Can a starship captain have his family on board with him?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
To give a specific example, in the pilot for DS9 (The Emissary), we saw that Sisko had his family onboard, and he was the first officer. I can see little justification for the captain not be allowed his family on board. If it's a case of clouding his command judgements, the captain should be mature enough to be able to recognise and understand this and have his family live somewhere else if deemed necessary. If he can't accept this, he's may not have been suitable command material in the first place.
Thought there might be differences between a starship and a space station, though. I realize DS9 was in constant danger, but it's not like living on a station is usually supposed to entail the same kind of risk as a starship. Plus, I don't remember any captains like Picard having families. Doesn't mean there weren't any. I just don't remember it being the case.
It's a bad idea in peace and in war. In any situation where their safety is in question, you will always have the Star Fleet officer or enlisted person having the question of their actions affecting their loved ones in the back of their mind. It will compromise mission integrity and it will endanger team/unit cohesion. Bases that are not in harms way would bo more condusive to family life. I think land/planetary would be the best.
The fact there were civilian, enlisted and lower officer members with families living with them, it would be a stretch to think Captains couldn't have one. Also, there was that one episode where Riker experienced an illusion where he was a starship captain with a son and a deceased wife sixteen years on.
Sorry I should have clarified I meant when Sisko was still stationed on the Saratoga until the Battle of Wolf 359.
But wasn't he a first officer then?
Wolf 359 happened under less than ideal circumstances--Starfleet was caught pretty much with its pants down and had to quickly assemble as many ships as possible to intercept the Borg before they entered Sector 001.
Had things been different--if they could have seen the Borg coming from a long distance and had more time to assemble a proper fleet--the Saratoga and other such ships would have ditched their passengers and other non-essential personnel at a nearby starbase or Federation member world before going into battle, IMO.
Had things been different--if they could have seen the Borg coming from a long distance and had more time to assemble a proper fleet--the Saratoga and other such ships would have ditched their passengers and other non-essential personnel at a nearby starbase or Federation member world before going into battle, IMO.
In times of peace, at least on ships of a certain size, I believe they can. (Things change in war time, of course, as C.E. notes.) I can't quote it exactly, but an example can be found in "Too Short a Season," during which the wife of the aging admiral mentions that if they'd had ships like the Enterprise earlier, she and the admiral could have been together during his entire career, presumably when he was a captain, too. That, to me, indicates that ships of the Enterprise class are meant to be family-friendly, including for the captain's family, and also that this wasn't the case earlier in Starfleet's history.
Edit: I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. But apparently it is the case during peace time. I always assumed it was kind of analogous to the way military bases are these days - and the Enterprise is so big it almost could be a base. Some (though not all) are open to families during peace time, and I think this is the case with certain classes of starships as well.
Edit: I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. But apparently it is the case during peace time. I always assumed it was kind of analogous to the way military bases are these days - and the Enterprise is so big it almost could be a base. Some (though not all) are open to families during peace time, and I think this is the case with certain classes of starships as well.
Last edited:
...Although if the officers knew what was really at stake and how grim the situation truly was, and didn't buy Admiral Hanson's uplifting pep talk, they might perhaps have chosen to have their families close to them after all. Better to die in space than be assimilated back on Earth.
Many may think that way in general: better to risk death with loved ones than without.
Yup:
OTOH, we probably should think that it was the Jameisons who didn't have such ships, not Starfleet in general. After all, we have seen families and assorted civilians living aboard much humbler ships, such as Sisko's Saratoga and sometimes even his Defiant. We could also argue that Pike's old Enterprise had civilians aboard, as we witness in "The Cage" a civilian-clad young couple wandering on the corridors of that ship, not saluting or otherwise acknowledging and apparently not even recognizing the captain!
On the other hand, there were mighty and supposedly luxurious ships 20-30 years prior to "Too Short a Season", as we later learn. The previous Enterprise, for one... It's probably just that the Jameisons never got assigned to the right kind of ships on the right kind of missions: they never got a big ship, or a small ship that would have stayed close to home, but had to sail on small ships on long deep space assignments. (Or at least Mark did. We don't know if Anne was in Starfleet back in those days.)
Timo Saloniemi
Didn't Captain Maxwell have his family on board with him? Although that's probably a good argument as to why families shouldn't be on board.
I always thought Jennifer was on the Saratoga as Starfleet or at least a civilian specialist (I can't remember if she had a uniform or not), not because she was Sisko's wife.
It was not before the next generation of starship like the Ent-D (
) that families were allowed on board for long exploration journeys.Naah. The story point was that his family was on that outpost that got raided by Cardassian militia. Maxwell's ship raced there to stop the raid, but too late: he lost his family, and thus got an excuse to become the villain of the episode.
It was not before the next generation of starship like the Ent-D (
That much was never really stated, though. It's possible that families aboard starships were a regular occurrence, especially on long journeys, from the first days of starflight on. Certainly "families in space" was the way to go before ENT, and it may have been the way to go during ENT and TOS and between and after those shows, too. It just happened that Archer's ship only had two civilians aboard (Phlox and T'Pol, until the latter became a Starfleet officer for Season 4) and Kirk's usually had none (that we'd know of).
Timo Saloniemi
Regarding bringing families on board into battles - as far as the Enterprise-D was concerned, that never should have happened. The whole point of the separable saucer was to allow the civilian element to depart at the first sign of conflict, freeing up the stardrive section for combat duties.
Unfortunately TPTB didn't utilise this function correctly and the E-D spent almost the entire 7 years joined firmly together, constantly jepardising the lives of the crew's families!
Unfortunately TPTB didn't utilise this function correctly and the E-D spent almost the entire 7 years joined firmly together, constantly jepardising the lives of the crew's families!
Was it, now? We didn't really hear this stated by our heroes or villains. We did hear twice that sending the saucer away from battle would be a good idea (it was done in "Arsenal of Freedom" and considered but dropped in "Heart of Glory"), but we could just as well assume that it happened because of the reason that Worf explicitly gave in "Heart of Glory" - because shedding the bulk of the saucer made the stardrive section more agile in combat.
In "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Best of Both Worlds", the separation was done as a diversionary tactic, without explicit mention that this would protect the innocents aboard. Indeed, in "BoBW", said innocents were placed at the greatest risk, as they were on that half of the ship that carried out the actual attack plan; had Locutus realized this, the saucer would have been mercilessly attacked.
If the saucer lacked warp drive, as some backstage sources suggest, then using it for evacuation would never have made much sense: any enemy worth the title would have been able to pursue and overtake the saucer. If the saucer had warp drive, as the pilot episode would suggest, then "Arsenal of Freedom" would serve as further support for the idea of warp drive aboard, because the evacuation scheme would then make sense; but if we rather trusted the diversion doctrine over the evacuation doctrine, then sending a warp-capable saucer away at impulse would be a sound diversionary move in the tactical situation of "Arsenal of Freedom"...
Timo Saloniemi
Agreed, and I'm also of the opinion that those who do bring families with them do not make that decision lightly.
I would imagine the family thing depends what the ship is up to?
As for the saucer detachment I always assumed it had a number of uses, one of which being the ability to get civilians out of harm's way.
As for the saucer detachment I always assumed it had a number of uses, one of which being the ability to get civilians out of harm's way.
Worth mentioning, we know Captain Jellico had a family, he posted his son's drawings around the ready room. But it would seem he didn't bring his family with him on starships. After all, if they were on the Cairo, than they should have come over to the Enterprise with him. Since they didn't we must assume they were in fact still on Earth or wherever Jellico called home.
Perhaps Jellico was one of the smarter officers around by not bringing his family with him on his starships.
Perhaps Jellico was one of the smarter officers around by not bringing his family with him on his starships.
