I don’t really know how to structure this question, but yeah, why is always Naval and never Aviation?
I think most generally it’s because naval analogues are probably the closest when you’re talking about large space-based fighting vessels. The air force doesn’t operate aircraft carriers, battleships, or destroyers. The navy, however, does (or did in the case of battleships). Those large sea based vessels often class quite nicely into a lot of sci-fi media for large ships.
The small ships you see are often based off of a carrier equivalent. Even when they’re terrestrially based, it makes a lot of sense to streamline your military structure to have just one “space force”, rather than trying to break it up into two entities like the “space navy” and “space air force”, each with their own standards and logistical supply networks.
That’s always been my take. The Navy has the experience with big-ship operations, and operating smaller craft from those large ships, and it’s supply and logistics would likely evolve from ocean to space faring ships.
The Marines are historically an amphibious force, an extension of the Navy, specialized in ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore operations; ship-to-surface would be the evolution of that.I think you’re largely on the ball here, but thinking about it further makes me question this… early spaceflight was almost exclusively done by people selected out of aviation forces. While we haven’t operated a single craft outside of Earth’s Sphere of Influence and thus been outside of range for largely terrestrial based control of the incredibly complex operations of a spacecraft, I wonder how that much of that aviation culture bleeds into spacecraft operations.
Though, this may change when a spacecraft can operate outside of Earth’s watchful eye for a period of time.
While it is true that most early astronauts were aviators, specifically test pilots, it’s also important to consider that it was the case then as it is now that the US Navy operates more planes and has more pilots than the US Air Force. Just percentage wise, that would edge towards more Navy pilots who use the naval terminology in their ranks (the Mercury 7 were 4 Navy pilots, 2 Air Force, and 1 Marine I think, though I could be wrong). I would assume that the culture would skew even more Naval as space flight progresses as early spaceflight was a couple of guys in a tin can to larger scale craft.
Another weird quirk too is that common military rank terms like “captain” and “lieutenant” don’t line up between the Navy and the others (at least in the US). So the OG Star Trek guys would be Colonel Kirk and Captain Uhura under Air Force terminology, and that just sounds weird
The USAF has significantly more planes and pilots then the USN.
However, the USN is technically the second largest air force currently operating in the world, behind the USAF.
Yeah… I don’t know where the claim that the navy has more pilots than the Air Force came from? The Air Force has more than 20k active duty pilots, while the Navy only has around 7k.
To throw an add on to your comment in case readers have the ideal that the Navy’s mostly flying cargo planes, Top Gun is the Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Navy is flying a decent number of cargo planes but they also have some of the best fighter pilots in the world. Also flying a Space Shuttle would be a lot closer to flying a cargo plane than a fighter jet. Space Shuttles weren’t designed to maximize speed and maneuverability so that kinda makes pointing out that the Navy has amazing fighter pilots irrelevant, but they do.
Another weird quirk too is that common military rank terms like “captain” and “lieutenant” don’t line up between the Navy and the others (at least in the US). So the OG Star Trek guys would be Colonel Kirk and Captain Uhura under Air Force terminology, and that just sounds weird
Colonel O’Neill and Captain Carter
I think the best reasoning for this has more to do with the practicalities of writing than with the accuracy of the speculation about future human endeavours. As you say, there haven’t been any naval missions in space, which is exactly why when drawing from more familiar analogues you can find a richer vein by looking upon naval tradition instead. While fiction, and sci-fi in particular is going to involve some imagination to literally create and invent things all fiction tends to deal in with what we know and only a small dose of the fantastical to reframe it in a more interesting context.
The lack of similar real life equivalents for long missions with a lot of personnel and very large craft and opportunities for internal rivalries, promotions, ambition and rival navies with largely equivalent structures and traditions in current spaceflight, means that the work of writing about scenarios where that happens in space is going to be much harder and probably less resonant without drawing on something where all of that already exists. In addition to that, the hundreds of years of different naval traditions and rituals makes for more pomp and circumstance and delivers a ready-made atmosphere that’s well understood even by the layperson as in those hundreds of years it has seeped in to the public imagination.
Tapping in to all the practical similarities between the scenarios often portrayed in SciFi and naval contexts along with all that cultural baggage makes for a much richer and more vivid atmosphere and setting within which the characters can interact with one another. This is reason enough to transpose naval tropes in to your space based science fiction story whether it makes the most sense or not for the way such endeavours might actually be organized in reality in the future.
I want a meme where the air force is like “we conquered the skies, next is space!” And the Navy is like guess what MFers.
Halo has the UNSC Navy, the UNSC Marines, and the UNSC Army working together in space.
Because people don’t live in an airplane together for long periods of time. Pilots in sci fi are often aviation themed, but captains are naval because spaceships beyond our current level are closer to battleships, cruise ships, or aircraft carriers than fighter jets or passenger liners.
Because they’re way more like ships than they are planes – Planes don’t stay in the air indefinitely or take long voyages, have large crews, etc – They often treat the fighter pilot space ship people like AF though – Like if I have a ‘carrier’ with a bunch of smaller ships on it
They’re called “spaceships”
My theory is that they’re called ships cos if you switch off the engine, it’ll stop and just sit there
I have it on good authority that this does not happen with aeroplanes
Doesn’t happen with spacecraft either, despite what Hollywood often depicts. In order to ‘stop’ in space, you actually have to generate thrust. The scary thing that can happen if you lose your engine in space isn’t getting stuck in one place, it’s smashing into your destination at full speed.
The really scary thing if you lose your engine in space is that you might not smash into anything for a very very long time and die a slow death when you run out of air, water or food.
Well, start a garden in the weapons bay and everyone better get to work on the next generation of crew then.
Or spacecraft commonly, as well.
The purpose of Air Force is to monitor the skies, project power at a distance, and provide air superiority.
The purpose of Navy is to put a floating fortress off your shore and bombard your cities, carry around materiel, men, and aircraft, and patrol a vast volume of ocean.
So Navy structures fit the mission better, and this has been true since early SF.
I think it often has to do with the scale of the ship. Operations on a starship with crew numbering in the dozens to hundreds might be closer to operations on a naval vessel than aviation. We don’t have aircraft with that scale of a crew or aircraft that operate away from base for such a long period of time.
The other thought is, uh, well that’s what Star Trek did.
In addition to what the others have said, in real life, international space law was based on maritime law. They even based directions on maritime law as the sailors used the stars to navigate, and that’s all you have in space to navigate with. So rockets and spacecraft call their directions the same as ships and sailing vessels, they have a port and starboard side, a bow and stern, up is zenith, down is nadir.
Fun fact the actual directions have some cool historical meanings. Nadir is the lowest point in elevation in the surrounding area, aka the bottom of the boat, and zenith is the area directly above you. So you could measure your latitude by measuring a star’s position relative to your zenith. Port was the side you docked on, because your steering oar was on your right. Starboard is a bastardization of the word stéorbord which is what the steering oar was called.
I guess the idea is that as in plying the oceans, you are looking at lengthy journeys in space requiring large vessels that can stock whatever supplies you need while protecting you from harsh elements with thick hulls. And they do talk about space fighters, which is more of an aviation term, but these are typically launched from the space equivalent of an aircraft carrier.
Naval aviation is the general term for what you’re thinking of, and is the term used in the United States. In the UK, carrier pilots are part of the Fleet Air Arm.
I wonder if it has much to do with the USAF being a relatively new service with a proportional cultural impact, coming into being as a service in 1947. Up until then, combat aviation was subordinate to the Army and Navy. This would point to a preponderance of Army/Navy WWII vets among the show’s consultants and audience.
In addition to all the other reasons offered re: functional analogy, many of the aviation terms themselves come from naval / boating / sea-faring. Pilot is a good example, previously having been used in the sense of “riverboat pilot,” etc.
“Why do they use” is a question. “Why they use” is an explanation.
I feel like especially in titles space is at a premium so omitting words that aren’t actually needed to avoid ambiguity in the given context is fine
When the missing word is do, I am unmoved by concerns about space.
english is a great language with which to get into a habit of saying “according to,” or “traditionally,” before statements like these.
if “why they use” is understood as a question, then it’s functioning as a question. to try to point out a “mistake” in english against some supposed objective or better standard is to fight a classist, sisyphean, and intellectually unrigorous battle against the reality of language in use. spare yourself the frustration.
Downvote all you like, I’m gonna keep correcting people who make this mistake.
I believe you mean, “Even if you, ‘down-vote,’ my comment, I shall continue to correct people who have made that mistake.”
I meant exactly what I said, and it is grammatically-correct casual English. Unlike ‘why in sci-fi they use Navy ranks?’ Or any of the hundred other ‘how to fix problem?’ examples I’ve seen, over the last decade.
This is a growing error and I am doing the bare minimum to help people stop making it. I’d understand if you find it overly prescriptivist. I’d understand if my phrasing was somehow impolite or unhelpful. But I have nothing kind to say about people mocking the effort.
Don’t you know? Correcting someone’s grammar or spelling is ableist and you have to just try to understand the fountain of garbage that people spew or you’re literally Hitler.
