Can a starship captain have his family on board with him?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
Except that Jellico's assignment as Enterprise Captain was only ever intended to be short term, just until Picard returned. It probably wasn't worth the trouble of upheaval just for a few weeks.
Actually, it was believed by many in the episode to be permanent. Remember during the changing of command ceremony, Geordi comments "they don't usually do these ceremonies for temporary assignments."
^Fair enough, it's been a while since I saw that episode.
Given that Star Fleet does have families onboard some of it's ships it's still possible that captains can have their family with them. With his particular style of leadership, Jellico may simply have preferred to have his family off the ship.
Alternatively, the Cairo itself may have had no facilities for civilians on board. Perhaps if Jellico had stayed on his wife and son might have joined at a later date.
Given that Star Fleet does have families onboard some of it's ships it's still possible that captains can have their family with them. With his particular style of leadership, Jellico may simply have preferred to have his family off the ship.
Alternatively, the Cairo itself may have had no facilities for civilians on board. Perhaps if Jellico had stayed on his wife and son might have joined at a later date.
I think families are ok, but only on ships of a certain size. Sisko had his kid with him, but that was a base, and he was a commander at first, not a captian. BUT he was in command....in any case, Jake might not have had anywhere else to go. !!! What if a captian had a child, no partner, and his/her child had no where or no one else?? Would Star Fleet make them seperate or not promote him? Doesn't that sound bad? Plus, some species might NEED their partners in order to function, like the Bynars for example. In the books, they come in pairs. Can't remember if they say that in the episode, I do know there was a whole lot of 'em.
Don't forget that Jake was with Sisko on a fairly small ship (Miranda-class) before he was given command of Deep Space 9.
On the point of possibility of arrangements, I guess that an enlightened organisation like StarFleet would have things like this in place to accomodate crews with families to a certain extent. Then again, they might not. We see that the only way that O'Brian got the promotion to Chief Warrant Officer was to accept the assignment at Deep Space 9, so perhaps there are more stringent regulations on placement/promotion.
It might just be a fact of the uniform.
Hmh? His rank didn't seem to change with the reassignment, no matter what he said in "A Man Alone". He wore the same single pip on the Enterprise and on DS9, right through "Playing God" where he identified himself as Senior Chief. In "Hippocratic Oath", where he was more generically identified as a CPO of some color, he wore a chevron plate with two pips, which might indicate a promotion, since the corresponding USN chevrons with two pips (stars) denote Master Chief - but then again, the Starfleet version lacks the rocker on the chevrons, so perhaps a single pip replaces the rocker, and Starfleet two-pip matches USN single-star?
(It's not a particularly gooey mess in DS9, certainly nothing compared with his earlier fluctuating status in the first seasons of TNG.)
Now, becoming a Chief of Operations is certainly a promotion from being a humble Transporter Chief #3, even if one doesn't get more brass on one's collar... And of course O'Brien would lose that added prestige if he refused the DS9 assignment, just as he says in "A Man Alone". This doesn't mean Starfleet would somehow be torturing him, though.
Timo Saloniemi
You have a good point. When you sign up for star fleet, you do it knowing that you have to serve, risk your life, duty, ect, ect. Not being with one's family might be one of those things you have to be willing to accept. Maybe it's only special circumstances that allow it?
I don't think families should be allowed on ships. It's just a plain stupid idea. Families should live on bases in the ships primary area of operation.
Although it turned out not to be really happening, in Future Imperfect, Riker, as captain of the Enterprise had his son, and (until she died) wife on board with him. Yes, I believe it was mentioned that she was the counselor after Deanna met, but if spouses weren't allowed, I don't think that would have mattered.
As I said, although this didn't take place "for real," had it contradicted genuine starfleet regs, I think Riker would have caught on, as he did the other inconsistencies.
In any case, families on board was one idea in TNG which I think just didn't work out as well as TPTB thought it would when they were designing the show. I know I never liked the idea. I'm glad they seemed to do away with it.
As I said, although this didn't take place "for real," had it contradicted genuine starfleet regs, I think Riker would have caught on, as he did the other inconsistencies.
In any case, families on board was one idea in TNG which I think just didn't work out as well as TPTB thought it would when they were designing the show. I know I never liked the idea. I'm glad they seemed to do away with it.
Indeed - this is exactly what happened with the USS Odyssey before it met its fate in the gamma quadrant. I think the show was careful to make a point of this so as to avoid making a shocking loss even more shocking, with the fans knowing that Galaxy-class ships tend to carry civilians, even children, on board. Kinda makes me wonder whether there were any kids on the USS Yamato...
Probably a bad idea to have families there on starships first place, especially since starships must sometimes go into hazardous situations unexpectedly, ones that may even require the willing sacrifice of the ship and the crew. How could a captain be expected to do that knowing their spouse and kids were on board? I think it needlessly complicates the whole matter.
There were. In his log, Picard notes the death of the Yamato's crew "and their families."
I do, too, but at the same time I'm not sure it really bothers me either way. The military setting makes more sense, so I'm slightly more inclined to lean on that, but I always thought the family thing was handled well enough on TNG.
I think it depends on the ship and its current mission. Space travel is, of course, inherently dangerous--a civilian ship can run afoul of hostiles just as a Starfleet ship can. Starships assigned to exploration, scientific, or even routine domestic civil missions may have families onboard but I wouldn't expect them on ships assigned to missions where the chances of combat are certain.
Even if families are willing to share the natural risks with being aboard a starship even during peacetime, I would wager that most Starfleet personnel actually prefer not to take their families with them for that very reason. The option remains open for those who do on some ships though, but I never saw families onboard starships as being something that every ship did--only a select few...
It was one of the stupidest conceits of TNG. Families - civilians, no less - aboard military vessels. Laughable!
The 'Galaxy Experiment' (can't remember if that name only existed as fanon or in literature) was from a more optimistic and 'civilised' age when war seemed far off, old enemies were either allies or were keeping to themselves, those races that were belligerent, were too weak to attempt to challenge the Federation, and when the vast reaches of space called for ships to be gone for long periods of time.
It seems that the Borg Incursions, the breaking of the Khitomer Accords and the Dominion War put a change to that quite quickly. Did we see the 'Experiment' continue for much longer after these events? Not much longer. It seemed reasonable at the time, but Starfleet learnt. You can't argue with it them at least giving it a shot.
I think having his family onboard would be ok as long as he could be objective. Nothing better than an evening "release" with the wife to get your mind cleared up!!
What do you think the holodecks are for?
