IS the TOS Constitution-class capable of landing?
- Thread starter Hartzilla2007
- Start date
Atmospheric maneuvering does not imply any landing capacity Perhaps a saucer could land as a last ditch effort if the SIF and IDF were all working correctly. In an emergency which required a landing would those systems plus thrusters or impulse engines be up for the job of a soft landing??
If you consider the words of Gene Roddenberry himself as canon, then NO, absolutely not, in no way can the ship land.
If you prefer to embrace fanwank that is in no way supported by fact, then, sure, why not.
Bottom line... NO... it cannot land. Not at all. Ever.
Best re-check the episode. It shows something very different was happening. He was trying to land the ship (one way or another) since that's what the creatures wanted.
They also mention that the aliens made the people possessed by them quite insane as well - and even self-destructive. If Spock was truly cognizant, he would have used the Transporter just to beam up a boatload of the things... instead, he was 'crazy' at the time. Hardly proof of anything about the Enterprise's true capabilities.
Can an entire Constitution-class starship land and take-off again? Being as open-minded as possible, doubtful. Going strictly by canon, certainly not. But the absence of canonical evidence is not the evidence of absence of such capability. To put it plainly, the notion of a such a starship landing implies it could power down while landed, and remain upright/intact. Obviously Kirk's Enterprise would not balance very well.
But then there's that saucer-separation notion...
We've never actually seen the saucer breakaway from the mothership in TOS, but there's obviously that capability strongly suggested. Why else have a modular starship configuration that can jettison the nacelles and not the saucer as well? And those triangular patterns on the saucer's underside certainly look like they could house some kind of landing apparatus. The only logical question to ask is whether the saucer needs to take the "neck" with it to land on a planetary body. (I always assumed that if the saucer could separate, the neck would either remain with the secondary hull, possibly housing Auxiliary Control, or be expendable.)
As for the question about starships landing and colonization: all this brings into question how planets are colonized. Building starships as disposable vessels that simply go to a planet and then become a basis for a kind of pre-fabbed housing on the planet's surface is an interesting idea, but it is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. It would make far more sense for the Federation to build simple warptug starships that could haul disposable cargo containers (Ptolemy-style) to a destination (planetary orbit) then leave the containers to either land or to become space stations to act as an orbiting HQ for the colonization effort. It could also be that cargo containers themselves would be modular, and that part of a container would remain in orbit to serve as a space station while the rest of the modules would make planetfall. Any of these methods would make more sense and be safer than scrapping an entire starship after just one expedition.
But then there's that saucer-separation notion...
We've never actually seen the saucer breakaway from the mothership in TOS, but there's obviously that capability strongly suggested. Why else have a modular starship configuration that can jettison the nacelles and not the saucer as well? And those triangular patterns on the saucer's underside certainly look like they could house some kind of landing apparatus. The only logical question to ask is whether the saucer needs to take the "neck" with it to land on a planetary body. (I always assumed that if the saucer could separate, the neck would either remain with the secondary hull, possibly housing Auxiliary Control, or be expendable.)
As for the question about starships landing and colonization: all this brings into question how planets are colonized. Building starships as disposable vessels that simply go to a planet and then become a basis for a kind of pre-fabbed housing on the planet's surface is an interesting idea, but it is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. It would make far more sense for the Federation to build simple warptug starships that could haul disposable cargo containers (Ptolemy-style) to a destination (planetary orbit) then leave the containers to either land or to become space stations to act as an orbiting HQ for the colonization effort. It could also be that cargo containers themselves would be modular, and that part of a container would remain in orbit to serve as a space station while the rest of the modules would make planetfall. Any of these methods would make more sense and be safer than scrapping an entire starship after just one expedition.
Last edited:
Then again, there's also the option of taking a big starship that can hold a colony's vital ingredients in her holds, landing her on the target planet, emptying the holds in one rapid and efficient belch, and flying away to the next mission.
The advantage over the container approach would be that one wouldn't waste the atmospheric entry and landing mechanisms of the container: one would deliver pure cargo, and preserve all the mechanisms for later reuse. The disadvantage would be that the offloading would have to happen all at once, thus inconveniencing the colonists, or else the resources of the starship would be tied down for longer than was economical.
We have yet to see a starship that would feature "ground level" cargo doors for efficient loading and offloading under gravity. But the Sydney model certainly appears to feature a badass "ramp" at the bow cut, perhaps one that would lower to meet the ground if the ship landed on a surface.
Timo Saloniemi
The advantage over the container approach would be that one wouldn't waste the atmospheric entry and landing mechanisms of the container: one would deliver pure cargo, and preserve all the mechanisms for later reuse. The disadvantage would be that the offloading would have to happen all at once, thus inconveniencing the colonists, or else the resources of the starship would be tied down for longer than was economical.
We have yet to see a starship that would feature "ground level" cargo doors for efficient loading and offloading under gravity. But the Sydney model certainly appears to feature a badass "ramp" at the bow cut, perhaps one that would lower to meet the ground if the ship landed on a surface.
Timo Saloniemi
Here's the bit in question:
CHAPEL [OC]: He's delirious and possibly dangerous.
KIRK: All decks, security alert. Locate and restrain Mister Spock. He may be dangerous. Use phasers on stun if necessary.
(Spock enters the Bridge and throws Sulu out of his seat.)
SPOCK: I must take the ship.
(Three of them wrestle him to the floor as Chapel enters and hands a hypo to McCoy.)
SPOCK: Down! I must take it down.
(McCoy sedates him.)
KIRK: Get him back to the Sickbay. Use security restraints.
Naturally, we can assume that Spock had one intention and the creature controlling him had another. Now, which one of these was "I must take it down"?
If it was Spock's doing, he might have had the same plan as the teaser guy seemed to have: destroy the ship so the pancakes couldn't use it. There's another possibility, though. We have no indication that Spock knew about the role of sunlight, but based on what he had seen, he may have believed that any attempt at suicide would result in the pancakes releasing their grip at the last moment and fleeing.
If it was the pancakes' doing, we have to decide whether they wanted to crash the ship because she was their mortal enemy; because they wanted to use her and mistakenly thought that she could land; or because they wanted to use her and correctly knew that she could land.
Now, let's remember that the pancakes had already successfully traveled from star to star. They had the ability to build new starships, or make their human victims build new ships for them. If the former, they must have known the specs of a Starfleet heavy cruiser, so that eliminates the idea that they would have unwittingly commanded Spock to destroy the ship. If the latter, they must have relied on the humans' knowledge of starships, in which case Spock could have tried to fool them. Perhaps most ships can land, but Spock knew that the Enterprise could not, and planned to use that to his advantage?
Plenty of possibilities, none of which is obviously impossible, none obviously the correct one... Spock never bothers to explain himself afterward. All he says is this:
So, is he saying that taking control of the ship was the pancakes' doing, and he didn't understand how to best fight it? Or is he saying that taking control of the ship was his plan, and he didn't understand that there were better ways of achieving his goal? He never explains.
Timo Saloniemi
If it was Spock's doing, he might have had the same plan as the teaser guy seemed to have: destroy the ship so the pancakes couldn't use it. There's another possibility, though. We have no indication that Spock knew about the role of sunlight, but based on what he had seen, he may have believed that any attempt at suicide would result in the pancakes releasing their grip at the last moment and fleeing.
If it was the pancakes' doing, we have to decide whether they wanted to crash the ship because she was their mortal enemy; because they wanted to use her and mistakenly thought that she could land; or because they wanted to use her and correctly knew that she could land.
Now, let's remember that the pancakes had already successfully traveled from star to star. They had the ability to build new starships, or make their human victims build new ships for them. If the former, they must have known the specs of a Starfleet heavy cruiser, so that eliminates the idea that they would have unwittingly commanded Spock to destroy the ship. If the latter, they must have relied on the humans' knowledge of starships, in which case Spock could have tried to fool them. Perhaps most ships can land, but Spock knew that the Enterprise could not, and planned to use that to his advantage?
Plenty of possibilities, none of which is obviously impossible, none obviously the correct one... Spock never bothers to explain himself afterward. All he says is this:
So, is he saying that taking control of the ship was the pancakes' doing, and he didn't understand how to best fight it? Or is he saying that taking control of the ship was his plan, and he didn't understand that there were better ways of achieving his goal? He never explains.
Timo Saloniemi
I think differently, you land a ship like the Sydney class, you use its powerplant resources to start with building an outpost/base/town to live in with what it can bring down with it and use its transporters and so on to speed up delivery of goods, once the outpost can sustain itself you blast back to orbit and start a regular schedule of hauling more stuff to the colony, a Sydney is perfect for that job since its quite a large freighter/transport and also she's build like no other starship, she's got a single aerodynamic hull a flat bottom and a gigantic impulse engine for her size, add all up and you've got your landing capable sweetheart.
As for the Constitution, you don't want it to land, it doesn't have a landing gear and her shape is also not quite suitable to just be able to park it somewhere easily, I do think it can if there's REALLY a need for it which is probaly never.
Similar threads
