Families on a STARSHIP

[RobertScorpio]

I never really bought into that concept. I would if these people were gone for years on end. But it seems to me that getting from point A to point B isn't really that difficult.

Having families on a starship creates more problems than I think having them on board warrents. It puts the captain in tactical situations he should never have to be in. And it furthers the feeling that the 1701-D was a cruise ship in space. I remember watching Trek with 'normal' people and the episodes with the kids climbing up the turbo-lift shaft with Picard. Most of the people I was watching with thought it was silly for kids to even be there. I agree. On DS9? Yes. It's a space station. But a starship that can be called into military action on a whim? No.

That's my take on it.

 

[JiNX-01]

I agree, having families on a ship that is not exclusively an exploration/science vessel is ridiculous. Enterprise-D was a military vessel that ended up in some pretty difficult situations.

Case in point: Anybody else ever wonder if children were among the missing in the encounter with the Borg in Q Who?

ETA: I can see bringing a spouse along, but not children. Transporting kids to a colony is one thing, but putting them in harm's way on a routine basis? No.

 

[Apogeal Alpha01]

But weren't children confined to protected areas of the ship? The Enterprise was primarily a ship on a peaceful mission. Quasi military is not military, ships of that type would have a command hierarchy just the same.

I think a great thing would be that as an officer, perhaps crewman aboard a ship of exploration like the Enterprise, to have one's family at home at the end of the day. During times of war it's understandable, the ship will come under attack at some point. Likewise, the Defiant was designed to be a ship of war, no families, sparse luxuries, and no individual cabins. Danger was inevitable.

In "Q Who?", Q took the ship out of it's mission to make a point. The Enterprise did not venture into a dangerous situation on it's own.

 

[Sci]

I don't object to the idea of consenting adult family members being aboard starships. But minors? That's child endangerment.

 

[JiNX-01]

Apogeal Alpha01 said:
But weren't children confined to protected areas of the ship? The Enterprise was primarily a ship on a peaceful mission. Quasi military is not military, ships of that type would have a command hierarchy just the same.

Which blew up repeatedly in "Cause and Effect." They don't have to be in a battle situation to be at risk. Which, now that I think about it, means that even if they had been strictly science/exploration, as I said above, it might have been a bad idea anyway.

I think a great thing would be that as an officer, perhaps crewman aboard a ship of exploration like the Enterprise, to have one's family at home at the end of the day. During times of war it's understandable, the ship will come under attack at some point. Likewise, the Defiant was designed to be a ship of war, no families, sparse luxuries, and no individual cabins. Danger was inevitable.

I think it would be nice to bring the kids along too, but there are so many unknowns even in 24th century Trek, that it's imprudent.

In "Q Who?", Q took the ship out of it's mission to make a point. The Enterprise did not venture into a dangerous situation on it's own.

I doubt that would matter much to anyone -- child or adult -- who wound up assimilated.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades. I suppose what with the wagon trains and all we're used to the notion.

 

[JiNX-01]

Starship Polaris said:
Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades. I suppose what with the wagon trains and all we're used to the notion.

I don't think my parents ever took me anywhere in a wagon train, so I'm not used to the notion at all.

A lot of things were different back in the days... 8-year-olds worked in factories, on whaling ships ... 5-year-old slaves picked cotton...

But today our society has (well at least tried) to be more protective of our children, which has, among other things, dramatically reduced child mortality. And parents seem to like that.

 

[JoeZhang]

Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades. I suppose what with the wagon trains and all we're used to the notion.

and if a husband wanted to beat his wife - who's business was it but his?

 

[Sci]

Starship Polaris said:
Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades.

Thank you for enumerating yet another of the many reasons that the United States should not have engaged in its campaign of continental conquest at the expense of Amerindians.

 

[Star Wolf]

JiNX-01 said:

Starship Polaris said:
Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades. I suppose what with the wagon trains and all we're used to the notion.

I don't think my parents ever took me anywhere in a wagon train, so I'm not used to the notion at all.

A lot of things were different back in the days... 8-year-olds worked in factories, on whaling ships ... 5-year-old slaves picked cotton...

But today our society has (well at least tried) to be more protective of our children, which has, among other things, dramatically reduced child mortality. And parents seem to like that.

I guess most places where one government surplants another if colonist are allowed in they are allowed to arm themselves for defense against the displaced people. Sometimes they are on their own, other cases they have direct military support. Although fans like to see combat Enterprise is not primarily a battleship. She is armed for self protection, as those in the space she explores may see invasion. Other ships like Defiant were to fight wars.

 

[Zeppster]

In TOS you had 5 year missions and it was more about the mission.

By TNG it was decided not to be 5 years but how ever long it would last. The writers and creators of the show decided a longer term mission would make sense to bring kids. They also made one of the bridge crew a teenager with Wesley gave him corny lines. The brought the importance of family into Trek and really it was shown in DS9 and even some in Voyager also.

 

[Timo]

We don't really know whether having kids aboard is a new thing for the TNG era. All we know is that Picard had previously served aboard a vessel that did not carry kids before getting the command of the E-D...

In "The Cage", civilian-clad teenagers are seen wandering on the corridors of the Enterprise. We never quite learn if all of Kirk's people were in uniform, either. Perhaps some familial comforts were provided to those who performed 5 yr missions in the 23rd century, too?

As for child endangerment, currently it is out of fashion, in the so-called western nations at least. Who knows where the pendulum might swing in a couple of centuries? The TNG folks might consider us barbarians for imprisoning our kids in horrible "safety" cages, torturing them with "care", and depriving them of life through "protection", all in the name of unapologetic selfishness.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Lilith]

And really, why are planets any safer? Earth's been under attack numerous times during TNG's run and I would wager (not having the exact figures), that we've seen planets in trouble almost as often as the big E was.

Take Wesley, he was a kid and one subjected to more danger and direct danger than the other kids onboard and he still survived

 

[C.E. Evans]

To me, it totally depends on what type of starship it is. The original mission for a Galaxy-class vessel allegedly required it to be on deep-space exploration missions of ten years or more in regions far from Federation space. As it was designed, the Galaxy-class starship was equipped with enough weaponry to defend itself from any potential threat, but it was built during a period of relative peace within the Federation.

That period came to an end after the Borg and the Dominion.

With peace restorted, Starfleet may once again consider putting families aboard newer, dedicated exploration vessels, but such ships may be smaller scouting ships with new tactical policies to avoid combat situations at all costs...

 

[Sci]

Lilith said:
And really, why are planets any safer?

Because they're not attacked nearly as often, obviously. No one's arguing that there's a such thing as a 100% safe place -- but there is a such thing as significantly raising a person's danger level, and travelling aboard a starship does just that.

 

[Galactic Alignment]

Lilith said:And really, why are planets any safer? Earth's been under attack numerous times during TNG's run and I would wager (not having the exact figures), that we've seen planets in trouble almost as often as the big E was.

I'd feel much safer in the Trekverse if my planet was under attack, or at immediate peril from an asteroid (for example) - at least in that reality there exists spaceships with Warp drives to evacuate the population, defend the planet, etc.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

JiNX-01 said:

Starship Polaris said:
Well, the United States was settled by Europeans at the cost of considerable "child endangerment" over many decades. I suppose what with the wagon trains and all we're used to the notion.

I don't think my parents ever took me anywhere in a wagon train, so I'm not used to the notion at all.

A lot of things were different back in the days... 8-year-olds worked in factories, on whaling ships ... 5-year-old slaves picked cotton...

But today our society has (well at least tried) to be more protective of our children, which has, among other things, dramatically reduced child mortality. And parents seem to like that.

Well then, no one will be going anywhere into space that requires long journeys for - well, forever really.

You think people will go off to explore and to settle other planets on the understanding that it's an adults-only weekend? Good luck with that.

 

[BriGuy]

Yes, they made a point of saying right at the start there were children and families aboard the D.

Perhaps it was one way of explaining why Wesley was on the ship.

But really, over the course of TNG's seven year run, how often did the children and "families" come into play? I think most of the time, they were not referenced, thought about or seen.

There were some episodes and stories that featured children and families, but as best I can remember they were few and far between. At least their presence gave them that avenue to explore for stories.

 

[Sci]

BriGuy said:
Yes, they made a point of saying right at the start there were children and families aboard the D.

Perhaps it was one way of explaining why Wesley was on the ship.

But really, over the course of TNG's seven year run, how often did the children and "families" come into play? I think most of the time, they were not referenced, thought about or seen.

There were some episodes and stories that featured children and families, but as best I can remember they were few and far between. At least their presence gave them that avenue to explore for stories.

What's the point of having an avenue you never use?

Besides, I always felt sorry for the children aboard the Yamato, or for the children aboard any of the other starships at Wolf 359, for instance.

 

[Vanyel]

Sci said:

BriGuy said:
Yes, they made a point of saying right at the start there were children and families aboard the D.

Perhaps it was one way of explaining why Wesley was on the ship.

But really, over the course of TNG's seven year run, how often did the children and "families" come into play? I think most of the time, they were not referenced, thought about or seen.

There were some episodes and stories that featured children and families, but as best I can remember they were few and far between. At least their presence gave them that avenue to explore for stories.

What's the point of having an avenue you never use?

Besides, I always felt sorry for the children aboard the Yamato, or for the children aboard any of the other starships at Wolf 359, for instance.

Families on a starship are a two edged sword.

On one hand, you'd have the added comfort of having your family aboard on a mission of exploration that could last 10 or more years. Even if you didn't allow families on board, a mission that long would have couple's pairing off and eventually having children. If you're three years from the nearest Starbase, you'd have no choice but to have families on board. As has been mentioned in other threads, officers who have families could be more inclined to volunteer for these long duration missions if they could bring there immediate family with them.

I would also imagine a ship like the Enterprise D would have occasional drills on emergency evacuation procedures and how to quickly and unobtrusively go to emergency shelters deep in the ships saucer, and to immediately evacuate the ships outer hull. The drills could include finding alternate routes of escape or to shelters and how to alert Security or Sick Bay in case of other emergencies.

Civilian leaders, either elected by the civilian population or appointed by the CO could be used to coordinate the civilian population in emergencies.

Shelters, like the ones shown in DS9 could dot the saucer with several on each level. Lot's of emergency procedures could be practiced without notice, similar to what I had to go through on occasion when I worked in a multi story (15 floors) building.

Ships not on deep space missions, in most cases would have the ability to off load unnecessary civilians. The Wolf 359 episode I think was an exception, Star Fleet needed ships there "NOW." Otherwise, they would have been off loaded.

I doubt that during the Dominion War that any ships had families aboard them. No matter it be fighting ships or freighters.

On the other hand. Life aboard a starship is inherently dangerous (e.g. the Yamato and the Saratoga). There are some disasters that there is no escape. A warp core breach may happen to suddenly to even alert the Captain. A ship could be attacked by overwhelming numbers, or a vastly technologically superior ship.

So what is there to do? Allow only unmarried, childless people on board? (I say childless because I see being left orphaned, physiologically as bad a fate as dieing.) Then having the crew ordered to not fraternize, marry, or have children? I don't think that would go over well and could cause Star Fleet to lose many talented people.

As a result having families on board a long duration exploratory mission is the better of the two ideas. It would be completely voluntary to bring your family with you. Having them with you can give you the chance to unwind, to maintain a sexual relationship with your spouse or partner, and be a part of your childs life.

To all you parent's out there, how would you feel if you missed you child's first steps? or first word? How would it feel to not be able to comfort them on their first heart breaking love? to miss 10 or more years of their life? If you leave when your child is say 10, would you really recognize or understand the adult they became during your absence?

Starship life is without a doubt dangerous. But to some that danger can be balanced by knowing your family is with you, that you can see them grow, that you can be a part of their life.

As long as it's voluntary, I see no problem with families on board.