Families aboard the ship?

[Lance]

This is one of those things that even the writers of The Next Generation were never entirely sure of, and I was wondering what some of this forum's membership thought about the idea of families being aboard the ship?

It always seemed to me, as it evidently did to the series' writers, to be a bit of a sticky logistics problem. I do like the idea of families and children being aboard the Enterprise. But in execution there are so many times it kind of didn't make sense, because every time Picard willingly took the Enterprise into a battle scenario, he was endangering civilian lives as much as those of his crew. I suppose in theory the ship could always have performed a saucer sepper before entering any dangerous situation, yet we rarely saw this happen. Certainly I think the decision by the time of the TNG films to remove families from being on the ship was a sound choice. One wonders why it wasn't implemented sooner, like immediately after Wolf 359. Why would they continue to allow civilians to stay aboard these ships?

What is your opinion about families aboard Starfleet vessels? Do you like the idea, or do you think it was a bit misconceived?

 

[C.E. Evans]

To me, families would be okay aboard a ship meant solely for deep-space exploration in regions far from the Federation for years and years at a time--in such a capacity, the ship would essentially be a mobile Federation embassy more than anything else, IMO. But I don't think it would be a good idea for a vessel assigned to routine patrol and interdiction operations where they could be called upon to act in defense of the Federation.

I think the idea of families aboard fleet vessels came about during a period of relative peace within the Federation that ended around the time of the Dominion War. The idea might be revisited now that it's over (for all we know, there could be families now aboard the Enterprise-E if the quadrant has quieted down once more and Starfleet has returned to a peacetime footing).

But I'm also of the opinion that those personnel who agree to have family members with them like the pioneers of old are aware of the risks and have accepted them. I think that was even true of even Ben Sisko, even though the loss of his wife at Wolf 359 was a personally devastating event that took him years to get over.

 

[sonak]

it would make sense in an era of interstellar peace, but not in the context of TNG's era when there were still numerous conflicts and enemies. Unless the ship was so incredibly well-armed that it would deter almost any attack, or travel as part of a fleet. Even then, they should still have done the "saucer separation" thing almost every time there was a threat.

The fact that they only do it a handful of times during the show and frequently take children into battle made the concept rather silly.

 

[WillsBabe]

I like the idea of families on starships, the idea of a kind of interstellar city. But, I think there was a disconnect between Starfleet's idea of what the Enterprise would be doing on its mission - seeking out new life, a bit of diplomacy maybe, some interstellar cartography, hosting a diplomatic reception or two - and Paramount's - interstellar battle/killer space anomoly of the week. Surely, if Starfleet thought that life on a starship would be so dangerous they wouldn't sanction families and civilians being on board. Surely, if Paramount had thought about how dangerous life on a starship would be then niether would they!

 

[Dr. Crusher]

I think this evolved across the series. In the beginning, there appeared to be civilian families on board the ship, but, once unavoidable, dangerous conflicts began to arise, there was a transition from civilian families to families that included at least one parent who was a member of Starfleet. It was as if the writers had to explain somehow why there would be children on board a ship that could end up in a very precarious situation with other, hostile races and scenarios.

 

[Holdfast]

IIRC, the original plan, as mentioned at some stage in Encounter at Farpoint is that the Enterprise would go on a long exploratory deep space mission. Something about "exploring the great unexplored mass of the galaxy", I forget the precise phrase...

Anyway, I can see having families on board making some sense in that kind of mission. That didn't really pan out, and they had pretty frequent R&R stops and easy communications with home, so the rationale for having families along lessened. I never really minded it though.

 

[Alrik]

^

That was pretty much it. And if they ran into serious trouble, the idea was to separate and use the Stardrive to address the threat. But for whatever reason, both ideas were pretty much shelved by Season 2, with the obvious exception of BOBW.

 

[Tom]

The battle of Wolf 359 we knew there were families on those ships (Ben Sisko, rescuing Jake and Jennifer dieing). Makes you wonder why they did not off-load the children before the upcoming battle. We knew the ships were in a hurry to make a stand against the Borg, but they they could have stopped for a second and off-loaded some families in a shuttle or two. They knew they were going into battle agaist a superior foe like the borg.

They probably learned there lesson as later on we see the Oddessy off-load non-essential personnel to DS9 before heading to the Gamma Quadrant.

 

[SchwEnt]

The idea of families on board could work and can make sense. I suppose it took a ship like a Galaxy-class vessel to make it practical, where a Constitution-class might not work well.

And if the original stated mission was kept, out exploring the galaxy for years or decades at a time, okay it might be sensible to take along families.

But the dramatic requirements of the eps required the ship to be back within Federation borders, even coming back to Earth. And familiar planets and starbases were never that far away. The need to take along families became a convenience rather than a mission need, given what really happened to the Enterprise and the mission travels.

If the original intention was kept and the Enterprise really did go off for a decade beyond the great unexplored mass of the galaxy, even that would have caused the same problems. In ST, exploring the unknown galaxy isn't all planetary surveys and nebulae mapping and star-charting and archeological visits and oh it's nice to have your family along for the duration. It also means running into the Borg or the Dominion or some other bad guys and then you're sorry you brought kids onboard.

 

[T'Girl]

The idea of families on board could work and can make sense. I suppose it took a ship like a Galaxy-class vessel to make it practical, where a Constitution-class might not work well.

When the Defiant first arrived at DS9, and Sisko was describing her, one of the things that he mentioned was that she "would have no families." The senior staff had already seen the Defiant, yet Sisko felt the need to state that a ship of that size wasn't designed to carry spouses and offspring. We've seen ships as relatively small as Oberts carry children, if the Constitution's still existed in the 24th century, likely they would be carrying families.

 

[sbk1234]

What is your opinion about families aboard Starfleet vessels? Do you like the idea, or do you think it was a bit misconceived?

Personally, I think it was very misconceived. I think it was Roddenberry's brainchild; a way to show how people have "evolved" more since even Kirk's time. I read somewhere that Roddenberry said that in the 24th Century life is to be "lived, and not postponed." A wonderful ideal, but really not practical. But they never asked me.

Had I been in any position of influence at the time, I would have suggested that if they wanted children and families on for story/dramatic reasons, just mention relocating colonists or something, and leave it at that. I think it would have come up seeming less illconceived.

 

[USS Excelsior]

There'd be trouble wherever in the galaxy they ended up. One has to look at Voyager where they almost get destroyed in half the episodes.

 

[Mojochi]

Whatever the reason that it was going on initially, most likely that the ship's primary mission was deep space exploration, I always got the impression that until they stopped doing it, everyone knew it was an extremely dangerous life choice, & the much smaller number of civilians on board, compared to crew, had all knowingly accepted the risks they'd potentially be facing, for the purpose of either being with their loved ones, or achieving their goals

The civilians had to have been clear on what they were getting themselves into

 

[Timo]

I think it was Roddenberry's brainchild; a way to show how people have "evolved" more since even Kirk's time.

Well, there's precedent to that sort of thing, so perhaps "devolved" should be the word to use?

It isn't so long ago that the default assumption for a soldier would have been that his family followed him to battle. The thing keeping sailors from taking their families with them was the lacking technology: the ships simply couldn't support extra people. But infantry would have moved in synch with camp followers right until the mid-19th century. And the underlying assumption was that if dysentery killed the soldiers, the families in all likelihood would die with them; if blade, fire or shrapnel did, likewise.

It's not as if every one of our heroes had family aboard; statistically it ought to be quite plausible that the civilians that did join the crew held the express wish to die with their wives or husbands or children or parents, in the fashion of so many generations before them.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SchwEnt]

The idea of families on board could work and can make sense. I suppose it took a ship like a Galaxy-class vessel to make it practical, where a Constitution-class might not work well.

When the Defiant first arrived at DS9, and Sisko was describing her, one of the things that he mentioned was that she "would have no families." The senior staff had already seen the Defiant, yet Sisko felt the need to state that a ship of that size wasn't designed to carry spouses and offspring. We've seen ships as relatively small as Oberts carry children, if the Constitution's still existed in the 24th century, likely they would be carrying families.

That's true. We did see Oberths and Mirandas with kids and families. I still think it's wacky.

For myself, I'd think bringing along the family could make sense if the mission is for a decade+ beyond Federation borders. And then if you're living on said ship for years and years, okay a Galaxy class needs to be a home not just a posting.

But for Oberths and similar ships? Seemingly, they wouldn't be sent out for years without returning home. And they don't appear to be long-range explorers, never more than a few weeks from a friendly base. So no need to bring families in those cases. But that's just me.

Why we did see Mirandas and such with kids?? IDK.

 

[Vanyel]

Anyone know what the ratio of Starfleet or civilian specialists (Kieko), basically people who signed up to be on the Enterprise and knowing the risks vs. those who came because their spouses or parent's were brought aboard, those not fully understanding the risks.

Also would all the civilians have to go through battle drills from time to time to make sure they knew where to go, the best ways to get off a damaged deck or their assigned evacuation stations (the escape pod they should report to or how to report they made it to an escape pod). Basically some way to let the crew know they are safe and the escape pod can leave.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Anyone know what the ratio of Starfleet or civilian specialists (Kieko), basically people who signed up to be on the Enterprise and knowing the risks vs. those who came because their spouses or parent's were brought aboard, those not fully understanding the risks.

You're not going to find an official answer to that, because there isn't one. David Gerrold's novelization of "Encounter At Farpoint," however, proposed that the Enterprise-D carried roughly 800 crewmembers and 200 spouses & children, but that was before the subsequent onscreen idea that the ship also carried civilian specialists.

Also would all the civilians have to go through battle drills from time to time to make sure they knew where to go, the best ways to get off a damaged deck or their assigned evacuation stations (the escape pod they should report to or how to report they made it to an escape pod). Basically some way to let the crew know they are safe and the escape pod can leave.

It would seem to be mandatory. When the ship was undergoing hull separation in the pilot, we saw civilian crewmembers moving in an orderly fashion towards some designated area(s) under the guidence of deck personnel.

 

[T'Girl]

But for Oberths and similar ships? Seemingly, they wouldn't be sent out for years without returning home.

But it seems to me the smaller ships would be sent on one mission after another. After each mission they would pull into a starbase, refurbish and swap out sensor pallets, then off they would go again. For the starfleet crewperson and their families, the ship would be their "home."

Why we did see Mirandas and such with kids?? IDK.

I look at it this way. My brothers, sisters, and myself were all born and raised on military bases. If war had broken out in 1980's Europe, Ramstein Air Base (my birth place) would likely have been destroyed, my parent placed their five children in a certain degree of danger because they wanted us close to them.

 

[SchwEnt]

Sure, I can understand service personnel wanting families with them, regardless of location.

But I see a difference between Ramstein Air Base and a vessel posting. I can see families living in Newport News and Norfolk, not necessarily onboard the Tico class cruisers.

In ST terms, the difference between having family on Starbase 112 and having family aboard a Miranda or Oberth. It's not solely about the dangers involved or the short-term/long-term nature of the missions.

I was also thinking about the shipboard facilities. If those "lesser" ships were similar to TMP-level ships, I don't see many options for families as far as quarters and classrooms and daycare and that sort of thing. Unless 24th century Mirandas and Oberths were vastly reconfigured somehow.

 

[Warped9]

The original concept was the Enterprise embarking on a 10-20 year deep space voyage and so the idea of families aboard had some rationale to it. Indeed in some of the early episodes there are vague references to "a long voyage ahead" and "our path lies outward" or something to that effect. But the moment they started having family members (like Llwaxana Troi) and others visiting aboard and having the ship return to Earth so easily the families concept was completely undermined.

I could have tolerated had they kept to the initial premise, but as they didn't I simply couldn't accept it anymore.