# Avoiding "ship" in spacecraft descriptions **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 23, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810 "2009-10-23T01:55:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/1 "2009-10-23T01:55:20Z")
I have a problem. I am attempting to write a Hard SF story. It involves a couple of rather roomy spacecraft capable of interstellar travel, both of which are big enough to contain another, smaller spacecraft (a la _Discovery_’s pods in _2001_). The obvious terms that spring to mind to describe these spacecraft are “starship” and “mothership”. But … I absolutely, positively _detest_ the term “space ship.” I want to avoid using the word “ship” in _any_ form, in any association with any kind of spacecraft. It is my firm belief that the term “space ship” did more to damage and distort the image of what real space travel would be like than any other factor. (And, yes, I’m looking at _you_, Mr. E. E. “Doc” “Ships of Space” Smith!) The image of sea-farin’ captains and their motley crews, sailing out of port for the unknown and uncharted, banging away at each others’ wooden hulls with cannons, is about as far from what real space travel would be like as _World of Warcraft_ is from the real Middle Ages. So … What colloquial terminology would you use instead of “starship” or “mothership”, which doesn’t sound clunky or inobvious? (“Starcraft” and “mothercraft” sound just plain wonky.) ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/2 "2009-10-23T02:05:19Z")
Carrier for the big ship, fighter for the smaller ones. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/3 "2009-10-23T02:15:18Z")
If they’re generation ships you could just have the characters refer to them simply as “worlds” since for all practical purposes they are the only world most of their inhabitants will ever know. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/4 "2009-10-23T02:37:28Z")
Adjective Interstellar Star Planet(ary) Space Light - Noun Coaches Conveyance Transporter Craft Car Vehicle Bus Plane ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/5 "2009-10-23T02:57:29Z")
In the aerospace/astrospace world we simply call anything that carries instruments or people into Earth orbit or beyond as “spacecraft”. I suppose you could use the term “vessel”, but this isn’t qualitatively different from “ship”. Frankly, “ship” is just a good a term as any for a spacecraft that carries people; it does pretty much the same things that a watercraft does (propulsion/weigh, protection from elements, et cetera) except in a celestial environment. If we want to speak in terms of interstellar spacecraft (which by any extrapolation of known technology are just about as far from reality as Smith’s “speedsters” and “destroyers”) then the reality is that they probably won’t be “roomy spacecraft,” but rather will be distributed, robust, self-repairing, semi-autonomous probes somewhat akin to Dyson Freeman’s [Astrochicken](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrochicken). The reasons for this are obvious to anyone who is involved in or appreciative of the technical limitations of human space transportation; not only the impingement of high energy cosmic radiation, the enormous energies required to get a craft of any significant size up to speeds capable of crossing interstellar distances in anything like a reasonable timeframe (even given “generation ships”), the hazard of collision with even the small amount of matter at velocities approaching a fraction of a percent of the speed of light, and the problem of logistics and recycling, but also the energy required to operate a small-scale ecosystem and the thermodynamic limitations of eliminating waste heat from a closed system via radiation. No doubt some nation will, sooner or later, establish a permanent and mostly self-sustaining human presence in orbital or even interplanetary space. The amount of resources available in even the Near Earth Objects make this an appealing enterprise for the long-sighted investor. Orbital habitats are not dramatically far from projections of current technology, and interplanetary vessels are a reasonable extrapolation of existing and conceptual propulsion systems. But interstellar transit is another bag of tricks entirely, and without some kind of beyond-science-fiction breakthrough, explorers to other star systems won’t be running around in brightly colored spandex uniforms setting phasers to stun; they’ll be self-replicating, possibly organic (or at least, organic-like) proxies for humanity, possibly containing some of our genetic heritage but not resembling our form. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/6 "2009-10-23T03:06:22Z")
If the smaller ones aren’t for combat (which seems unlikely for a “hard” SF story, given that there’s probably not much use for the sort of thing we think of when we say “fighter” in realistic space warfare), you could call them “shuttles.” That pretty simply sums up their likely purpose: to move people or cargo between two points, namely between a carrier and a planet, or between two carriers. I’m also writing an SF story – not really Hard SF but leaning in that direction – and that’s the word I use. I don’t eschew the word “ship,” though, which I allow the characters to use to refer to the larger, interstellar craft. It’s a difficult word not to use. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/7 "2009-10-23T03:19:47Z")
Not that you should necessarily copy Iain M. Banks, but he refers to the spacecraft in his stories as “units” if they’re smallish and “vehicles” if they are biggish. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/8 "2009-10-23T04:46:25Z")
Transports / Habitats ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/9 "2009-10-23T04:59:42Z")
If “spacecraft” won’t work, could you use the _model/brand name_ for the spacecraft? Like “we docked with the big Lockheed” or “they were close enough to see the silhouette of the Argo IIIb—military vessels, and this one being no exception, typically went unnamed—against the lunar disc.” ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/10 "2009-10-23T06:30:59Z")
Shuttle or shuttlecraft is pretty much the standard term for non fighters. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/11 "2009-10-23T07:45:50Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I suppose you could use the term “vessel”… Nuclear Wessels? 🙂 Seem to recall from \*The Right Stuff \*the craft being referred to as Pods (to the disgust of the astronauts) and Capsules… Shuttlepod, Lifepod, Cargopod… ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/12 "2009-10-23T09:22:31Z")
“Spacemobiles”. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/13 "2009-10-23T10:32:29Z")
Consider the following words: Train Car Truck Airplane Helicopter Dirigible Glider All new terms describing modern forms of trasportation. If you trace the etrymology of these terms, perhaps you can use the process you discover to invent - or repurpose - a word for “spacecraft”. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/14 "2009-10-23T10:38:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > If you trace the etrymology… Sir! it’s no use! The etrymology craft is using bio-random hyperspace jumps. There’s no way we’ll be able to track her now! But I like your idea. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/15 "2009-10-23T10:43:50Z")
Submarines, no matter how large, are always referred to as a “boat”. That has a certain sense of claustrophobia about it. It’s not much better than “ship”, though, and also conjures up images of _Firefly_. It could be a “liner” (which would carry “launches”). That suggests a scheduled service, like the old ocean liners, which doesn’t sound like what you have in mind. You could come up with a proper name for it, like _Discovery_, and just have the characters use that. That sidesteps the whole problem. ---
**Author:** ![Meurglys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/258eb7/32.png) [@Meurglys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meurglys)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/16 "2009-10-23T11:19:52Z")
If there’s a main drive unit pulling, or pushing, other habitat units, etc., it could be a ‘tug’. Or if your craft has a particular type of drive, call it after that, or after a slang term for the drive. A ‘boombox’ could be the accepted parlance for referring to a ship powered by repeated nuclear explosions, for instance. Jack Vance called his small spaceships ‘explorators’ iirc, because their main function was exploring. Decide it’s main function and mangle it a bit! ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/17 "2009-10-23T11:35:41Z")
mmm, I guess BaseStar is already taken… what about biological analogies? Host/Inquiline or Bearer/Children or even Exovehicle/Endovehicle or somesuch? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/18 "2009-10-23T11:52:45Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Submarines, no matter how large, are always referred to as a “boat”. That has a certain sense of claustrophobia about it. It’s not much better than “ship”, though, and also conjures up images of _Firefly_. “Submarine” is another good word. Think about it: they didn’t call them “underwater ships”, did they? They gave them a name based on where they travelled. Using the same logic, a possible term for a FTL starship would be an “Interstellar” or “Superstellar”. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/19 "2009-10-23T18:31:16Z")
> [@Meurglys](#): > > Or if your craft has a particular type of drive, call it after that, or after a slang term for the drive. A ‘boombox’ could be the accepted parlance for referring to a ship powered by repeated nuclear explosions, for instance. You mean like how a spacecraft powered by a Bussard-like engine might be called a “ramscoop”? (Or, for that matter, how a turbojet-powered airplane is sometimes simply called a “jet”?) Tantalizing possibility… ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810/20 "2009-10-23T18:32:17Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > “Submarine” is another good word. Think about it: they didn’t call them “underwater ships”, did they? The Germans did. 😛 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avoiding-ship-in-spacecraft-descriptions/514810.md?page=2)