acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Oct 4, 2016 15:06:29 GMT
It's interesting to me that the RFP's space forces seem to use naval ranks, when I'd assume that their spacecraft combat wing would need to grow out of their air forces, the way the US Air Force and Army have the Space and Missile Badge. (One reason that they might use naval ranks is to self-consciously distinguish themselves from the Army - despite its importance, the space service seems like it's going to be very small in terms of actual personnel, especially actual combat personnel. And, unlike in our world where there's an actual navy who might either object or try to muscle in on the newly-formed service, the world of CoaDE conspicuously lacks any actual navies. A stretch, admittedly, and not one I'm fond of, but there it is.) It's also interesting to see that the crew complement looks a lot smaller than you might expect on a naval vessel, and I was wondering how that might affect some kind of rank structure. With the largest ships - especially fleet carriers and gunships, which are ostensibly command ships where the admiral's staff might be located - having only a crew of less than eighty, one might expect ranks and such to be very compressed. One thing that's especially of interest is how a highly-technical field, like space warfare and operations, will handle the traditional officer/enlisted divide. Currently, all astronauts that I'm aware of with a military background were officers - often pilots, but even among payload specialists, many held the rank of captain (naval) and above, and all civilian personnel have at least some kind of advanced degree. And with "tours", especially of the outer system potentially taking a decade or more, might there be more of a push for more professional, more educated, more elite and proficient and consequently more officer-like space corps? This leaves out, though, groundside support and logistics. A fleet in CoaDE might have only 200 people at the pointy end of the stick, but be supported by two thousand intelligence, logistics, research, support staff. This is another divide - perhaps there's something comparable to a submariner's dolphin, that marks a member of the spacy as a member of a comparatively-elite group? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 16:07:09 GMT
I think you bring up some interesting points in regards to space personnel assemblage. I do think that the traditional false equivalence of Navy-Ships=Space-ships, so navy-names=space-names is a convenience for quickly surmising the importance or role in a story. That being said i fully agree that an air force/naval force hybrid is probably closer to actuance. I still think crew numbers are overly large, with even the command roles taking up what feels like far more room than necessary. From my personal waxing on the philosophy involved: -1, I think that a ship crew is closer in general to something like an AWACS plane, albeit with a gunnery staff aboard as well. Much of the same work goes on, engineers maintain equipment, a large sensors staff monitor information, and a combat staff is around for those few precious minutes of intense intercept, or the tenuous long hours of missile guidance and drone piloting. The command staff i feel should be comparatively small, or well integrated, as managing the the three vital groups of mechanical,combat and sensors staff on a ship with only thirty five people should take no more than three i think ideally. -2, in regards to professionalism, the whole job of space ship crew is pretty much only made for 60's style science ubermench's. Everything about this role is stressful on the normal ideas of human life, long periods of isolation save for your crew, a highly technically skilled job(by default) that one also now needs military proficiency in, limited personal belongings, highly stressful and intense combat, etc. Finding the people for this job sounds worse than finding the one or two percent who can become fighter pilots. One needs to be smart but not a theoretical math-head with no pragmatism, one needs to both be patriotic or psychopathic enough to get over the whole "ending sentient beings lives" part, without becoming perversely blood lusting, one needs also to be nearly Taoist monk like in ones ability to be stuffed into a can with other such individuals for months or years on end and remain calm. -3,What this leads creates is some unfortunate side effects. Firstly, if you are intelligent enough to hold a doctorate in say, reactor engineering, you have probably also considered the moral shit house that is war, so if you are somehow still ok with that then, well let's just say there might be some black souled individuals on board. Secondly, this means crew selection and compatibility is paramount to success, especially if they are all such strange characters, and especially if they also need to function as a team for months on end. What this means that much like aircraft warfare, crews are arguably the most precious components, as a good working crew THAT ALSO has experience will be intensely valuable. Arguably even as the ships themselves might be the single most expensive combat vehicles ever created, their construction might only take a few months to a few years were as ideal crew training could take a decade for the necessary degrees and military ranks. What all of this leads to is very much a German pilots in ww2 scenario, were long term space warfare will tax the forces involved not in space craft numbers, but in trained crew composition and life span. -4, Similar issues arise in the training of new crews, swapping out people in such tight knit working conditions is harrowing to say the least. While not impossible, new crews would likely be trained as a pack towards using a particular ship and becoming experts in regards to it's use. This also has the unfortunate(but obvious) side effect that you will not likely find any old shmuck of the street who could replace lost personnel. So much like fighter squadrons many pilots would simply be trained as back up crews and wait until they are needed or the previous ships crew is relieved. This leads me to... -5, A decision must be made, most humans cannot withstand prolonged social environments without some measure of privacy or rest(outside of sleeping obviously) so this leads us to the choice, either A, we can just swap out the crews at long range bases such that no tour is longer than six months, orrrr the crews could consist of some very VERY special individuals with whom this entire idea of a high stress, long duration, intellect taxing lifestyle is perfect. Of course saying all that does lead me to think of... -6, now given the high stress, low privacy, high technicality environment of a ship, there is a seemingly obvious solution to relieving stress, growing intimacy, trust, physical comfort and ambient crew happiness. Needless to say a plentiful form of birth control would have to be present and crews would now have to also be appropriately selected for sexual preference as well, with an emphasis perhaps on "flexibility". But the benefits MY GOD the benefits are almost entirely perfect for this solution!, save for some liquid loss no extra equipment is needed, so no more mass is spent. Thus the crew becomes less a rigid stressful hierarchy of military order, and more like a happy sixties commune that also happens to pilot a death cylinder of aluminium. Some other possible offsetting materials for such long haul environments are of course narcotics, though they do take up some amount of mass, i have a possible solution: By breeding or genetically engineering, a lowering of CBD (which cancels hallucinogenic effects) and increasing THC production Hemp could provide a hundredfold benefit to on board life. One of the fastest growing crops available, perfect for dynamically solving a variety of on board construction needs, while at the same time possibly relieving stress(ideally through vaporisation so as to minimise fire risks) it can also obviously used to filter air and water. It structurally is stronger than wood in fibre form, i can imagine when combined with a sealant, being a quick and easy patch job for leaks and ruptures.
|
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Oct 4, 2016 16:49:52 GMT
I think that a ship crew is closer in general to something like an AWACS plane, albeit with a gunnery staff aboard as well. That's actually a good analogy, one that I haven't thought of - I was thinking more "submarine", but I do imagine that a combat between fleets requires something like an AWACs C4I capabilities, and especially with lots of drones and missiles. One other thing - it's worth noting that many - most, perhaps - systems on a combat spacecraft deal with nuclear power in some way. Another comparison to submarines - the crew will have to have 'nuke' officers. Especially the mini-nuclear reactors and RTGs that characterize carriers that mount beam drones. -6, now given the high stress, low privacy, high technicality environment of a ship, there is a seemingly obvious solution to relieving stress, growing intimacy, trust, physical comfort and ambient crew happiness. Needless to say a plentiful form of birth control would have to be present and crews would now have to also be appropriately selected for sexual preference as well, with an emphasis perhaps on "flexibility". But the benefits MY GOD the benefits are almost entirely perfect for this solution!, save for some liquid loss no extra equipment is needed, so no more mass is spent. Thus the crew becomes less a rigid stressful hierarchy of military order, and more like a happy sixties commune that also happens to pilot a death cylinder of aluminium. Some other possible offsetting materials for such long haul environments are of course narcotics, though they do take up some amount of mass, i have a possible solution: By breeding or genetically engineering, a lowering of CBD (which cancels hallucinogenic effects) and increasing THC production Hemp could provide a hundredfold benefit to on board life. One of the fastest growing crops available, perfect for dynamically solving a variety of on board construction needs, while at the same time possibly relieving stress(ideally through vaporisation so as to minimise fire risks) it can also obviously used to filter air and water. It structurally is stronger than wood in fibre form, i can imagine when combined with a sealant, being a quick and easy patch job for leaks and ruptures. ...this on the other hand, uh....I'm not so sure. This does not seem to describe other experiments in longer duration close habitation. Also I am like 85% certain that you were just looking to post that Strangelove pic and/or post about space weed.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 17:42:21 GMT
Maybe i was looking for an excuse to post Strangelove, granted as cool as "space weed" is as an idea, Hemp is actually a legitimately super adaptive construction material in regards to it's use as an organic plastic. From what i have read all you have to do is heat and do some injection moulding and you have grow-able fibre glass. Back on subject though here is a rough crew cross section of some 35 member ship. Break down is pretty straightforward. -8 Crew for Engineering(Nuclear expertise included) The single largest chunk, which makes sense given the importance. two four person shifts can be managed for low key non combat periods. -2 For Life support, Air conditioning, water etc, can be supplemented with engineers as needed. -5 Sensors (A) and 5 (B) staff, shifts of 6 hours on watch, 6 hours rest,6 hours astrogation, 6 hours other various tasks, the only "constant job" next to engineering perhaps, extra time can double as cooks and secondary jobs to break up monotony of sensor watching. -5 Weapons specialists, gun mechanics, missile technicians, loaders. A more sequential job that mostly involves checking the equipment every day. Can also act as cooks, extra maintenance staff (general technical background should be applicable) Likely at least one or two specialists per weapon, with a head mechanic. -5 Weapons officers, the guys who pull the trigger so to speak, as much of the final guidance in general is computer controlled id imagine these guys would also help the weapons specialists with maintenance. Also cook, clean etc. As they are only all on station during battle stations these guys will be helping out allot with other various tasks. -3 Bridge crew, finalised astrogation and course setting, each one acts as a refined overseer for their respective staff, so one for guns, engines and sensors. During battle they directly relay information to the final two and are likewise on prioritising information and organising staff. -1 Co-Pilot/First officer, relays orders from captain, organise the whole ship, act as "secretary" for general organisation, holds secondary nuclear key, also acts as a liaison for the crew in terms of conflicting orders or ideals with the Startain -1 Startain, chief on the ship acts as commander and pilot, charged with receiving general weapons/engineering/sensor data and forming tactical and strategic plans with subsidiaries. Also maintains crew morale, receives orders from GrndCmd etc. I think this is a pretty good set up for the average ship. I merged astrogation into sensors and cmd because i think that if your burn is a month and a half long to get to Saturn for example, unless combat arises everything should be more or less the same when you left it the day before. Monitoring enemy movement and fleet positioning is far more important in my books. Then when high intensity combat arises your sensors (B) team would be committed to astrogation. I Eliminated cook and doctor because most food in space is just heat plated to prepare anyway(seeing as burning oxygen to cook and generate carbon seemed frivolous) and perhaps steamed. Not to mention that i have read about most submarine crews getting their own snacks and making their own coffee as needed. Doctor seemed strange as well, seeing as you would have full medical records, you would know their past history, likewise as long as no one brought a flue bug on board the microbiology of a ship should stay consistent, Granted perhaps one of the bridge crew or a weapons operator could be trained in providing first aid and basic surgery, or a robotic doctor could be provided instead. Alternatively you could train each member of the crew in one specific area of anatomic expertise and distribute the load evenly. That way loosing the Dr in combat would not physiologically cripple the crew, and as long as a majority are alive they could supervise a robotic surgery as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 4, 2016 18:07:47 GMT
Operation of a starship being more analogous to operation of a naval vessel in terms of maintenance required and time in operation isolated from support necessitates a naval style structure regardless of the arbitrary titles applied. Using traditional naval terms merely enforces that it's a naval structure despite the small differences. A lot less maintenance and running about is needed to make a war rocket work, so crews are smaller than wet vessels contending with constant operation and the environment.
So without weathering, constantly running the engines, and being assured that the course is completely unchangeable in the ballistic trajectory and the crew can concentrate on whatever to pass the time until the scanner thingy goes ding when there's stuff, smaller crews with time on their hands is what you got.
But in any case, the rank structures between most militaries are actually mostly the same, with just the names changed. The biggest differences are just small differences in military doctrines and the specific command's preferences.
So you can call your Admirals "Generals" or "Lords" or "Big Kahunas" and it doesn't matter. The entire point is simply the chain of command and a clear establishment of who is responsible for what tasks.
|
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Oct 4, 2016 18:28:05 GMT
Back on subject though here is a rough crew cross section of some 35 member ship. Break down is pretty straightforward. Crew sizes are a bit bigger than that, though. I'm less interested in arguing what the crew sizes should be - I'd be doing a lot of things differently if I was doing it - and more looking for implications as to how the crews actually are in CoaDE (unless qswitched is around and for some reason cares about my input, in which case I'll be happy to talk endlessly about it). Doctor seemed strange as well, seeing as you would have full medical records, you would know their past history, likewise as long as no one brought a flue bug on board the microbiology of a ship should stay consistent, Granted perhaps one of the bridge crew or a weapons operator could be trained in providing first aid and basic surgery, or a robotic doctor could be provided instead. Alternatively you could train each member of the crew in one specific area of anatomic expertise and distribute the load evenly. Doctor is one of those that I would be least sanguine about cutting. If there's a medical situation - any medical situation at all - you have no one else and zero possibility of rescue or recovery. And a lot of things can happen in the potentially years - remember it took two years to get from Mars to Vesta? - that a crew may be embarked. NASA has a team of flight surgeons check in with shuttle and ISS crews on a regular basis, but at least in LEO a potential medical problem can be 'solved' via mission abort; that's not an option on an 19-month Hohmann to Saturn. Operation of a starship being more analogous to operation of a naval vessel in terms of maintenance required and time in operation isolated from support necessitates a naval style structure regardless of the arbitrary titles applied. Using traditional naval terms merely enforces that it's a naval structure despite the small differences. A lot less maintenance and running about is needed to make a war rocket work, so crews are smaller than wet vessels contending with constant operation and the environment I don't think the operation of a spacecraft necessitates a naval style structure. The idea that they do is something of a pet peeve of mine; the maintenance of a spacecraft is not like the maintenance of a boat, it's like the maintenance of a spacecraft, with its own idiosyncrasies and rhythms and logic. Similarly, the crewing strategy for a spacecraft is different from the crewing strategy of a boat, it's like the crewing strategy of a spacecraft. If you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different, sure, being in a metal box for a long time is similar...but only if you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different. Second, my main thought was that, for example, the distinction between officer and enlisted ranks might be completely superfluous, if every member of a spacecraft crew needed to be the equivalent of an officer (ie, college graduate) anyway. That changes things significantly. Also, how the RFP's military might divide itself; the existence of Admirals implies to me the existence of generals, but the actual size of the spacy might be comparatively tiny - simply because nuclear spacecraft are expensive. Maybe the spacecraft combat division of the RFP's military are more like the Army Air Force (a branch of the army) rather than its own equal division? It doesn't seem likely, but it does seem possible. In that case maybe ranks for the military only diverge above a certain rank.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 4, 2016 18:37:03 GMT
I don't think the operation of a spacecraft necessitates a naval style structure. The idea that they do is something of a pet peeve of mine; the maintenance of a spacecraft is not like the maintenance of a boat, it's like the maintenance of a spacecraft, with its own idiosyncrasies and rhythms and logic. Similarly, the crewing strategy for a spacecraft is different from the crewing strategy of a boat, it's like the crewing strategy of a spacecraft. If you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different, sure, being in a metal box for a long time is similar...but only if you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different. Second, my main thought was that, for example, the distinction between officer and enlisted ranks might be completely superfluous, if every member of a spacecraft crew needed to be the equivalent of an officer (ie, college graduate) anyway. That changes things significantly. Also, how the RFP's military might divide itself; the existence of Admirals implies to me the existence of generals, but the actual size of the spacy might be comparatively tiny - simply because nuclear spacecraft are expensive. Maybe the spacecraft combat division of the RFP's military are more like the Army Air Force (a branch of the army) rather than its own equal division? It doesn't seem likely, but it does seem possible. In that case maybe ranks for the military only diverge above a certain rank. Now hold on a second... what the heck do you think having naval rank titles actually means? You seem to be rather married to an idea of how you think military structures work. All that the ship needs is a chain of command and a proper assignment of ship jobs.
|
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Oct 4, 2016 19:00:36 GMT
Now hold on a second... what the heck do you think having naval rank titles actually means? You seem to be rather married to an idea of how you think military structures work. All that the ship needs is a chain of command and a proper assignment of ship jobs. Having naval rank titles just mean you call whatever your ranks/grades are after stuff that originated in a boat on Earth. Admiral (rather than General or something else), Petty Officer (rather than Sergeant), etc. Having a naval rank structure means that individual ranks/grades have some kind of correlation to...naval ranks/grades. With corresponding levels of education, commitment, etc. Like having three to four low grades of 'enlisted' personnel on short term service, then a bunch of non-commissioned officers, then company officers, field officers, and finally general officers. Like you don't need to have that structure to have a space navy...but that's kind of the point I'm making. If that structure makes sense for a spacey (space navy? whatever). If it doesn't, what does?
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 19:04:58 GMT
I don't think the operation of a spacecraft necessitates a naval style structure. The idea that they do is something of a pet peeve of mine; the maintenance of a spacecraft is not like the maintenance of a boat, it's like the maintenance of a spacecraft, with its own idiosyncrasies and rhythms and logic. Similarly, the crewing strategy for a spacecraft is different from the crewing strategy of a boat, it's like the crewing strategy of a spacecraft. If you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different, sure, being in a metal box for a long time is similar...but only if you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different. Second, my main thought was that, for example, the distinction between officer and enlisted ranks might be completely superfluous, if every member of a spacecraft crew needed to be the equivalent of an officer (ie, college graduate) anyway. That changes things significantly. Also, how the RFP's military might divide itself; the existence of Admirals implies to me the existence of generals, but the actual size of the spacy might be comparatively tiny - simply because nuclear spacecraft are expensive. Maybe the spacecraft combat division of the RFP's military are more like the Army Air Force (a branch of the army) rather than its own equal division? It doesn't seem likely, but it does seem possible. In that case maybe ranks for the military only diverge above a certain rank. Now hold on a second... what the heck do you think having naval rank titles actually means? You seem to be rather married to an idea of how you think military structures work. All that the ship needs is a chain of command and a proper assignment of ship jobs. I think he means that the chain of command is no longer as nicely divisible, less jobs=less stratification of the work force. So the idea that there might be a job like general(boss) and Admiral(biggerer boss) becomes superfluous amongst such a relatively tiny staff. Likewise there is no longer a thing as a casually enlisted man, because everyone is an officer now(and needs to be). In regards to the decision, i think the sheer superiority of spacecraft in regards to being the new top of the food chain in relation to warfare dictates a dedicated service division for them to specialise in. Namely the Spacy, or Space Force etc, i think that a majority of the forces are gonna be the proverbial bow and shaft to the arrowhead of the ships themselves. There is likely a supply chain never before seen by the likes of man in number and scale, everything from fuel station managers, observation satellite coordinators, medical support staff etc.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 4, 2016 20:56:59 GMT
I guess, having served in the military, I am not seeing your issue or what you think you're trying to accomplish. What do you think you're getting rid of, why do you think it would not work? Honestly, what does a lack of of officer/enlisted division and a lack of a command chain accomplish? What do you think is in the way? Why would it not work? You're not actually stating why it's wrong. Just that "But it's in space". So what? What does "Everyone has a job to do and they do it" have that irks you so much? Do you think there is more to it than that that interferes with the operation of a starship?
|
|
|
Post by Autochton on Oct 4, 2016 21:06:42 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with boomertiro here. The military, as a framework, has spent centuries evolving into what it is now. The modern naval rank structure came out of Medieval nobility commanding ships and commoners crewing them, much like modern ground military rank structure came from patrician commanders and plebeian soldiers forming legions in Rome. Whatever else, we seem stuck with that structure, unless someone were to impress another on us from without.
The facts on the ground is that a military vehicle cannot be a democracy. A single commander will hold final responsibility, and will have assistance from a staff of officers - be they commissioned or not. Teams of specialists will handle tasks aboard ship according to capabilities, and answer upwards in a hierarchy that ends with the ship's CO in a pattern that'll look familiar to crews of either a modern sub or large complex-role aircraft. Whether that CO holds the rank of captain or colonel is irrelevant, but the structure will remain - else you don't get a functioning warship.
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 4, 2016 21:19:23 GMT
Firstly, if you are intelligent enough to hold a doctorate in say, reactor engineering, you have probably also considered the moral shit house that is war, so if you are somehow still ok with that then, well let's just say there might be some black souled individuals on board. Secondly, this means crew selection and compatibility is paramount to success, especially if they are all such strange characters, and especially if they also need to function as a team for months on end. What this means that much like aircraft warfare, crews are arguably the most precious components, as a good working crew THAT ALSO has experience will be intensely valuable. Arguably even as the ships themselves might be the single most expensive combat vehicles ever created, their construction might only take a few months to a few years were as ideal crew training could take a decade for the necessary degrees and military ranks. Y'know, I hadn't thought of that. I think I'm going to apply this idea to my ships: up-armor the crew compartments more, and keep in mind that my best crews are also probably total psychopaths. My imaginary navy is getting fun!
|
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Oct 4, 2016 21:29:08 GMT
I don't know what about anything I said suggested that there wouldn't be a chain of command, or a commander, or job roles? I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're even talking about at this point. Like, our military rank structure has evolved from stuff in the past. It will continue to evolve in the future. There's at least some acknowledgement of the fact that the model for how units are commanded and operate differs between land, sea, and air units. I'd like to discuss how it might evolve to fit a space combat environment, and had a couple of thoughts on it (one of which is that perhaps unlike navy ships, spacecraft will have no enlisted crew). Another is that there might be a big operational/career path/rank divide between the actually deployed spacers, due to their small number.
I'm not sure what about that is difficult?
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 5, 2016 2:14:51 GMT
Ok, I get what you mean, but despite some naval titles we have yet to see an exactly navy style job list anywhere in the game, or even a true officer/enlisted distinction. We just see a chain of command and everyone with a job.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 4:45:23 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with boomertiro here. The military, as a framework, has spent centuries evolving into what it is now. The modern naval rank structure came out of Medieval nobility commanding ships and commoners crewing them, much like modern ground military rank structure came from patrician commanders and plebeian soldiers forming legions in Rome. Whatever else, we seem stuck with that structure, unless someone were to impress another on us from without. The facts on the ground is that a military vehicle cannot be a democracy. A single commander will hold final responsibility, and will have assistance from a staff of officers - be they commissioned or not. Teams of specialists will handle tasks aboard ship according to capabilities, and answer upwards in a hierarchy that ends with the ship's CO in a pattern that'll look familiar to crews of either a modern sub or large complex-role aircraft. Whether that CO holds the rank of captain or colonel is irrelevant, but the structure will remain - else you don't get a functioning warship. I don't know, i feel like the sheer extreme situation that is combat in interplanetary space demands skills over prestige. There will still likely be a command structure and a captain, but i think the campaign highlights giving spoiled brats several kiloton kill cylinders, specifically the mission the Jovian Lunar Tour. But acatalepsy makes a fair argument, there simply isn't enough mass or room for extra stratification of the crew. So chains of command will be there, but i would not imagine a command crew doing only command, pulling double duty as astrogation or doctors etc would help justify their existence.
|
|