Oberth Class – the missing link between Enterprise and Reliant

[B.J.]

And I just don't see the saucer being at all separable - it looks way too integrated to me, especially at the port and starboard edges, where it blends into the "sled" portion.

Could you please be more specific? According to this picture and the bow view from the movie all I can see is a saucer sitting "flat" on the "warp sled".

You can't see it from those views. This should help:

The fillet radius (the feature pointed to with the red arrow in the B/W pic) looks like it might just be part of the "sled" when viewed from above, as you can see in the lower right pic of the studio model. But when viewed from below, you can see that this feature blends into the saucer, and the "sled" portion just cuts straight across below it. It would mean that the lower surface of the saucer is not coplanar with the upper surface of the sled.

I wish there were some better pics of the studio model, but it looks like the upper surface of the "sled" portion is actually the same surface as the floor of the three bays in the saucer.

 

[Praetor]

That photo raises another interesting point - the flush intake (or whatever you want to call it) that we traditionally associate with emergency plasma purge procedures going back to the TMP Enterprise appears to run across the "deck" under the saucer. That's just... odd.

Perhaps we should consider: could the horizontal deck simply be a horizontal pylon, with no livable or workable space?

 

[B.J.]

It could be anything, from flush intake to sensors to deflector system. But I get your meaning though. There would most definitely be machinery of some sort behind there, but I would like to think there are also some passages for the crew to be able to work on it. Might be cramped, though.

 

[Unicron]

I should also mention, that I try not to let preference influence my treknological work efforts. Onscreen information is Canon # 1 to me, actual production background information Canon # 2, both of those are the "essentials" and not "up for grabs" unless these essentials have been accurately evaluated and considered.

That's fair enough. I'm largely the same way, though I also agree with Praetor's point about canonical information sometimes being at odds. I tend to ignore the presence of crew members in the Vico's lower section in "Hero Worship" for that reason, or to to assume they wound up in that section because of the disaster but wouldn't normally have done so. That causes the least potential friction with the theory that the pod is just equipment.

I should have been more precise. Matt Jefferies created the Enterprise and participated in the actual production of TOS, Franz Joseph didn't. For me, this makes JRS authentic and genuine while the FJ system is conjectural (but I have to acknowledge its post-TOS and -TAS influence and felt it necessary to reflect this "school of thought").

Of course, to assume that the last two (of four) registry digits refer to a sequential building order of a vessel from this design series (a changed premise deviating from Jefferies original concept but apparently continued by Franz Joseph) had become obsolete or debatable by the starship status chart featured in "Court-Martial" as "1697" would otherwise indicate 97 starships of the 16th design.

Can you refresh my memory as to how Matt intended the JRS to function originally? I've tended to think of it as being the first and/or second digits being the type build and the rest being the specific ship number, but I also see where you're coming from with the "Court Martial" chart. I can't recall if TMoST mentions any elements of the JRS, and my memory's far from perfect. I'd like to approach it from the right angle.

I'd definitely agree with numbers being recycled or switched over during construction, even when this leads to a weird registry system (as with Jackill's take on the refitted Saratoga from DS9. It became the lead ship in a new frigate variant, but the canonical registry is weird in any form).

But that's quite some coincidence to chose this name out of a hundred or a thousand alternate names, isn't it?

* shrugs * Not from my perspective, no. While I don't think the notion of someone thinking of the S.S. Valiant is completely impossible, I still think it was just a random name chosen for the study model. It's a common enough ship name and it probably assumed that it wouldn't be used, at least once the name was confirmed to be Grissom.

Addendum:

Praetor brought up the hazardous nature of the (TOS) warp engines Jefferies deliberately designed away for the ship, apparently as a possibility to easily jettison these in case of danger.

Of course, like the Oberth Class, the warp nacelles of the Miranda Class equally seem to be to too close for comfort. But then, what's the "hazardous element" of the old TOS warp nacelles?

The warp field coils, the matter-antimatter reactors or the antimatter confinement pods?

I think it's the antimatter confinement (confinement failure = you are dead) and in case of Reliant it's probably stored in the roll-bar pod (and can instantly fuel photon torpedos). The antimatter storage volume of the pod equals that of the TMP Enterprise (it has to be stored somewhere aboard Reliant).

Why we didn't get a bigger blast in ST II when Reliant's pod was destroyed I don't know (at least the remaining torpedos should have created quite some firework ). Apparently both torpedos and antimatter fuel may have been depleted at this time (but Enterprise was unaware of it).

That's an interesting question, and I know one issue brought up with some of the FASA designs was having the nacelles very close together in a way that suggests it would be harder to jettison. (Example: Andor class). I'm more inclined to think the Miranda would have the antimatter storage/jettison system in the main hull myself, since that connects to the nacelles, but I do think perhaps there would be extra torpedoes in the launcher itself. Assuming they weren't depleted, we probably should have gotten a bigger boom.

 

[The_Beef]

Just my two cents on one facet of this topic: Since the Valiant was destroyed, and the creators of the Valiant design models were working on a design for a ship very much still in service, isn't that more likely to suggest that they weren't trying to depict the original Valiant's design? If anything they might have imagined the ship was named after the earlier Valiant, or as mentioned were just using a fairly generic name for a script that wasn't fully developed yet. The use of the name doesn't really strongly suggest at all that the Valiant was an Oberth.

Still like the idea, though, I just feel it necessary to point out possible issues. I'm enjoying this idea mostly because I get tired of Starfleet designs from the TOS and TMP era being essentially kitbashes of the Enterprise components. I like the idea of there being another distinct design era that preceded the Constitution-class, and that this era didn't necessarily look more "primitive", just different because of the practical necessities of technology at the time.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I think part of the problem with the Oberth lays with its registry, and the inherent nature of registries. It's my opinion that trying to use registry to guess age isn't going to get us anywhere. Why did the makers of STIII pick NCC-638? I think someone else correctly stated that NCC-2000 was meant to suggest shiny, new, and big. I think the low registry of Grissom was meant only to suggest a less powerful ship, and we should probably leave it at that.

I've always suspected (but of course have no way of proving) that when they wanted to pick a registry for their new scout class ship, they pulled out a copy of FJ's Tech Manual and turned to the page with all the scout class registries. The Cygnus class registries ended at 625, so they picked a number a bit up from that, with the thought that it would represent the next generation of scout ships.

Of course, that got messed up later when the lead ship of the class was given the registry 602, which conflicts with one of FJ's scouts. (And 623 for Copernicus would also conflict, but someone mentioned above that 623 was an error, and it was actually 640, so it would actually fit.)

Anyway, YMMV. But we know they used the Tech Manual as reference for other things in the first three movies, so...

 

[Robert Comsol]

Here is Jefferies’ (popular) pre-production sketch of the Enterprise. ... In terms of evolution the next step could be either to attach the warp engines to the secondary hull instead (Enterprise) [this is the one with the basic Jefferies Registry Scheme which he also confirmed in later interviews] or to relocate components of the secondary hull into the saucer and have the secondary hull reduced to a roll bar with sensor and/or torpedo pod (Reliant).

Okay, I do better understand your rationale now. I'm afraid I still don't wholly agree. Yes, I do definitely see how Jefferies' concept art could be a primitive version of the Oberth design - but if I'm understanding you correctly you're suggesting that some members of this design were converted into Oberths and some were converted into Mirandas?

Re-evaluating my original suggestion I think the pre-production sketches might have rather served first as a design inspiration for the Reliant.

But please turn the Oberth picture (view from below angle, the one in the background just provided by B.J. with some truly interesting details worth discussing) upside down.

Although the components differ in volume, it's obvious that if you were to make a CGI film depicting an evolution, it would be child's play to "morph" the Grissom into Reliant.

I now realize it's rather probable that an upside down Reliant was the basic inspiration for the Oberth Class design from a production point of view.

But where does this leave us "in-universe"? Should the Oberth Class be a new design inspired by / that came after the Miranda Class or would it better qualify as a pre-TOS design which inspired the (later) Miranda Class design (and possibly some others but unseen ones)?!?!

(I also think that the Daedalus Class would qualify better as a predecessor of the Enterprise).

So perhaps, there was indeed a registry schema change at some point - and that change was to change from the JRS to a newer, simply sequential registry scheme, to fit with the fact that the production team similarly abandoned or ignored the JRS. So perhaps you're right - JRS until circa the 2280s, and then it all goes to hell.

Interesting how you put it, but - yes, that's essentially what I've been trying to convey.

Let's touch briefly on the JRS. Which ships are we presupposing fit to witch number? Going by what we have seen or what was spelled out on screen on TOS or the TOS films:

05 - Revere type (TMP chatter)
06 - Oberth (or whatever its earlier name may've been), includes Scout U.S.S. Columbia (TMP chatter)
13 - Republic type ("United Star Ship"), maybe Baton Rouge Class?
16 - Constitution Class
17 - Constitution aka Starship
17 - Enterprise aka Starship (already discussed in depth in 3 other threads in the past year, no need to do so again here, please!)
18 - Miranda
20 - Excelsior
21 - Entente type (TMP chatter) I still haven't found the corresponding TMP script excerpt

Extrapolated from TNG, somewhat dubious:
19 - Constellation (?) a can of Worms, "NX-1974" looks a little too conjectural, IMHO
19 - Soyuz (better fits the sibling character of 16/17 in an 18/19 context, IMHO)
25 - Excelsior II (?) (the one with bumpers)
28 - Constellation (?)

(My annotations / suggestions in italic and bold)

I guess I just don't get why you feel so confident about Valiant.

Must be the flying saucer allusions I get from the Oberth's primary hull which could be an homage to either Forbidden Planet or Lost in Space.

Example: Where did the producers of "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) get the "aft phaser" idea from. Well, for their Gorn study they obviously rewatched "Arena" which is the only other TOS episode (next to "A Private Little War") were "aft phaser/s" had been mentioned in the background chatter.

I can't exclude the possibility that while preparing the Valiant study model / Oberth prototype Nilo Rodis had been watching "A Taste of Armageddon" or "A Piece of the Action" (or was already familiar with the pre-TOS ship suggestions).

The Horizon (or its primary hull) did land on Sigma Iotia, 100 years ahead of the Enterprise, the USS Valiant did make contact on Eminiar VII 50 years ahead of the Enterprise. So essentially, we are looking at a progression from a Federation starship that could land to one that's incapable of doing that and the Oberth flying saucer primary hull just looks like a credible missing link here.
Add to this the study model's name and that calculates 1+1=2, IMHO

Let us not forget that, for all their successes, the ILM modelmakers didn't even do the windows right on the Excelsior based on what size she was supposed to be - or the Oberth for that matter.

I shamefully admit that I missed class concerning the Excelsior.
But on what exactly is the suggestion based that the "windows" on a 395' Grissom do not have correct size?

Hm, would you then posit that in the pre-TOS 23rd century, vessel saucers made planetfall regularly, per the lines in TMoST? I could buy that, I think. It does nicely explain the penchant for saucer sections that Starfleet seems to have, and ties into "Forbidden Planet."

Yes, and it ties into FP. The only question - and that might be something where I'm inclined to revise my original proposal - is how to give the Oberth Class primary hull landing legs. I said the ventral sphere of the saucer module looks like snap-in knob but that might just have been a deliberate intention designed to convey to us that it's a saucer module (the trick worked on me, obviously ).
In-universe the ventral sphere "knob" might not belong to the saucer module but to the warp sled and the bottom side of the saucer module is actually flat.

I guess, eventually it depends what function we assume the saucer rim embayments to have. Landing rocket thrusters?!?

We know why he picked 1701 - they were visually distinguishable. But I don't believe we have ever concretely proven when he came up with 17th, 1st. We know that it was stated to be an afterthought, but we don't know when. It's entirely possible he thought it up after "Court Martial."

Looking at Jefferies Enterprise production sketch with the JRS annotation, I insist it is obvious that it's genuine TOS pre-production work:

• Enterprise is featured with baby bottle cap over main sensor (clearly a pre-production feature)
• Hangar doors are explicitly mentioned to have segments (rather redundant after these had been added onto the VFX model)
• "J" in Jefferies' signature is pre-TOS style "J" and not the one seen in his sketches from the 1970's

I assume Matt Jefferies didn't participate in the starship status chart (suggesting 97 starships of the 16th design). Maybe he pointed out it's wrong, but they didn't have the time or desire to fix it. Thus the meaning of the last two digits in JRS got a different meaning (changed premise) but there is no reason to assume that the meaning of the first two digits became automatically obsolete, too.
Therefore the first ship of a new class doesn't necessarily have to be "XX01". It can be "602", "2000" and for all we know NCC-1831 might have been the Miranda (class ship).

I initially really don't like the idea of the Reliant pod containing the antimatter. That should mean that the antimatter has to go down into the ship, into the reactor, be processed, and go into the nacelles? It feels entirely too... complicated.

Does it really? Frankly, the one thing I never liked was the redress of Enterprise's vertical intermix chamber coil as the one of Reliant. The entire Reliant design says "flat" or horizontal, in contrast to Enterprise which invites vertical allusions.

(Apparently Nick Meyer preferred stunt people flying off the set, with the horizontal part of the set he wouldn't have achieved the same dramatic effect)

The interior explosion scene follows the phaser shots of the Enterprise exclusively targeting the port nacelle and pylon!
This immediately affects adjacent internal components and the vertical intermix chamber seen on screen is obviously in this vicinity, and thus compliant with the concept that antimatter might be channeled down from the pod to a port (and starboard)side intermix chamber!

Regarding the antimatter itself, I assume that it is taken for granted that flying faster than light in a ship contains inherent dangers, akin to flying in a modern aircraft in the real world. We should remember to take that into account - no ship is "boom" proof.

I'd like to use your example for a reply I still owe Timo.

If you sign up for the dangerous trip into space and you perish there, it's your own risk and responsibility as it apparently happened with the Horizon and the Essex.

Riding on a volatile antimatter pod (bomb) was the choice of the astronauts voluntarily doing so and accepting the risk.

But to have such a thing accidentally detonate in the atmosphere of an alien civilization you visit (uninvited) to engage First Contact and open relations, would have rather constituted an act of war.

Hence, the separation of the ship's landing module and the parking of the secondary hull containing the antimatter in a stable orbit, was objectively a mandatory option to achieve your First Contact goal in these pre-TOS days of the Horizon and - possibly - the Valiant.

Bob

(I hope to catch up with the other posts later as I'm currently involved in way too many threads that take up too much time. Of course, I can only blame myself )

 

[Mario de Monti]

This is a truly fascinating thread. Unfortunately I currently lack the energy to properly contribute to it. But I did want to make one small comment:

I'm sorry but I have to point out that it is entirely possible that Jefferies hadn't thought of it yet. We know why he picked 1701 - they were visually distinguishable.

That is the "official" explanation and may be part of the story. But I still believe the main inspiration to use the "1701" comes from "Forbidden Planet", where at the beginning of the movie deceleration takes place at "17:01". That´d be just too much of a coincidence, especially when considering how much that movie influenced Roddenberry.

Mario

 

[Praetor]

Just my two cents on one facet of this topic: Since the Valiant was destroyed, and the creators of the Valiant design models were working on a design for a ship very much still in service, isn't that more likely to suggest that they weren't trying to depict the original Valiant's design?

This is a very good point. Namesake, perhaps, but not the same ship I think.

I've always suspected (but of course have no way of proving) that when they wanted to pick a registry for their new scout class ship, they pulled out a copy of FJ's Tech Manual and turned to the page with all the scout class registries. The Cygnus class registries ended at 625, so they picked a number a bit up from that, with the thought that it would represent the next generation of scout ships.

You may very well be onto something there, another great notion.

Re-evaluating my original suggestion I think the pre-production sketches might have rather served first as a design inspiration for the Reliant.

I'll buy that.

But please turn the Oberth picture (view from below angle, the one in the background just provided by B.J. with some truly interesting details worth discussing) upside down.

Although the components differ in volume, it's obvious that if you were to make a CGI film depicting an evolution, it would be child's play to "morph" the Grissom into Reliant.

I now realize it's rather probable that an upside down Reliant was the basic inspiration for the Oberth Class design from a production point of view.

But where does this leave us "in-universe"? Should the Oberth Class be a new design inspired by / that came after the Miranda Class or would it better qualify as a pre-TOS design which inspired the (later) Miranda Class design (and possibly some others but unseen ones)?!?!

Now, I'm going to have to poke holes in this one. There are only so many ways you can arrange a saucer and nacelles. Add a "mission pod" to the mix, and that limits you even moreso - something must attach the nacelles to the saucer, rather than to the pod, so the pod can be swappable. And what is the "roll bar" on the Miranda if not a type of mission pod, since we see it is sometimes missing?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think you're right that they all came from the same line of thought, but - this is primarily where I differ - I think it might be overly literal to say that one inspired the other. In-universe, it was probably engineers playing with the arrangement of the familiar elements. In the real world, it's murkier for me.

(I also think that the Daedalus Class would qualify better as a predecessor of the Enterprise).

Completely agree. The NX class muddies the waters - that design lineage seems to set precedent for the Miranda style (which I like to refer to as a "frigate"...)

Let's touch briefly on the JRS. Which ships are we presupposing fit to witch number? Going by what we have seen or what was spelled out on screen on TOS or the TOS films:

05 - Revere type (TMP chatter)
06 - Oberth (or whatever its earlier name may've been), includes Scout U.S.S. Columbia (TMP chatter)
13 - Republic type ("United Star Ship"), maybe Baton Rouge Class?
16 - Constitution Class
17 - Constitution aka Starship
17 - Enterprise aka Starship (already discussed in depth in 3 other threads in the past year, no need to do so again here, please!)
18 - Miranda
20 - Excelsior
21 - Entente type (TMP chatter) I still haven't found the corresponding TMP script excerpt

Extrapolated from TNG, somewhat dubious:
19 - Constellation (?) a can of Worms, "NX-1974" looks a little too conjectural, IMHO
19 - Soyuz (better fits the sibling character of 16/17 in an 18/19 context, IMHO)
25 - Excelsior II (?) (the one with bumpers)
28 - Constellation (?)

Pardon me for picking a nit. Here goes.

1. The Republic type - am unable to confirm, but recall the registry as being given on-screen. It could be almost any class.
2. Constitution 1600 - because of TOS-R? If that's the only reason why, I say meh. I could ignore it, especially if we're trying to be true to the original TOS spirit. Would you presuppose this class was outwardly similar but actually different? Wouldn't this actually make this class something different and the 1700s the "real" Constitution class?
3. Enterprise 1700 - do you subscribe to the Shane Johnson school of Enterprise-class refits?
4. Entente 2100 - I forget the exact line, but it's in the Epsilon IX chatter somewhere, I think in the extended VHS version. (I don't think they ever call it a "dreadnought" as such.)
5. Constellation 1900 - Agreed that NX-1974 looks dubious, but it was onscreen in TUC on a chart (albeit somewhat hard to see) - can't ignore evidence here but not on TOS-R can ya?
6. Soyuz 1900 - Does make sense, except the decommissioned so soon bit.
7. Excelsior 2500 - Repulse didn't have "bumpers."

Maybe it went to hell a little sooner than we thought, ya?

Must be the flying saucer allusions I get from the Oberth's primary hull which could be an homage to either Forbidden Planet or Lost in Space.

Gotcha. I definitely agree this was part of the intent of including the saucer in the real world when designing the Enteprise - I just don't know if Starfleet ever "actually" performed such operations.

The Horizon (or its primary hull) did land on Sigma Iotia, 100 years ahead of the Enterprise, the USS Valiant did make contact on Eminiar VII 50 years ahead of the Enterprise. So essentially, we are looking at a progression from a Federation starship that could land to one that's incapable of doing that and the Oberth flying saucer primary hull just looks like a credible missing link here.

Add to this the study model's name and that calculates 1+1=2, IMHO

Was it explicitly stated in some dialog I'm not remembering that the Horizon's saucer landed?

Also, I really think the name thing is shakier ground than you think it is. I think calling the study model Valiant was simple name recollection and reuse, with no ulterior meaning.

I shamefully admit that I missed class concerning the Excelsior.

I've been thinking of starting a new thread. More or less, unless the Excelsior's deck arrangement is really weird, exterior window placement makes no sense, and actually points towards a larger ship than 467 meters.

But on what exactly is the suggestion based that the "windows" on a 395' Grissom do not have correct size?

The four rows of windows on the top of the saucer seem to indicate decks - two rows on the "bridge dome" and two rows on the saucer itself. The bridge dome windows are mostly problematic - they point to two decks within that dome, which is pretty much impossible. At best, the saucer probably has two and a half decks overall, and the horizontal pylon/platform below the saucer (connecting the nacelles) is probably a deck thick. Of course this shot from "Generations" just makes matters worse.

Fun internet find: this probably has the saucer arrangement more like what I would expect it to be if the secondary hull was mission-swappable. The pod arrangement itself makes me cringe, though...

I guess, eventually it depends what function we assume the saucer rim embayments to have. Landing rocket thrusters?!?

The old assumption has always been shuttle/cargo bays.

Looking at Jefferies Enterprise production sketch with the JRS annotation, I insist it is obvious that it's genuine TOS pre-production work:

• Enterprise is featured with baby bottle cap over main sensor (clearly a pre-production feature)
• Hangar doors are explicitly mentioned to have segments (rather redundant after these had been added onto the VFX model)
• "J" in Jefferies' signature is pre-TOS style "J" and not the one seen in his sketches from the 1970's

Good evidence. I'll buy it. That would still leave the question as to whether this remained mostly in his head or others knew about it. Which would tie into...

I assume Matt Jefferies didn't participate in the starship status chart (suggesting 97 starships of the 16th design). Maybe he pointed out it's wrong, but they didn't have the time or desire to fix it. Thus the meaning of the last two digits in JRS got a different meaning (changed premise) but there is no reason to assume that the meaning of the first two digits became automatically obsolete, too.

You raise an interesting question - Matt was the art director. Set decorations like that were probably made by the art department. Sooo wouldn't Matt or his brother have made it?

Therefore the first ship of a new class doesn't necessarily have to be "XX01". It can be "602", "2000" and for all we know NCC-1831 might have been the Miranda (class ship).

Okay now you've lost me. Why would they start at anything but 00?

I initially really don't like the idea of the Reliant pod containing the antimatter. That should mean that the antimatter has to go down into the ship, into the reactor, be processed, and go into the nacelles? It feels entirely too... complicated.

Does it really? Frankly, the one thing I never liked was the redress of Enterprise's vertical intermix chamber coil as the one of Reliant. The entire Reliant design says "flat" or horizontal, in contrast to Enterprise which invites vertical allusions.

Agreed, but there's a little room for a vertical stack in there, even so. A horizontal chamber running long pylon to pylon does makes sense, though.

The interior explosion scene follows the phaser shots of the Enterprise exclusively targeting the port nacelle and pylon!

This immediately affects adjacent internal components and the vertical intermix chamber seen on screen is obviously in this vicinity, and thus compliant with the concept that antimatter might be channeled down from the pod to a port (and starboard)side intermix chamber!

Eh, but the pylons contain power transfer conduits going down to the nacelles, and those "mega" phasers have always in fandom been assumed to draw power straight from them (a spinoff from Decker's line in TMP, no doubt.) So why wouldn't an energy surge along the PTC from the explosion cause damage upspout?

Again, I could potentially seeing antimatter in the pod working - but then what do you with it when you have no pod? We have rollbar-less versions around, too.

I'd like to use your example for a reply I still owe Timo.

If you sign up for the dangerous trip into space and you perish there, it's your own risk and responsibility as it apparently happened with the Horizon and the Essex.

Riding on a volatile antimatter pod (bomb) was the choice of the astronauts voluntarily doing so and accepting the risk.

But to have such a thing accidentally detonate in the atmosphere of an alien civilization you visit (uninvited) to engage First Contact and open relations, would have rather constituted an act of war.

Hence, the separation of the ship's landing module and the parking of the secondary hull containing the antimatter in a stable orbit, was objectively a mandatory option to achieve your First Contact goal in these pre-TOS days of the Horizon and - possibly - the Valiant.

I'm sure Timo will have thoughts too - but my initial reaction is: why? If you can just land a shuttle or even beam down, why make your ship more complicated with extra seals and joints and other mechana that can fail and leak and cause extra "BOOM" worries? Why also land the main section of your ship at all? What if the natives decide to drop an H-Bomb on you?

That is the "official" explanation and may be part of the story. But I still believe the main inspiration to use the "1701" comes from "Forbidden Planet", where at the beginning of the movie deceleration takes place at "17:01". That´d be just too much of a coincidence, especially when considering how much that movie influenced Roddenberry.

Mario

Brilliant, sir - I had not thought of that. I could see Jefferies sitting there thinking of a registry number that looked distinct, Roddenberry suggesting 1701 (or maybe Jefferies himself, having possibly watched the film?) and then coming up with the JRS to explain it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've been thinking of starting a new thread. More or less, unless the Excelsior's deck arrangement is really weird, exterior window placement makes no sense, and actually points towards a larger ship than 467 meters.

Yep, she was detailed to be about twice her official size. Here are two scaling pics, using the Generations Enterprise-B MSD (which extrapolated decks from window rows), a 1532ft/467m Excelsior (Ent-B fins cut off when scaling), a 6ft tall Spock and a 305m Enterprise-A (the Strategic Design blueprints). The dome, which was added in STIV, has windows around indicating surrounding rooms NX-01 style, and a TNG-style lounge at the rear. The physical set was a redress of the Enterprise-A bridge, which clearly would not fit.

 

[Praetor]

Thank you for posting that - although I think your second image is missing.

Drex's Generations cross section did at least get the decks pretty close to right as far as model detailing was concerned. Other details, however... But I'll save that for another thread.

 

[B.J.]

I assume Matt Jefferies didn't participate in the starship status chart (suggesting 97 starships of the 16th design). Maybe he pointed out it's wrong, but they didn't have the time or desire to fix it. Thus the meaning of the last two digits in JRS got a different meaning (changed premise) but there is no reason to assume that the meaning of the first two digits became automatically obsolete, too.
Therefore the first ship of a new class doesn't necessarily have to be "XX01". It can be "602", "2000" and for all we know NCC-1831 might have been the Miranda (class ship).

Okay now you've lost me. Why would they start at anything but 00?

Why not? They have unused numbers, why not put them to use. Defiant-class (NX-74205), case in point.

 

[Praetor]

I assume Matt Jefferies didn't participate in the starship status chart (suggesting 97 starships of the 16th design). Maybe he pointed out it's wrong, but they didn't have the time or desire to fix it. Thus the meaning of the last two digits in JRS got a different meaning (changed premise) but there is no reason to assume that the meaning of the first two digits became automatically obsolete, too.
Therefore the first ship of a new class doesn't necessarily have to be "XX01". It can be "602", "2000" and for all we know NCC-1831 might have been the Miranda (class ship).

Okay now you've lost me. Why would they start at anything but 00?

Why not? They have unused numbers, why not put them to use. Defiant-class (NX-74205), case in point.

Right, sorry... I meant if we're using the Jefferies scheme where 00 is the prototype, 01 is the first etc.

 

[Robert Comsol]

And I just don't see the saucer being at all separable - it looks way too integrated to me, especially at the port and starboard edges, where it blends into the "sled" portion. This should help:

The fillet radius (the feature pointed to with the red arrow in the B/W pic) looks like it might just be part of the "sled" when viewed from above, as you can see in the lower right pic of the studio model. But when viewed from below, you can see that this feature blends into the saucer, and the "sled" portion just cuts straight across below it. It would mean that the lower surface of the saucer is not coplanar with the upper surface of the sled.

I wish there were some better pics of the studio model, but it looks like the upper surface of the "sled" portion is actually the same surface as the floor of the three bays in the saucer.

Now I see (literally) better, thanks. But to me this doesn't really look too integrated, more like a structure which rejoins with the saucer for what is possibly a slight improvement of warp performance (i.e. it rather seems to have characteristics of a modern passenger plane's winglet).

Another odd feature are these horizontal intakes (or whatever these are) at the bow of he "warp sled". Have we ever seen this feature on a post-TOS ship?

And of course the odd silver cylinders at the front caps of the nacelles plus the silver "balls" sticking out from the sled's bottom (probably cylindes extending from the top to the bottom). Have we ever seen this feature on a post-TOS ship?

It has been mentioned that the caps of the nacelles suggest a late 23rd Century design (based on Excelsior's similar but not identical front caps?). I don't see it.

However I'm not that biased not to admit that the pylons' "emergency flush intakes" invoke unmistakable late 23rd Century allusions, because they're the same "flush intakes" as in the pylons of he TMP Enterprise and Reliant, apparently absent on the TOS Enterprise.

But I'm afraid I can only accept this argument if you concur with my theory that the nacelle caps of the TOS Enterprise are not Bussard Ramscoops.

Should you feel these are Bussard Ramscoops then you are aware that the ramscoop idea (design property: glowing orange red) was dropped with the TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior and didn't have an onscreen comeback prior to the Ambassador Class.

Then it would stand to reason that the emergency flush intakes could have been an older concept, featured in the Oberth Class, dropped with the TOS Enterprise before their comeback aboard the TMP Enterprise.

Bob

 

[Robert Comsol]

And what is the "roll bar" on the Miranda if not a type of mission pod, since we see it is sometimes missing?

We see it missing on a Miranda Class vessel 78 years later.
Either this is a retcon flaw (the original purpose of the pod wasn't understod) or by the 24th Century they found better ways to relocate the antimatter pods within the ships.

If we insisted on an intermix chamber coil in the center of Reliant it would inevitably work like the Enterprise's, i.e. feeding the impulse deflection crystal for boosted impulse power. The problem: Reliant's impulse deflection crystal had been phasered to bits and pieces prior to the Mutara battle, so an active vertical intermix core is the last thing we should have seen in the film and at this location.

1. The Republic type - am unable to confirm, but recall the registry as being given on-screen. It could be almost any class. Bob: NCC-1373
2. Constitution 1600 - because of TOS-R? If that's the only reason why, I say meh. I could ignore it, especially if we're trying to be true to the original TOS spirit. Would you presuppose this class was outwardly similar but actually different? Wouldn't this actually make this class something different and the 1700s the "real" Constitution class? Bob: No, this is the logical conclusion (and was a "peace" offering) to all those that assume that there is a Constitution Class with starships that closely resemble the Enterprise
3. Enterprise 1700 - do you subscribe to the Shane Johnson school of Enterprise-class refits? Bob: To paraphrase your avatar's motto: IMO, canon is what Matt Jefferies (pre-production JRS sketch), Bob Justman, Gene Roddenberry and/or Stephen Whitfield established ("Enterprise Class Starship" The Making of Star Trek) in the absence of onscreen information indicating other than "Starship Class" - fanwank is what Greg Jein and Franz Joseph propagated and is widely assumed to be "Constitution Class". Please donate ANY further comments on this issue to the appropriate threads like this one. THANKS!!!
   
4. Entente 2100 - I forget the exact line, but it's in the Epsilon IX chatter somewhere, I think in the extended VHS version. (I don't think they ever call it a "dreadnought" as such.) Bob: Will examine!
5. Constellation 1900 - Agreed that NX-1974 looks dubious, but it was onscreen in TUC on a chart (albeit somewhat hard to see) - can't ignore evidence here but not on TOS-R can ya?
6. Soyuz 1900 - Does make sense, except the decommissioned so soon bit.
7. Excelsior 2500 - Repulse didn't have "bumpers." Bob: You're right, I didn't pay proper attention

Was it explicitly stated in some dialog I'm not remembering that the Horizon's saucer landed?

"A Piece of the Action". Kirk assumes (must have been Starfleet First Contact procedure 100 years earlier) that Bela Oxmyx expects to actually see a Federation vessel landing, thus Kirk advises him "The ship will not land" to avoid wrong expectations.

The four rows of windows on the top of the saucer seem to indicate decks - two rows on the "bridge dome" and two rows on the saucer itself. The bridge dome windows are mostly problematic - they point to two decks within that dome, which is pretty much impossible. At best, the saucer probably has two and a half decks overall, and the horizontal pylon/platform below the saucer (connecting the nacelles) is probably a deck thick. Of course this shot from "Generations" just makes matters worse.

Is there any chance we can have a simulation within the overall length of 395' to feature deck heights of 7' or higher?
I'd really like to see where these portholes could match and where not.

The old assumption has always been shuttle/cargo bays.

...which open up facing the inside of the warp nacelles
Seems rather impractical doesn't it (until the saucer has detached)?

Okay now you've lost me. Why would they start at anything but 00?

In terms of serial numbers (JRS) "00" is not a number at all, it is Zero. But as a contact code it could work.

If you can just land a shuttle or even beam down, why make your ship more complicated with extra seals and joints and other mechana that can fail and leak and cause extra "BOOM" worries? Why also land the main section of your ship at all? What if the natives decide to drop an H-Bomb on you?

Since the Horizon obviously "landed" on Sigma Iotia there must have been a good reason for it. Frankly, I think the producers didn't envision transporter technology 100 years prior to TOS.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

It has been mentioned that the caps of the nacelles suggest a late 23rd Century design (based on Excelsior's similar but not identical front caps?). I don't see it.

Actually, I mentioned that, but I think you misunderstood. I said that the Oberth class nacelles look very similar to the nacelles of the Excelsior study models:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsior-4nacelles.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsiorstudy1-photo.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsiorstudy2-photo.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/Linnear1701/Star Trek Props/LOT45.jpg


Ironically, the fifth study model (the one Nimoy chose), had nacelles that were completely different, but that's not the point here. The point is that based on these four study models, it seems very likely that the Oberth was supposed to be contemporary to the Excelsior, and not any older than, say, TMP.

The Republic type - am unable to confirm, but recall the registry as being given on-screen. It could be almost any class. Bob: NCC-1373

The Republic's registry is 1371.

Constitution 1600 - because of TOS-R? If that's the only reason why, I say meh. I could ignore it, especially if we're trying to be true to the original TOS spirit. Would you presuppose this class was outwardly similar but actually different? Wouldn't this actually make this class something different and the 1700s the "real" Constitution class? Bob: No, this is the logical conclusion (and was a "peace" offering) to all those that assume that there is a Constitution Class with starships that closely resemble the Enterprise

The lowest canonical Constitution registry is the Constellation's, 1017.

Entente 2100 - I forget the exact line, but it's in the Epsilon IX chatter somewhere, I think in the extended VHS version. (I don't think they ever call it a "dreadnought" as such.) Bob: Will examine!

The Entente's registry is 2120.

Constellation 1900 - Agreed that NX-1974 looks dubious, but it was onscreen in TUC on a chart (albeit somewhat hard to see) - can't ignore evidence here but not on TOS-R can ya?

Technically the 1974 registry for the prototype ship is correct, even though it was on a chart nobody could actually see.

Soyuz 1900 - Does make sense, except the decommissioned so soon bit.

LOL, don't even get me started about the Soyuz class

"A Piece of the Action". Kirk assumes (must have been Starfleet First Contact procedure 100 years earlier) that Bela Oxmyx expects to actually see a Federation vessel landing, thus Kirk advises him "The ship will not land" to avoid wrong expectations.

Interesting; I don't ever remember hearing this line about the Horizon possibly landing on the planet. But if the ship was Daedalus class, then it wouldn't have a saucer. Of course there's no canonical evidence it was a Daedalus class, other than that possible desktop model. Either way, it sounds like, based just on the dialogue, that the entire ship landed, which would really not work with the Daedalus class.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I think you misunderstood. I said that the Oberth class nacelles look very similar to the nacelles of the Excelsior study models:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsior-4nacelles.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsiorstudy1-photo.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/excelsiorstudy2-photo.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/Linnear1701/Star%20Trek%20Props/LOT45.jpg

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I'm aware that the last link you provided - WOW - is a study model for a supposedly late 23rd Century design (for ST III).
But I can't help but notice the obvious retro style of the design study. The secondary hull looks more like Baton Rouge and it's even worse with the nacelles. These look like a prolonged SW clone warrior helmet and invoke design style allusions from the Flash Gordon serials and The Rocketeer.
For in-universe applications a possible inspiration what the 10th (or 14th?) pre-TOS Federation design could have looked like. I love it!

The Republic's registry is 1371.

Thanks for the correction. I accidentally mistook the erroneous Marvel registry for the real thing.

The lowest canonical Constitution registry is the Constellation's, 1017.

It's correct that Matt Decker's Constellation had the aforementioned NCC registry, but to conclude that this has to refer to the earliest vessels of the Constitution Class is conjectural. We cannot exclude the possibility that Matt Decker's ship was merely named and numbered to honor the accomplishments of a deceased Constellation of the 10th Federation design.

The Entente's registry is 2120.

If it is mentioned in TMP (alternate cut or whatever), I'd agree.

LOL, don't even get me started about the Soyuz class.

Why not? Please elaborate.

"A Piece of the Action". Kirk assumes (must have been Starfleet First Contact procedure 100 years earlier) that Bela Oxmyx expects to actually see a Federation vessel landing, thus Kirk advises him "The ship will not land" to avoid wrong expectations.

Interesting; I don't ever remember hearing this line about the Horizon possibly landing on the planet. But if the ship was Daedalus class, then it wouldn't have a saucer. Of course there's no canonical evidence it was a Daedalus class, other than that possible desktop model. Either way, it sounds like, based just on the dialogue, that the entire ship landed, which would really not work with the Daedalus class.

Thanks for addressing this issue (I hoped somebody would).

If we started to ignore onscreen TOS dialogue (which in terms of treknological research always comes first, IMHO) and the obvious conclusions we can draw from it, then we might just as well stop he discussion here.

I assume that TPTB that established the Daedalus Class design in DS9 as part of canon (hmm...what about Andrew Probert's genuine Ambassador Class design displayed prominently on the wall of the Enterprise-D's conference lounge? Another topic for another time, but since I'm a pathological Probert flag-waver I can't help, though Andrew was kind enough not to call me "pathological", yet ) were unaware of the implications of this piece of dialogue from "A Piece of the Action" (just because one is a post-TOS expert not automatically makes one a great TOS and pre-TOS expert if you catch my drift ).

Suffice to say I have no issues whatsoever regarding the methodology to use pre-TOS Jefferies concepts to create pre-TOS starships and therefore consider the Daedalus Class as a historic part of canon.

But I, too, cannot possibly imagine a Deadalus Class starship like the Horizon to be capable landing on a planet as the vessel or parts of it would buckle under their own weight much like a stranded whale, neither can I imagine they had magic technology (like they apparently had for Voyager) at this point in time in the in-universe history.

So how can we possibly rationalize it?

I'd say it's a bad thing to start any kind of relation based on a lie. Had the Horizon crew just used a shuttle craft and present this as their "ship", the Sigma Iotians would eventually find out in the future.
As fully adopted UFP members doing historical research the older UFP members would have a diplomatic tiger on their tail to explain why they started relations based on a lie, especially (see the very bottom of this post) since the UFP apparently cherishes the "truth" above almost all things...

But if the Horizon's secondary hull and nacelles merely registered as a "warp sled", then the actual "ship", capable of independent (impulse power) propulsion, would be the primary hull (i.e. sphere).
We'd have a reasonable explanation without the necessity of going into rationalization overdrive, IMHO.

If we look at Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise "ringship" designs and the subsequent XCV 330 proposals, we'll notice that in the early design stage there wasn't the "enviropod" but actually a space shuttle reminiscent vehicle with the obvious capability to detach and land on a planet.

Back to the Daedalus Class I see a rather flimsy cylinder connecting the sphere with the secondary hull that somehow doesn't make sense to me in terms of structural warp stress durability. As a means to facilitate separation of the primary sphere from the secondary hull, I could buy that.

Apparently, "the ship won't land" line is an afterthought of the meticulous screenplay writer/s David P. Harmon and/or Gene L. Coon.
A basic plot premise is that the Sigma Iotians demand physical proof that Kirk and company are not merely local imposters (for all we know the transporter beam effect could be a part of a local entertainment show featuring their version of a Chris Angel ).

Any foresighted Federation official of the mid-22nd Century "First Contact program" would have understood this and therefore a physical display of the "ship" was inevitable (a concept that became obsolete with the introduction of the Prime Directive. A warp capable culture would no longer have required such a physical proof, having other means to determine that the visitors from outer space are for real).

But what kind of physical display? A spaceship with warp nacelles that could and would have instantly been mistaken as cannons, rocket or missile launchers by the alien natives! ?!

Obviously a display that awes but does not intimidate and I believe the only shape that qualifies as such would be the sphere as it's a universal shape that carries familiar allusions to stars and planetary bodies (think E.T....). And the Daedalus Class primary hull / sphere has no external features that could be mistaken for weapons, neither does the Oberth Class saucer.

I further think that the Olympic Class hospital ships of the late 24th Century perfectly reflect this design philosophy and "We come in peace and mean [can do] no harm" intention.

I rest my case.

Bob

 

[Timo]

It's not as if ships like NX, Constitution or even Federation would have anything identifiable as a weapon by an "early industrial" civilization, though. The Oberth doesn't score extra points there, whether integrated or separated.

As for landing a wrecking ball, the most ideal shape for a vessel designed for three-dimensional combat, I don't think it would work well in any level of civilization. Old Egyptians would be terrified that it would roll over their villages!

neither can I imagine they had magic technology

But if they don't have magical technology from the get-go, they can't have starships, plain and simple. The Enterprises, all of them, would certainly "collapse under their own weight" if attempting to move in a zero-gee environment. The Oberth likewise.

Any foresighted Federation official of the mid-22nd Century "First Contact program" would have understood this and therefore a physical display of the "ship" was inevitable

Why? If the natives don't take the intrepid skipper's say-so, what's the point of not displaying weapons? Threats of mass destruction would obviously be the only thing such people would listen. If Earth wants to deal with them at all, it better be ready to stage some executions.

Use of transporters would completely sidestep such problems, of course. If a specific individual needed to be convinced, he or she could be kidnapped effortlessly with a transporter, shown what space looks like, and returned - or then thrown into a brig so that the landing party could beam down to deal with more reasonable people.

"Inoffensive display" makes no sense in any circumstances. Landing of a starship might, though, but that's really a separate issue.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[B.J.]

But I, too, cannot possibly imagine a Deadalus Class starship like the Horizon to be capable landing on a planet as the vessel or parts of it would buckle under their own weight much like a stranded whale, neither can I imagine they had magic technology (like they apparently had for Voyager) at this point in time in the in-universe history.

I'm with Timo here, in that it most certainly could be designed to withstand the stresses of being in a 1G field, even with today's technology. My only problem with having ships like this and Voyager land is not an issue with the ship itself, but where they land. Putting that much weight into just a few relatively small legs requires a very sturdy area to land on. Large aircraft can't land at just any airport for this same reason, in that not all runways are built to withstand them. (I can just imagine that first time we saw Voyager land, but with the forward legs sinking into the ground up to the hull! )

I rest my case.

Still not buying that the Oberth can separate.

 

[Praetor]

Now I see (literally) better, thanks. But to me this doesn't really look too integrated, more like a structure which rejoins with the saucer for what is possibly a slight improvement of warp performance (i.e. it rather seems to have characteristics of a modern passenger plane's winglet).

Even so, where would the separation line be between the saucer and the rest? It would almost make more sense for the whole horizontal deck to land, sans struts and pod.

Another odd feature are these horizontal intakes (or whatever these are) at the bow of he "warp sled". Have we ever seen this feature on a post-TOS ship?

This is what I was calling attention to earlier - they resemble the stripes on the pylons too, which we traditionally associate with flush intakes on the TMP Enterprise and relatives. Speculating about them probably doesn't help much, but it stands to reason the modelmakers put them on the struts because they assumed the struts fulfill the same function as those on the Enterprise do. I suggested earlier: perhaps the horizontal pylon is just another strut?

And of course the odd silver cylinders at the front caps of the nacelles plus the silver "balls" sticking out from the sled's bottom (probably cylinders extending from the top to the bottom). Have we ever seen this feature on a post-TOS ship?

Not that I recall, but the Reliant and Stargazer had numerous weird greeblies on the hull.

It has been mentioned that the caps of the nacelles suggest a late 23rd Century design (based on Excelsior's similar but not identical front caps?). I don't see it.

As Dukhat said, it's more the resemblance to the Excelsior study models. I could see these nacelles fitting in a post-TOS/pre-TMP(refit) design aesthetic though.

However I'm not that biased not to admit that the pylons' "emergency flush intakes" invoke unmistakable late 23rd Century allusions, because they're the same "flush intakes" as in the pylons of he TMP Enterprise and Reliant, apparently absent on the TOS Enterprise.

Well, if the vents on the top/inward side of the TOS Enterprise fulfilled a similar function, then no problem. And again, I'm starting to think more and more than the Oberth almost represents a "prefit" design, predating the late 23rd century tech a bit.

But I'm afraid I can only accept this argument if you concur with my theory that the nacelle caps of the TOS Enterprise are not Bussard Ramscoops.

Should you feel these are Bussard Ramscoops then you are aware that the ramscoop idea (design property: glowing orange red) was dropped with the TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior and didn't have an onscreen comeback prior to the Ambassador Class.

Unless the ramscoops are just of a covered variety in the movies era.

Then it would stand to reason that the emergency flush intakes could have been an older concept, featured in the Oberth Class, dropped with the TOS Enterprise before their comeback aboard the TMP Enterprise.

Change "dropped" to "changed" for TOS, and I could see this working.

We see it missing on a Miranda Class vessel 78 years later.
Either this is a retcon flaw (the original purpose of the pod wasn't understod) or by the 24th Century they found better ways to relocate the antimatter pods within the ships.

Yes, but we also see ships with it during the same era, with relatively high registries.

If we insisted on an intermix chamber coil in the center of Reliant it would inevitably work like the Enterprise's, i.e. feeding the impulse deflection crystal for boosted impulse power. The problem: Reliant's impulse deflection crystal had been phasered to bits and pieces prior to the Mutara battle, so an active vertical intermix core is the last thing we should have seen in the film and at this location.

One of the impulse deflection crystals had been phasered - don't forget there's also a ventral one. It is entirely possible that the horizontal intermix chamber aligns with the ventral deflection crystal, with an extension going to the dorsal crystal to power the impulse engines. (Which would make me think the impulse engines would have failed at this point either way...)

The Republic type - am unable to confirm, but recall the registry as being given on-screen. It could be almost any class. Bob: NCC-1371

Corrected - but this was actually stated in dialog, right?

Constitution 1600 - because of TOS-R? If that's the only reason why, I say meh. I could ignore it, especially if we're trying to be true to the original TOS spirit. Would you presuppose this class was outwardly similar but actually different? Wouldn't this actually make this class something different and the 1700s the "real" Constitution class? Bob: No, this is the logical conclusion (and was a "peace" offering) to all those that assume that there is a Constitution Class with starships that closely resemble the Enterprise

To mitigate the Constellation issue? I'd avoid making any peace offerings of this type.

Enterprise 1700 - do you subscribe to the Shane Johnson school of Enterprise-class refits? Bob: To paraphrase your avatar's motto: IMO, canon is what Matt Jefferies (pre-production JRS sketch), Bob Justman, Gene Roddenberry and/or Stephen Whitfield established ("Enterprise Class Starship" The Making of Star Trek) in the absence of onscreen information indicating other than "Starship Class" - fanwank is what Greg Jein and Franz Joseph propagated and is widely assumed to be "Constitution Class". Please donate ANY further comments on this issue to the appropriate threads like this one. THANKS!!!

Just asking the question.

I am of similar mindset, as my motto demonstrates. Although I have great respect for Mr. Jein and Mr. Okuda in other areas, I dismiss many of Mr. Jein's conjectures, particularly where "Court Martial" is concerned.

Entente 2100 - I forget the exact line, but it's in the Epsilon IX chatter somewhere, I think in the extended VHS version. (I don't think they ever call it a "dreadnought" as such.) Bob: Will examine!

Dukhat is right, 2120 is specifically correct, I just put the 2100 as the series it belonged to. As I recall, you have to listen quite carefully to hear it. The clear implication here would seem to be that the NX-2000 already existed, in some form, by TMP. Agree/disagree?

"A Piece of the Action". Kirk assumes (must have been Starfleet First Contact procedure 100 years earlier) that Bela Oxmyx expects to actually see a Federation vessel landing, thus Kirk advises him "The ship will not land" to avoid wrong expectations.

Ah, I had forgotten that line. I had always taken it to indicate Kirk's assumption of ignorance on Oxmyx's part, rather than an expectation.

Is there any chance we can have a simulation within the overall length of 395' to feature deck heights of 7' or higher?
I'd really like to see where these portholes could match and where not.

Yep, I will work on it this evening. I believe I still have the files I used when helping LCARS24.

...which open up facing the inside of the warp nacelles Seems rather impractical doesn't it (until the saucer has detached)?

I don't disagree on that one.

In terms of serial numbers (JRS) "00" is not a number at all, it is Zero. But as a contact code it could work.

Well, if we go by Excelsior, the prototype appears to get the 00, the first production ship appears to get the 01 if Enterprise is indicative.

Since the Horizon obviously "landed" on Sigma Iotia there must have been a good reason for it. Frankly, I think the producers didn't envision transporter technology 100 years prior to TOS.

But surely they envisioned shuttlecraft? I actually like the idea of older starships having separable, landable components - but I'm just not sure about the evidence for it.

The point is that based on these four study models, it seems very likely that the Oberth was supposed to be contemporary to the Excelsior, and not any older than, say, TMP.

To pick a nit, the design for it isn't any older. We don't necessarily preclude a refit, do we?

Interesting; I don't ever remember hearing this line about the Horizon possibly landing on the planet. But if the ship was Daedalus class, then it wouldn't have a saucer. Of course there's no canonical evidence it was a Daedalus class, other than that possible desktop model. Either way, it sounds like, based just on the dialogue, that the entire ship landed, which would really not work with the Daedalus class.

Does anyone else get the image from "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" when the Trade Federation battleship sphere had landed? Might actually make the sphere at the end of the boom make sense...

But I can't help but notice the obvious retro style of the design study. The secondary hull looks more like Baton Rouge and it's even worse with the nacelles. These look like a prolonged SW clone warrior helmet and invoke design style allusions from the Flash Gordon serials and The Rocketeer.
For in-universe applications a possible inspiration what the 10th (or 14th?) pre-TOS Federation design could have looked like. I love it!

Interesting take... it's certainly "simpler"... but I'm not sure about retro. Would ILM have known what the Baton Rouge looked like?

It's correct that Matt Decker's Constellation had the aforementioned NCC registry, but to conclude that this has to refer to the earliest vessels of the Constitution Class is conjectural. We cannot exclude the possibility that Matt Decker's ship was merely named and numbered to honor the accomplishments of a deceased Constellation of the 10th Federation design.

If we're counting, I vote for this option. There are other good explanations out there, but most of them try too hard. Why couldn't the modelmakers have just used 1710 instead? Sigh.

If we started to ignore onscreen TOS dialogue (which in terms of treknological research always comes first, IMHO) and the obvious conclusions we can draw from it, then we might just as well stop he discussion here.

I assume that TPTB that established the Daedalus Class design in DS9 as part of canon (hmm...what about Andrew Probert's genuine Ambassador Class design displayed prominently on the wall of the Enterprise-D's conference lounge? Another topic for another time, but since I'm a pathological Probert flag-waver I can't help, though Andrew was kind enough not to call me "pathological", yet ) were unaware of the implications of this piece of dialogue from "A Piece of the Action" (just because one is a post-TOS expert not automatically makes one a great TOS and pre-TOS expert if you catch my drift ).

Suffice to say I have no issues whatsoever regarding the methodology to use pre-TOS Jefferies concepts to create pre-TOS starships and therefore consider the Daedalus Class as a historic part of canon.

I agreed with you until the last paragraph. I think it's ok to use production concepts to speculate - but I don't think they're ever going to be truly conclusive.

But I, too, cannot possibly imagine a Deadalus Class starship like the Horizon to be capable landing on a planet as the vessel or parts of it would buckle under their own weight much like a stranded whale, neither can I imagine they had magic technology (like they apparently had for Voyager) at this point in time in the in-universe history.

So how can we possibly rationalize it?

Big, big, big landing legs. How would the Enterprise saucer have landed?

I'd say it's a bad thing to start any kind of relation based on a lie. Had the Horizon crew just used a shuttle craft and present this as their "ship", the Sigma Iotians would eventually find out in the future.

Agreed... but why wouldn't they have said it was a shuttle?

If we look at Jefferies' early TOS Enterprise "ringship" designs and the subsequent XCV 330 proposals, we'll notice that in the early design stage there wasn't the "enviropod" but actually a space shuttle reminiscent vehicle with the obvious capability to detach and land on a planet.

Interesting - and indeed there did seem to be. "Warp sled" gets some more credence.

As for landing a wrecking ball, the most ideal shape for a vessel designed for three-dimensional combat, I don't think it would work well in any level of civilization. Old Egyptians would be terrified that it would roll over their villages!

Ha. That needs to be an episode.

But if they don't have magical technology from the get-go, they can't have starships, plain and simple. The Enterprises, all of them, would certainly "collapse under their own weight" if attempting to move in a zero-gee environment. The Oberth likewise.

Agreed. The structure is certainly reinforced by various Treknological magics, without which it would squish at warp speeds.

Why? If the natives don't take the intrepid skipper's say-so, what's the point of not displaying weapons? Threats of mass destruction would obviously be the only thing such people would listen. If Earth wants to deal with them at all, it better be ready to stage some executions.

Use of transporters would completely sidestep such problems, of course. If a specific individual needed to be convinced, he or she could be kidnapped effortlessly with a transporter, shown what space looks like, and returned - or then thrown into a brig so that the landing party could beam down to deal with more reasonable people.

Agreed. If anything, people appearing out of thin air almost makes them seem more impressive.