Talk:USS Kobayashi Maru

Two universes, one ship?
Is the Kobayashi Maru (in the Prime Universe) the same as the USS Kobayashi Maru (in the Alternate Reality)?

The second film identifies the Kobayashi Maru as a commercial transport with her place of registry being a civilian port on a Federation world. Now, we have this ship, identified as the USS Kobayashi Maru. The USS clearly identifies the ship as a Starfleet registered ship. So, why are we saying these ships are the same when their place of registry is so vastly different? I am inclined to believe they are different.– Airtram3 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The USS-prefix doesn't necessarily indicate a Starfleet ship. For example the USS Raven was a civilian Federation ship. --Pseudohuman 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the Raven was a Starfleet vessel. She bore the Starfleet pennant on her hull.– Airtram3 05:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth remembering that only non-canon sources indicate that there was ever a real ship named Kobayashi Maru. From canon, we know it only from its use in the simulation — and it's possible that the simulation was altered over the years, so that it was a Starfleet ship when Jim Kirk took the test, but a civilian transport when Saavik took it. —Josiah Rowe 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the arrowhead-pennant doesn't necessarely prove a ship to be a Starfleet operated ship. For example SS Vico was also a civilian operated Federation ship like the Raven, both with pennants. The only thing that clearly indicates any ship to be specifically a Starfleet operated ship, is that it is stated to be such. For example SS Tsiolkovsky was a Starfleet ship even without the USS-prefix. I suspect the matter is simply that these ships were once either Starfleet ships that have since been decommissioned for civilian use, or civilian ships commissioned for Starfleet use. Some with name/hull/reg changes, some without. --Pseudohuman 08:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I always got the impression that the raven was crewed by civilian employee's of starfleet. And before someone says it, yes... I know its just speculation, but it would seem to make the most sense.


 * That would be speculation against canon, as they were employees of the Federation Council on Exobiology according to Dark Frontier. --Pseudohuman 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the fact of the matter is that Airtram is right, but I think for entirely different reasoning that posted. This would seem to be the only article case where we recognize something as truly being one in the same as its prime reality counterpart, and I think that is a bit presumptuous. They should be separated just as the ships that are attacking it are (Klingon warbird/). Otherwise, the only way we could know for sure was if it predated the USS Kelvin, and since Spock supposedly created the scenario, I don't think we can assume it does. --Alan 21:25, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
I've suggested we merge this page with USS Kobayashi Maru, as we don't know for sure that there were similar vessels. Although it is usual for "real" vessels in Star Trek to belong to a similar class of ship, the Kobayashi Maru is only ever seen in a simulation, so it could just be a completely simulated ship! Also, the info currently available for both this page and the aforementioned Kobayashi Maru page is minimal, so a merge should present more collected information, more easily accessible – instead of so few details, spread out over 2 pages. --Defiant 00:03, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree; for all we know it is purely a fictional ship, as it wasn't said that it was based on a real one. Merge. 31dot 00:07, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge due to the fact it was a simulation, not because it's a stub. - 00:13, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * While it was a simulated ship, i think its safe to assume it is based on a real ship class... since we assume the klingon warbirds were based on real warbirds. I would say that we should have both pages only because we mostly have a class page and ship pages for every type of starfleet ship, for the sake of having a database like that, even though it does sometime seem unnecessary. so i don't strongly oppose a merge, but would prefer the pages to be separate. --Pseudohuman 13:04, April 19, 2012 (UTC)