Families on starhips: Great Idea or grossly irresponsible?

[Deimos Anomaly]

Grossly irresponsible. Starfleet is military. In the 22nd century it seemed quasi-military, more of an armed merchant-cum-exploration setup, with military forces as a seperate entity (i.e. the MACOs) but by the TOS and TNG eras, Starfleet has apparently absorbed the military and become the military... it's actually a dual-purpose org encompassing exploratory science and military duties. Some of those ships are definitely on the more benign, scientific side of that, like the Oberth for example. But Galaxy class ships are straight up military with some science on the side. They are the front line of Starfleet and indeed the UFP. Families have no business being on them.

 

[CoveTom]

It ultimately appeared to be grossly irresponsible because the Enterprise seemed to be always hanging around Federation space, close by to starbases and even Earth, and always getting into dangerous situations of one kind or another.

However, the original concept was that the Enterprise was a ship of deep space exploration which was going to be out in deep space for years at at a time with little or no contact with Starfleet, and certainly no opportunity to visit Earth. In that circumstance, expecting people to leave their families behind for that long a period of time was considered unrealistic, hence the inclusion of them on board ship.

Also, remember that Roddenberry's original conception of the Enterprise-D was that it was a ship of exploration which would go into battle only on rare occasions, and when it did, that it would separate the saucer section from the drive section in order to get the civilians to relative safety, as we saw in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Most of those ideas, including the Enterprise being out of touch for long periods of time and the frequent use of saucer separation, went by the wayside during the first season of the show. However, the idea of having families on board makes more sense when you consider them.

 

[Cyke101]

I would think, from a story standpoint, that the idea to have families on ships and the invention of routine saucer separation went hand-in-hand, with the idea being that the Enterprise would separate whenever they went into a questionable situation. That way, families would be safe while the professionals did their jobs. But the writers and producers agreed that saucer separation slowed storytelling too much, hence why there were only a handful of times that we see the Enterprise do it. Thus, if the original idea of separation as standard procedure happened more often, having families would be more palatable as long as the necessary precautions took place.

 

[Brolan]

Interestingly enough, I was in a similar situation. My father was a career NCO in the US Air Force. In the 70's we were stationed at Bitburg Air Force base in then West Germany.

As families we were fully aware that a European war might break out and Russian planes, commandos, and rockets would attack the base. We had kits in the basements of the housing areas with gas masks and basic supplies. We also had an evacuation plan for spouses and children to try to get to French ports and get evacuated by ship back to the US.

As a young teenager I was willing to run the risk to stay together as a family. I assume the Starfleet families feel the same way.

 

[malchya]

I think the idea was flawed from the very beginning. In the original writer's guide Roddenberry compared Federation starships to the covered wagons of the pioneers heading west, families firmly aboard. That's where the flaw begins. The "Enterprise" is not a covered wagon, even in analogy. Perhaps the ships of the colonization division would equate with covered wagons, as they are moving entire populations to new worlds, but the exploration vessels of Star Fleet are actually more analogous with Lewis and Clarke or the voyages of Cook in the Pacific. Families most emphatically did not accompany these voyages (or treks) of exploration. Families followed after.

 

[R. Star]

Also, remember that Roddenberry's original conception of the Enterprise-D was that it was a ship of exploration which would go into battle only on rare occasions, and when it did, that it would separate the saucer section from the drive section in order to get the civilians to relative safety, as we saw in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Most of those ideas, including the Enterprise being out of touch for long periods of time and the frequent use of saucer separation, went by the wayside during the first season of the show. However, the idea of having families on board makes more sense when you consider them.

There's a reason we only saw the saucer section used four times. It's just not practical beyond use as a giant escape pod. So the idea is to seperate the saucer section so the civilians can be kept away from dangerous situations. Sounds great in theory.

In practice it doesn't work well. You reduce your firepower and resources going into the said situation, performing the manuver is going to leave you vulnerable, and that saucer section is a sitting duck. If the drive section loses or is forced to retreat, the saucer can't follow suit without a warp drive. If anything, seperating makes them more vulnerable to a said situation.

 

[Use of Time]

Also, remember that Roddenberry's original conception of the Enterprise-D was that it was a ship of exploration which would go into battle only on rare occasions, and when it did, that it would separate the saucer section from the drive section in order to get the civilians to relative safety, as we saw in "Encounter at Farpoint".

Most of those ideas, including the Enterprise being out of touch for long periods of time and the frequent use of saucer separation, went by the wayside during the first season of the show. However, the idea of having families on board makes more sense when you consider them.

There's a reason we only saw the saucer section used four times. It's just not practical beyond use as a giant escape pod. So the idea is to seperate the saucer section so the civilians can be kept away from dangerous situations. Sounds great in theory.

In practice it doesn't work well. You reduce your firepower and resources going into the said situation, performing the manuver is going to leave you vulnerable, and that saucer section is a sitting duck. If the drive section loses or is forced to retreat, the saucer can't follow suit without a warp drive. If anything, seperating makes them more vulnerable to a said situation.

^This. Besides, 9 times out of 10 the Enterprise didn't know it was going to be in a fight until they were fired upon. In fact there were times when they actually had knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation and went in without separating the saucer. The blockade we saw in Redemption for example might have been a good time to separate.

Another good segue to this thread would be if anybody could point out other times when the Enterprise should have separated prior to a certain type of mission.

 

[Pavonis]

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.

The long-term, deep-space exploration program that the Galaxy-class ships were built for was contingent on the use of Farpoint as a mission support base. If you recall, that base floated away by the end of the TNG pilot episode. Without Farpoint, Starfleet couldn't support the deep-space exploration program, so it was apparently canceled. That's why the E-D ends up wandering around the Federation, the Neutral Zone, and the fringes of explored space.

As for including the families of officers, it made sense when the ships were going to be out for 10-20 years. Who could be away from their spouses and children for that long? After the long-term exploration program was put on hold (probably waiting for the Bandi to actually build another base, instead of enslaving one), the Galaxy-class ships were still more mobile starbases than starships. If it's acceptable to allow families on immobile starbases, how is it less acceptable to allow them on mobile ones?

 

[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.

The long-term, deep-space exploration program that the Galaxy-class ships were built for was contingent on the use of Farpoint as a mission support base. If you recall, that base floated away by the end of the TNG pilot episode. Without Farpoint, Starfleet couldn't support the deep-space exploration program, so it was apparently canceled. That's why the E-D ends up wandering around the Federation, the Neutral Zone, and the fringes of explored space.

As for including the families of officers, it made sense when the ships were going to be out for 10-20 years. Who could be away from their spouses and children for that long? After the long-term exploration program was put on hold (probably waiting for the Bandi to actually build another base, instead of enslaving one), the Galaxy-class ships were still more mobile starbases than starships. If it's acceptable to allow families on immobile starbases, how is it less acceptable to allow them on mobile ones?

I think the point about the entire Galaxy Class program being dependent on one base is flawed. Space goes in all directions so by that logic we would assume that all of the Galaxy ships basically went in one direction. The Galaxy Class program would be dependant on several starbases acting as hub that could meet their needs. I doubt they scrapped the entire concept for a class of ships based off of one starbase not working out.

 

[Pavonis]

Ok, then, they scrapped it for the Enterprise and perhaps the Yamato, too. But they definitely scrapped the program for exploration in that direction. Maybe the Odyssey and Venture had support bases at the other end of the Federation, and did explore for about a decade in another sector.

 

[The Librarian]

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.

Unless it's something like the Crystaline Entity, which can scrape the surface of a planet clean and yet not penetrate a starship's shields, or a swarm of space slugs attach themselves to your brain, or unless it turns out that planet is one of those that spontaneously explode or have the atmosphere evaporate. For that matter, a single photon torpedo could wipe out a small colony or a large city.

Maybe the right thing to do is live on a space station and get the best parts of both.

 

[Gary7]

I also agree that it's situation dependent, which is not among the choices. What kind of starship are we talking about? A purely exploration vessel or one that has a good likelihood of seeing combat? The Enterprise D proved to be a very risky place for families, based on the episodes we've seen.

I think any ship that has a greater than 25% chance of seeing combat should NOT have families, and those less than 25% have them conditionally. Meaning that families need to be heavily screened. They may be there for officers and others who accept the risks, but overall they must be a small minority of the population.

It's funny, when we watch TNG and see those children/family episodes and there's no battle scenario, it's easy to accept their presence. But when you have these episodes sending the Enterprise into battle or facing extremely dangerous situations, there's not a single sign of children or families. It's easy to forget that they are there. One exception I can think of was in "Generations", when we see our hero characters carrying kids to safety in the primary hull. But what about "Masks", where so much of the ship turned into an Aztec nightmare? No sign of children. And what about the mutations in Genesis? We have to believe that all the kids on board were transformed, but we never saw them. Completely out of mind.

One thing I always thought the Enterprise should have is a special large cargo ship incorporated into the hull structure that would serve as a massive life boat. When the Enterprise is about to embark on a potentially hostile mission, Picard would order all the families (save the essential crew members) into the life boat and have them orbit some benign world while the Enterprise is off taking risks.

 

[DonIago]

That large cargo ship would be the saucer section...

 

[Saito S]

I also agree that it's situation dependent, which is not among the choices. What kind of starship are we talking about? A purely exploration vessel or one that has a good likelihood of seeing combat? The Enterprise D proved to be a very risky place for families, based on the episodes we've seen.

The problem with this is that it isn't just combat. The Trek universe has shown us that any ship wandering out in the great unknown is in almost as much danger from random anomalies or previously unknown crazy lifeforms as from a more traditional "combat situation", i.e. hostile spacecraft. As Q said, exploring the galaxy isn't for the timid.

I think any ship that has a greater than 25% chance of seeing combat should NOT have families, and those less than 25% have them conditionally. Meaning that families need to be heavily screened. They may be there for officers and others who accept the risks, but overall they must be a small minority of the population.

This is along the lines of how I've always viewed it. Ron Moore has a quote where he talks about how "awkward" it was to see Picard ordering red alert and all hands to battle stations as the ship faces down a Romulan Warbird while we know there are kiddies running around underfoot, and I agree. He called the families on the ship thing a "failed experiment." I presume he means from a production standpoint, that it was an idea the creators had that ultimately proved to not be so great, but I look at it as a "failed experiment" in-universe, as well. Starfleet had this idea, perhaps borne of overconfidence in their peace-keeping abilities after nearly a century of peace with the Klingons and their only major conflict being against the comparatively wimpy Cardassians. But the results of this "experiment" were clearly disastrous, so they scrapped it later.

I can see a screening process being adopted, along the lines of what you suggest. Individual civilians could apply for residency on a ship; this would allow for your bartenders, scientific specialists, and officers' loved ones. But the screening would include a battery of tests to make sure the person would be able to either contribute, or - at the very least - stay out of the way during a crisis (and a bunch of waivers they'd have to sign as well, no doubt!). Instead of "chance of combat", I think danger would be considered in terms of "distance from Federation core worlds." It seems to me that the farther away from those you are, the more dangerous things become - whether that danger is from hostile vessels or anomalies-of-the-week. Within the Federation, there are more areas that have long been fully charted, and any hazards catalogued, so a ship whose assignment keeps it on patrol within a UFP sector is far less likely to run into trouble unexpectedly than a ship out exploring unknown, uncharted space (or a ship that spends its time hanging out along the border with a hostile power). The higher the "danger rating", the more difficult it is to obtain permission to live on that ship as a civ.

And no children, period, except on the safest of the safe (ships with static assignments that rarely stray out of rock-throwing distance from a starbase).

It's funny, when we watch TNG and see those children/family episodes and there's no battle scenario, it's easy to accept their presence. But when you have these episodes sending the Enterprise into battle or facing extremely dangerous situations, there's not a single sign of children or families. It's easy to forget that they are there. One exception I can think of was in "Generations", when we see our hero characters carrying kids to safety in the primary hull. But what about "Masks", where so much of the ship turned into an Aztec nightmare? No sign of children. And what about the mutations in Genesis? We have to believe that all the kids on board were transformed, but we never saw them. Completely out of mind.

I never really thought about it this way, but you're right. They did highlight it a couple of times, though, most notably in "Rascals." Granted, it may have seemed worse by virtue of the entire episode being terrible, but Riker's "our families are a strength" line during the scene with the Ferengi threatening to start executing children really put an uncomfortable spotlight on the whole thing.

One thing I always thought the Enterprise should have is a special large cargo ship incorporated into the hull structure that would serve as a massive life boat. When the Enterprise is about to embark on a potentially hostile mission, Picard would order all the families (save the essential crew members) into the life boat and have them orbit some benign world while the Enterprise is off taking risks.

I agree with DonIago: what you're describing is basically the saucer section. How it was used in GEN is exactly how I always felt it should be used. The idea that the ship became more combat-effective by having half of the thing shear off and fly away always struck me as extremely silly, and having saucer separation be a standard maneuver when combat was expected was a really terrible idea that I'm glad they did away with.

 

[Skellington]

Irresponsible, assuming that something like real-world rules apply. The Enterprise is a special case, though, as Our Heroes are destined to prevail.

 

[Ian Keldon]

One has to keep in mind one of the early premises of TNG: Starfleet missions were getting longer and longer. It is a simple fact (esp with humans) that it is impossible to adequately maintain family structures with extended absences from key members of the family unit.

The original mission-brief for the Galaxy class was a 20 year deep-space assignment entirely away from Federation support of all kinds. The better part of a generation would pass between the time those ships left port and the time they returned home.

Asking sentient beings to go 2 decades w/o the benefits of a stable family and social structure just wasn't feasible.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always kind of imagined that the Enterprise-D's first seven years of operation were dominated by her flagship duties around the Federation, and she was just about to finally embark on a lengthy deep-space exploration mission at the time of Generations.

 

[Gary7]

This is along the lines of how I've always viewed it. Ron Moore has a quote where he talks about how "awkward" it was to see Picard ordering red alert and all hands to battle stations as the ship faces down a Romulan Warbird while we know there are kiddies running around underfoot, and I agree. He called the families on the ship thing a "failed experiment." I presume he means from a production standpoint, that it was an idea the creators had that ultimately proved to not be so great, but I look at it as a "failed experiment" in-universe, as well. Starfleet had this idea, perhaps borne of overconfidence in their peace-keeping abilities after nearly a century of peace with the Klingons and their only major conflict being against the comparatively wimpy Cardassians. But the results of this "experiment" were clearly disastrous, so they scrapped it later.

I can see a screening process being adopted, along the lines of what you suggest. [...] And no children, period, except on the safest of the safe (ships with static assignments that rarely stray out of rock-throwing distance from a starbase).

I never really thought about it this way, but you're right. They did highlight it a couple of times, though, most notably in "Rascals." Granted, it may have seemed worse by virtue of the entire episode being terrible, but Riker's "our families are a strength" line during the scene with the Ferengi threatening to start executing children really put an uncomfortable spotlight on the whole thing.

Very interesting. I hadn't known anything about Ron Moore's take on this subject. What you've said sort of stands out like a sore thumb when thinking about those episodes where it really didn't work. Good point about "Rascals". Yeah, the threat of children being executed is not exactly what you want to bring into the limelight when focused on a "family" show.

I agree with DonIago: what you're describing is basically the saucer section. How it was used in GEN is exactly how I always felt it should be used. The idea that the ship became more combat-effective by having half of the thing shear off and fly away always struck me as extremely silly, and having saucer separation be a standard maneuver when combat was expected was a really terrible idea that I'm glad they did away with.

The idea I was mulling over is that 1/3rd of the saucer section would be subdivided as a separate detachable part, with it's own sublight engines. But yeah, I could see the whole saucer section being the lifeboat, as we witnessed in several cases. The only "flaw" to this set-up is that the docking flange on the secondary hull has no leading edge phaser array as on the primary hull. You'd figure that this would be necessary, as you wouldn't want to lessen the fire power. Without the saucer section, the ship should be more maneuverable (less mass) as well as a smaller target. But the design they came up with makes it look so... "stumpy". Not very formidable looking.

 

[T'Girl]

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.

But you would not have to "take out" a entire planet to rack up a high civilian/dependent death count. A sizable starbase with perhaps thousands of dependents - if destroyed - would account for more dependent deaths than destroying a hundred starships.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

At least starbases usually had somewhere to evacuate to, and often some lead time before trouble actually hit. I seem to recall multiple times where civilians on DS9 evacuated to Bajor in anticipation of trouble.