Talk: Dauntless class

Speed

I removed (with regards to "over fifteen light years in only five minutes; capable of traveling from the Alpha Quadrant to the Delta Quadrant in four months"):

This translates to an average cruising speed of 22 light years per hour, or 192720 times the speed of light. This translates to slightly under Warp 9.9999 on the Revised Cochrane Scale, the speed of subspace radio transmission. This could also represent a burst speed of up to 300 light years per hour.

I feel this is too speculative. First of all, we don't seem to recognize any sort of "Revise Cochrane Scale" -- as that seems to have been derived from the Star Trek Encyclopedia and related sources, so therefore even if you do the math (where: 60,000ly/3mo = 27.8 ly/hr) there is no canon scale to relate it to. Additionally, there was no duration referenced with regards to the Dauntless journey of 15+ light years, other than it took Voyager 2 days at "high warp" to catch up, and nothing about "five minutes". Therefore, speculation about a "burst of speed up to 300 ly/hr" is unsupported. --Alan del Beccio 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Split

The studio model section has enough info to be it's own page. - Archduk3 02:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support, also the section is relatively so large as to overshadow the "in-universe" POV of the article--Sennim 13:12, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Removing Federation References

Proposal: Removing this from Federation Ship Classes category, and removing the "Dauntless"-class name, as this ship is not Federation in design, or construction. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 20:30, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Again, removed Federation references. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 03:23, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Per policy, it was restored, again. - Archduk3 05:01, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

What part of policy did my edit break? --Appalachia Actual (talk) 20:15, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

"Tolerance in valid resources - The archivist's assessment of the trustworthiness of the character". You don't get to decide that the class name of this ship is different just because we "know" it's a lie. Without knowing the "truth", the lie is the most valid resource. Cherry picking which parts of the "lie" you want to believe isn't helping your case either. - Archduk3 21:30, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

I never changed the class name, just removed the superfluous episode synopsis, and removed the references to this being a Federation ship, while adding a few new lines on the technical aspects of the ship itself. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 14:51, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

According to the appearane in "Azati Prime", it is a Federation starship. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:02, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

It was never specifically mentioned as a Federation ship. There was also a Klingon Vor'cha present at the battle - For all we know the Federation had an alliance of ships present, just like in the Dominion War. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 21:26, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

For all you know maybe, but the Klingons were explicitly mentioned to be a part of the Federation at that time. - Archduk3 02:19, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that to be the case. Throughout the Dominion War, the Allied fleet was mentioned to be "Federation", but that didn't make the Klingons, or Romulans to be members of the Federation. --Appalachia Actual (talk) 12:35, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Dauntless class

They didn't try very hard to not copy the original in this. The difference in its profile is not any less significant that variations seen in other starship variants between themselves, and the bridge is awful close too. It is pretty much the same layout and Chinese lantern decor... a co-opted alien class design (which was also apparently used in the 26th century) doesn't make it any less than what our eyes tell us it is supposed to be.–Gvsualan (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

According to StarTrek.com this ship is a Dauntless-class. [1]

Also, according to Kevin Hageman, "Starfleet took the technology from the Dauntless and then created an actual starship", which is mentioned here (but I wish there was a source to the original quote.) –Gvsualan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not that surprised they adopted the Dauntless-class design. In ENT: "Azati Prime", the Dauntless made a cameo appearance. In a possible 26th century, the ship was participating in the pivotal Battle of Procyon V. Perhaps this ties in with that cameo.--AlexJarrett242 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rename proposal

At StarTrek.com st.com, the Federation Dauntless was classified as a Dauntless-class starship. Considering that we have allowed class names mentioned at this site to be used when identifying things in the past, I would like to suggest that we rename the page to Dauntless-class (Federation). This naming convention is in alignment with past practices as well, for example, the various Antares-classes mentioned in canon.Memphis77 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The original Dauntless class was only so named to support ruse that it was a Federation starship class. This is essentially a very similar act of B copying A as was the case of the mirror universe Terrans copying the Federation's Defiant class. I'd almost think that because, as mentioned in the above discussion that was meant to lead to this discussion, that since we see an (alternate) future Federation using the "alien" design (as we are presently treating that info) and the contemporary Federation also using the "alien" design, that it just be listed under one name and just have two different tabs in the sidebar and double categorize it.–Gvsualan (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that this Federation design should be at Dauntless class and the current "Dauntless class" article should be at Species 116 vessel, because that's what it actually is and how Arturis refers to it in dialogue. -- UncertainError (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with UncertainError, unless we go ahead and have one page called Dauntless class and have both the alien and Starfleet ship be considered Dauntless class ships; that'd work too.---Noah Tall (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So what we both said, with "making up" a name, and acknowledging the producers obvious intent to do what they did, and accomplished. --Gvsualan (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why alternate timeline?

I'm a bit confused. I know in the season 1 finale they discovered Chakotay is in an alternate timeline, but that doesn't mean the Dauntless and all the scenes showing it were in an alternate timeline? Kidburla (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Now I understand where I went wrong before - the Species 116 version was only operated by the Federation in an alternate timeline (Azati Prime). This is why it's marked as alternate timeline on the Species 116 tab of the infobox. The Federation version (which has some slight differences in construction) was operated by them in the prime timeline, hence why the Federation tab of the infobox has no "alternate timeline" qualifier. I thought the tabs only changed the image and not the whole infobox, which is why I was confused before. Kidburla (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Split

split the Dauntless class article that is set to split into two with one article being called Dauntless class (Federation) or Dauntless class (Starfleet) and the other article being called Dauntless class (Species 116) Simpsons who (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Simpsons who

• I agree. These should be two separate articles. Appalachia Actual (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)