Families on starhips: Great Idea or grossly irresponsible?

[timmy84]

I was reading the latest book in the Typhon Pact series and I started having flashbacks to Star Trek TNG and DS9. Two instances jumped out at me. The destruction of the Enterprise-D sister ship, and the destruction of the ship Sisko served on at the Battle of Wolf 359.

How many civilians died in those two instances, and only because their lives were put into danger by Starfleet. Assuming the Yamato (did I spell that correctly?) had the same crew as the Enterprise, then children were on that ship. And we know that Sisko's ship had families on board. Those ships didn't do the responsible thing and drop the families on board off somewhere (especially considering that Wolf 359 is a real place, and isn't to far from Earth in Star Trek terms).

So I'm voting irresponsible. Those families could have been saved (and on DS9, the Odyssey's captain made it a point to unload the civilian crew and family on DS9 before heading on a mission into the Gamma Quadrant).

 

[sbk1234]

I agree. I know how hard it is for me to concentrate on my job when my kids have a cold or something. If my children were in a situation where they could be killed, I wouldn't be able to function at all. I'd HAVE to be with them.
Starfleet is a dangerous job. But Starfleet officers/crew are adults who have made that informed decision to face those risks. The children were in no position to decide such for themselves.

 

[Vanyel]

For a long range deep space mission during a time of relative peace, like the 1701-D and her sister Galaxy Class ships were designed for it's not an irresponsible thing to do so long as all the people on board know the situation they are signing up for.

The Battle of Wolf 359 may not have given all 40 Starfleet ships time to drop off their civilian complement. Ships coming from Earth or by Earth or a Starbase may have had time to evacuate the civilians or send them off on shuttle to a near Starbase or Federation planet, the Saratoga just didn't seem to have time to stop at a Starbase. Sisko knew the risks of bringing his family aboard, and Jennifer knew the risks as well and they both chose to expose Jake to that risk.

In a time of war, yes it is irresponsible:

Children? On the Enterprise? Guinan we're at war.

Otherwise so long as the adults understand the risks, go for it.

 

[commanderkai]

It really depends on the situation, to be honest. Ships like the USS Defiant, but also every other ship during the Dominion War was most likely just crew, but during peace time, away from any predictable military action, having families on starships is reasonable, much like how military bases in the United States have residential communities on or near the base for families. Once, for example, DS9 came under threat of the Dominion, its civilian population were routinely evacuated to either Bajor, or other planets.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

...so long as all the people on board know the situation they are signing up for.

That's the problem. The children aren't old enough to understand the risks, and many of them can't evacuate without lots of help. They have no business on a starship. On a well-defended starbase, I can understand; that is probably the equivalent of living on a military base IRL.

Even on DS9, though, it becomes very questionable as the Dominion War breaks out and DS9 essentially becomes a forward-operating base right on the front lines.

 

[R. Star]

Eh, given how often Federation ships are exposed to danger even during peace time it's grossly irresponsible. I'd like to think Wolf 359 slowed this concept down and the Dominion War finally ended it.

Certainly you never see a civillian on the Enterprise E so it does appear to be a thing of the past.

I mean it sounds great in theory, but in practice reality just takes a big bite out of your loved one's rear end.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I think it would be a good idea, though only during peacetime. On deep space missions, it would help crewmembers with families to relax and enjoy both parts of their lives, whilst also giving the next generation exposure to the wonders of the universe (better than any recruiting poster ). In a state of war, they would be removed in favour of additional crew and/or troops.

 

[BillJ]

I abstained as there is no "depends on the mission of the ship" option.

 

[Use of Time]

Grossly irresponsible. Forget the whole war time/peace time argument. Just think how many times the Enterprise D was close to getting destroyed in TNG on missions they thought were going to be exploratory/routine. It would only take a few times before I ended up putting my family on the next transport home.

 

[BillJ]

Grossly irresponsible. Forget the whole war time/peace time argument. Just think how many times the Enterprise D was close to getting destroyed in TNG on missions they thought were going to be exploratory/routine. It would only take a few times before I ended up putting my family on the next transport home.

Except for the fact that the Enterprise was the featured ship. I'm working from a point-of-view that an ordinary ship may run into one situation like we see on the series over the course of seven years, if ever.

So I think mission profile and stability of the area the ship is working in would represent two big factors.

 

[Garrovick]

Grossly irresponsible, peacetime or not. There's the fate of the USS Yamato to consider - but even look at an episode like "Home Soil", which started out as a simple visit to a terraforming operation but which could easily have resulted in the destruction of the Enterprise-D.

 

[BillJ]

Grossly irresponsible, peacetime or not. There's the fate of the USS Yamato to consider...

Well, Varley could be considered grossly irresponsible for taking families into the neutral zone to begin with.

 

[DonIago]

Situation-dependent.

"Children aren't old enough to understand the risks" strikes me as a rather facetious argument though, given that even in this day and age we place kids in all kinds of situations that they might object to. Part of being a parent is having parental responsibility, for better or worse.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I abstained as there is no "depends on the mission of the ship" option.

Ditto.

 

[The Librarian]

I think it's worth keeping in mind that Starfleet doesn't base its decisions entirely on what's "normal" for humans. Maybe for Andorians bringing your kids along to battle is considered good fun for the whole family, and for some other species (idk, the Kangarooians) it may be biologically impossible not to bring children along in some circumstances. I think ultimately it would depend heavily on the ship's primary assignment and location. A ship that's going to spend a year doing an in-depth survey of a planet inside the Federation isn't in the same danger as a ship patrolling the Neutral Zone. Also, the entire point of the Galaxy-class families as intended was that it was to perform multi-year missions with little contact with home. Even for humans that would be hard to do, and again for some Federation members it might be impossible.

Also, given the rate that planets get threatened with total destruction in the Trek universe (even without outside threats, they seem to explode at the drop of a hat), maybe a starship doesn't seem that bad. At least they can shoot back or run away.

 

[Use of Time]

Grossly irresponsible. Forget the whole war time/peace time argument. Just think how many times the Enterprise D was close to getting destroyed in TNG on missions they thought were going to be exploratory/routine. It would only take a few times before I ended up putting my family on the next transport home.

Except for the fact that the Enterprise was the featured ship. I'm working from a point-of-view that an ordinary ship may run into one situation like we see on the series over the course of seven years, if ever.

So I think mission profile and stability of the area the ship is working in would represent two big factors.

The things that happened to the Enterprise weren't exclusive to it being the flaghship of the Federation. Think of the simple missions they encountered that could have been possibly handled by another "normal ship" like an Oberth or Nebula Class ship. They encountered danger with the Psi-2000 virus, the Iconian probe, the holographic salesmen in "The Arsenal of Freedom," they actually had their children stolen in "When the Bough Breaks." That was all in the first couple of seasons. Those were situations that didn't necesarrily require the presence of a Galaxy class starship. They just fell into the category of wrong place, wrong time, wrong circumstances.

If you are going with the perspective that the Enterprise isn't normal because it's the featured ship on a T.V. show then that is probably counterintuitive to this discussion.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Also, given the rate that planets get threatened with total destruction in the Trek universe

Which is far less than a ship getting threatened as you need more fire power to take out a planet, making that a bad comparison.

 

[MacLeod]

Perhaps it was more to do with that the Galaxy Class was designed for long term issions 10-20 years. Only putting into spacedock sporadically.

 

[Use of Time]

I think that that idea was a passing thought that was scrapped early. That concept never really seemed to stay consistent as the Enterprise returned to Earth on several occasions and seemed to be within shouting distances of most place in the Alpha/Beta Quadrant. They never really just picked a direction and kept going out into the real unknown by themselves.

 

[Nightdiamond]

An idea they added on was that in situation that would be dangerous, they would go to a base and offload families and non essential personnel.

In practice that hardly ever happened- there were a large number of times a ship ran into something dangerous that nearly wiped out all the people on board.

"The Naked Now", "Unnatural Selection" "Hero Worship", are just a few examples.

The heart was in the right place, but seems impractical sometimes.