In the last episode of S1, you get this:

O'BRIEN: Aquino never went anywhere near pad A. It doesn't make sense.

ODO: On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Ensign Aquino goes to runabout C because some sensor shows an anomaly in the security net there. He interrupts whoever is tampering with it and is killed. The killer puts the body in the conduit and instead of going back to pad C, which might be traced with Aquino's turbolift log, he changes his plan and moves to pad A.

On the other hand, in a successive scene, you get:

SISKO: Anything new on Aquino?

[Neela goes quietly to a console.]

O'BRIEN: Yes, sir. I found a security bypass module at runabout pad A. It looks like someone might have wanted to steal a runabout. That's probably why Aquino went there in the first place. I've put security seals in place at all three pads and I'm checking for any other anomalies.

The anomaly I've detected is that in the 1st scene it's stated that Aquino went to runabout C, whereas in the 2nd one O'Brien asserts that Aquino was at runabout A in the first place.

And effectively, Odo said that the killer was tampering there, at C. After killing the ensign, he changed his plan moving to pad A.

It seems that replacing A with C and vice versa in the 1st scene in Odo's reconstruction of the facts, all makes sense!

At first sight, these dialogues seemed to me very ambiguous and confused in my language translation, but looking at the original version that impression still remains.

The question is if these quoted dialogues make sense. Basing on the interpretation I've given they seem inconsistent, isn't it?

  • 1
    I'm not sure what the question you are asking?
    – chcuk
    Oct 17, 2020 at 4:23
  • 2
    @chcuk the question is if the dialogues make sense. Basing on the interpretation I've given they seem inconsistent, isn't it?
    – Bento
    Oct 17, 2020 at 4:34
  • I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but no matter what, the question title needs improvement.
    – T.J.L.
    Nov 16, 2020 at 13:25

1 Answer 1


Only if you beleiev that "Runabout" and "Pad" mean the same thing. If you take it to mean that a "Pad" is a landing area on which any "Runabout" can land, then it is entirely possible that "Runabout A" can be sitting on "Pad C " . . . Or "Pad A". The writers do not make it clear or at least they do not from the quotes, if "Runabout A" can ONLY EVER BE on "Pad A"when not out on a mission, "Runabout B" cand ONLY EVER BE on "Pad B" if not out on a mission, and so forth. If they can only be on assigned "Pads" then it makes no sense; If they can land on any "Pads" in any order, then it works.

  • 1
    Per the transcript on chakoteya.net/DS9/420.htm they consistently talk about "runabout pad c" except in that single sentence quoted above, which makes it makes "runabout c" look more like an oversight than a deliberate ambiguity. Oct 17, 2020 at 11:09
  • Okay, now I think I've understood the matter. Initially I've misunderstood when O'Brien said That's probably why Aquino went there in the first place. with there=pad A. Instead he simply meant he was firstly in the pad (C) becouse of the the violation of the Bajoran assistant, and only successively where they've found his remains. Sorry for my mistake.
    – Bento
    Oct 18, 2020 at 18:55
  • @EikePierstorff yes, probably runabout pad C; anyway it is irrelevant (because of the nature of my misinterpretation) if the runabouts are tagged A, B and C, and if this is the case, if they are or not tagged correspondingly to the pad on which they can be parked. In any case there would be no inconsistency, in the Odo's quote it'd mean that the runabout C was in pad C (coincidence or rule doesn't matter)
    – Bento
    Oct 18, 2020 at 19:04
  • Weren't the runabouts named? Something like Rio Grande and similar? Or are the "A" and "C" in the question simply placeholders?
    – FreeMan
    Oct 20, 2020 at 18:24
  • @FreeMan the "Danube Class" runabouts on DS9 were named after rivers (if I remember correctly the original complement of runabouts for DS9 were Orinoco, Yangtzee Kiang, and Rio Grande). Not sure if they kept the naming scheme throughout the whole series. Nov 16, 2020 at 10:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.