www.ditl.org

Also, the PURPOSE of your car is to get your family around... the purpose of a starship is not to be an interstellar taxi for the families of whomever lasts throught he Academy!

And in addition to all those times that Capt. Seafort mentioned, there were many other times during which the ship was in some sort of danger, combat or otherwise, due to on-mission circumstances. It's just the nature of exploration of that type, as well as the military purposes of such a ship.

Sovereign Class for the win!!!

Captain Seafort wrote: They are merely deadweight, there because of a Starfleet belief that their presence significantly improves crew performance. This belief is utter nonsense because real life warships perfectly well without having families aboard, as did Federation starships of Kirk's day. Their removal would not cause the ship to cease functioning, and would remove a) the risk of a crewman abandoning his duties during a crisis to check on his family's safety and b) the number of people killed if the ship were to be lost.

While the risks are certainly there, the analogy to modern warships isn't quite fair. I think a large part of the issue is that on long range exploration missions these days that five year mission does not involve going home to see the wife and kids. (it would seem). That is brutal.

In addition to the short term problems it would probably weaken starfleet as kids would tend to be born to people who didn't want to be in starfleet, or who couldn't get a top spot on an exploration ship. And thus a higher percentage of children might not want to go into starfleet, or weren't driven to learn calculus in the third grade.

Also, and I don't know how much this applies to starships, but you actually might get better performance out of people when loved ones are at stake. Defending armies( in days of old where losing meant slavery for your family instead of new schools etc) are well known for being harder to break than an attacking army. And all the stories of "And then they fought valiently unto the last man" apply to a defending army as far as I can remember.

So what I'm saying is people may pay a little more attention to their work and be a bit more willing to run into a room of deadly gas or what have you.

Woot. Good to see someone else on the side of a family man.

Wait, why would they run into a room full of deadly gas? And wouldn't having a family on board encourage them to live and not run into a room of deadly gas.

Yes, I would think that having your family aboard your ship - which is under fire - is a distraction more than anything else.

Also, and I don't know how much this applies to starships, but you actually might get better performance out of people when loved ones are at stake. Defending armies( in days of old where losing meant slavery for your family instead of new schools etc) are well known for being harder to break than an attacking army. And all the stories of "And then they fought valiently unto the last man" apply to a defending army as far as I can remember.

Those ancient soldiers were defending their families BECAUSE they were defending their homes. They sure as hell didn't defend their ships at sea while they had their wives and children aboard.

sunnyside wrote:While the risks are certainly there, the analogy to modern warships isn't quite fair. I think a large part of the issue is that on long range exploration missions these days that five year mission does not involve going home to see the wife and kids. (it would seem). That is brutal.

Having to choose between a career and a family is brutal? Simple solution - if you want a family either don't join Starfleet or join a branch that doesn't involve long-duration missions. The fact remains that having civilians on warships reduces the combat effectiveness of those ships, and that costs lives.

In addition to the short term problems it would probably weaken starfleet as kids would tend to be born to people who didn't want to be in starfleet, or who couldn't get a top spot on an exploration ship. And thus a higher percentage of children might not want to go into starfleet, or weren't driven to learn calculus in the third grade.

Why would it weaken Starfleet? The modern armed forces aren't drawn solely from military families. Sure, I think there's a greater likelyhood of an individual with a military family background joining, but it's nowhere near.

Also, and I don't know how much this applies to starships, but you actually might get better performance out of people when loved ones are at stake. Defending armies( in days of old where losing meant slavery for your family instead of new schools etc) are well known for being harder to break than an attacking army. And all the stories of "And then they fought valiently unto the last man" apply to a defending army as far as I can remember.

It's got nothing to do with starships - the advantage of the defence is mainly due to the fact that it's a lot more difficult to advance on a defended poition than it is to hide behind a tree and shoot at the attackers.

Having to choose between a career and a family is brutal? Simple solution - if you want a family either don't join Starfleet or join a branch that doesn't involve long-duration missions. The fact remains that having civilians on warships reduces the combat effectiveness of those ships, and that costs lives.

Thats hardly simple. Starfleet puts family first and I applude them for it. They may get a better calaber of crew by allowing this.

They may attract poeple who otherwise wouldn't have joined, but then they end up with people who have divided priorities and built-in distractions.

Thats hardly simple. Starfleet puts family first and I applude them for it. They may get a better calaber of crew by allowing this.

Unlikely. The crew would be distracted by constant worries about their family. They may not work as hard, merely enough to get through their shift and back to their families. Having civilians on board means the ship has to be larger and have facilities on board that would be otherwise unecassary. There's a possibility that crew would abandon their posts if their family was in danger, thus jepordising the rest of the crew.

Do you really think that keeping the crew slightly happier (and some may prefer not to have their families in constant danger) justifies all these downsides?

Your forgetting that they have a choie. They choose to bring their families or leave them behind. If they want them here they are obviously going to be better off. Starfleet is not just a military. Think of all the scientists and such that might not of joined if it weren't for the ability to bring family.

And again; when there is a problem involving danger or violence - because there will be - those people have distractions and divided priorities.

Teaos wrote:Your forgetting that they have a choie. They choose to bring their families or leave them behind.

Anyone who actually cares about the safety of their family would leave them behind, rather than taking them on a ship which frequently encounters dangerous events.

If they want them here they are obviously going to be better off.

In what way? By being slightly happier? How does that possibly make up for that large list of problems that would cause?

I, earlier, wrote:The crew would be distracted by constant worries about their family. They may not work as hard, merely enough to get through their shift and back to their families. Having civilians on board means the ship has to be larger and have facilities on board that would be otherwise unecassary. There's a possibility that crew would abandon their posts if their family was in danger, thus jepordising the rest of the crew.

Well?

Teaos wrote:Starfleet is not just a military.

In name? No. In actions? Yes, it is a military force. The fact that they undertake civilian missions with military ships is just one more piece of stupidity.

Think of all the scientists and such that might not of joined if it weren't for the ability to bring family.

Think of all the civilians and children who might not have been killed if it weren't for the ability to bring family.

Every modern day big business is starting to intergrate day care to help out there workers. They are building social louges for breaks and indorr gardens for them to walk through.

Do they do this to drop productivity? No they do it because it helps there workers. Happy workers are far better than workers who just show up to do their jobs. There are many studies that show all these systems of having child care and making a family enviroment hgely helps productivity. And if there is one thing starfleet does its to keep its people happy.

Now you may say those children have no danger? 9/11 and the Oklahoma city bombing would disagre with you. I know those events are rear but over all so is a starship getting destroyed.

Every modern day big business is starting to intergrate day care to help out there workers. They are building social louges for breaks and indorr gardens for them to walk through.

Er, what? Company daycare center =/= dangerous starship enviroment.

Do they do this to drop productivity? No they do it because it helps there workers. Happy workers are far better than workers who just show up to do their jobs. There are many studies that show all these systems of having child care and making a family enviroment hgely helps productivity. And if there is one thing starfleet does its to keep its people happy.

So? In a company the workers don't have to worry about their kids getting killed by spatial anomaly/evil alien of the week.
And, again, how does a possible increase in the happieness of the crew make up for all those major problems I mentioned?

Now you may say those children have no danger? 9/11 and the Oklahoma city bombing would disagre with you. I know those events are rear but over all so is a starship getting destroyed.

Do company buildings go looking for dangerous anomalies? No, but starships do. The chance of a Federation starship getting blown up is vastly more likely than a building getting bombed.