Federation Temporal Policy
#1
Working my way through TNG at the moment, and just finished watching Cause and Effect (S05E18) where the crew get stuck in a temporal loop for 17 days, and manage to free the USS Boseman, who were trapped for over 90 years....
Now my question is, whilst it's often pointed out that Federation crew aren't 'paid' as such, they do accrue leave... In this circumstance, whose calendar do they use to calculate it? Or do they follow Star Corps example (from the UK show Red Dwarf)

Regulation 997. 'Work done by an officer's doppelgänger in a parallel universe cannot be claimed as overtime.'

Regulation 1694. 'During temporal disturbances, no questions shall be raised about any crew member whose timesheet shows him or her clocking off 187 years before he clocked on.'

Another query is what they would do if a previous incarnation of a ship re-appeared, like when the Enterprise C shows up in Yesterdays Enterprise (S03E15), had they not been sent back, but instead stayed in the present, would the ships keep their names, or would one need to change, and if so, which ship would take precedence?

I would like to think they would change the name, seeing as command struggled to keep two RFA ships distinguished that they eventually changed the name of RFA Fort Grange to RFA Fort Rosalie, because it was deemed too similar to RFA Fort George...

What are peoples thoughts?
Reply
#2
As Starfleet has many USN connotations, I'm sure the accrual of leave would probably match or be very similar to that sort of format?

As for ships returning, perhaps it's a situation like VOY: Equinox, (can't remember the regulation and not looking it up lol) where Janeway states that in the event of 2 Captains being present, the Captain with the larger and/or more powerful ship shall take command over the other?
I'd imagine in any case they would probably retire the ship and crew to do all the evaluations they need, then they could possibly re-service the ship.
They didn't rename the Enterprise-E but continued to use her for testing technology etc long after she was decommissioned, so that could also be an alternative

Sent from my H8216 using Tapatalk
Reply
#3
*Kryten voice* Um Sir, I do believe you meant to say 'Space' Corp directives. Star Corp. is only a colloquialism used in an ancient log book. However, before you attempt in your shame to space walk without a helmet again, I feel I must remind you of Space Corp. directive 147: 'Crew members are expressly forbidden from leaving their vessel except on permission of a permit. Permits can only be issued by the Chief Navigation Officer, who is expressly forbidden from issuing them except on production of a permit.' and now sir I'll get back to tht laundry of yours that needs doing. *Kryten voice ends*

I imagine in the case of the Enterprise's 17 days, assuming no events of major importance occured, that they'd continue with leave allocations as if nothing had happened. Maybe a few minor tweaks to rosters to accommodate anyone who was due for a transfer or shore leave off ship and who now need to re-book time off with other facilities. Starfleet may perhaps assign light duties in such occurrences to allow ship crews time to catch up on events or perhaps add an extra day or so of leave for the same reason.

In the case of the Bozeman, with 90 years displacement then it's not just a matter of 90 years worth of shore leave; they would at a minimum require a complete re-education in the new technology and political environment of the times and that's  assuming they choose to remain with Starfleet. Many may even need to be discharged on medical grounds; they're suddenly thrust into an unfamiliar future with no way back (main characters rules/exclusions regarding time travel not withstanding!) having lost all their friends and families. It'd be a lot to deal with emotionally never mind the retraining for more modern ships/systems.

As for the ship itself, there is evidence the Bozeman may well have been retrofitted and brought back into service, (a lot of older mothballed ships were reactivated and hastily retrofitted for the Federation-Cardassian war, Bozeman may have been a prime choice having skipped 90 years worth of ware and tare,) or perhaps another ship is later named after it. In First Contact when the fleet first prepares to engage the Borg cube theres a line of dialogue on the comm link Picard opens "...Defiant and Bozeman, fall back to mobile position one..."

For ships like the Ent-C appearing next to the D. I'd imagine that Starfleet would have to declare vessels lost and thus strike their names from the active register freeing them up for use on another vessel. Just because it reappears thanks to temporal shenanigans doesn't alter the fact that ship will have been marked decommissioned/missing/destroyed in action before another ship could bare the same name.

Had the C stayed and assuming it been a Bozeman type situation where the timeline didn't hinge on their return, then she would likely have been marked as decommissioned, then shipped off to be analyzed for an explanation to it's reappearance, followed by either scrap for parts (unlikely when the Ambassador is a more modern and capable ship than the Miranda and we see plenty of them still in service) or mothballed (in which case she may retain her name and markings 'Enterprise 1701 C' indefinatly).

Although there would be another Enterprise active in Starfleet, the C wouldn't be registered as an active ship and so reference to 'Enterprise' would be assumed to be in relation to the Galaxy class unless otherwise stated.

If not mothballed or decommissioned she would probably be retrofitted, brought up to modern spec. and recommissioned with a new name. The 'Sao Paolo' being renamed 'Defiant' after the loss of the original shows Starfleet isn't adverse to renaming vessels with adequate reason. I don't see why this couldn't happen in reverse; an older ship with a name in use by a more modern vessel being renamed something new as it re-enters service. Indeed as your reference to RFA Fort Grange becoming RFA Fort Rosalie  shows, renaming vessels for any number of reasons is a perfectly normal thing to happen in real life.

Reply
#4
In the Bozeman's specific case, according to beta canon she was refit and put into service with the Department of Temporal Investigations, maintaining almost all of her original crew.  
As for captains taking seniority over each other, the beta canon states that one officer can order the other around if one of the following applies
  • They have a higher rank
  • They are the same rank, but have been that rank for an appreciable time longer
  • They have the more advanced/larger/important ship
Also the Ent-E wasn't decommissioned, she was lost in space.
[Image: 9jilqcf.gif]
Reply
#5
(04-23-2019, 01:05 AM)coolkirk1701 Wrote: In the Bozeman's specific case, according to beta canon she was refit and put into service with the Department of Temporal Investigations, maintaining almost all of her original crew.  
As for captains taking seniority over each other, the beta canon states that one officer can order the other around if one of the following applies
  • They have a higher rank
  • They are the same rank, but have been that rank for an appreciable time longer
  • They have the more advanced/larger/important ship
Also the Ent-E wasn't decommissioned, she was lost in space.

Which poses the question again, of which would you consider having been in the role longer, elapsed time in role, or date from when they were promoted to the role?

Thankfully we're just spit-balling the idea here, but you can almost imagine the clerk whose job it is to create these rules when he first starts hearing about the temporal shenanigans....
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Sponsored Links