Fleeing disasters with a 3 month old infant

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Howdy folks,

I've scoured Google and the AW forums, but I can't seem to find much in the way of this specific situation and I just want to make sure that I cover the appropriate grounds before calling it good. My research has yielded a whole bunch of 'buy a better stroller and pack a weather radio', which is not the least bit helpful here.

My story is set on a space ship, so think steel walls, plastic, glass -- hard surfaces. The ship is currently nose-diving under a barrage of explosions, so now we're sliding all over the place and bouncing off of those hard surfaces.

The father is a military officer, so he's quite muscular and physically hard too. There is no mother/partner, he's a single parent. When the attacks begin (unexpectedly) he's on the far side of the ship carrying out his officer duties. So he's got to cross the entire ship, putting him behind on the timeline as is while he grabs his infant daughter out of her cradle. He can't really gently waltz off, the ship is rolling and he has to get to the docking bay. The baby is roughly 3 months old. Her cradle is, out of necessity, bolted to the floor with a hand-wavey advanced hydraulic system to keep her stable while in flight, so he can't pick it up. There are 3 point harnesses available, but they're not designed to support a child that small. (Think seat belts, rock-climbing harnesses, etc; not really designed to protect itty-bitty people from impact.)

I do have a bag nearby that he keeps stocked with some emergency supplies: extra blankets, bottles, and formula. Their diapers are spiffy nylon things that are reusable with proper sanitation, so I omitted those. He does manage to snatch that bag before he leaves her nursery.

I thought the biggest danger would come with the jarring of being in a person's arms who's running. However, the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome website says that "Shaken injuries are not caused by...jogging or bicycling with your baby. Although the activities listed above can be dangerous and are not recommended, they will likely not cause SBS injuries." And then there's this, from another website, " It occurs when an adult violently shakes a baby, causing the baby's head to move quickly from a chin on chest position all the way back. Think of it as baby-whiplash occurring several times."

So, he won't kill her by running if he's got her locked in his arms and her head is held steady between his hands and his chest.

Outside of that, what other dangers would a parent think of (or have prepared for ahead of time) in a snap-occurrence disaster and how might those be offset to some extent? I'm not a parent, so I'll take any information or stories you can share about how he might negate some of the stress on his daughter. Is the best solution to just have him run like a loon and leave everything? Would that horrify a parent with his actions, or at the situation? I don't want him to come across as an incompetent dummy, but as a father pinned between death and doing everything in his power to save his child from said death. That being said, it's a disaster, so he's probably not toting a bulky 60lbs of baby gear+toys around while the ship breaks apart above his head.

Thank you for any shared thoughts!
 
Last edited:

Jaymz Connelly

Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
12,797
Reaction score
2,700
Location
under a rock
Has he got enough room in his uniform to tuck the baby inside against his chest? That'd be my first idea to try to lessen any impact of flying debris that might cut her.

My instinct would be to tuck her inside the uniform, sling the bag over my shoulder, cradle her head against my chest with one hand, support her body with the other hand, and do my best to get to safety as quickly as possible. As long as he remembers to keep her head supported, she'll likely be as okay as possible in the scenario. She'll probably be wailing like a banshee, though. :)

One thing to consider with a space ship - does it have artificial gravity? And if so, will that gravity be lost due to the attack so they'll be weightless? I'm not familiar with the effects of weightlessness, but maybe it would make it easier to support the babe with one hand while pulling himself along with the other? I'm assuming here that you're not going for hard SF (given the mentioned handwavium about the cradle). As he's running, he'll probably try to twist and turn his body to protect her from any flying debris or from banging against the walls.

I'm guessing the father is going for an escape pod. If they've allowed him to bring the baby on the ship, they've likely got a special escape pod rigged out that will have a spot to secure the baby. BUT, of course they may not get to that pod and it'll be any port in a storm. If they don't make it to their designated escape pod, it may be difficult for the father to keep the baby safe, depending on how the escape pods manoeuver. He could secure the harness around both of them, but if the pod moves too quickly as it's escaping the ship he'd risk having her crushed between the webbing of the harness and himself.

Just a little something to consider - if the ship is a military spaceship, I'd have a really hard time believing they'd allow him to bring an infant on board. The likeliest scenario is that he would have to arrange for someone else to take care of the child on the planet or space station they came from while he's on the mission.

I'm not a doctor, or a military person, but I am a mom and if I had to try to escape from that type of disaster when my oldest was that teeny, that's what I'd do.
 

ap123

Twitching
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,732
Location
In the 212
I'd think he'd have a spaceship version of a car seat, with a five point harness system. If not (or if he needs/wants to have both hands available) he'd have and grab a wearable carrier. Some version of carriers have been used for a gazillion years, so I don't think it would be improbable for them to still be in use in the future.

When kiddos were small, I alternated between this and this.
 

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Thank you for the super helpful comment, Jaymz Connelly! I hadn't considered sticking her in his uniform, that'd be a great solution to better protecting her body on the gauntlet out.

The ship itself isn't military, he's a military officer that volunteered (so that he could be with his daughter) to work on a portable colony and help ease some political tensions. So the escape shuttles are universally kitted out to support youngins' in flight, it was getting her from point A to point B, with the ship in that bad of a condition, that I was worried about.

ap123, would you mind giving me an estimate on how long it takes to put one of those on? (The front carrier, not the side one.) He's on duty when the attack strikes and has to cover a lot of ground to get back to her nursery, so he's got maybe 30 seconds to get into the nursery, grab her, and get out. Or maybe, a better question would be: do you think you could get that harness on and a baby in it inside of 30 seconds, if you had to?
 
Last edited:

ap123

Twitching
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,732
Location
In the 212
ap123, would you mind giving me an estimate on how long it takes to put one of those on? (The front carrier, not the side one.) He's on duty when the attack strikes and has to cover a lot of ground to get back to her nursery, so he's got maybe 30 seconds to get into the nursery, grab her, and get out. Or maybe, a better question would be: do you think you could get that harness on and a baby in it inside of 30 seconds, if you had to?

Absolutely. I used to leave mine all set to go, put it on (like shrugging on a jacket), stick the baby in, snap two clips to lock. The sling was even faster.
 

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Well, I'm excited! Thank so much to the both of you for your quick and helpful responses. The side-sling doesn't look like it'll provide much protection from flying debris, but that front-carrier looks like it might provide some nice back-of-the-head protection from small pieces of glass and metal, and anything bigger would be his responsibility to deflect.
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,271
Reaction score
9,330
Location
Dorset, UK
From experience (not of disasters but of taking babies on public transport, in particular the tube) - forget strollers. They are a pain in the arse to carry around and don't cope well with rugged terrain. Have the kid in a baby carrier that you strap to yourself. Most babies at 3 months can hold their head up and a decent baby carrier for this age group would include some degree of head support. For additional support, e.g. while running, a parent holding the kid's head would be sufficient. If he doesn't already have a baby carrier, you can make one from sheets (google to find out how) but bear in mind they won't support the baby's back and head so well and are better for babies who can already sit up on their own - usually around 6+ months - but will do in an emergency situation.

"Shaken baby" is like a whiplash - and babies and small kids have disproportionately large heads so whiplash type injuries can be devastating or even fatal - this is why infant car seats have to be rear facing (they do in the UK and EU). it's not until they're about age 3-4 that they would have strong enough necks and proportionately small enough heads to withstand a whiplash injury from a car accident in a forward-facing seat.

Babies are a lot tougher than people realise. Other than the thing with whiplash/shaken baby injuries, which is due more to having proportionately huge heads, they are surprisingly tough. There was this earthquake in Mexico in the 80s where a maternity hospital was flattened. They were still pulling newborn babies out of the wreckage, alive, a week later.

The biggest issue would be the mother not being in the picture. How's he going to get more formula and sterilise all those bottles? Babies can die from gastroenteritis if the bottles aren't sterilised properly. They can slowly weaken, fail to thrive and ultimately die from malnutrition of one sort or another if the formula is nutritionally inadequate. A three month old baby would need several feeds a day and one or two at night as well (possibly more - some babies take longer to settle into a diurnal rhythm and if this baby's been born and raised on a spacecraft then that's going to slow down the time it takes to get into a day/night pattern). Is there anyone who can be a wet nurse for the baby? In a survival situation, breastfeeding can be a lifesaver.

The most low-tech way to sterilise bottles is to get a big pot of water on the stove and boil them for five minutes, making sure there are no bubbles stuck inside the bottles, teats or other parts (disassemble the whole thing before sterilising). This can be done over an open fire if there is no stove. They'd need to be thoroughly washed before being sterilised. A toothbrush will do this job if there's no bottle brush available. Did I ever mention my number one reason for breastfeeding? Not having to wash and sterilise bottles and prepare formula. Formula has to be prepared in a sterile way (using boiling water then cooling it), as the stuff inside the tins isn't sterile. I looked after a friend's formula-fed baby for half a day. It brought home how much of a pain in the arse it is to do all that sterilising, preparing etc. All while you have in the back of your mind the realisation that the baby could get very, very ill if you do it wrong.

If your story's in a futuristic setting, maybe they can buy ready-prepared, already sterilised bottles which come in a sealed container. But if the shops aren't open due to the disaster(s), they're not going to be able to buy them.

That said, the whole "how do I get what I need to feed the baby?" could be a great plot point. As long as it's all done in a realistic way and he's not got a thriving baby while feeding it something that's obviously going to be nutritionally inadequate.

Terrycloth nappies are fine, not sure why you'd need fancy nylon things. Terrycloth with nylon fleece liners is best, because the terrycloth is very absorbent but the nylon fleece liner stays dry to the touch and keeps the water in the terrycloth and off the baby's skin. But just plain old terrycloth - even a old bath towels cut to the appropriate size - will be adequate, albeit you'd have to change the baby promptly to avoid nappy rash.

Washing terrycloth nappies is straight forward. A 60 degree (centigrade... no idea what that is in Fahrenheit) wash cycle in a normal washing machine would do that. If the washing machine's not working or available you can wash the worst out in any available water then boil them in a pot on the stove. Babies don't need to be high tech.

Washing the baby would require a bowl. You can wash a baby in a kitchen sink, just in water. You don't need fancy oils and powders, these, and soap, can irritate a baby's skin (especially if sensitive skin runs in the family). Water needs to be lukewarm, test it with your elbow, not your hands. Your elbow is much better at telling if the water's too hot or cold than your hands are.

For a bed, all you need is a box and something relatively soft, but firm, lining the box. Not anything pillow-like as that could suffocate a baby. In one European country (I think Denmark) they give new mothers a box of essentials, and the box itself is the right size and shape for using as a bed for the baby. It needs to have high enough sides that the baby can't roll out and should be placed on the floor. The parent should sleep next to the baby. If it's that spartan or there's a danger of the baby getting cold, then co-sleeping would be safer (the parent's heat would keep the baby warm) but check out the safety rules for co-sleeping first.

You don't really need more than that. Baby equipment manufacturers make you believe that you have to have 1001 fancy accessories for your baby, but really you don't. From your scenario, the biggest challenge is feeding the baby. Or if the baby gets ill and there's no medical help available.

Remember that humans were raising babies for millions of years before things like formula milk or strollers were even invented. Though I would estimate that baby carriers were invented in the middle palaeolithic era, around the time that humans figured out animal hides could come in pretty useful.
 
Last edited:

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
If something isn't ADA-accessible, a stroller isn't going to be useful at all. A stroller is nice for walking through a mall; a stroller isn't good for a disaster zone, a cramped store aisle, stairs. I never realized how few sidewalks my town had-- and what terrible shape the few we had were in!-- until I tried taking a walk with a stroller, lol. :)

I had a Moby wrap that was awesome. I could tie it in under 30 seconds, for sure. It was great because the baby was happy that he was next to me; I was happy because my hands were free. A man would probably go for a baby backpack or a baby carrier like was posted abovethread, unless he had some sort of cultural background that had babywearing as A Common Thing.

The baby's head/neck muscles are probably going to continue to be a bit wobbly for another month or so. So you'll definitely want to make sure that you're able to do good back and head support. With my Moby, it was really simple-- you just tuck the baby into the little pocket, and it was all cozy.

I never fed formula, so I don't know how long a x amount would last... but you'd need things like a reliable source of clean drinking water for it to be of any use. If he knows anyone on the ship who is lactating, that would be an awkward conversation to start! But ultimately, milk supply adjusts to the demands put upon it. Which is a cool thing. Foremilk is thin and watery and thirst-quenching. Hindmilk is fatty and thicker and filling. Likewise, the enzymes and stuff in milk being produced for a 3-month-old is different from the enzymes and stuff in milk being produced for a 1-yo or a 2-yo. (That's one of the reasons why people suggest allowing kids to nurse for an extended period of time--- some virus/pathogen protections don't get conveyed until much later in the nursing process, whereas others get conveyed right off the bat.) Anyhow, if she's nursing a baby who's approximately the same age, it would be ideal; but it's not necessary.

Occasionally, a hungry baby's cry will make someone who's not lactating start lactating. I remember being with a RN friend of mine. Her kids were in junior high, high school, whatever... and she heard my baby cry with a very certain quality in his voice. And she looked at me with the widest eyes possible and said, "Woah, I just felt my milk drop!" (I didn't understand why her eyes were so wide, until I felt it myself a few years later. Then I was like, "Woah!" O_O) Anyhow, there are ways that babies can stimulate a woman to feed them, and if you cooperate, it can work out. Woo-hoo, biology.

One of the biggest things I can think of is the disruption in the baby's routine. I still remember taking DS1 to a carnival we go to every year, and his baby brother was perhaps five months old at the time. It was less than half an hour away... but it took me almost 2.5 hours to get home, because DS2 wanted to be in bed, and didn't understand why he was in his car seat, and he was just MAD at me. Like, I've-Cried-And-Cried-And-Cried-And-Now-I've-Stopped-Breathing-For-Half-a-Minute kind of MAD. Because I was talking to him-- "Almost! Almost there! We're going home! Home! And then you can go to sleep! Sleep!" And he didn't care about my words-- he wanted RESULTS. And he had no idea how to handle it, when normally I was very responsive to his needs, why this time was different. So, it would be very normal if your baby doesn't care about explosions or stuff sliding around or hurtling through space in an escape pod or whatever--- WHY AM I NOT IN MY BED!

That said, communication makes things so much easier to keep pre-verbal infants from meltdowns. If I saw a tongue licking lips, I knew I had five minutes to feed him before he started crying for food. If you look at the black pupils of their eyes, whatever is reflected in it is what they're looking at. I taught my babies a few basic signs-- "Milk", "Sleep", "Potty", "Play", "More", "All Done." And that really cut down on their frustration. I started with DS1 at about 6 months, and he caught on and was signing back within 2 weeks. With DS2, I started when he was a newborn. He could understand the signs within the first month, and was signing back his first sign by six weeks. The rough motor skills to open and close your fist, for example, to sign "milk", is much easier than the fine motor skills necessary to shape words with your tongue.
 

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Lots of great advice about the formula and what he should be immediately thinking about in the aftermath. Thank you so much for your replies, I've got a lot to toy with as far as potential downfalls and working some fatherly creativity into the mix.
 

Bing Z

illiterate primate
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
998
Location
New Jersey
VFStorm,

What kind of sci fi is this--FIREFLY kind or INTERSTELLAR kind?

The spaceship is nose-diving toward what? If it's Earth or a planet that size or bigger, the (re)entry hypergravity will likely prevent him from moving a fair distance (or any at all). OTOH if it's a very small piece of rock or if the ship is diving fast, the disruption of gravity or artificial gravity will make the travel (swim) another matter altogether. Also in an emergency I don' t believe people will head to the dock for shuttle etc. They'd be headed toward escape pods (like lifeboats on oceanliners).
 

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Firefly, by far. It's mostly low fantasy, with a sprinkle of sci-fi pizzazz reaching its space-y climax in book 3 with the ship. I'm still working on book 2, so this is all preliminary research for hitting the ground running on book 3.

The ship's orientation is due to the specific method of fire they're undergoing. More like a barrage of hits peppering the front end from a higher angle that is driving it down, rather than it falling out of orbit. Punctured thrusters are causing it to flag on one side, contributing to their inability to right themselves. I'd imagine it'd go into a spin rather than 'crash'; they're in the dead of space, not hovering over a planet. A fuel tank bursts internally, causing panic and an immediate evacuation order before the incoming fire either rips a big enough hole in the ship that they can't feasibly recover or something ignites the pooling fuel and causes much bigger problems.

This is a piecemeal, outlier civilian ship that many generations have lived and died on. My thought being along the lines of the Titanic in regards to the escape pods. Here, they've organically outgrown their intended capacity over the generations. Him being amongst the cap's officers would make him one of the last to leave, so they're taking whatever vehicles are left to them. I'd imagine someone would hop in a suit and ride the cleaning bot out if it was all that was left, haha. The disruption of gravity isn't a part of the scene (at this point), that was a suggestion from a poster. I like the idea of him having to maneuver the halls with a ship that's rolling over and spinning out of control, distorting his sense of direction, more than having him just kind of speedily floating his way to relative safety.
 
Last edited:

Bing Z

illiterate primate
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
998
Location
New Jersey
Then why not have the baby sleep in a detachable cradle that contains all necessities (a la Doraemon's 4D pocket) which may even have built-in propulsion? Whatever the father needs for the baby later on, get it out of the cradle. Skip the details that may raise eyebrows/questions.
 

AwP_writer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
177
Reaction score
29
Location
Ohio
The father can't just leave the baby in a cradle and go off to do his duties, there must be some sort of "daycare" provider. Anyone who cares about kids enough to care for them professionally won't just run off leaving the baby. Most likely the caregiver will gather the needed supplies, grab the baby, and run to meet the father half way.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
The father can't just leave the baby in a cradle and go off to do his duties, there must be some sort of "daycare" provider. Anyone who cares about kids enough to care for them professionally won't just run off leaving the baby. Most likely the caregiver will gather the needed supplies, grab the baby, and run to meet the father half way.
That's what I was thinking when OP said that the father was carrying out his duties on the far side of the ship. You can't just abandon an infant for a whole shift. There has to be 'someone' around. I would think there would be arrangement in place for single parents, if this is a generation ship.

And, if it's a primarily civilian ship - there would be evacuation drills, not just for attacks, but for fire, systems failure, etc.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Howdy folks,

I've scoured Google and the AW forums, but I can't seem to find much in the way of this specific situation and I just want to make sure that I cover the appropriate grounds before calling it good. My research has yielded a whole bunch of 'buy a better stroller and pack a weather radio', which is not the least bit helpful here.

My story is set on a space ship, so think steel walls, plastic, glass -- hard surfaces. The ship is currently nose-diving under a barrage of explosions, so now we're sliding all over the place and bouncing off of those hard surfaces.

The father is a military officer, so he's quite muscular and physically hard too. There is no mother/partner, he's a single parent. When the attacks begin (unexpectedly) he's on the far side of the ship carrying out his officer duties. So he's got to cross the entire ship, putting him behind on the timeline as is while he grabs his infant daughter out of her cradle. He can't really gently waltz off, the ship is rolling and he has to get to the docking bay. The baby is roughly 3 months old. Her cradle is, out of necessity, bolted to the floor with a hand-wavey advanced hydraulic system to keep her stable while in flight, so he can't pick it up. There are 3 point harnesses available, but they're not designed to support a child that small. (Think seat belts, rock-climbing harnesses, etc; not really designed to protect itty-bitty people from impact.)

I do have a bag nearby that he keeps stocked with some emergency supplies: extra blankets, bottles, and formula. Their diapers are spiffy nylon things that are reusable with proper sanitation, so I omitted those. He does manage to snatch that bag before he leaves her nursery.

I thought the biggest danger would come with the jarring of being in a person's arms who's running. However, the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome website says that "Shaken injuries are not caused by...jogging or bicycling with your baby. Although the activities listed above can be dangerous and are not recommended, they will likely not cause SBS injuries." And then there's this, from another website, " It occurs when an adult violently shakes a baby, causing the baby's head to move quickly from a chin on chest position all the way back. Think of it as baby-whiplash occurring several times."

So, he won't kill her by running if he's got her locked in his arms and her head is held steady between his hands and his chest.

Outside of that, what other dangers would a parent think of (or have prepared for ahead of time) in a snap-occurrence disaster and how might those be offset to some extent? I'm not a parent, so I'll take any information or stories you can share about how he might negate some of the stress on his daughter. Is the best solution to just have him run like a loon and leave everything? Would that horrify a parent with his actions, or at the situation? I don't want him to come across as an incompetent dummy, but as a father pinned between death and doing everything in his power to save his child from said death. That being said, it's a disaster, so he's probably not toting a bulky 60lbs of baby gear+toys around while the ship breaks apart above his head.

Thank you for any shared thoughts!

Heh, no running with a kid isn't going to harm the kid any.

Who's with the kid? He's on the other side of the ship, so why doesn't whomever is with the kid grab stuff and head someplace? If they're like, huddling in his room or whatever, and he busts in and they're headed for some escape pod type thing (docking bay, so I'm guessing) I'd think he'd grab the diaper bag and food and if she has a thing like a blankie in the crib with her. I'd also think he's got a carrier, a wrap something, which might be easier but might think it's not worth the time he could spend grabbing food and diapers. Can the other person grab something?

If he's just going to some shelter thing until stuff calms down I'd guess he's grabbing the diaper bag and the kid and see above blanket or whatever, and moving.
 

JNG01

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
212
Reaction score
53
From raising five, I can add that a father's mental process in that kind of situation can be very different than a mother's. Priority no. 1 for both parents will, obviously, be child's safety. I would be more likely to give 100% of my attention to the immediate issue of escape, giving very little thought or concern to longer-term issues that can be solved after we survive the immediate crisis. My wife would be more likely to be the one snagging everything she could carry that she thought baby might need.

As has been mentioned, shoved inside of a flight suit or, even better, in a sling or other carrier, are both good options that are secure and would give Dad lots of freedom of movement. The question the needs answering, though, is why there's no one watching Baby. Lots of potential answers--maybe Babysitter gets killed in the first impact, and Dad finds out about it using his remote baby monitor, etc.--but under no circumstances would a 3 month old be left completely unattended, even asleep, for hours on end without someone listening or watching on a monitor, at least.
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,271
Reaction score
9,330
Location
Dorset, UK
From raising five, I can add that a father's mental process in that kind of situation can be very different than a mother's. Priority no. 1 for both parents will, obviously, be child's safety. I would be more likely to give 100% of my attention to the immediate issue of escape, giving very little thought or concern to longer-term issues that can be solved after we survive the immediate crisis. My wife would be more likely to be the one snagging everything she could carry that she thought baby might need.

He's a single dad though. As a single parent, you're both mum* and dad* and have to do everything. The breadwinner parent in a couple may have the luxury of leaving the more practical aspects of caring for the kid to the primary carer parent. That's common sense and totally appropriate. If you're the only parent, then if you don't grab all the stuff you need, no-one else will. So you have to do that and figure out how to escape as well. I'm a single mum (aka breadwinner and primary carer) so I'm used to this - thankfully not scenarios involving having to escape from danger.

*primary carer and breadwinner - doesn't have to be mum doing the carer bit and dad doing the breadwinner bit, but couple parents get the luxury of one of them being one and the other being the other

On the question of who's watching the kid, I agree with everyone about that. I missed that bit from reading the original scenario and pictured it that the dad was with the baby at the time the crisis happened. Even if the kid's got some uber technologically advanced crib/nursery thing that keeps them completely safe, warm, fed etc, they need human interaction and cuddles so would still need a human carer to cuddle them and interact with them. Which is one reason why baby carriers are so great. It's hands-free cuddles and you can talk to your baby while they're being carried around (though they still need face to face interaction as well). At three months, in my experience (bearing in mind kids are individuals with their own personalities), they have an attention span of about 30 seconds. They can't crawl yet to find their own amusement. New toys keep them amused for about a minute if you're lucky. They crave constant stimulation and interaction. Baby carriers help as when you move around, they move with you so they get to see lots of different things, especially if you're also talking to them about what you're doing.
 
Last edited:

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Thank you so much, everyone, for all the helpful comments!

The baby is being monitored by dad, Cap, and the ship itself, with the ship handling the pressurization, temperature adjustments, feeding, burping, and rattle-shaking while dad is away. I can see that it may be something to consider that these people don't work in 8-10 hour shifts, but maybe in several 3-4 hour spurts over the course of the day, given that they live their whole lives and raise their children on this ship. It'd be quite easy to slip this into the ship's culture over the span of many generations, and I'll reconsider where dad is when the disaster strikes. If he's an officer, there's no reason he can't carry out his duties over an interface with the Cap and be physically closer to baby.

*note taking intensifies*
 
Last edited:

Maythe

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
668
Reaction score
88
Location
Derbyshire, UK.
I have absolutely nothing useful to add except to say that your scenario sounds awesome - just reading your summary of it here had me on the edge of my seat for the guy and the kid.
 

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Thank you so much for the words of encouragement! <3
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Thank you so much, everyone, for all the helpful comments!

The baby is being monitored by dad, Cap, and the ship itself, with the ship handling the pressurization, temperature adjustments, feeding, burping, and rattle-shaking while dad is away. I can see that it may be something to consider that these people don't work in 8-10 hour shifts, but maybe in several 3-4 hour spurts over the course of the day, given that they live their whole lives and raise their children on this ship. It'd be quite easy to slip this into the ship's culture over the span of many generations, and I'll reconsider where dad is when the disaster strikes. If he's an officer, there's no reason he can't carry out his duties over an interface with the Cap and be physically closer to baby.

*note taking intensifies*

That's not a thing, sorry. You don't leave an infant alone where you can't get to them in moments, even with a monitor on them. Especially if you're having some kind of robot-holding-a-bottle scenario. Regardless, even if the kid is asleep, you're not on the entire other side of a ship.

I mean what would the plan be in a few months when she's mobile? Certainly can't leave her unattended then.
 

EMaree

a demon for tea
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
839
Location
Scotland
Website
www.emmamaree.com
+1 to what Cornflake said. The robotic rattle-shaker situation is nice, but (from my limited understanding of them) babies are completely helpless little mini-humans who are actively doing things that might kill them. Throughout those early months they're constantly finding new ways to get in trouble, and it hits proper kamikaze levels at toddler-age, but it's present in the early days too. Just things like moving in their sleep or adjusting the blankets/clothing they're in can be super dangerous super fast.

It's been covered earlier in the thread that babies are unexpectedly tough (the collapsed hospital), but they're also unexpectedly fragile in a lot of ways too. The media portrayal of them as "needs hugs, changing, burped and played with" skips over all the more complex stuff like keeping them appropriately dressed, putting them in safe positions when they need to sleep or go in a car, supporting all the body parts that aren't done forming yet (lungs! brain! TOENAILS!) and panicking like mad when their super-new immune system meets something unpleasant and everything goes wrong at once.

There's not a chance a three-month old wouldn't have an actual human presence in the room with them while dad's on-shift.

Obligatory disclaimer that I'm not a parent, doctor, or space-farer.
 
Last edited:

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
Just as a quick follow-up, there's a tremendous amount of socialization and bonding that goes on in the early months. Babies aren't just able to be put in a box and taken out a few times a day for feeding or diaper changes-- they've got the instincts of a social creature, and they suffer without feedback and stimulation. I still remember taking my (4? 5?) months-old baby out on the back porch to enjoy fresh air in his bouncy chair. Then I saw hummingbirds, and so I went and took some photos of them flitting in the flowers. And my little guy had such a sad face, and cried every time I had my back turned on him, even though I was maybe only ten or fifteen feet away. He didn't know about hummingbirds or photos. All he knew was-- "WHY AREN'T YOU LOOKING AT ME, MOMMY?" :p

(I took a photo of that sad face, just so I wouldn't forget how much he used to need me, once he becomes a surly teenager!)

Failure to thrive is often a manifestation of child neglect. So there's definitely a social/biological reason for human:human interaction. Lack of it can lead to poor growth, delayed development, behavioral issues, and sometimes can contribute to death.

So that's one reason why places limit how many children one caregiver can be responsible for, because of those issues. An infant is going to have more intensive one-on-one needs than a four-year-old.

In Texas, the maximum number of infants age 0-11 months one person can supervise is, is 4. 12-17 months, the maximum is five per caregiver. 18-23 months is nine. One person can supervise 11 2-yo's, 15 3-yo's, 18 4-yo's, 22 5-yo's, and 26 6-13 yo's.

If it's part of the culture, presumably there's some form of on-site day care for other children on board? Or perhaps he's hired a servant, if a servant-class exists. Either kill off the caregiver in an accident so that she's not able to successfully carry the child to safety; or have the caregiver be grateful that the father is there, so she can help out another caregiver who needs assistance with her charges.

DS1 was born in May. I came back for June/July/August, to get us through Summer Reading. I had him in a bouncy chair by my desk, or on a blanket in my office, or things like that. When I had a program or a craft activity, I'd wear him in my Moby, and do my program while wearing my baby. Obviously, that's mostly a desk job, not the military! And my bosses were awesome for letting me bring my "paperweight" to work with me! But if your officer is the type who does most of his work from one small, specialized room, there's more of a likelihood he can keep the child with him.

An example would be NASA's Mission Control. You have the main mission control everyone sees on TV, but there are other, smaller mission ops in the building where people work console--- but out of the public's eye. So you might have a similar situation where you have "the bridge" where all the main stuff goes on, but you also have smaller, niche-specific mission ops being conducted from secondary locations, and if you're not in that niche, you don't go in. Those sorts of locations would be more likely to allow an infant in there, presumably for a certain duration, rather than indefinitely.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
If it's a generation ship, there must have been accommodation made for child-care.
In the attack, just have the carers killed, or have a plan that in case of emergency, parents are to try to pick up their own kids (to save having families split up, each on a different lifeboat, with, perhaps a different outcome).
Gives him an extra reason for urgency, if he doesn't make it, his baby will be shipped out with the other 'orphans' and then who knows what might happen.
 
Last edited:

VFStorm

Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
36
Reaction score
9
Hubby reminded me that I have Crazy Friend 1 and Crazy Friend 2 I'd been bemoaning the loss of in books 3. They'd be hilariously good fun to keep on hand to watch over baby, and would explain the mechanized bottle feedings. Mad scientist/engineer babysitters, mmhmm! Thanks again, folks!
 
Last edited: