Landing Runabouts?

[Crewman47]

In almost every episode we see the crew use a Runabout on a mission why did they always use the transporter to go down to a planet instead of landing, which the Runabout is quite capable of doing? Was it a case of energy use where beaming down is less intensive than landing or something else.

I would've thought it would be more convienant to always land instead of beaming down personnel and equipment as landing means everything is easier to access and more secure for the Runabout, cause as we've seen it is sometimes left alone on computer control and can sometimes be discovered by any uninvited guests passing by.

 

[od0_ital]

They didn't always beam down, but I assume its cheaper, production-wise, to show characters beam down, rather than have to haul a runabout wall out to the location to show that the small ship is on the ground.

 

[22 Stars]

Good question, because there are a few times that beaming caused significant problems getting back to the ship, whereas if they had landed, once freed they could make their way back to the ship and blast off.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, a landed and parked runabout would be at the mercy of all sorts of planetary threats, whereas a runabout parked in orbit could only be accessed by a select few threats. For example natives with bows and arrows would be right out...

Also, an orbiting runabout can probably do better sensor scans than a parked one. And unless you park on a mountaintop, a landed runabout's transporters are going to be shadowed by the terrain - and transporters don't appear to be capable of piercing much terrain. A couple of kilometers of rock seems to be the usual limit. Using the runabout as your orbiting eye, transporter relay and possible remote-controlled gunnery position sounds more practical than using it as your camp tent!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's possible that while a runabout is capable of planetfall, it may not be considered a routine operation, but only something to be done when absolutely necessary or in an emergency, like in the case of the Intrepid-class.

 

[happydave]

Wouldn't parking a runabout on a planet also cause more waste of fuel/energy? Instead of just beaming up/down you have to contend with the entire gravitational pull of the planet, weather and everything else such as bad natives. I'd prefer to just leave it in orbit.


Hell it could be in the runabout guidebook. So they've all been taught to leave it in orbit much like we're all taught to use seatbelts (even though chance of an accident is low), so much that it's basically ingrained in us. (I guess except for the Americans who don't have such laws)

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

49 of 50 American states DO have seatbelt laws (those sorts of laws are considered a state rather than federal matter). Do your research, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

 

[backstept]

this is almost certainly a production concern . . . in TOS they used the transporters mostly to avoid having to show the shuttle landing, using the full size set piece etc in order to save money . . . same with the other shows except Enterprise for the most part

 

[happydave]

49 of 50 American states DO have seatbelt laws (those sorts of laws are considered a state rather than federal matter). Do your research, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

I'm well aware of Seat Belt Laws in the USA. I know it's covered to an extent, but not for all passengers and all seats. It's a bit hit and miss and confusing in the extreme. I'm talking about something where it's for everyone so it's just done by all people. As I said the law in the US isn't as strong as the commonwealth countries listed.

 

[Timo]

Wouldn't parking a runabout on a planet also cause more waste of fuel/energy?

Probably. But runabouts seem to have big enough fuel tanks that fuel expenditure is never a concern. Sisko doesn't have to pay for his deuterium... And probably the runabout expends so much more fuel doing three seconds of warp five than doing planetary landings and takeoffs that it would be pennywise to avoid planetfall for that reason.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

49 of 50 American states DO have seatbelt laws (those sorts of laws are considered a state rather than federal matter). Do your research, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

I'm well aware of Seat Belt Laws in the USA. I know it's covered to an extent, but not for all passengers and all seats. It's a bit hit and miss and confusing in the extreme. I'm talking about something where it's for everyone so it's just done by all people. As I said the law in the US isn't as strong as the commonwealth countries listed.

The ONLY absence of seatbelt laws is in New Hampshire. And again, it is because the federal government is NOT supposed to have the power to make those sorts of laws. The states are supposed to. If you have a problem with New Hampshire, find someone there who's submitting a bill to get a law passed, and support them.

Well, it used to be it wasn't supposed to--given what's happened to our Constitution now, I think the feds just about have a blank check to do anything they want.

 

[Admiral Shran]

It's most likely a production issue. The whole reason they created the transporter for TOS, in the first place, was so that they didn't have to haul sets around to locations all the time. It was cheaper that way.

 

[SpyOne]

49 of 50 American states DO have seatbelt laws (those sorts of laws are considered a state rather than federal matter). Do your research, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

I'm well aware of Seat Belt Laws in the USA. I know it's covered to an extent, but not for all passengers and all seats. It's a bit hit and miss and confusing in the extreme. I'm talking about something where it's for everyone so it's just done by all people. As I said the law in the US isn't as strong as the commonwealth countries listed.

The ONLY absence of seatbelt laws is in New Hampshire. And again, it is because the federal government is NOT supposed to have the power to make those sorts of laws. The states are supposed to. If you have a problem with New Hampshire, find someone there who's submitting a bill to get a law passed, and support them.

Well, it used to be it wasn't supposed to--given what's happened to our Constitution now, I think the feds just about have a blank check to do anything they want.

He was pretty clear, in the bit you quoted, that it wasn't things like New Hampshire he was talking about, it was things like how 15 states on that list only require front seat passengers to wear their belts: the back seat is a belt-free zone. And 11 more states only require back seat passengers to be belted if they are children.

Although I don't see any list of "commonwealth countries" that might have stronger laws. It looks like the European Union only requires belts for drivers, though European Union nations have laws requiring them for other passengers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#Seat_belt_legislation_around_the_world

 

[Tyberius]

Hey, to get the seatbelt thing back on topic; maybe seatbelts are sometimes required by the planetary government and the runabout crew doesn't want to buckle up, so beam-down it is.

 

[StarryEyed]

Although it doesn't make much sense from a reality standpoint, shuttles in Star Trek are terribly fragile. They crash all the time! It's simply a lot safer to leave them in orbit.

 

[Tiberius]

OTOH, a landed and parked runabout would be at the mercy of all sorts of planetary threats, whereas a runabout parked in orbit could only be accessed by a select few threats. For example natives with bows and arrows would be right out...

"Look out! They have blow darts! Hull integrity is down to 37%!"

Also, an orbiting runabout can probably do better sensor scans than a parked one. And unless you park on a mountaintop, a landed runabout's transporters are going to be shadowed by the terrain - and transporters don't appear to be capable of piercing much terrain. A couple of kilometers of rock seems to be the usual limit. Using the runabout as your orbiting eye, transporter relay and possible remote-controlled gunnery position sounds more practical than using it as your camp tent!

Timo Saloniemi

I do agree, having an orbital platform does make more sense in many cases.

But I think that the main reason was speed. Why spend several minutes flying down through the atmosphere, finding a landing spot, landing and then walking to wherever you need to go when you can step into the transporter and be there in 6 seconds?

 

[Tosk]

In regards to landing a runabout vs beaming, you could argue that they weigh the necessity based on what they are there to do. Two or less people travelling back and forth? Beaming. Picking up more than two people? Land. (Such as in the Circle trilogy.)

 

[-Brett-]

Those runabouts are pretty good sized. Finding a flat area big enough and close enough to whatever point of interest they're beaming to in a particular episode might be a factor as well.

 

[Tiberius]

I doubt they'd need any larger space that your average military helicopter...

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I think they are equally long as a good size truck and about three times as wide thanks to the nacelles.