varying degrees. The only explanation I can see for that is that the phaser beam must be transferring some momentum to the target.

You're new to science fiction, aren't you?

Eh the trigger guard thing is more along the same lines as the ubiquitous lack of handrails. How often to do we actually see someone accidently fall into a bottomless pit? It still makes no sense from a design standpoint.

I'm hardly new to sci-fi, but I figure if I'm going criticize and rag on phasers then I might as well milk what I can from the device for my argument given the extent of my knowledge of real world physics. Damnit, I reserve the right to over analyze fictional things to the best of my ability in typical SDN fashion.

Wing Commander MAD wrote:

Cesario wrote:

Wing Commander MAD wrote: Which phasers are we talking about, TOS/Movie Era or TNG+? Those apply to the former, but not the latter. The Dustbuster has shitty ergonomics for starters. It also, in my mind at least, is dangerously designed as the firing mechanism seems awfully close to the other controls. I believe most modern firearms are designed in such a way that the you can't mistake the firing selector/safety for the trigger, while the mechanisms on the phaser seem quite similar.

I've never understood the trigger guard thing. In the entirety of Star Trek continuity, has a phaser ever discharged accidentally because someone bumped it wrong? Anyone ever fired the thing when they were just trying to change a setting? Ever?

Wing Commander MAD wrote: The phaser rifles are even worse. One of the biggest flaws is lack of a stock. Hell, I believe most carbines, which are designed to be compact, have stocks, if only collapsible ones. This lack of a stock will make long range fire more difficult, due to both not being able to steady the weapon from the users own muscular movements and recoil.* Honestly, phaser rifles remind me more of SMGs than anything in their design and how they are wielded. Certainly, they don't remind me of rifles. Mind you my knowledge of firearms is quite limited and very cursory. I am sure some of our other members could point out more flaws if they wanted.

Note *: Phasers should have recoil, as we routinely see those who are shot with phasers fly backwards to varying degrees. The only explanation I can see for that is that the phaser beam must be transferring some momentum to the target.

You're new to science fiction, aren't you?

Eh the trigger guard thing is more along the same lines as the ubiquitous lack of handrails. How often to do we actually see someone accidently fall into a bottomless pit? It still makes no sense from a design standpoint.

We see that happen a lot more often than we see accidental weapon discharges. It seems fairly likely they do have some sort of safety on the things, given how unbelievably safe they are shown to be in every appearance.

Wing Commander MAD wrote: I'm hardly new to sci-fi, but I figure if I'm going criticize and rag on phasers then I might as well milk what I can from the device for my argument given the extent of my knowledge of real world physics. Damnit, I reserve the right to over analyze fictional things to the best of my ability in typical SDN fashion.

Then allow me to add to your ability. The very fact that Inertial Dampeners exist tells us that they can fuck with Newton's laws with their existing tech base. They don't have to have recoil to impart momentum to their targets. And they obviously don't have recoil given what we see every time the damn things are fired.

Wing Commander MAD wrote:Eh the trigger guard thing is more along the same lines as the ubiquitous lack of handrails. How often to do we actually see someone accidently fall into a bottomless pit? It still makes no sense from a design standpoint.

I'm hardly new to sci-fi, but I figure if I'm going criticize and rag on phasers then I might as well milk what I can from the device for my argument given the extent of my knowledge of real world physics. Damnit, I reserve the right to over analyze fictional things to the best of my ability in typical SDN fashion.

I remember a movie, I want to say Heartbreak Ridge, where the elevator moving helicopters onto the deck of an aircraft carrier had a handrail that raised and lowered. When the elevator was on the deck below, it rose into place, and then descended back down. We don't see anything like that in scifi, which is a real shame. It's one of those little practical matters. Even on platforms that are permanent, like the catwalks in the power generators from The Phantom Menace lacked guard rails. I'd hate to be working and stumble.

*whistling while walking, trips on shoelaces, goes tumbling over the side* Fuck you designers! *splat*

Baffalo wrote: *whistling while walking, trips on shoelaces, goes tumbling over the side* Fuck you designers! *splat*

Given the depths of some of those pits, you could probably redesign the entire thing to be safer before you hit the ground.

Wing Commander MAD wrote:

For example, is the phaser a stupid weapon? Sure. It has two immediate flaws - no sights and no trigger guards. But really, that's it. Everything else about the weapon is actually very good for what it does.

Which phasers are we talking about, TOS/Movie Era or TNG+? Those apply to the former, but not the latter. The Dustbuster has shitty ergonomics for starters. It also, in my mind at least, is dangerously designed as the firing mechanism seems awfully close to the other controls. I believe most modern firearms are designed in such a way that the you can't mistake the firing selector/safety for the trigger, while the mechanisms on the phaser seem quite similar.

I was primarily referring to the TOS phasers. Even then, the absence of a sight isn't too detrimental. But it isn't optimal either.

The trigger guard thing is more egregious, but at the same time I think people harp on it too much really. Like Cesario says, we've never seen an accidental discharge take place.

The phaser rifles are even worse. One of the biggest flaws is lack of a stock. Hell, I believe most carbines, which are designed to be compact, have stocks, if only collapsible ones. This lack of a stock will make long range fire more difficult, due to both not being able to steady the weapon from the users own muscular movements and recoil.* Honestly, phaser rifles remind me more of SMGs than anything in their design and how they are wielded. Certainly, they don't remind me of rifles. Mind you my knowledge of firearms is quite limited and very cursory. I am sure some of our other members could point out more flaws if they wanted.

Note *: Phasers should have recoil, as we routinely see those who are shot with phasers fly backwards to varying degrees. The only explanation I can see for that is that the phaser beam must be transferring some momentum to the target.

I can only really think of one instance where someone was hit by a phaser on stun and he was thrown backwards - Star Trek 3. Kirk shot a klingon who went flying backwards.

Most of the time people just fall where they're shot. Some seem to fall backwards, but that could be as a result of charging forward and then getting shot. On the other hand, perhaps you are right that if momentum is transferred then recoil should be a factor. But everytime a phaser is fired noone suffers from any recoil, so perhaps something else is going on? (we already know that phasers do magic things to their targets)

As for phaser rifles and so on, the lack of a stock in some of the rifles is annoying. But some designs did have a stock.

Should they start saluting? Why? That's a centuries-old tradition that really doesn't serve much of a purpose. I'm still baffled why we do it today. Even so, would adding in saluting officers affect things for the better?

I believe that the modern salute is more of an honor/respect for the chain of command and helps reinforce discipline within the military.

Yes but at the same time, Starfleet personnel don't lack honour or respect for the chain of command anyway. I'm just pointing out that these kind of arguments 'lol why aren't starfleet moar MILITARY' just strike me as silly.

Which US Navy? Pick a decade- total war forties, postwar giant fifties, early cold war and brushfire sixties, nadir seventies, sabre- waving eighties, what do we do now nineties, desert- bashing noughties? Do we really want the career of NCC-1701 Enterprise to be modelled that closely on the twenty battle stars of USS Enterprise CV-6? In that case you may need to change the name of the series- but Star Wars is already taken.

Absent the wierd upside down retrofuture nostalgia, going by some commenters and commentators the modern USN is becoming increasingly like Star Trek. Reference http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/- hell, go to the official sites like USNIblog if you like, see what kind of a different picture you get.

Although it would be brilliant in a deranged and highly improbable way if it was more like Hey, Shipwreck, which really is the not- very-adventurous adventures of the Unified Space Navy- first episode here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbUGQl1nhJU. I'd watch that show. It wouldn't be Star Trek; but at least potentially it would be much much funnier.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:Which US Navy? Pick a decade- total war forties, postwar giant fifties, early cold war and brushfire sixties, nadir seventies, sabre- waving eighties, what do we do now nineties, desert- bashing noughties?

Given the "where no man has gone before" shtick of TOS, perhaps the 1800s US Navy is more appropriate. Or the 1800s RN. Mind you, by the time we get to TNG, it's more like "to boldly go ... no more than a week or so from the nearest starbase, and definitely nowhere we can't get a phone signal".

Maybe I'm overanalysing this, but I don't think it could actually credibly be so- not that it's a good thing that age of sail in space makes no sense, but the social culture, the systems logic- I just don't see an organic way to get that forward-to-the-past vibe out of the future history we have for Trek.

I was making the assumption, which seems to me to be a well based one and a good approximation, perhaps not more than that but at least that, that the people wanting Starfleet to be more like the USN are actually trying to celebrate the USN at it's height, the global dominance it held from the second world war, through the cold war to the present day- and may, if you believe the gloom at the likes of that blog I linked to, be losing (in their eyes anyway) partly because the USN's becoming excessively Trek- like.

There's a fascinating point about the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century wooden navies- specifically the RN for this bit- that generally goes completely unnoticed; the classic stereotype of rum, sodomy and the lash is almost completely two-thirds wrong, especially the last part.

Formal discipline, in the age before the french revolution and for most of the time opposite it, was actually farcically weak; the legal instruments to discipline and punish in the modern navy scarcely existed then. Most of them came about as a result of reaction to the napoleonic wars, in fact.

Before that, for instance, a press gang could quite easily be taken up themselves before the local magistrate for assault and kidnapping- and if they were stupid enough to get caught the Admiralty would not contest any judgement against them. A man beaten by a bosun's mate could, if the ship was in one place long enough, sue him for assault in a land court. The primacy of military justice was not clearly established, and a lot of a captain's' and officers' authority came down to sheer personal leadership, stone age style.

And so on. There are many, many details of the actual functioning of the navy- like how bloody shambolic and improvisational the legal arrangements, in particular contracting for the permanent shore- based services like victualling and shipbuilding, actually were- that are simply not the way they usually get remembered.

The reality was by modern standards semi- organised chaos, a confused muddle of authority without responsibility and responsibility without capability, of in many respects blundering through; the RN in the high glory days was not a swing of a bosun's cat off what could best be described as a high-functioning anarchy.


Now, this is not remotely what we see in Star Trek, nor remotely what we see in the society that underpins it; Picard's federation has sweet bugger all in common with Georgian England- and to put it bluntly, with a society so desperately different, the results ought to be different too, and I don't think you can get there from here.

This is what I mean by systems logic; starships don't work like that, they can't be continually improvised things that a captain can have re-rigged to suit his own notions- to be credible at all they have to be products of the sort of technical approach and cultural background that produces starships, which is actually not that of the age of sail.
Arguably, the modern USN isn't the product of the sort of approach that produces starships either- but it's a lot closer. "Where no man has gone before" fits better with the age of sail exploration, you're right there, but the age of sail doesn't fit the age of stardrive well either- despite a lot of writers, including me, wishing it did.