A theory on Daedalus Class.

[Tenacity]

the ship is very little

Daedulus is said to be 105 meters

Turning back to the OP, I don't know if the image I found on the internet is the definitive Daedalus. I added lines for decks going by the placement of the windows. The ship would appear to be far larger than was being discussed.

The sphere looks to be fifteen decks.

 

[publiusr]

Now that would be an interesting Discovery--hey, HAL!

 

[Dukhat]

No, it's Kirk's statement that the Enterprise would not be landing.

Yes. Kirk stated that the Enterprise would not be landing. There would be only two reasons why he would say this:

1. Because the Horizon landed on the planet a century before and Kirk figured that the Iotians would be expecting the Enterprise to do the same.

2. He simply wanted to prepare the Iotians for the fact that he would be materializing out of thin air onto the streets of alien Chicago and didn't want people to be alarmed.

The fact that Kirk didn't even bother to adequately explain to Oxmyx about the transporter, but just beamed down anyway, suggests that #2 is not the correct answer. Therefore Kirk's statement can logically be inferred to mean that he was deliberately comparing the Enterprise to the Horizon.

Is this ironclad proof that the Horizon landed on the planet or that it did or did not have transporters? No. But this is the way that I choose to interpret that line.

If the Horizon were a Daedalus then a landing would seem to be impossible owing to the (usually attributed) design.

Which was why I suggested way back when that the Horizon at least was not of this design even though the "Daedalus class" has usually been attributed to it.

Neither of the two Earth starship designs we saw in ST: Enterprise would appear to be capable of landing.

The Warp Delta certainly looks like it has landing capability.

The J class freighter we saw also appeared to possess no landing capacity.

The front end of the ECS Horizon could detach from the main cargo carriers and could very well have had landing capability.

A landing capacity doesn't seem to be a standard part of a starship's design in the 22nd century.

Except for Kirk's line in "A Piece of the Action."

Well STB takes place in a alternate universe, so nuScotty's comment isn't germane.

Wrong. Both timelines have a shared past.

 

[Timo]

Kirk's line about the Enterprise not landing is evidence that the Horizon itself landed on the planet 100 years before.

Or at least that Kirk thought the Horizon might have done that. There might have been other planet-accessing modalities there, including the far more likely shuttlecraft and the possible transporters, but Kirk apparently had a reason to think that landing would have been the method preferred by the skipper of the Horizon - or then Kirk had knowledge that the Horizon in fact lacked both transporters and shuttlecraft (like the Franklin appears to, even though she's further burdened with a reputation of being no good at surface-to-orbit).

Yet much would depend on how much Kirk really knew. It's not as if he really takes the task of investigating the ship's fate seriously. Or, rather, he immediately decides Iotia had nothing to do with the disappearance, so he doesn't ask any of the relevant questions. This shouldn't excuse him for not looking up the ship's specs before the teaser, though.

It's quite possible that the only way to make "Piece" fit is to assume that Kirk had faulty knowledge. But if we don't want to go there, we might prefer to draw comparisons with the Franklin, surprisingly our only bona fide piece of evidence from that era of exploration. Perhaps the Horizon likewise was a really tiny vessel - a sister ship, even?

This is all just subjective opinion that doesn't match what we see and are told in the episode itself.

Surely it matches all of the evidence. And this is a typical episode from the category where the premise is absurd and can either be dismissed or then rationalized without much affecting the viewing experience - but the rationalization necessitates going a step or thirty beyond what the writer intended (because he intended nothing).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Or at least that Kirk thought the Horizon might have done that.

Yes, which is why I said that nothing Kirk said was ironclad proof, but that I am basing my belief on the idea that Kirk knew what he was talking about.

Surely it matches all of the evidence.

It no more matches all of the evidence than my theory matches all of the evidence. As you even say above, it is all a theory based on supposition, not proof. The only difference is that I take what I see and hear literally because I believe that what we see and hear was the actual intent, and I don't feel the need to come up with alternative explanations to justify why it shouldn't be that way.

 

[Tenacity]

The front end of the ECS Horizon could detach from the main cargo carriers and could very well have had landing capability

So the part of the freighter that doesn't carry freight is the part that lands?

Why? Makes more sense that the cargo would be brought to the ship in orbit.

 

[Dukhat]

So the part of the freighter that doesn't carry freight is the part that lands?

Why? Makes more sense that the cargo would be brought to the ship in orbit.

Because the crew has to get into the ship somehow, right? It has no transporters and no shuttle craft to speak of. So there's a good possibility that the crew enter and leave the smaller ship on land, and then the ship flies up into orbit and attaches to cargo pods there for whatever freight run they are doing.

 

[Tenacity]

no shuttle craft to speak of

Why do you believe there's no shuttle? Would make sense to have this to travel surface to orbit, rather than taking down the stardrive section of the freighter.

More likely still, the crew uses the orbital transportation infrastructure of whatever planet they're orbiting. Modern day freighters don't carry cars so the crew can get around once they arrive at a port.

 

[The Old Mixer]

When Kirk mentioned that they wouldn't be landing, it may have been on the assumption that shuttles were used by the Horizon, not that the entire ship landed. The Iotians were likely oblivious to the fact the shuttles came from a larger mothership. Remember their skepticism about the size and crew complement of the Enterprise.

 

[Dukhat]

Why do you believe there's no shuttle? Would make sense to have this to travel surface to orbit, rather than taking down the stardrive section of the freighter.

I've looked at the CGI model of the Horizon and have not seen anything that looks like a shuttle bay. And the stardrive section looks small enough to me that they could just use that to land instead of some other auxiliary ship.

More likely still, the crew uses the orbital transportation infrastructure of whatever planet they're orbiting. Modern day freighters don't carry cars so the crew can get around once they arrive at a port.

You can't compare real-world sea-going freighters to fictional space freighters.

When Kirk mentioned that they wouldn't be landing, it may have been on the assumption that shuttles were used by the Horizon, not that the entire ship landed. The Iotians were likely oblivious to the fact the shuttles came from a larger mothership. Remember their skepticism about the size and crew complement of the Enterprise.

If the assumption was shuttles, then all Kirk had to say was that they wouldn't be landing by shuttle. But he specifically said that the Enterprise herself wouldn't land. So I'm basing my hypothesis about the Horizon landing on Kirk's specific choice of words.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I always liked the Daedalus-Class, for the sheer retro look of her, and post-ENT there have been some great redesigns of the ship to make it a little more 'modern'. I wish that the prequel series had been set on one of those updated designs rather than the NX-Class.

 

[Timo]

It no more matches all of the evidence than my theory matches all of the evidence.

Hmh? I thought your theory matched all of the evidence, too. That part isn't difficult to do. It's only the power of the theory to account for the greater context that may differ here.

You can't compare real-world sea-going freighters to fictional space freighters.

Why not? It's great for expounding on the potential differences, and then expanding on those.

Why do you believe there's no shuttle? Would make sense to have this to travel surface to orbit, rather than taking down the stardrive section of the freighter.

Indeed, the design of the tug part of the ENT Horizon may be taken to suggest a separable shuttlelike section, at the very top. But possibly for emergency use only.

The issue of how the cargo gets up there, and back down again, is an interesting one. It's ore, so clearly it isn't being optimized for minimum weight. Does this just mean it's being moved up and down by the engines of the ship, engines that certainly should have enough power to juggle mere petatons of mass against one gee if they can hurl the ship between planets and perhaps stars? The one problem with that is the shape of the ship, with engines clustered in one end - certainly not a big problem for 23rd or 24th century sublight propulsion that requires no rocket nozzles at the thrust axis, but a potential counterindication to 22nd century liftoff tech (at least the Kelvin timeline version of it).

Big transporters sound rather likely. It is just dumb ore - no worries about scrambling some of it. And the containers of the equally large Class Y are of a more manageable size and might be stevedored down to the surface one by one, for moving the apparently more delicate general goods carried by the likes of the Fortunate. But surface-to-orbit machinery forms a minimal part of Trek surface-to-orbit craft anyway: shuttles are just lots of empty space with tiny engines glued on. Every ore container could be a landing-capable shuttle on its own right, at little extra cost, and without need for "harbor tugs" or "forklifts" of any sort.

More likely still, the crew uses the orbital transportation infrastructure of whatever planet they're orbiting. Modern day freighters don't carry cars so the crew can get around once they arrive at a port.

This is great for freighters shuttling between civilized ports. Perhaps not so great for Boomers hunting for markets in the far frontier. Potentially crippling for poor Franklin who was supposed to be pushing the frontiers!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Hmh? I thought your theory matched all of the evidence, too. That part isn't difficult to do. It's only the power of the theory to account for the greater context that may differ here.

Poor choice of words on my part. I meant that in the absence of a scene where we actually saw the Horizon land, use shuttles, or beam the crew to the planet, we can only speculate using both Kirk's words and the actions of the Iotians. I took what I heard and saw at face value because I believe that's what the writers intended (i.e. that the Iotian technology was only as advanced as 1930's Chicago, and they do not know what transporters are). You believe that the Iotians are doing the Orgainian thing and hiding their true selves and advanced knowledge. Other than the fact that there'd be no reason why they'd need superior Federation tech which Oxmyx clearly asks Kirk for and then threatens him to get it, there's no ironclad proof either way other than to take the episode as it was presented.

Why not? It's great for expounding on the potential differences, and then expanding on those.

Because there's a huge difference between a vehicle that travels through the vacuum of space and a vehicle that travels across an ocean on Earth, at least as far as how the crew of each vehicle embark and disembark from the vehicle.

 

[Kemaiku]

Or they landed in a shuttle craft and didn't particularly bother to correct the natives when they assumed it was their entire ship.

 

[Timo]

That'd depend on how specific and informative Kirk wanted to be; how much he thought the natives could absorb; and how confused he personally got when witnessing the odd language and manners of Boss Okmyx. To simply confess to being from the same "outfit" as the Horizon, even if possibly against the facts of the matter, could be chalked up to said confusion and the desire to simplify. To first deduce that the natives had mistaken the shuttle of the Horizon for the ship itself and then helpfully perpetuate that simplifying misconception requires rather detailed preplanning, though, and is actually unlikely to have happened if Kirk were confused there.

Clearly, though, Kirk has real trouble acclimatizing himself here. The Boss doesn't appear to grasp "galaxy"! Yet Kirk appears to assume he would, when launching into his "difficult" explanation. I can see Kirk thinking "Surely the Horizon people must have explained the concept of galaxy to these people?" and having panicky thoughts about having just inadvertently broken the Prime Directive himself...

The concept of the landing section of the Horizon (be it shuttle, tug or the whole kaboodle) having been very small is borne out with Krako's claim of "perhaps only three people up there" not being contradicted by anybody. Either they still know something about the ship after a century, or then they don't - but if they do, there's further data on the Horizon visit there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tim Walker]

I was pondering NaughtyTrekkie's opening post.

Perhaps there are two different basic versions of shipbuilding:

1. Small, modular, and simple. The product can be built relatively quickly, and is relatively cheap, so mass production is feasible. Over a few years you can build thousands, like a World War II bomber.

2. Middling to large sized ships. Construction resembles shipbuilding for oceanic vessels. Time consuming and relatively expensive. Capital ships tend to have short production runs.

 

[Spot261]

Certainly possible, I'd also suggest that there are probably limited facilities capable of working on large ships hulls further reducing the production runs.

I'd actually wonder if a given ship was necessarily produced at a single facility at all, or whether we would see the modules mass produced then transported to a central assembly facility. Shuttles, runabouts, etc might be constructed in situ so to speak but common place middling sized vessels such as science ships might well be the output of several yards each producing a certain type of component (nacelles, warp cores, etc). Whether very large vessels would follow the same pattern I don't know, but it seems to me likely they would given that it would suggest a certain specialisation in the skills and resources for given facilities. One that produces phasers might not have the required set up to also make sensors for instance.

 

[Albertese]

Regarding the landing of a ball-and-tin-can U.S.S. Horizon, I have some new thoughts:

Perhaps they used a landing shuttle which was considerably bulkier than the shuttlecraft we see later. Something where the native Iotians could have just assumed that was it.

Alternatively, perhaps the Daedalus-class is like the older writer's guide description of the Enterprise, where the "primary" hull can routinely detatch and land, Forbidden Planet-style. Imagine if the (15 story tall) ball could separate from the cylinder section and lower itself to the ground and land, not unlike the Trade Federation doughnut ships in Star Wars. Then the ship itself could actually land and not look terribly unbalanced.

--Alex

 

[The Old Mixer]

^That's certainly an idea.

 

[Tim Walker]

Good point, Spot261. A small number of shipyards capable of handling larger ships. And perhaps most larger ships are civilian, such as passenger liners and large freighters.