Is Starfleet a military or not?

[J.T.B.]

Exactly. The original intention of TNG's creators was that the Enterprise would be on a long-term exploration mission into deep uncharted space, away from any Federation port for as much as 15 years at a time. It was meant to be a self-sustaining community, practically a small colony in its own right, as it would have to be in order to function on its own for that long.

The concept still seems hard to reconcile with space exploration as seen previously in TOS and later in TNG. Nomads, Doomsday Machines, giant space amoebae and so on make unexplored space seem like the last place one would want to send family members, or anyone not mission-essential.

Still, I don't buy the argument that all the danger the ship got into proved there shouldn't be families aboard. It got into constant danger because it was the setting of an action-adventure TV series. An action series set in New York or Boston or a small town in the middle of nowhere is going to have its characters placed in mortal danger just as often. (Look at the murder rate in Cabot Cove in Murder, She Wrote.) So even if you set a Star Trek series in San Francisco, the city would be under constant threat from alien attacks, technological disasters, strange mutated diseases, and so forth, because that's just the nature of an adventure series. But I don't think we'd hear fans saying that it was a bad idea for people living in cities to have families.

Living in a long-established community where dangerous things may happen is not the same as choosing to go into unknown situations where very dangerous things are known to happen.

 

[Christopher]

Living in a long-established community where dangerous things may happen is not the same as choosing to go into unknown situations where very dangerous things are known to happen.

In real life, maybe, but we're talking about adventure television series, where dangerous things are guaranteed to happen on a weekly basis no matter where you live or work. In real life, cops can go their entire careers without ever firing their weapons outside the practice range, but in fiction they're getting in gun battles every week. In real life, writers like me don't spend their time consulting with the police on homicides. And in real life, explorers of new frontiers don't face danger as constantly as fictional explorers do. After all, space is big and empty. Realistically, a large percentage of the planetary systems a starship would chart (if we accept the implausible conceit of FTL travel) would be uninhabited except maybe by microorganisms.

So it doesn't matter whether we're talking about an exploration vessel or a quiet town somewhere. In fiction, it's going to be far more dangerous than it would be in reality.

 

[J.T.B.]

^ All I'm saying is there seems to be an internal inconsistency: Space exploration is extremely dangerous on the one hand, and on the other hand it's safe enough to allow schoolchildren to participate. I just don't really find it credible that, with the evidence at hand, the Federation would send a ship full of civilian men, women and children out to become the potential next USS Intrepid. I can see what may have been the appeal of the initial TNG concept, but it doesn't seem fully thought-through.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think it would be perfectly rational to send a self-contained city with families on a mission of deep space exploration, if it's expected to be out of contact with the Federation for years, and assuming that such a mission of deep space exploration is in the interest of the Federation. It's really the same concept as a multi-generational ship prevalent in sci-fi, even if they don't intend to be gone that long, because presumably they'd have the ability to survive a much longer voyage, if necessary.

The problems with the premise of families on board seemed to arise when the mission was changed away from that and especially when the sphere of operation became small enough story-wise so that they could return to Earth in the space of a single episode.

 

[Christopher]

^ All I'm saying is there seems to be an internal inconsistency: Space exploration is extremely dangerous on the one hand, and on the other hand it's safe enough to allow schoolchildren to participate.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that you'll find the same inconsistency in the setting of any fictional adventure series, because danger is what such a series is about. Look at Eureka. This was a town of scientists and innovators whose inventions were putting the town or the world in jeopardy on a weekly basis, but nonetheless, at least two of the series leads were okay with having their children live there. And then there are shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Batman Beyond where the featured high school is the site of major crimes or acts of violence or murders on a regular basis, and yet parents still allow their children to attend the school.

Really, the only options are to avoid ever including children in any television series, or to accept the conceit that parents will accept the prospect of their children being in danger.

And really, there are plenty of cases in real life where parents do accept that prospect, because they have no choice. Real-life pioneers settling the frontier brought their families along even knowing they could die, because they had to. Then there are families trying to raise children in war zones. They don't just stop having kids, and they don't always have the option of leaving. They just accept that danger is part of their lives.

And come on, let's be honest: Our kids' lives are in danger every time they get in a car. We just get used to that danger and take it for granted, and that allows us to delude ourselves into thinking that we've created a perfectly safe environment for our children. But we haven't. A large percentage of children's injuries and deaths happen in the home as a result of accidents. Danger is just part of life. It can't be avoided completely, only managed.

 

[J.T.B.]

^ I think I get what you're saying, the situation was what the show said it was and "buy the premise, buy the bit." If TNG was a clean-slate show, I could probably buy it, too. But it had a history behind it, and in that history exploring the galaxy was hazardous duty and was done by professional, volunteer service members. Then TNG comes along and the same kind of exploration is supposed to be safe enough for the whole family, and then the show sets about showing that's it's still highly dangerous.

I realize that the saucer separation was supposed to deal with some of that, but (a) it still doesn't seem like a great idea because by the time Nomad arrives at multiwarp speed and hits you with an energy bolt it's too late for that, and (b) E-D got into dangerous situations all the time without separating. I understand the concepts got diluted, but the fact that they were so readily ignored might be an indication that they weren't that strong to begin with.

 

[The Colonel]

^ All I'm saying is there seems to be an internal inconsistency: Space exploration is extremely dangerous on the one hand, and on the other hand it's safe enough to allow schoolchildren to participate.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that you'll find the same inconsistency in the setting of any fictional adventure series, because danger is what such a series is about. Look at Eureka. This was a town of scientists and innovators whose inventions were putting the town or the world in jeopardy on a weekly basis, but nonetheless, at least two of the series leads were okay with having their children live there. And then there are shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Batman Beyond where the featured high school is the site of major crimes or acts of violence or murders on a regular basis, and yet parents still allow their children to attend the school.

The original concept for the Enterprise D covers the issue of putting families in danger with the saucer separation idea. In combat situations the civilians were supposed to be evacuated to the saucer section like in "Encounter at Farpoint", then the stardrive section would go off and fight. The rest of Season 1 pays lip service to this idea when the crew occasionally discusses whether they should separate the ship or not. However in the subsequent seasons this idea is quietly trashed, along with the concept that the ship is on a continuous deep space mission of exploration.

 

[Christopher]

^ I think I get what you're saying, the situation was what the show said it was and "buy the premise, buy the bit." If TNG was a clean-slate show, I could probably buy it, too. But it had a history behind it, and in that history exploring the galaxy was hazardous duty and was done by professional, volunteer service members. Then TNG comes along and the same kind of exploration is supposed to be safe enough for the whole family, and then the show sets about showing that's it's still highly dangerous.

I realize that the saucer separation was supposed to deal with some of that, but (a) it still doesn't seem like a great idea because by the time Nomad arrives at multiwarp speed and hits you with an energy bolt it's too late for that, and (b) E-D got into dangerous situations all the time without separating. I understand the concepts got diluted, but the fact that they were so readily ignored might be an indication that they weren't that strong to begin with.

Saucer separation is another idea that was never adequately developed. I think the intention was that the saucer separation would normally occur before the ship went into a potential combat situation. But the show only portrayed that once, in "The Arsenal of Freedom." And then they abandoned saucer sep altogether except in "The Best of Both Worlds." So audiences didn't get a good sense of how it was supposed to work and why it was reasonable.

I've used the analogy before of the saucer being a Western fort to shelter the settlers and the battle section being the cavalry force sent out to defend them. Families and civilians being in danger is part of frontier life. But they chose to face that danger as families, with the understanding that they would be protected as well as possible by the authorities or by their own weapons and fortifications. It's not that unrealistic for a frontier setting. It's just that we've forgotten that way of thinking because of our more settled, post-frontier way of life.

 

[Hypaspist]

The concept still seems hard to reconcile with space exploration as seen previously in TOS and later in TNG. Nomads, Doomsday Machines, giant space amoebae and so on make unexplored space seem like the last place one would want to send family members, or anyone not mission-essential.

The way I look at TOS is that it was more of an age of exploration, where there are many more unknowns and the Federation is not the Alpha Quadrant's super-power. I also think that the people of the future are more accepting of death.

The funny thing about saucer separation is that they never used it. I mean it had to be a pretty contrived reason to ever use it. I'm honestly surprised they even built the battle bridge. I'm glad it existed, because it makes sense to have redundancy on a ship.

 

[Richard Baker]

The Saucer Separation was a great idea except it took a chunk of time out of the show- everything stopped dead while the Bridge crew changed over to the Battle Bridge and they did the lengthy SFX separation shot. Killed the flow of the action and made the show more complicated. I do wish they had used it more myself...

 

[Christopher]

As I've said before, I like the idea of having a research vessel with an independent defensive vessel attached to it, but it would've worked better if the attachment had been organizational rather than physical: They should've had a large research vessel commanded by Picard (with a largely civilian crew) escorted by one or two military vessels commanded by Riker (with fully Starfleet crews). That could've made for some interesting conflicts between the scientific and military outlooks or priorities of the different captains and crews.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Saucer Separation was a great idea except it took a chunk of time out of the show- everything stopped dead while the Bridge crew changed over to the Battle Bridge and they did the lengthy SFX separation shot. Killed the flow of the action and made the show more complicated. I do wish they had used it more myself...

There are ways to work around that, show the saucer separation off screen. have the episode start off with the saucer already separated, and just rely on stock footage of the separation sequence.

Ultimately, I think it came down to the actual model being a bitch to separate and reattach, and by the third season they switched to a smaller model which couldn't separate anyway.

On the show they did say that the saucer section's impulse engines provided the ship with better maneuverability, which I guess explains why we never saw any saucer separations in the Dominion War, or even the USS Odyssey.

 

[T'Girl]

And the Federation was also called "The Earth Federation" in "Friday's Child".

It possible that the United Federation of Planets, and the Earth Federation are two entirely separate organizations. Both using the term "Federation."

I've considered that Earth Federation might be a collection of worlds composed of Earth itself, current colonies, former (now independent) colonies and some non-Human trading partners.

In the case of the former colonies and trade partners, some might not be UFP members.

As a sovereign entity, not all of Earth's "connections" would be through the UFP.

 

[fireproof78]

As I've said before, I like the idea of having a research vessel with an independent defensive vessel attached to it, but it would've worked better if the attachment had been organizational rather than physical: They should've had a large research vessel commanded by Picard (with a largely civilian crew) escorted by one or two military vessels commanded by Riker (with fully Starfleet crews). That could've made for some interesting conflicts between the scientific and military outlooks or priorities of the different captains and crews.

I think that would be very interesting, and could provide some interesting drama. I think a science colony could get a similar style of debate, with the civilians being focused on researching the new world, and the military attempting to head out and secure the surrounding area.

Another idea, would be to have Starfleet supported by civilians. This is an idea explored in "Starship Troopers" and "Stargate: Atlantis," where the medical, administrative, minor engineering or maintenance are done by the civilians, while the defense, exploration, and operating of starships is done by Starfleet.

It would be interesting to see more of a civilian presence in Trek.

 

[Christopher]

It possible that the United Federation of Planets, and the Earth Federation are two entirely separate organizations. Both using the term "Federation."

That's overthinking it. It's just a dialogue glitch that showed up in a couple of episodes ("Friday's Child" and "The Lorelei Signal") because they didn't yet have their ideas fully developed. If it were a real thing, presumably there'd be references to it in more than just two out of the 700-odd distinct canonical installments.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I see the use of "Earth Federation", "Earthmen", etc. in dialog in episodes like "Friday's Child" as just keeping it straightforward and easily understood for the casual television audience, to make it clear which side the Federation is. It's Earth's side = the good guys.

 

[fireproof78]

I see the use of "Earth Federation", "Earthmen", etc. in dialog in episodes like "Friday's Child" as just keeping it straightforward and easily understood for the casual television audience, to make it clear which side the Federation is. It's Earth's side = the good guys.

It was also common nomenclature for science fiction of the time. Heinlein, in particular, would have characters refer to others based upon where they were from, Earthmen, Marsmen, and Venusmen, depending on the work.

 

[Mytran]

The Saucer Separation was a great idea except it took a chunk of time out of the show- everything stopped dead while the Bridge crew changed over to the Battle Bridge and they did the lengthy SFX separation shot. Killed the flow of the action and made the show more complicated. I do wish they had used it more myself...

Part of the pacing issue is the fact that there's a different Bridge set for when the ship separates, which our heroes have to spend precious time transferring to (which also means that in a crisis, the entire command crew could be caught in an elevator, unable to do their jobs!)

Wouldn't it be more efficient to use the same Bridge in both combined and separate modes? The Bridge set is perfectly capable of being used as a combat command centre as well as day to day starship operations. All it would mean is that the Bridge would have to be located somewhere other than the top of the saucer (which is a silly place, anyway). Or if you must have it there, why not move the whole bridge section down to the Secondary Hull during separation, in classic Thunderbirds style!

There are ways to work around that, show the saucer separation off screen. have the episode start off with the saucer already separated, and just rely on stock footage of the separation sequence.

This would have been good too - just have the separation be part of the standard "red alert" sequence. Couple it with using the same Bridge set and voila!

A procedure like this should have been routine, really.

 

[Christopher]

That's another advantage of my idea of having a science vessel with a military escort. No need to move the command crew to a different bridge, just cut to the other bridge set!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The idea of a regular Starfleet vessel escorting a non-Starfleet colonization team is the core premise of the fan film series Star Trek: Intrepid.