From a discussion begun with post 346 in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=611254&page=7
I’d say it’s more like a navy, in terms of ranks, having big ships on long missions, nautical terminology used, etc.
And you?
I’d say Coast Guard mixed with NOAA.
And NASA and the USPHS!
Gene Roddenberry himself described the captain of the Enterprise as"Horatio Hornblower in space"and Nicholas Meyer described the missions of the Enterprise as “gunboat diplomacy.” That’s naval enough for me.
As I said in t’other thread: Starfleet is, overtly, based on a naval metaphor.
The question is, does that make sense?
In RL, space is not basically 2D like in the Treks, and we don’t really know how space combat might play out (Star Trek combat was originally inspired by submarine battles).
So for things like vectors and tactics the naval analogy would likely be inadequate.
For things like ranks, I guess it doesn’t matter what names you choose.
Submarine battles aren’t 3-D?
His tactics indicate a 2-dimensional perspective.
If I had to pick one, I’d go with Coast Guard: sure, the folks on the ship handle search-and-rescue missions, law enforcement, and scientific research – but in times of war, all those uniformed guys with USN-sounding ranks immediately get activated for military operations as per their years of training at the Academy.
I’ve always thought of Star Trek as being a basically pre-aircraft carrier naval paradigm. Star Wars is post-aircraft carrier. Star Trek basically has your classic set-piece battleship battles; Star Wars uses the big capital ships as bases for fighters (though they have quite a bit of battleship left in them still).
Neither really aligns well with the modern air force, at least as I understand it from the US: stationary bases that dispatch longer- or shorter- range craft on rather specific missions. This only makes sense, honestly. Even the longest-range air force missions take place on a single planet and come back within a day or two. When we’re talking about “space combat,” even short-range patrols (say, within the limits of a single planetary system) are going to be affairs of several weeks.
(This leaves aside entirely the role of the USAF as the custodians of our ICBM force, which is a concept generally untranslated to space opera.)
Clearly, Starfleet thinks of itself in primarily nautical terms–they use nautical language, nautical ranks (captains and admirals instead of colonels and generals or group captains and air marshals/space marshals), etc.
I would say substantively as well it’s also more navy-like than air force-like. The vessels are large, and have large crews, including substantial numbers of enlisted personnel. (Airplanes usually have smaller crews, and are more likely to have only officers on board.) The crew lives on board the vessel, which is “at space” for long periods of time–a “five-year mission”, with days, weeks, or even months between stops at a Starbase. The living spaces are much more ship-like, with large compartments (mess halls, holodecks, etc.) and personal living quarters for the officers and crew.
The shuttles are more like aircraft–relatively small, and while there might be a bunk you can sleep in, they aren’t set up to be lived in for extended periods of time. On Battlestar Galactica, the Galactica herself was very ship-like, in the same way as all the incarnations of the Enterprise are (size, internal arrangements, a place where large numbers of people live for extended periods of time). Colonial Vipers are “planes”, and even the Raptors were more like long-range aircraft. Colonial One (Presiden Roslin’s spaceship) was much more plane-like, being modelled after Air Force One (that is, a large customized passenger jetliner). I don’t know that anyone could actually live on one of the 747s used as Air Force One for anything like as long as they did on the show. In Star Wars, X-wings and such are “planes”–although you can fly to Dagobah in one–but beginning with the Millennium Falcon on up to Super Star Destroyers, we’re back in the realm of “ships”.
I think it’s not just ranks, but the whole tempo of operations and of space force/space fleet life. A navy-style structure clearly fits what is portrayed in all these various space operas much better than an air force-style structure. I don’t think it’s just a question of which set of ranks you use–in the Heinlein juvenile Citizen of the Galaxy the Hegemonic Guard uses military-style ranks–the skipper of the Guard cruiser Hydra is a colonel. Depsite that, the Guard is still clearly a “navy”, operating large vessels with large crews that go out and act independently of their supply bases for weeks or even months at a time, and it’s structured like a navy and acts like a navy, military-style ranks notwithstanding.
Niether. Starfleet is based upon the armed forces of the European Empires, which still were in living memory at the time of the premier of TOS. There you had small units deployed far from home and often the only agents of their government nearby. They were expected to undertake any necessary task, be it policing, cutoms, tax collecting, peacekeeping, judicial work etc. The RN spent most of the 19th and early 20th century fighting small unit actions in coastal areas or off islands.
I’m not sure about Starfleet as a whole, but I think of the mission of the Enterprise to be very similar to some of the Royal Navy exploration and survey expeditions, such as the voyages of the HMS Endeavour, in which Captain James Cook and Joseph Banks explored the southern Pacific and discovered much of Australia and New Zealand, and the HMS Beagle, which took Charles Darwin to the Galapagos Islands.
The Coast Guard is a navy.
Er, so that is naval, then.
Yea, the primary mission of Starfleet is supposed to be non-military (of course, on the show they spend a lot of time getting into fights, but presumably we’re supposed to assume the Enterprise is atypical in that regard, since making a series about a starship that spend five years making a survey of the different types of space-fungus near Vulcan would make for poor TV).
So something like NOAA, or a scaled up version of the Cook voyages is the best historical analogue.
I always figured “James Kirk” was a play on “James Cook”, but googling Rodenberry seems to have given a different account of the origin of his protagonists name.
Not really. Something like “2½D”.
They cannot move in any 3D vector, or orient themselves in any 3D rotation matrix, or even close to it, and their weapons are similarly constrained.
(Certainly this is true of subs of the era when Gene was defining how star trek battles would work; I’m not up to date with the latest tech)
I gave the Royal Navy as an example. The British Army had similar responsibilities.
It’s like a chain of luxury hotels.
I thought it was more akin, if not loosely based on, what Lord Nelson called his Band of Brothers - his captains from The Nile to Trafalgar:
I suppose you could argue there are also parallels between Jack Aubrey and James Kirk …