Yesterday's Enterprise - Why not Evacuate Enterprise-C?

[admiral_reliant]

During the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" Picard had to make the decision to return the Enterprise-C back to it's own time period to restore the time line and peace with the Klingons.

Why couldn't the ship have been sent back through the temporal anomaly without sacrificing it's crew?

 

[Timo]

The point supposedly was for the E-C to put up a valiant if losing fight. Without a crew, she could not fight. So it boils down to whether she had already made enough of a mark before disappearing or not.

Picard might have learned from Garrett and Castillo that the answer was "not".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

During the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" Picard had to make the decision to return the Enterprise-C back to it's own time period to restore the time line and peace with the Klingons.

Why couldn't the ship have been sent back through the temporal anomaly without sacrificing it's crew?

Simply because, even with one and a half starship crew working on the Enterprise-C, the computers were more or less buggered!

I have to agree with @Timo that what Picard learnt most likely made his mind up

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

^ What they said. The E-C and her crew needed to go out in a blaze of glory that would impress upon the Klingons how seriously they took the treaty between the two powers. The ship was already down to 120-odd crew and would probably need all of that to function properly in the midst of such a battle.

Besides, even if the crew had been evacuated when the E-C went through the rift they'd have wiped from existence when the alternate timeline was corrected.

 

[Scotchy]

Bry_Sinclair "Besides, even if the crew had been evacuated when the E-C went through the rift they'd have wiped from existence when the alternate timeline was corrected."
Maybe, but look what happened to Tasha. One would think when the encounter between C and D was reset she would have vanished from the bridge of EC at that point, leaving only original crew onboard. With this anomaly that didn't occur.

We also weren't told the final state of the E-C in that battle. Was it completely disintegrated by the Romulans? Probably not. Enough evidence had to remain for Klingon authorities to discover it was a Federation Starship that defended the outpost. In addition to wanting prisoners to interrogate, the Romulans also likely would've wanted enough of the ship intact to try and download any computer data and scrutinize the design for weaknesses. I base this notion on previous episodes with the Romulans where they were after Federation technology and information - not just interested in obliterating an empty target. Keeping any would-be human prisoners of the Romulans in the future may have still altered the past as well.

 

[Spot261]

The fact is absolutely any detail out of place would have the potential to alter the timeline, butterfly effect style. Thus any effort to restore it must be as accurate as possible. In theory exactly the same people must perform exactly the same actions with the same effects or there is a real danger of events playing out differently.

Simply having the period of grace on the E-D may have sufficiently altered the crew's actions upon their return to change things. They would be better rested, lasted slightly longer resulting in more captives being taken. One of them may have given away crucial information under interrogation leading to a critical intelligence coup for instance. A female crew member may have been more attractive than Tasha, leading to the Romulan who took her as a concubine preferring another, wiping Sela out of existence. A speck of dust on the outside of the ship may have been the straw on the camel's back to slightly alter the impact of a key disruptor strike.....the Ent C then actually wins the combat, all bets are off.

This sort of thing may in fact have happened in some small way as athough the concluding scene shows us something pretty close to the unaltered original the future, but we have no way of knowing for sure that it is 100% spot on or just close enough to pass at a glance.

Unless of course the events of the episode are in fact themselves written into the original timeline, that they were "always" a part of the sequence of events.

 

[Timo]

The fact is absolutely any detail out of place would have the potential to alter the timeline, butterfly effect style.

Starfleet has done enough time travel by that point to know for certain that there is no butterfly effect associated with it. Time is robust, "correcting" itself in amazing ways (perhaps this explains some of the Mirror Universe phenomenon, too).

Then again, our TNG heroes don't appear to know much about the adventures of the TOS heroes, or about time travel in general. But the alternate-timeline Picard might, and would know butterflies don't count. (Except that they do, and there's the Sela thing and all, but that's something Picard should not know to worry about.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MacLeod]

Starfleet has done enough time travel by that point to know for certain that there is no butterfly effect associated with it. Time is robust, "correcting" itself in amazing ways (perhaps this explains some of the Mirror Universe phenomenon, too).

Then again, our TNG heroes don't appear to know much about the adventures of the TOS heroes, or about time travel in general. But the alternate-timeline Picard might, and would know butterflies don't count. (Except that they do, and there's the Sela thing and all, but that's something Picard should not know to worry about.)

Timo Saloniemi

So when McCoy travelled back in time and prevented Edith Keeler from dying there was ni impact on the future? Except there was no Federation

Or what about when the Borg travelled into the past and prevented First Contact between Humans and Vukcans, Result No Federation

So time isn't that robust, change something, prevent something something and you get a different outcome. Isn't the butterfly effect?

And I would imagine that Starfleet would want to minimise knowledge of time travel incidents.

 

[Spot261]

There was a certain Krenim scientist who might have given a little input ion the subject of time being robust in the face of changes too

 

[Timo]

So when McCoy travelled back in time and prevented Edith Keeler from dying there was ni impact on the future? Except there was no Federation

There was no butterfly effect. McCoy, Kirk and Spock altered a million small parameters, including killing one guy; it mattered to nothing at all in the end.

Or what about when the Borg travelled into the past and prevented First Contact between Humans and Vukcans, Result No Federation

Again, apparently nothing at all was altered by the fact that Zephram Cochrane had unforeseen passengers, or that his camp was bombarded by the Borg the night before the big flight.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spot261]

There was no butterfly effect. McCoy, Kirk and Spock altered a million small parameters, including killing one guy; it mattered to nothing at all in the end.



Again, apparently nothing at all was altered by the fact that Zephram Cochrane had unforeseen passengers, or that his camp was bombarded by the Borg the night before the big flight.

Timo Saloniemi

How do we know? If the timeline had changed in any way that wasn't directly presented on screen how would we make that assessment?

The fact is we have seen occasions where small historical changes have visible consequences and others where they do not. All we can say for certain about the second group is that we aren't aware of any changes to the timeline, not that there aren't any. In either case we (and Picard) know that there is no real way of predicting that so he would make every effort to minimise the chances. Else (as the OP stated) why not rescue the crew of the C? Or send the D through the anomaly to face the Romulans.

The very fact that small changes to the past can damage the timeline is the very reason the Department of Temporal Investigations exists is that 23rd, 24th, 25th century SF personnel have no clear idea how temporal incidents influence timelines and need policing by someone who does.

If Kirk's actions caused no lasting changes why do their agents consider him such a pain in the woopsie?

 

[Timo]

How do we know? If the timeline had changed in any way that wasn't directly presented on screen how would we make that assessment?

That's the definition of the butterfly effect right there: if it's too small to be observed unless "directly presented", then there is no effect.

Butterfly wingbeats don't get chaotically amplified. They get damped out. Even massive things, such as carpet bombings of key historical locations at key moments.

The very fact that small changes to the past can damage the timeline is the very reason the Department of Temporal Investigations exists is that 23rd, 24th, 25th century SF personnel have no clear idea how temporal incidents influence timelines and need policing by someone who does.

If the timecops take care of the butterflies, fine. But the matter stands that Starfleet doesn't have to worry about them, because it knows there's nothing to worry.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spot261]

Except in the instances noted....

 

[Timo]

The instances noted show the criteria by which to worry. If you bomb the house of Neil Armstrong the night before the moon shot, history remains unaltered. If you blow off Armstrong's head with a shotgun the night before the moon shot, a few names in history may get altered but that's all. If you nuke Apollo 11 in midflight and make it look like the Soviets did it, then the general course of history might change enough for somebody a couple of centuries distant to notice.

Whether the E-C had crew aboard, or just crash test dummies, doesn't sound like something that would have any effect. Or if it did, our heroes should remain convinced that they themselves and everybody they ever heard of would stay unaltered, because that's what always happens with Trek time travel.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Terok Nor]

If the Enterprise-C crew had stayed on the Enterprise-D it's unlikely the timeline would have been restored. They had to die to prove their bravery to the Klingons. An abandoned Federation ship being blown to pieces by the Romulans as it drifts in space wouldn't mean anything to the Klingons. But a Federation crew dying to save Klingons would mean everything.

It is interesting to ponder what would have happened if the crew had stayed behind on the Enterprise-D. Let's say the Klingons somehow believe the Enterprise-C and all hands were killed fighting the Romulans. How would they feel if they found out decades later that the crew didn't die at all and simply fled to safety?

What would have happened to Captain Garrett's crew once the timeline was restored? They can't go back in time and the alternate timeline no longer exists either. Oblivion? I think they were screwed either way so returning to the battle was the only option other than staying put and letting the war happen.

 

[Spot261]

The instances noted show the criteria by which to worry. If you bomb the house of Neil Armstrong the night before the moon shot, history remains unaltered. If you blow off Armstrong's head with a shotgun the night before the moon shot, a few names in history may get altered but that's all. If you nuke Apollo 11 in midflight and make it look like the Soviets did it, then the general course of history might change enough for somebody a couple of centuries distant to notice.

Whether the E-C had crew aboard, or just crash test dummies, doesn't sound like something that would have any effect. Or if it did, our heroes should remain convinced that they themselves and everybody they ever heard of would stay unaltered, because that's what always happens with Trek time travel.

Timo Saloniemi

Except that the butterfly effect is alive and well in Star Trek. For you to claim it is categorically not in there requires that there not be a single instance anywhere in the entire canon. One supported instance and things fall apart.

Edith Keeler survives, a result of McCoy jumping to save her, the Federation does not come into being. Regardless of any other changes which did or did not occur due to the heroes actions in the show (and it is far from established that they had no effect, merely that we notice none in our very small onscreen snapshot of the ST universe), that fits the definition.

Cause and Effect, Data sends messages to himself through a temporal loop (a tiny change), using his positronic circuits, as a result the timeline is altered, both the Ent and the Bozeman survive (bigger effect, though predicted), the crew are still about for AGT to prevent the entire galaxy being devoured by a subspace (vast and remote effect, completely unpredicted). The original (sans rift) timeline is not restored - the Bozeman herself continues to serve in the 24th century SF with unknown ongoing effects on the timeline

Year of Hell, basically an entire double episode devoted to the butterfly effect (and commonly used as an instance in the popular culture to explain the concept), every change Annorax tries, no matter how obscure, results in vast sweeping and unforeseen changes to the timeline - he just cannot get the outcome he wants.

Yesterday's Enterprise itself, the fact of the C flying into the temporal rift could boil down to tiny movements of the helm officers fingers, (avoiding it, whether intentional or not, would have simply been a case of entering a different course during the heat of battle) which led to the completely unexpected result of the federation facing destruction at the hand of the Klingons. Again, even after the "resolution" we have no definite answer as to whether the timeline is truly restored, all we know is the tiny bit of it we see seems pretty close.

Frankly the number of possible instances of butterfly effect are littered throughout the franchise, these are just a tiny choice of possibilities. Many you will doubtless refute on the grounds that restoring the timeline technically discounts them (assuming in each case we can be confident that this has in fact happened) but there is at least one clear cut instance (Year of Hell) and several that sit pretty close and require some creative thinking to give a definitive answer either way.

In either case, as your argument rests on the premise that there are NO such instances, just the one is enough.

 

[BillJ]

Didn't Garrett state that her crew wanted to go back?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Yep. Even after she told them the odds and what they'd be facing.

 

[Marsden]

Why couldn't the ship have been sent back through the temporal anomaly without sacrificing it's crew?

It's a good question to ponder though.

Barring time shenanigans, it's hard to send people to certain death, even if they are willing.

But if the ship was to continue the fight, it must be crewed. Of course, it was in the middle of the fight, so you couldn't say it didn't fight at all, so no evidence of shooting an empty ship should be found after the fact.

And what about the Captain. She was killed by the "enemy" Klingons, not the Romulans, was that like it was supposed to be?

I also think OSHA must not be around in the 23rd century, the way she was killed just seemed so silly. But they don't have fuses or circuit breakers either, every exploding helm panel says to me.

 

[locutus101]

The point supposedly was for the E-C to put up a valiant if losing fight. Without a crew, she could not fight. So it boils down to whether she had already made enough of a mark before disappearing or not.

Picard might have learned from Garrett and Castillo that the answer was "not".

Timo Saloniemi

Obviously "not" otherwise the timeline wouldn't have changed so radically.