I don’t really know how to structure this question, but yeah, why is always Naval and never Aviation?

  • franzfurdinand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    A notable exception is the Stargate franchise, where Earth’s spacecraft are largely run by the US Air Force.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I believe you mean, “Even if you, ‘down-vote,’ my comment, I shall continue to correct people who have made that mistake.”

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Default_Defect@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.