|
Post by aetreus on Oct 5, 2016 6:07:02 GMT
Personally, I think that decades(or in the case of CoaDE, centuries) of cultural inertia will result in spaceships being called ships and using naval rank structures, especially if they need to be created whole-cloth instead of being developed from preexisiting structures.
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Oct 5, 2016 6:08:02 GMT
A self consistent rank structure for an astronaut corps operating independent interplanetary spacecraft will not just copy naval, air force, or any other military branch terminology. Like the air force it's a small group of officers on a mass optimized vehicle for the duration and completion of a single mission, but like the Navy, they spend months or even up to a year on that vehicle. The meat of the crew will be Payload Specialists - warrant officers, experts at the working of various complex technologies, and analogous to the ops guys in ground control. The first level of junior officers are the official pilots of the modules and payloads, trained to operate them but leaving the complete technical understanding of specific subsystems to the specialists. The LMP in the Apollo program is an example. Above them is the pilot of the complete vehicle and the commander (who physically pilots the craft) like the CMP and CDR respectively. In addition to being long-distance the missions will take a very long time, so the crew is likely made up of two or more teams, coordinated by one officer, in charge of all astronauts in the mission, while the mission itself is controlled by the FLIGHT. Higher levels of command coordinate multiple spacecraft acting together and managing individual rocket programs. The chain of command might look like this:
W-1 Payload Specialist W-2 Mission Specialist
O-1 Astronaut Candidate O-2 Module Pilot (as in "Docking Module Pilot") O-3 Astronaut Pilot O-4 Mission Backup Commander O-5 Mission Prime Commander O-6 Astronaut Group Captain O-7 Flight Director O-8 Constellation Commander O-9 Program Director (as in "Space Shuttle Program Director") O-10 Space Program Deputy Administrator O-11 Space Program Administrator
|
|
|
Post by lolroflcake on Oct 5, 2016 18:14:01 GMT
Given the level of training your average crew member would have on a spacecraft you would probably see far less of a traditional military structure in a crew. The structure would be far more flat with the commander there to give direction and strategy to how the crew approaches problems and the crew itself would be trusted to perform their tasks and identify and rectify problems to the best of their ability without the supervision typically associated with military organisation.
Hierarchical structures are inherently inefficient and are only really necessary when the people who are farther down the ladder cannot be trusted to understand the whole problem and how it fits into the bigger picture. What you would find on these ships would probably be more akin to what you would find on the ISS, or a Surgeons OR or a flight deck.
TL;DR Basically as far as we know,since these people are astronauts, there is no need for an extensive system of rank to ensure everyone has the supervision across all levels. The rank system would instead be built to ensure that the crew has a leader able to provide adequate direction for an individual ship or overall strategy without stepping on the toes of individual experts in their tasks.
Also I really hope they don't start using the term spacey as it sounds kind of silly.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 18:37:00 GMT
Also I really hope they don't start using the term spacey as it sounds kind of silly. Yeah it's pretty silly, but most common terms have either air or naval connotations which makes them a bit specific, there is not really a name for space craft groups that really separates them.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 5, 2016 20:59:54 GMT
The Officer/Enlisted divide must exist simply because there is a difference between the two. Officers are going to be trained in military law, national policy, international policy, and are the small number of individuals trusted with military secrets and the sensitive details of missions, patrols, duties, et cetera. They must arbitrate military law aboard ship as well. Officers will still exist apart from the normal crew as Battle Lawyers and the ones in position to 'take responsibility' for the crew, given final say as they are also supposed to be trained to argue their position and rules lawyer away whatever wacky thing they decide if someone cries foul for it later. Officers do not exist for snobbery sake, and the highly trained enlisted men do not need qualify as officers unless they are going to receive officer training for the same reasons as command staff. Officers are few in number because it's easier to only train a few and have the crew specialized in their jobs as well, and you really don't need that many.
The officer/enlisted divide is about more than just the ship operation, but about military organization. The kind of specialists described as "who'd really run the ship" is only enlisted technicians. Making decisions for the ship, and ultimately having to argue those decisions to command, as well as receiving orders from command, would be the officers.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Oct 5, 2016 21:32:53 GMT
Also I really hope they don't start using the term spacey as it sounds kind of silly. Yeah it's pretty silly, but most common terms have either air or naval connotations which makes them a bit specific, there is not really a name for space craft groups that really separates them. I personally use "Astrale". (pronounced "Astral" with a silent e, the same way Marine is pronounced Mareen) Navy comes from old French, and the modern French still has "navire" for (water-going) ship. Similarly, Marine comes from French "(companies/troupes de) Marine", literally "Navy (companies/troops)". Those are not exceptions, many military terms originally come from French. To keep with this tradition, "astre" is a celestial/astral body, and "astral" doesn't quite have the same occult connotation sometimes associated with in English due to stuff like Astral projection or Astral realm. Astrale is with a silent 'e' at the end as it is a feminine noun the same way Marine is (most if not all military branches are feminine nouns in French). Personnel in the Astrale would be Astronauts.I am using here the same mindset that gave the term Espatier as space equivalent for Marines in some hard-SF circles. The ranks princesskibble listed are pretty good. RL astronauts already have a hierarchy, adapting it for space combat is a good idea. That said, they may in addition have military ranks, and at least some naval-inspired ones given there are Admirals out there.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 21:50:30 GMT
That is a pretty good system of naming, i like the idea of Aethernauts, serving in an Aethyr or Aethy, from the Greek Aether the substance which was supposed to fill the space between the planets(i guess that would make it Hydrogen). Either way it is mostly semantics, but Espatier has a nice ring to it as does Astrale, but Astronauts is a term very much associated with scientific research and development, were as Aethernaut(s) could be more open for more specifically military personnel. A combination of the two also sounds quite good.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 5, 2016 21:58:13 GMT
I am currently not a fan of Espatier just because of the idiotic level to which the Atomic Rockets website promotes it in complete ignorance to the origins of the word it's supposed to replace. I appreciate what some in this thread are trying to do, start from scratch and rename everything, rather than anachronistically have Winchell Chung's idea of absolutely every term be a naval one and then "Wait, Marine is too watery, our ship carried shock troops in our naval forces need a non water term for their otherwise completely water themed job".
But it's also important to keep in mind... why? Why rename it all? To be different... you mean like the USAF did?
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Oct 5, 2016 22:51:52 GMT
That is a pretty good system of naming, i like the idea of Aethernauts, serving in an Aethyr or Aethy, from the Greek Aether the substance which was supposed to fill the space between the planets(i guess that would make it Hydrogen). Either way it is mostly semantics, but Espatier has a nice ring to it as does Astrale, but Astronauts is a term very much associated with scientific research and development, were as Aethernaut(s) could be more open for more specifically military personnel. A combination of the two also sounds quite good. Astronaut is associated with civilian science today, but it wasn't always and may not always be. To me, it is more of a generic term like Sailor, which can be used both for military and civilian personnel. I like Aethernaut, though... I am currently not a fan of Espatier just because of the idiotic level to which the Atomic Rockets website promotes it in complete ignorance to the origins of the word it's supposed to replace. I appreciate what some in this thread are trying to do, start from scratch and rename everything, rather than anachronistically have Winchell Chung's idea of absolutely every term be a naval one and then "Wait, Marine is too watery, our ship carried shock troops in our naval forces need a non water term for their otherwise completely water themed job". But it's also important to keep in mind... why? Why rename it all? To be different... you mean like the USAF did? Well, Marine is too watery, it literally means "(related to the) sea"[adj]. Looking at Wikipedia, "Marines, also known as a Marine Corps and naval infantry, are an infantry force that specializes in the support of naval and army operations at sea and on land, as well as the execution of their own operations. In the majority of countries, the marine force is part of the navy, but it can also be under the army like the Troupes de marine (French Marines) and Givati Brigade (Israeli Marines), or form an independent armed service branch like the United States Marine Corps." If a space-borne expeditionary force is the direct heir of an existing Marine force, it may retain its Marine name, though this depends if said military has one and if inter-service politics gives it to the existing Marine force, so this is not a sure thing. But then, for a force that doesn't even have a major maritime force, like any force in CoaDE due to lack of oceans bar Titan, and the general emphasis on space warfare, it doesn't make much sense to call their expeditionary force Marines than, say, Mountaineers. Now, I can see why you wouldn't like Espatier. It doesn't sound right, and I am saying that as a native French speaker. I would personally go for Spationaut, as part of, say, a Space Force (independent or part of the Astrale). The difference being that Astronaut refers to astral bodies and so travel between them, while Spationaut only refers to space as an environment, which doesn't imply travel, so it is appropriate for ship/station boarding space-to-ground assault. Spationaut actually exists, as when the confusion over Astronaut/Cosmonaut made it look like X-naut was dependent on the nation of origin, France decided to run with it and have their own term as well. It is seldom used nowadays, though, as the whole idea of different terms for different space programs was stupid in the first place, but here you go. I don't have strong feelings for or against Espatier as I do against Spacy (or Marine in space for no reason), so if you have a good name for them, please share!
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 5, 2016 23:15:57 GMT
thorneel we seem to be on a similar page.
To further my support for the word "Marine", it follows from the rest of the nomenclature. If your ship borne shock troopers are Marines, then your space ship borne space shock troopers are Space Marines. Until you stop using the term Ship for the means of conveyance for your Troops, you have no reason to change the name Marine either except to be pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Oct 6, 2016 19:42:30 GMT
thorneel we seem to be on a similar page. To further my support for the word "Marine", it follows from the rest of the nomenclature. If your ship borne shock troopers are Marines, then your space ship borne space shock troopers are Space Marines. Until you stop using the term Ship for the means of conveyance for your Troops, you have no reason to change the name Marine either except to be pedantic. Well, "marine" comes from the Latin "mare", or sea (ex. Mare Nostrum, "Our Sea", was the Roman name for the Mediterranean Sea). So it's not ship borne troops as much as sea (and by extension water) borne troops. So Space Marine is about as strange as Space Sailor. But then again, I can see futures where space personnel would be called Sailors, Soldiers or Airmen.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 6, 2016 20:12:12 GMT
So Space Marine is about as strange as Space Sailor. ...but that is literally what the word Astronaut means... Astro for Space, Naut for Nautical.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Oct 6, 2016 22:08:26 GMT
...but that is literally what the word Astronaut means... Astro for Space, Naut for Nautical. It is the etymological origin of "-naut", but the use has long since evolved into navigating in general, not just for water borne ships. Ex, aeronaut is more than a century old, about those on airships and balloons. More recently, internaut is still somewhat used. And, of course, science-fiction/fantasy grabbed it and ran with it, with chrononaut, psychonaut, juggernaut, thanatonaut... On the other hand, Marine is still used today as an adjective specifically about the sea in many languages, including in English with the colour and the painting.
|
|
|
Post by boomertiro on Oct 6, 2016 22:19:57 GMT
Navigating has evolved into navigating, though there is the term astrogating to remove the water bit from that it's rarely used outside of a few sci-fi RPGs. Nautical is still of the sea, and astronaut still means star sailor. Pointing out Marine as a naval term does not argue against it's use as a space term unless you are going to remove naval terms entirely. But you used the floating point argument. "Marine is still a water term!" you say... well, yes, that's exactly MY point as well, it's just as much a water term as every other space term we use. Until you remove the fact that every term you have is "Space Water" and usually just "Water" and you actually leave the space bit off, you don't make any sense objecting to one single water term because it's a water term. "Noooo, get rid of space water, oh but language evolution says we can keep all of space water, but we better get rid of THIS space water because it;s too watery, but because of LANGUAGE REASONS we should keep all other space water, but that doesn't apply to the exactly one term of space water I want to get rid of." I'm just getting sick of it.
So, until I see an argument that begins "Here is why we are throwing out ship, naval, navy, navigation, boat, maritime, anything with 'naut' in it" you have no reason to skip that entire list and throw out the one term all the way at the bottom. It's illogical, it's a waste of time, and people in this thread are seriously arguing replacing water terms with "Astronaut", WHICH MEANS STAR SAILOR!
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Oct 6, 2016 22:23:17 GMT
I think the real problem with using the word marine is that it doesn't even really apply. When is the last time marines boarded another ship? The Coast Guard does that. Modern marines deploy from a ship to attack targets on land. Even if they are trained to board hostile vessels, it is certainly not their primary mission.
Edit: That's why you can't just use terms for the Navy for this completely separate thing. And I don't know if it's just me but calling rockets "ships" is really awkward.
|
|