[ThoseDeafMutes]

In most Science Fiction, military space forces are referred to as Navies. Soldiers stationed on military spacecraft are referred to as Marines. These two observations are quite strange given the obvious fact that space is not an ocean. Nor is it similar to an ocean in any significant way. The latter is based directly on the former, since having Space Marines wouldn't make any sense at all unless we already have the tenuous connection with spacecraft being "Ships" and space forces being "Navies".

The space-ocean connection seems to arise because people draw on Navies as a metaphor, rather than because they are actually similar in meaningful ways. They are only loosely similar, in that you have some number of people stationed in a metal container for long periods of time. The fragile nature, maneuvering agility and extreme speeds involved with space travel make it more directly analogous to aircraft. The fact that aircraft and spacecraft directly overlap in the form of spaceplanes is also something worth considering.

Furthermore, space-craft are already real, and have historically been developed in conjunction with military services and using military servicemen. In the case of NASA, spacecraft are crewed by people using Airforce ranks (which are in-turn based on Army ranks), drawn from Airforce personnel. The Soviet Space Programme worked in conjunction with the Strategic Missile Force, for reasons that should be extremely obvious. Ranks there are, likewise, drawn from the Airforce/Army, because Soviet Rocketry had its home in Second World War Artillery. In the case of both US and Russian space programmes, the person in charge of a mission is not a Captain, but a Commander, and his subordinates are Pilots, not Sailors.

Keeping all of this information in mind, do you feel that hypothetical "space forces" should be based on the Air Force or Navy for its rank structure? Further, is the cultural inertia from Science Fiction enough to call them "Navies", or should this metaphor be abandoned because of the political inertia from existing space programmes?

[HomShaBom]

:|

[ConfusingJazz]

Furthermore, space-craft are already real, and have historically been developed in conjunction with military services and using military servicemen. In the case of NASA, spacecraft are crewed by people using Airforce ranks (which are in-turn based on Army ranks), drawn from Airforce personnel. The Soviet Space Programme worked in conjunction with the Strategic Missile Force, for reasons that should be extremely obvious. Ranks there are, likewise, drawn from the Airforce/Army, because Soviet Rocketry had its home in Second World War Artillery. In the case of both US and Russian space programmes, the person in charge of a mission is not a Captain, but a Commander, and his subordinates are Pilots, not Sailors.

John Glenn, Alan Shepard, and Jim Lovell want to have a word with you.

[Moral Panic]

Spaceships. Spaceships.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

John Glenn, Alan Shepard, and Jim Lovell want to have a word with you.

Naval pilots, not sailors. That they were technically not Airforce doesn't help the naval analogy even slightly.

[Razgriz-Specter]

Space marines make sense considering the historical context of marines style/mission.

[ConfusingJazz]

Naval pilots, not sailors. That they were technically not Airforce doesn't help the naval analogy even slightly.

First, don't say these things in bars near naval bases.


Secondly, large sci fi spacecraft seem to act more like naval vessels then anything the air force has. Carriers have fighters that shoot out, marines make sense as ship based infantry, sailors would be the service men on the space ship, etc.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Spaceships. Spaceships.

Airships also exist, but nobody would argue that Airforces are a kind of Navy even if they make use of them. An early name for a Tank was "Landship", but they quickly forged their own nomenclature because of how obviously different they were to actual ocean going vessels.

Spaceship is a common term used interchangably with Spacecraft, but the latter is a more technically correct designation.

[ultron87]

Usually in sci fi people piloting light craft like fighters and bombers take Airforce style ranks while the crew of capital ships take Naval ranks.

[Divvy]

Well in scifi, space forces are often depicted in the form of fleets centered around a mothership in the same way modern naval fleets center around a carrier. The other thing is that spaceships, like naval vessels are operating constantly unless in a dock, whereas aircraft typically only operate when on a mission.

[shira]

picard.gif

It's fine

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You're completely overlooking the fact that operating a space vessel is most similar in almost every single way to operating a submarine. It's the closest correlation we have to anything in science fiction, and strictly the domain of the navy. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the navy to handle things like that. The next best correlation is an aircraft carrier.

[Tacitus_]

Everybody knows that space is an ocean. That's why spaceships circle eachother and fire broadsides when fighting and you can only dodge sideways.

[akira28]

When you go from flying space aeroplanes (effectively the shuttle), to living in space boats, then you start calling it a navy.

We're not there yet, but both the Navy and the AirForce are paying more attention to that theatre. When we ditch the Air Force for Aerospace based defense fleets, and when we actually start fielding a space navy, full of space ships, with crew members, because they no longer use sails.

[Bay Maximus]

It used to be going out to sea was the great unknown. Today it's going out into space that is the great unknown. That's the way I've always looked at it.

[NaturalHigh]

Okay, OP. You win.

Spaceplanes.

[injurai]

Shepard.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Well in scifi, space forces are often depicted in the form of fleets centered around a mothership in the same way modern naval fleets center around a carrier. The other thing is that spaceships, like naval vessels are operating constantly unless in a dock, whereas aircraft typically only operate when on a mission.

Secondly, large sci fi spacecraft seem to act more like naval vessels then anything the air force has. Carriers have fighters that shoot out, marines make sense as ship based infantry, sailors would be the service men on the space ship, etc.

But we are discussing real life, not SF. The fact that SF calls them Navies 9 times out of 10 is already acknowledged. Space carriers sending out space fighters is a very strange notion, because it isn't like an ocean going carrier sending out air going fighters, it's like an aicraft sending out smaller aircraft, or a boat sending out smaller boats. Space fighters are operating in the same medium as space carriers, but in space there is no horizon to hide behind, so fighters have no purpose as general combat craft in the same way they do on Earth. Niches exist in which Space Fighers can be useful (e.g. spaceplanes that can actually enter atmosphere whereas the Carrier craft is not rated for atmosphere), but their role as central to the conduct of a war is not transferable. Further, space fighters have smaller engines, smaller guns, fewer missiles and less fuel compared to the carrier it is being launched from. Why are you going to send a manned spacecraft ahead of another manned spacecraft, just so it can launch unmanned missiles at the enemy? Why not launch missiles directly from the larger manned spacecraft? Instead of strapping them to fighters, you can simply make the missiles have two stages, and this is actually MORE EFFICIENT because now you're not wasting fuel boosting a pilot and his life support along the way, and you don't have to have the "First Stage" of the missile save half it's fuel for a return trip to the carrier.

The circumstances of Space Warfare make it wholly unique, and there are no good analogies to Earth based combat. Even if by some miracle, future tech made Space Combat exactly like WWII naval combat (ala Star Wars), that wouldn't matter, because Space Military Forces would be established long before then. They would grow out of present real technology, wherein it is limited to Satellite warfare and Spaceplanes launched from the ground and Ballistic Missiles.

You're completely overlooking the fact that operating a space vessel is most similar in almost every single way to operating a submarine. It's the closest correlation we have to anything in science fiction, and strictly the domain of the navy.

No, Submarines are not the best analogy for Spacecraft. The only similarities are the lengths of deployments and the hostile outside environment. But then Spacecraft have essentially infinite room to maneuver in all spatial directions. Submarines can dive from the surface, but are limited by pressure. Aircraft have far more room to maneuver up and down, tens of thousands of feet. Spacecraft are incredibly fast, closer to an Aircraft than a sluggish Submarine, and in a combat situation will pull high G maneuvers (again like an aircraft). Spacecraft actually fly, in the same way that a rocket flies in atmosphere. Because they ARE rockets.

Then, whereas Submarine combat is a situation where everybody is pretty much hidden, space combat is a situation where hiding is impossible unless you're literally behind something else. This is neither similar to Submarines, nor Spacecraft. With that said, combat is taking place at extreme range (more similar to the BVR combat that modern Aircraft partakes in), not the extremely close range that Submarine combat takes place at.

[Divvy]

But we are discussing real life, not SF. The fact that SF calls them Navies 9 times out of 10 is already acknowledged. Space carriers sending out space fighters is a very strange notion, because it isn't like an ocean going carrier sending out air going fighters, it's like an aicraft sending out smaller aircraft, or a boat sending out smaller boats. Space fighters are operating in the same medium as space carriers, but in space there is no horizon to hide behind, so fighters have no purpose as general combat craft in the same way they do on Earth. Niches exist in which Space Fighers can be useful (e.g. spaceplanes that can actually enter atmosphere whereas the Carrier craft is not rated for atmosphere), but their role as central to the conduct of a war is not transferable. Further, space fighters have smaller engines, smaller guns, fewer missiles and less fuel compared to the carrier it is being launched from. Why are you going to send a manned spacecraft ahead of another manned spacecraft, just so it can launch unmanned missiles at the enemy? Why not launch missiles directly from the larger manned spacecraft? Instead of strapping them to fighters, you can simply make the missiles have two stages, and this is actually MORE EFFICIENT because now you're not wasting fuel boosting a pilot and his life support along the way, and you don't have to have the "First Stage" of the missile save half it's fuel for a return trip to the carrier. The circumstances of Space Warfare make it wholly unique, and there are no good analogies to Earth based combat. Even if by some miracle, future tech made Space Combat exactly like WWII naval combat (ala Star Wars), that wouldn't matter, because Space Military Forces would be established long before then. They would grow out of present real technology, wherein it is limited to Satellite warfare and Spaceplanes launched from the ground and Ballistic Missiles. No, Submarines are not the best analogy for Spacecraft. The only similarities are the lengths of deployments and the hostile outside environment. But then Spacecraft have essentially infinite room to maneuver in all spatial directions. Submarines can dive from the surface, but are limited by pressure. Aircraft have far more room to maneuver up and down, tens of thousands of feet. Spacecraft are incredibly fast, closer to an Aircraft than a sluggish Submarine, and in a combat situation will pull high G maneuvers (again like an aircraft). Spacecraft actually fly, in the same way that a rocket flies in atmosphere. Because they ARE rockets. Then, whereas Submarine combat is a situation where everybody is pretty much hidden, space combat is a situation where hiding is impossible unless you're literally behind something else. This is neither similar to Submarines, nor Spacecraft. With that said, combat is taking place at extreme range (more similar to the BVR combat that modern Aircraft partakes in), not the extremely close range that Submarine combat takes place at.

It's pretty difficult to debate this subject considering we have no idea what our future space forces will be like. I see your point, but it can go one way or another.

As for fighters, there are rational arguments to be made for them. One is that they are a smaller target to hit, since it is more difficult to move an object of higher mass. One argument against that is that in the future we may have laser based weapons capable of tracking targets perfectly rendering fighters useless, but on the other hand, such weapons would also render long range ballistic or missile weapons useless as well. The idea in scifi that fighters are ships with engines pointed in one direction and it's main vector pointed in the other seems downright silly in space. I have more to say, but I need to go have lunch right now, will be back later.

[jason10mm]

Most sci-fi authors have little military experience so they use what sounds good. Terms like Captain (of a ship), Admiral (of the fleet), and General (of the ground forces, be they infantry or marines) helps the reader keep the roles clear and conveys the information the writer wants you to know in the least amount of time.

Go ahead and write a very realistic, plausible space warfare novel using only extrapolated technology. I'd read it!

[Tacitus_]

Go ahead and write a very realistic, plausible space warfare novel using only extrapolated technology. I'd read it!

While The Forever War isn't exactly hard scifi, it gets a lot of stuff right. And reading about realistic space warfare is boring. Everything is computer calculated since the engagements happen hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart and the crew has to hunker down in a special chamber just to survive the Gs the craft is pulling while attempting to dodge missiles that are traveling at a significant fraction of lightspeed. I would still recommend reading the book.

[MasterOfPastures]

Make the rank and organizational structure follow the needs of the vessels and technology. Because of that, a new structure has to be made, if necessary.

[Ikael]

As an utter war nerd, I think that any kind of hypotetical space war would have A LOT of similarities to naval warfare from an strategy POV: large masses of "empty" space, with very little landmass to occupy yet very critical to project force due to the increased dependency on logistics (planets and space stations VS islands and ports) in dire need of an infantry force to complement it and take it (Marines). Space warfare strategy would draw a freaking lot from naval warfare, specially submarine combat since we are talking about a force operating in a tridimensional grid. It would be more like Das Boot and Galactica than Star Wars and Top Gun, so to speak.

The analogy with the air force is really out of place, starting with the whole notion of "space fighters": it is ridiculous. Drones are already displacing manned aircraft, and the huge distances involved would mean a need of a proxi mobile drone command center that allows a communication between pilot and drone without radio lag, yet again replicating the whole carrier - fighter squadron dynamic (Naval warfare).

In conclusion, there would be far, far more similarities with naval strategy, modus operandi and combat than with the air forces, which has a role akin to calvary (remember how we talk about the tail and nose of the planes?) a type of fast "attack and retreat" supportive warfare that would be extremely difficult to translate to the ginormous scale and distances of the deep space, but if you would like to know more about this matter, you would only have to study the campaigns between the Earth's directorate and the rebel colonies ("independence wars", they call them) and how in the end, distance and a fuctional supply chain, not speed and firepower, ultimately made the difference *inhales from his tobacco pipe, remembering falling comrades*

[sphagnum]

Personally, I like the Non-Terrestrial Officers of Solar Warden.

[DiscoJer]

Most sci-fi authors have little military experience so they use what sounds good. Terms like Captain (of a ship), Admiral (of the fleet), and General (of the ground forces, be they infantry or marines) helps the reader keep the roles clear and conveys the information the writer wants you to know in the least amount of time.

I dunno - most of the top military SF authors seem to have military experience.

Robert Heinlein of course was in the Navy. Gordon Dickson was in the Army, Joe Haldeman (Forever war), William H. Keith (lots under pseudonyms) and David Drake were in Viet Nam. John Ringo was in the army. Elizabeth Moon was in the Marines


But personally I think space is more analogous to the Navy because of the nature of it. With rare exceptions, you don't live aboard airplanes, yet you do ships. You would run a starship very much like a naval ship, not an airplane.

On the other hand, the planetary, or even interplanetary forces might be more like the Air Force, since they would be planet based most of the time.

[tino]

Well you see James Cameron has a brother who went to the Marines, so he made the soldiers in Aliens Marines. Thats how we got so many space Marine video game 3 decades later.

[ElectricBlue187]

why do we have to use the same ranks from earthbound forces? Can't we just make something new?

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Actual spaceship battles would be boring to watch. It would basically be two giant windowless ships firing missiles and lasers at one another from distances so great as to render visual observation of both ships impossible.

On the upside, if antimatter sprays, grey goo (destructive nano bots) or weaponised singularities were involved, battles would at least be short. Also, thanks to advances in AI and robotics, you wouldn't need big crews ( or any, if it came to it) to run a warship, so even in altercations, casualties would be kept to a minimum. The only ships carrying people would be non-combat transports and all strategy would revolve around defending these.

[Forever]

Spaceships. Spaceships.

Spacechips.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

As an utter war nerd, I think that any kind of hypotetical space war would have A LOT of similarities to naval warfare from an strategy POV: large masses of "empty" space, with very little landmass to occupy yet very critical to project force due to the increased dependency on logistics (planets and space stations VS islands and ports) in dire need of an infantry force to complement it and take it (Marines).

I'm not sure if I'd any of these similarities are unique to the navy. Large masses of empty space sounds an awful lot like airspace, which has the added benefit of being much larger than oceans are deep (in the case of submarines) and three dimensional (unlike surface combat). It is aircraft that project power, with Carriers providing a mobile base for them, although Carrier aircraft are operated by the Navy (because they are based in the ocean).

Space warfare strategy would draw a freaking lot from naval warfare, specially submarine combat since we are talking about a force operating in a tridimensional grid. It would be more like Das Boot and Galactica than Star Wars and Top Gun, so to speak.

I couldn't disagree more with respect to it being similar to Submarine combat or Galactica. Galactica is just a space-carrier that also features a few guns, it's combat is completely centered around Space Fighters, which doesn't make sense in a real life context. In the case of Submarines, the focus of combat is on hide and seek, a concept which certainly does not apply in open space battlefields wherein you cannot hide your thermal emissions, and are therefore visible to your opponents when you are still days or weeks away from weapons range.

a type of fast "attack and retreat" supportive warfare that would be extremely difficult to translate to the ginormous scale and distances of the deep space

The timescales are obviously vastly different, but accelerating, dumping your missiles and letting them drift and self-target your opponent while you do a 180 and fire up the engines to bail out is an obvious, practical maneuver. Both sides can see each other coming from massive distance, and can easily avoid combat with one another unless one party is low on fuel or remass. This is not similar to any form of terrestrial warfare, really, where detection range and weapon range are usually very close together.

why do we have to use the same ranks from earthbound forces? Can't we just make something new?

We certainly can, although new branches of service grow out of existing ones. The Air Force grew out of terrestrial Armies, Russia's Strategic Rocket Force grew out of it's Army, etc. Airforce ranks are not the same as Army ranks, but share some similarities. I don't think anybody expects Space Force ranks to be exactly the same as either Naval or Air Force ranks, but the discussion is more about where it will draw more inspiration from.

Extrapolating from existing trends, AF ranks are the obvious candidate since real military space planes already exist and are operated by the AF. The US Space Command was headed by one of several USAF Generals for the entirety of its existence. It no-longer exists, but the Air Force Space Command still does. USSTRATCOM is more egalitarian, having 3/9 commanding officers being from the USN, 1 from the USMC and 5 from the USAF. Then again, STRATCOM deals largely with nuclear weapons (not just space stuff), which the Navy has plenty of.

As for fighters, there are rational arguments to be made for them. One is that they are a smaller target to hit, since it is more difficult to move an object of higher mass. One argument against that is that in the future we may have laser based weapons capable of tracking targets perfectly rendering fighters useless, but on the other hand, such weapons would also render long range ballistic or missile weapons useless as well.

Missiles are harder to hit than fighters are, because they are even smaller and even faster. They don't need to make a return trip, so they can use twice as much fuel/remass to accelerate. They don't have a squishy pilot or any life support systems, so they have less weighting them down, and can go even faster still. So instead of deploying fighters which deploy missiles, you simply have larger missiles with extra fuel. Now they are even faster, more maneuverable, longer ranged and don't risk pilot's lives.

Laser point defense is indeed extremely accurate, and weaponized lasers are highly plausible. However, they are very short ranged because they "bloom" and lose focus over distance. Point defense exists for real world military forces already, and laser point defense is defeated in the same way - by overwhelming it. You will need to fire a whole salvo of missiles simultaneously, missiles going at such a speed that they are difficult to destroy in large numbers given the range of the point defenses.

[Tesseract]

space is often romanticized to resemble an ocean in fiction. captains sail through space, through the new horizon.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

space is often romanticized to resemble an ocean in fiction. captains sail through space, through the new horizon.

Space whales and space pirates, man.

[SquiddyCracker]

You're better off not attempting to make space an analog of air/water combat, and instead create a new branch set up based on the way one travel and fight in space.

• There are no fighter ships in deep space combat
• Exchanging shots between two ships in deep space combat will just end in both ships losing their crew due to the volatility of vacuum.
• The moment you detect an enemy craft in space, your first move is probably to put as much distance as possible between you and them so that you can safely launch long-distance missiles - and hope that you'll be able to shoot down their missiles. Else you try to escape, and still send off missiles behind you as there's no reason not to.

And a couple of other things, then you have the requirements of pilots and crew members on space ships. Most likely, military ships will only be manned by a skeleton crew (assuming the AI isn't good enough to make these decisions) to make room for more weaponry/hull plating/whtaever so you will need the psychological fortitude of withstanding the presence of just 2-3 other guys for however long you are "stationed" and if you're the sole pilot of the ship you need some even stronger mental fortitude. This kinda demands the sort of mentality found on deep-sea submarines which an be submerged for many months, but the difference is that you often have a larger crew with which you can socialize better with in order to remain mentally healthy. When you actually get to space, or do any form of acceleration, you will need crew members more like air force pilots.

So to start with we'll probably get crews consisting of air force pilots which have undergone a long conditioning process and training to make them better at enduring long periods isolated from people or in the presence of just a few individuals.

[JoeMartin]

In continuing the analogy here, the manned spacecraft we've currently put into space have all but waded in the waters of the cosmic ocean. They weren't even really spaceships designed to be in space, but rather the best suited hobble we could toss together to break the enormous hurdle of defeating earth's gravity while also being able to splash around in space.

When it comes to the point that spaceships are actually spaceships, aren't manned by a crew countable with fingers and are in some appreciable fashion self-sustaining, I imagine a command structure very similar to that seen in a navy vessel (and most appropriately, as has already been pointed out, that of submarines) would necessarily be adopted.

But as it stands were not at the point where that's necessary, so for now the limited duration flights of our spacecraft - whose survival is largely dependent on piloting ability - remains in the realm of the pilots.

[jason10mm]

I dunno - most of the top military SF authors seem to have military experience.

Sure, the military sci-fi authors, but they are just a small fraction of all the sci-fi out there, and most sci-fi has spaceships operating in some context, thus the reliance of easily conveyed structure and rank gained by using familiar earth terms.

Take David Weber for example, one of the most popular space warfare sci-fi authors today. He never served, but is a military history buff, thus his Honor Harrington universe is a thinly veiled Horatio Hornblower napoleanic war re-theme.

A counter point is John Hemry writing as Jack Campbell and the Lost Fleet series. VERY realistic space combat as far as sci-fi usually goes. He was in the Navy and I think his experience shows.

Any of you guys remember the days of realistic physics space warfare video games? Stuff like Independence War?

[SquiddyCracker]

I just realized that there is close to no chance that two military crafts would even encounter eachother in space. The only times they'd encounter one another is around objects of interest (planets, asteroids, moons, stars) which would kinda change up the space-combat a bit.

[JoeMartin]

My point of view here is not out of consideration of space combat. The vast majority of the sailors on a naval vessel aren't there to enhance the warfighting capability of the ship, but are there to just make sure the damn thing works properly. Ships/submarines are enormously complicated machines which require constant supervision to ensure proper, safe, reliable operation. The ocean, much like space, is not a forgiving medium for a manned vessel - with no viable means for emergency support small problems very quickly become huge problems if things aren't maintained. Most of 'standing watch' in the navy isn't watching for enemies, but watching the ship to make sure it's behaving the way it's supposed to.

I imagine when spaceships are actually ships designed for space, and become sufficiently large enough to be relatively self sustaining for long-term spaceflight, a command structure will need be adopted/developed that will be capable of delegating the huge responsibility of ensuring proper operation of the ship to the qualified individuals. Lucky us, that command structure already exists in the navy, hence why most portrayals of space faring vessels draw upon that structure.

[Zaphod]

Naval pilots, not sailors. That they were technically not Airforce doesn't help the naval analogy even slightly.

Kiss my Navy ass.

Seriously though, I do think that the naval structure of command would work best with large spaceships. The navy is structured around Rates(job specialties) and have been geared to moving large crewed machines around for thousands of years. I don't see much of an analog in the other services.

[SquiddyCracker]

My point of view here is not out of consideration of space combat. The vast majority of the sailors on a naval vessel aren't there to enhance the warfighting capability of the ship, but are there to just make sure the damn thing works properly. Ships/submarines are enormously complicated machines which require constant supervision to ensure proper, safe, reliable operation. The ocean, much like space, is not a forgiving medium for a manned vessel - with no viable means for emergency support small problems very quickly become huge problems if things aren't maintained. Most of 'standing watch' in the navy isn't watching for enemies, but watching the ship to make sure it's behaving the way it's supposed to. I imagine when spaceships are actually ships designed for space, and become sufficiently large enough to be relatively self sustaining for long-term spaceflight, a command structure will need be adopted/developed that will be capable of delegating the huge responsibility of ensuring proper operation of the ship to the qualified individuals. Lucky us, that command structure already exists in the navy, hence why most portrayals of space faring vessels draw upon that structure.

The difference is that the more people you put on a ship, the slower/less defended/less offensive the ship will be. For every extra person you add aside form the commander, you're not only taking away 170 pounds worth of ship stuff, but even more to accommodate for the needs of every extra person (air, food, space, etc). The smaller the ship is (or the habitable area), the easier it is for a smaller crew to keep it repaired in the event of any non-disastrous failures (any disastrous failures would result in instant death more likely, regardless of the size of the crew).

Unless the purpose of the craft is to move people between two objects of interest, the crew will be kept as small as possible - maybe even down to a single commander whose only job is to tell the ship what to do next.

[Zaphod]

The difference is that the more people you put on a ship, the slower/less defended/less offensive the ship will be. For every extra person you add aside form the commander, you're not only taking away 170 pounds worth of ship stuff, but even more to accommodate for the needs of every extra person (air, food, space, etc). The smaller the ship is (or the habitable area), the easier it is for a smaller crew to keep it repaired in the event of any non-disastrous failures (any disastrous failures would result in instant death more likely, regardless of the size of the crew). Unless the purpose of the craft is to move people between two objects of interest, the crew will be kept as small as possible - maybe even down to a single commander whose only job is to tell the ship what to do next.

That applies to ship design today as well. Naval architects try to make an efficient ship, it's not like they are competing to put the most crew on they can. More than likely a spaceship will require a nominal amount of operation and maintenance crew whose command structure might benifit from centuries of naval experience.

[JoeMartin]

The difference is that the more people you put on a ship, the slower/less defended/less offensive the ship will be. For every extra person you add aside form the commander, you're not only taking away 170 pounds worth of ship stuff, but even more to accommodate for the needs of every extra person (air, food, space, etc). The smaller the ship is (or the habitable area), the easier it is for a smaller crew to keep it repaired in the event of any non-disastrous failures (any disastrous failures would result in instant death more likely, regardless of the size of the crew). Unless the purpose of the craft is to move people between two objects of interest, the crew will be kept as small as possible - maybe even down to a single commander whose only job is to tell the ship what to do next.

Again I would reference submarines here. While technically true, the applicability and mission availability of a larger vessel tends to extended at least linearly with the size of the ship. And it's not as if the Navy puts superfluous personnel on a submarine either - it really does require that many people to ensure the boat is always in working order, as not being in working order is not an option. Berthing, air, food, water are all considerations designed into the vessel, as they will have to be with spaceships.

And the point of having sufficient personnel on watch 24/7 is that you are able to prevent the vast majority of disastrous failure. That the crew are trained, qualified individuals is for any causalities which do occur, in that entire crew knows exactly how to respond, what needs to be immediately done to contain the problem, save the ship, and save lives. I can't imagine any reason why this wouldn't be true of spaceships either.

[SquiddyCracker]

Again I would reference submarines here. While technically true, the applicability and mission availability of a larger vessel tends to extended at least linearly with the size of the ship. And it's not as if the Navy puts superfluous personnel on a submarine either - it really does require that many people to ensure the boat is always in working order, as not being in working order is not an option. Berthing, air, food, water are all considerations designed into the vessel, as they will have to be with spaceships. And the point of having sufficient personnel on watch 24/7 is that you are able to prevent the vast majority of disastrous failure. That the crew are trained, qualified individuals is for any causalities which do occur, in that entire crew knows exactly how to respond, what needs to be immediately done to contain the problem, save the ship, and save lives. I can't imagine any reason why this wouldn't be true of spaceships either.

Because unlike a submarine, spacecraft don't have a medium that they can cheaply travel through. Whereas a submarine can do with just a nuclear reactor that powers propellent to drive the ship through the ocean, a spacecraft need to eject material in order to travel through space. While you might be able to scale submarines fairly linearly, this isn't the case for a space ship (the bigger the ship, the more propellant you need to eject in order to maintain X velocity).

If you want the spaceship to land on objects of interest, it'll also benefit from being smaller, or having more of it's mass consist of propellant fuel.

On the other-hand, if spacecrafts will only enter combat in the vicinity of objects in space, space fighters are now a viable method of warfare - which would require a larger crew to pilot the fighters. I doubt they would actually enter the fighers themselves, but rather just control them from on-board the "mother ship" a la drones, which would allow for the mother ship to carry with it faster and more lethal drones.

I sincerely doubt that our first viable long-term spacecraft will be using a highly limited amount of catalytic propellant. And why would we want the whole of the spacecraft to land places? Also maintaining speed? In space?

As in maintain the same velocity a smaller ship would with X ton propellant. Increase the size of the ship while leaving the amount of propellant the same and the ship will be slower.

[JoeMartin]

Because unlike a submarine, spacecraft don't have a medium that they can cheaply travel through. Whereas a submarine can do with just a nuclear reactor that powers propellent to drive the ship through the ocean, a spacecraft need to eject material in order to travel through space. While you might be able to scale submarines fairly linearly, this isn't the case for a space ship (the bigger the ship, the more propellant you need to eject in order to maintain X speed). If you want the spaceship to land on objects of interest, it'll also benefit from being smaller, or having more of it's mass consist of propellant fuel.

I sincerely doubt that our first viable long-term spacecraft will be using a highly limited amount of catalytic propellant. And why would we want the whole of the spacecraft to land places?

Also maintaining speed? In space?

[Indrid Cold1]

why do we have to use the same ranks from earthbound forces? Can't we just make something new?

Around the time the Royal Air Force was created, there was debate when they were deciding what the name of their general / flag officer equivalent ranks would be (they eventually settled on Air Marshal).

One of the names proposed for the rank was "Ardian", which is a combination of the Gaelic words for "chief" (ard) and "bird" (eun). When I read that years ago I always thought Ardian would make for a cool space rank.

[Zaphod]

Because unlike a submarine, spacecraft don't have a medium that they can cheaply travel through. Whereas a submarine can do with just a nuclear reactor that powers propellent to drive the ship through the ocean, a spacecraft need to eject material in order to travel through space. While you might be able to scale submarines fairly linearly, this isn't the case for a space ship (the bigger the ship, the more propellant you need to eject in order to maintain X speed). If you want the spaceship to land on objects of interest, it'll also benefit from being smaller, or having more of it's mass consist of propellant fuel.

You seem to keep going to specifics in this hypothetical discussion. What we are trying to say is that typically there is a minimum crew requirement and that the structure of Naval command would lend itself well to the situation of a large spaceship. All the things you keep bringing up still apply to modern vessels. Look up the development of the dreadnaught in the early 20th century to see how they had to trade speed and maneuverability to carry fuel and weaponry.

When a crewman has a job on a ship he is typically required to know everything about their equipment. This is so they can operate, repair and maintain the equipment they are charged with responsibility over. I don't think I would want to rely only on the captains abilities to run an entire ship by himself.

As for propulsion, ion technology requires little propellant and has been used for at least one space probe already.

[jason10mm]

Glen Cook's A Passage of Arms is a "submarines in space" novel. It has a lot of similarity with a sub book. Despite the lack of a concealing medium, subs and space ships will try to hide from each other, listen for passive emissions, and limit active ones. They have to rely on instrumentation rather than direct observation, and they are both tubes of men with a very hostile external environment. Thematically there are a lot of parallels. It is a good book (Cook served in the Navy).

[DarkFlow]

Because unlike a submarine, spacecraft don't have a medium that they can cheaply travel through. Whereas a submarine can do with just a nuclear reactor that powers propellent to drive the ship through the ocean, a spacecraft need to eject material in order to travel through space. While you might be able to scale submarines fairly linearly, this isn't the case for a space ship (the bigger the ship, the more propellant you need to eject in order to maintain X speed). If you want the spaceship to land on objects of interest, it'll also benefit from being smaller, or having more of it's mass consist of propellant fuel. On the other-hand, if spacecrafts will only enter combat in the vicinity of objects in space, space fighters are now a viable method of warfare - which would require a larger crew to pilot the fighters. I doubt they would actually enter the fighers themselves, but rather just control them from on-board the "mother ship" a la drones, which would allow for the mother ship to carry with it faster and more lethal drones. As in maintain the same speed a smaller ship would with X ton propellant. Increase the size of the ship while leaving the amount of propellant the same and the ship will be slower.

Your thinking too much in terms of modern technology. By the time we can have space war fleets, I'm sure we can do better than propellant to get us around. Also having a ship with one crew member is just ask for trouble. The poor person needs to sleep sometime.

[Asbel]

When you go from flying space aeroplanes (effectively the shuttle), to living in space boats, then you start calling it a navy. We're not there yet, but both the Navy and the AirForce are paying more attention to that theatre. When we ditch the Air Force for Aerospace based defense fleets, and when we actually start fielding a space navy, full of space ships, with crew members, because they no longer use sails.

Solar sails, whereas wings have no use in space.

Because unlike a submarine, spacecraft don't have a medium that they can cheaply travel through. Whereas a submarine can do with just a nuclear reactor that powers propellent to drive the ship through the ocean, a spacecraft need to eject material in order to travel through space. While you might be able to scale submarines fairly linearly, this isn't the case for a space ship (the bigger the ship, the more propellant you need to eject in order to maintain X speed).

You got this backwards. There is no friction in space so maintaining speed cost zero energy. Whereas water greatly slows you down. And a nuclear reactor does eject material.

[Partial Gamification]

The bureaucratic nature of the Pentagon and other large military organizations will lend itself toward no single branch being willing to opt-out of participation in space-related matters. For the US, the USAF is most focused with its aerospace mission; but as others move into space, a variety of organizations will co-exist. For science fiction, the notion of space armadas waging battles between fleets easily maps to a naval hierarchy for the readablity of both the known context and understandable structure. With a future seeing space exploration, transportation, and exploitation going into commercial hands, it is fair to consider the private paramilitaries that could be associated with commercial developments. As contractors create new technologies, the different branches will find their fit, adapting to remain relevant. The Corp of Engineers could hypothetically remove space garbage or build a space elevator. The National Guard could work on deflecting asteroids. ...hypothetically speaking, it's like "keeping up with the Jones'," on a geopolitical level when the international scope is considered.

[FyreWulff]

I'd hope by that point that people would view the separate branch setup for the stupidity that it is and forces are unified under one label anyway.

The navy has planes, the air force has boats, the army has boats and aircraft. It's like, come on.