Landing Starships

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

If I remember right, the Klingon Bird of Prey in The Search for Spock was the first time we saw a starship land. Did we ever see a landing of any kind of full size ship back on the original series? The way I understand the intentions of Star Trek is that capital ships aren't too big to land, but rather aren't designed with that in mind.

Outside of the Klingon Bird of Prey, have we seen starship landings before Voyager? Alien ships count, crash landings don't. That said, the crash of the Ent-D saucer is breath taking and still holds up for me in 2020.

I'm pretty sure the Defiant-class was designed with landing in mind. I mean, it's smaller than Voyager and kinda flat, so why not? I think the Equinox and Prometheus were capable of landings.

What other ships were designed to land by the production team, or at least look like they could land?

I wish we saw more of this in Star Trek. Not on the regular, but more often than what we've seen so far.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Beaming was invented so ships/shuttles didn't have to land (too expensive for the studio back in the 60s) and I've never read anything about the original Enterprise even being considered for planetary landing.

According to the MSD the Defiant-Class has the same landing struts as the Intrepid-Class, so it should be possible, though like the latter the need to actually do this would be very limited--given the fact that they have transporters and shuttles to get people to the surface when needed.

Voyager's ability to land was really more of a gimmick to make her stand out--same way we say the E-D separate and reattach its saucer in episode one.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Yes, it's a gimmick, but it was also an attempt to take the hero ship somewhere new, the ground. Yes, shuttles and transporters are a thing. I want to focus on actual landings, not beaming. Running with that, I guess your argument wouls be why land the whole ship instead of simply taking a shuttle?

What advantages are there to landing the ship itself instead of taking a shuttle? Assume transporters are unavailable, because plot.

 

[Timo]

We saw relatively few starships in TOS, and none were seen landing - so when these were first witnessed in space, and their crews then planetside (say, "Spock's Brain"), we are left wondering whether they landed or beamed down. Transporters seemed like common technology in that era, so landing would generally be the less likely option, but in said "Spock's Brain", the ship additionally disappeared from space, suggesting landing as a potential stealth measure.

Shuttles are of course always an option, too: in "A Piece of the Action", it is sort of implied the old Horizon did not have transporters, but whether she herself ever landed...

TAS gives us the first visually confirmed alien landings of vessels larger than the average shuttle: the Kzinti land on a (potentially low-gravity) random rock in their police ship, and the Phylosian starships wait for action on the ground.

TNG made mention of characters hiding their ships down below, but we didn't really see ships land or take off. Then again, we saw an absolutely humongous space lifeform take off with little effort...

The movie Insurrection showed that a large ship can apparently effortlessly land underwater and then take off - something ST:Into Darkness later confirmed with a vengeance (also showing a Vengeance attempt landing on top of SF HQ, but damage to that ship confused the issue of viability of such landings).

ENT then gave us the retro view, with lots and lots of ships of all sorts landing and taking off. The hero starship of Earth manufacture did not appear to have any problem landing to rooftop level of New York and performing low-speed maneuvers there, say.

In all, this reinforces the original idea that landing a starship is never impossible but, for a nice balance between realism and futurism, is for the most part unnecessary or not recommended.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[publiusr]

Well, with these city sized lava tubes and all, it is a great place to hide.

Land if there is enough interference in the atmosphere, and shuttles aren’t enough.

Inspect the hull, do work without notice

 

[Timo]

What advantages are there to landing the ship itself instead of taking a shuttle? Assume transporters are unavailable, because plot.

Even if they were available, hiding in the clutter is a valid reason for going down. Intimidating the surface dwellers is another, even if it makes the ship more vulnerable than necessary (seldom a concern, because the folks most likely to be intimidated by the display would be folks unable to fight back even at short ranges). Quick embarking or disembarking is a third reason: episodes like "Ensigns of Command" emphasize the bottleneck nature of transporting or shuttling, and big doors on the side of your starship would be quite helpful there. Repairs may sometimes also be facilitated by landing, such as in VOY "Nightingale".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Other than The BoP and Voyager (discounting the E-D saucer as that was a crash more than a landing) I can't think of other examples when a full sized starship landed, most of the time it was shuttles that were sent down, so there's no way to know how many might be designed with this feature.

A few look like it might be viable, for example Galor-Class ships have a relatively flat ventral side that would make it suitable, but I don't see the Cardassians putting themselves into such a vulnerable position (seeing as how their internal architecture has the CO above all their underlings) then I would think the Cardassians would prefer to keep ships in orbit and show their dominance from on high.

There will be some reasons when taking a starship down might be the only option, if transporters don't work and the atmosphere is too volatile for a shuttle to survive then the ship would be hardier and more robust, though that does then put dozens/hundreds at risk--so what they're going down for would have to be worth it. There is also repairs (assuming no access to a starbase) or if the ship is used to get them from base to a planet they're studying, for them to land and then use it as a base for a prolonged survey, then to depart and return the team back to base (a lab with warp engines basically).

 

[Timo]

The thing is, landing shouldn't be a "feature" at all. Rather, it's something built in to starshipness to begin with.

A starship's propulsion system is strong enough to generate at least one gee of acceleration (and presumably hundreds).

A starship's propulsion system is durable enough to sustain such acceleration for at least weeks (and presumably years).

A starship's onboard gravity manipulation systems are strong enough to compensate for at least that one gee (and presumably hundreds - or then billions, if warp involves Newtonian acceleration, too).

A starship is strong enough to withstand assorted impacts and weapons hits, and can fly through mountains basically as easily as through air, water, buildings or other such low density obstacles.

A starship can settle on the ground on any arbitrary hull part, given the strength, the indifference to gravity and acceleration, and the apparent indifference to orientation as regards all these.

What we see isn't in contradiction of this. Ships do fly through mountains essentially unharmed even when pre-damaged, and hover above ground with ease. If a ship is having a difficult time down in an atmopshere, such as in "Arsenal of Freedom" or "Equinox", this involves a special maneuver deliberately devised to place the ship in jeopardy for tactical gain; if no such gain is sought, a ship can move at warp within an atmosphere (or, presumably, a mountain) just as easily as through space.

It's just that sometimes Superman chooses to walk.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shawnster]

We see the Vulcan survey ship "T'Plana-Hath" land on Earth at the end of Star Trek: Generations.

 

[Timo]

Or then that's one of her shuttles.

Or one of the shuttles of the Vesaya, or the K'Poing, or whatnot: the name T'Plana-Hath is not a canonical one.

(It's First Contact, btw. The starship landing in Generations was somewhat more impressive.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[valkyrie013]

I can see Starships Hovering over land, or flying ( like that star destroyer in Rogue One) and we have the JJ Prise constructed on the ground, and land in the ocean ( Stupid..just stupid Said in story that they needed line of sight to beem ( when they needed this? EVER?) be easy to be IN Orbit with line of sight?? HUH? )
I think smaller ships may have a landing ability, but the larger ones landing is a 1 way trip.

 

[BillJ]

The Enterprise was being built on the ground in Star Trek (2009).

Ninja'd by @valkyrie013

 

[ChallengerHK]

Decades ago Hal Clement write a piece about how the Enterprise design was too weak to even function in space, let alone on a planet surface. On the other hand, he flat out took the ideas of advanced alloys and designs and tractor-beam "rigging" off the table for discussion.

 

[Timo]

...That's a bit like saying that Saturn V could never have flown, least of all to the Moon, because packing that much black powder in a tin can would never work.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ChallengerHK]

In fairness to him, he was a hard sf writer, and he was approaching sf as such. He was a really nice guy, and a smart guy, but his go to approach was to look at how realistic the science was.

 

[XCV330]

It would have made sense that the Sauser sections of starfleet ships are the way they are FOR planetary landings. Might also explain why starfleet ships with the long gooseneck are the exception and not the rule. If you have enough delta v to move around solar system at relativistic velocities with near instant acceleration, plus all that handy gravity plating under your butt, getting up and out of a gravity well shouldn't be much of a problem.

But yeah, it would have been a huge demand on set design. Enterprise was supposed to be as big as a large naval ship. It just would not work. They finally saw what it might look like in TMP, and it does indeed look cool. Saucers landing on worlds looks cool, such as Day the Earth Stood Still, or even Enterprise's spiritual and slightly creative predecessor the C-57D, are much smaller. The models looked ok by conventions of the time, and you wouldn't have needed every studio in Pinewood to film a 1:1 scale exterior set.

 

[The Wormhole]

have we seen starship landings before Voyager?

No. In fact, before the episode The 37s aired, the fact that Voyager was going to land in the episode was a Big Deal. Entertainment Tonight even had an entire segment devoted entirely to the fact that a starship was going to land in an upcoming episode of Star Trek the week before The 37s aired.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

What about the Klingon Bird of Prey in Star Trek 3&4?

 

[Dukhat]

What about the Klingon Bird of Prey in Star Trek 3&4?

I think @The Wormhole was referring to Starfleet ships, not Klingon BoPs.

 

[MAGolding]

Decades ago Hal Clement write a piece about how the Enterprise design was too weak to even function in space, let alone on a planet surface. On the other hand, he flat out took the ideas of advanced alloys and designs and tractor-beam "rigging" off the table for discussion.

...That's a bit like saying that Saturn V could never have flown, least of all to the Moon, because packing that much black powder in a tin can would never work.

Timo Saloniemi

In fairness to him, he was a hard sf writer, and he was approaching sf as such. He was a really nice guy, and a smart guy, but his go to approach was to look at how realistic the science was.

Also see here: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/hal-clement-article.305426/

And my post number 7.