Good point. I really like the cut of your jib.
See, the thing tracer is trying to avoid is establishing those ingrained connotations of “ship” that have permeated science fiction for a century.
Imagine if someone in 1889 were writing a science fiction novel where the existed vehicles that transported people through the air. Now, “air wagon” or “air train” would bring up one sort of connotation, “airship” another. And it turns out that if the author was writing about zeppelins, “airship” would be a very good term to use, because it unconsciously establishes certain expectations about the craft that are useful.
But if the author is imagining biplanes, “airship” gives all sorts of wrong impressions. And coining a new word like “airscrew” or “autoglider” or “ornithopter” will tend to shake the reader out of the unconscious assumptions they’ve made about the vessels and how they work.
So the question is, is it worth it? If you’re just telling a story about a plucky second Lieutenant who doesn’t realize how beautiful she is, and the handsome Captain with a mysterious past that she’s forced to work with, then it’s not worth it.
Not so much on the carriers. I dunno why. Just is.
I have never been on any of the small boys.
I’m told submarines are boats, as well.
could you call the main ship “home”?
Just like you use the word home for the town where you and all your friends were born.
Why? Didn’t “vessel” simply mean “container” before it meant “sea-going craft”?
Well, the problem is that the author is extrapolating on a technology that has existed for 50 years. Modern spaceflight is sort of an offshoot of aviation and naval conventions and may become moreso as vehicles become larger and more “ship” like. It is very much like your author coming up with a name for a giant, fast, long vehicle flying vehicle that is not some variation of existing airships (blimps, dirigibles, Zeppelins, etc.). And the problem from a litterary standpoint is that your audience may not know what the heck you are talking about if you just start making up words.
I dont know what you are going to call the (mothership), but for the smaller ships, the names should be easy to come by.
If it carries people, both “Shuttle” and “bus” are terms used in everyday language that could easily translate. In “Earth” by David Brin, set in 2030, one character, s a space shuttle pilot says her job has simple become the saem as a bus-driver.
If it carries cargo any term we use today for a cargo carrying vehicle could work…truck, frieghter, tractor trailer, big-rig, ("cause we got a great big convoy
Rockin through the night.
Yeah, we got a great big convoy,
Aint she a beautiful sight?)
OK so then there’s t-babble names:
- Dilation Asymptomover; Relativant
- Transprojectary Habitat; Telepolis
You can as well use terminology based on the driving technology as shorthand (as mentioned before with “jet” and as also seen in the use of the word “steamer”), so your city projected across timespace by psychics could be just the largest category of Esperpacket, which come in small, medium, large and super versions. Or a device that uses hyperspace by going up and down dimensional states like an electron transitioning between quantum states could be a Quantransiter.
But one can always go for the simple descriptive words like “transport”, for civilian uses, “fight platform” for military, “probe platform” for explorers, “habitat” for self-contained ecosystems; then to these you may add the t-babble qualifiers. You can also only use that full name rarely and the rest of the time use the shorthand or in-world slang. Thus a heavily armed military Quantum Dimensional Transitioner becomes a “Wartransiter”.
Then again few have ever laughed at someone for using the words “vessel” or “craft”… and lots of times authors have distracted and confused the audience with made-up terms. One has to be careful how one writes it to avoid sounding silly. Really, for the smaller conveyances that would be moving around more or less in orbital scale, something like *shuttle, jig, ride *or stage, should be acceptable. They could also be called “a ute”, short for “utility conveyance”. A cargo ute, a VIP ute, a strike (armed) ute, a medevac ute. No need to think that it’ll be something unrecognizable in function.
Just call it spacecraft. That’s what it is.
I prefer mervin’ glorb.
Piloted by zombies, no doubt.
Zombies IN SPACE, no less.
Seriously though - an interesting thread and a lot of good ideas and thoughts going around. I like the techno-babble naming conceit myself, if I’m trying to avoid a specific connotation.
You could avoid the problem by using a made up name. I suggest a Joule after Jules Verne. Or name it after their method of FTL travel like a Warpster.
Acronym (LM) or branding name like … ‘Apollo’.
Gig, runabout, outboard, cigarette; clipper, schooner, cutter, sloop, brig, corvette; pup, snipe, camel; shrike, merlin, roc, kestrel, peregrine; Jenny, Spad, Nieuport; Hunter, Archer, Bull, Bear, Scorpion, Lynx, Raven, Phoenix, Centaur; Styx…
I like ‘dreadnought’.
It’s been seven years, by I really like this.
Aerostats, for stations floating in the atmospheres of gas giants.
Damn, what does a man have to do to kill a thread around here and leave it killed?