• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DS9 runabouts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Enterprise1981

Vice Admiral
Admiral
The original three runabouts assigned to Deep Space 9: Rio Grande, Yangtzee Kiang, and Ganges. During the first four seasons, they were being destroyed and replaced at a pace of one per season.

Yangtzee Kiang crashlanded and was damaged beyond repair in "Battle Lines." Replaced by the Orinoco ("The Siege").

Ganges was destroyed in "Armageddon Game." Replaced by the Mekong. ("Whispers")

Mekong was destroyed in "The Die is Cast" trying to escape the Jem'Hadar armada. Replaced by the Rubicon. ("Family Business")

Orinoco was destroyed in "Our Man Bashir". Replaced by the Yukon. ("Sons of Mogh")

That was when I think the writers stopped keeping track with a total five runabouts lost during Season 5. And at some point during Season 4, four runababouts were assinged to the station. The Volga was featured in "Body Parts." Three runabouts were still at the station in "In Purgatory's Shadow" and "By Inferno's Light" (the Rio Grande, the Yukon, and the Volga) even after Worf and Garak took one into the Gamma Quadrant. One could hypothesize that the Rubicon was destroyed at Torga Four ("The Ship"), then its replacement was destroyed at Ajillon Prime ("Nor the Battle to the Strong"), then its replacement destroyed in "The Ascent". But the Rubicon was the runabout featured in "One Little Ship." The only destroyed runabout mentioned by name in Season 5 was the Yukon. The runabout destroyed in "Empok Nor" was not mentioned by name. That could have been the Volga since it was never again mentioned.

The Shenandoah was first featured in "Change of Heart" only to be destroyed later in Season 6 ("Valiant"). Same for the Gander in Season 7 ("Penumbra"). In all, four runabouts were lost battling the Jem'Hadar.
 
The fun thing is that, despite careful oversight, there are no clear contradictions or impossibilities in the runabout death tally. And certainly the station could accommodate up to six of the craft, as it features six hatches on the habitat ring and we see that at least one of those has enough room underneath for two runabouts or more.

I wonder what sort of craft the Cardassians originally kept in those bays...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Wasn't the Rio Grande the one Sisko used in "What You Leave Behind?". It's also the one Sisko and Dax used in Emissary to find the wormhole.
 
Interesting that the Rio Grande managed to survive the entire series. Another possibility is that certain names were recycled. The writers originally named the Gander the Ganges, and even appears as such in closed captioning.
 
I thought those things were a bit ridiculous, and used way too often for things beyond whatever they were designed for... then again, if it were me, I'd have cloaked planetary destroyers...
 
Runabouts are the redshirts of DS9.

IIRC, somewhere later in the series Kira said something like: "The way we're going through runabouts, we're going to run out of Earth rivers to name them after."

Robert
 
Last edited:
After the welcome introduction of the USS Defiant, the runabouts became rather unimportant, so it makes sense that they'd start to get destroyed more often, as they became-as said above-the shuttle equivalent of redshirts.
 
...Although that led to some problems when the new starship began to be used for the sort of errands that would at most have warranted a runabout.

Say, "Equilibrium" could have been done without sending the entire ship to Trill. The trip would have taken a bit longer, perhaps, but still... And we might have avoided the embarrassment that was "Meridian" if Sisko hadn't chosen to waste precious Defiant-hours on idle exploration. It's not as if he would have been tasked with exploring Gamma anyway - other Captains would have had better ships for that job, had Starfleet deemed it worth doing - but if Sisko really, really felt the urge to explore, he could have done it in a runabout. Much like he did in "The Ship".

Timo Saloniemi
 
Runabouts are the redshirts of DS9.

IIRC, somewhere later in the series Kira said something like: "The way we're going through runabouts, we're going to run out of Earth rivers to name them after."

Robert

The exact line in "Family Business" was "At the rate we through runabouts, it's a good thing Earth has so many rivers."
 
After the USS Defiant was introduced, the runabouts lost their "uniqueness" and were gradually treated more like expendable, luxury shuttlecrafts by the writers.

The Defiant was a game changer for the show, it allowed for excusions that did not involve "crashing", "being taken prisoner", "getting lost" or "always being outgunned". Although I think the station was underutilized somewhat after season 3 with the peripheral locations being reduced, overall the bigger, better Defiant was fantastic and I remember being over the moon when it made its first appearance on air and I know I was not the only one.

The runabouts assuming a role as secondary craft was perfect as it allowed for the vulnerable risky plots to occur when needed but then gave the crew the ability to actually rescue their compadres out of bad situations. Yes the runabouts lost their lustre but it made the show into what we all know and love.
 
@Legate Duhmar

The person you replied to hasn’t been here since 2008 and is apparently banned. I wouldn’t hold your breath for a response.

14 years man… We aren’t supposed to do this.
 
Rio Grande was the runabout that was bombed and then crash-landed in "Ascent". It didn't look very salvagable. Maybe the Rio Grande in "What You Leave Behind" was a replacement with the same name.
 
@Legate Duhmar

The person you replied to hasn’t been here since 2008 and is apparently banned. I wouldn’t hold your breath for a response.

14 years man… We aren’t supposed to do this.

While this is true, the rules aren’t as easily accessible as we would like them to be, so I can understand the occasional thread resurrection by newer members.

Having said that, this is a good example of why we don’t like threads older than a year revived. A lot of times the later being replied to is no longer with us.

I’ll go ahead and close this thread, but feel free to start a new one if you have more to say on the matter @Legate Duhmar .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top