![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Windycon thoughts
Nov. 18th, 2008 04:18 pmI promised in yesterday's post that I'd answer a question about deep-space command structures, but first a personal note. I hear that Tobias Buckell is in the hospital. On the one hand, it's heart-related, AKA Not Good, on the other hand he's awake, blogging and bitching. I hope all works out well - Toby's a young guy (not yet 30) and has a lot of living to do.
Moving on, at one of the panels, Bill Fawcett asked a question I didn't have a good answer to. The panel was "Space Battles are not Sea Battles," and Bill asked if the traditional naval command structure would survive into space. I said yes, and Bill asked why. Actually, he pressed the question, and Mike Moscoe said "because we're Navy." The panel was out of time, so that more-or-less stuck.
But the real answer, one that I couldn't verbalize until after the panel, is this. Ships have an organizational structure designed for large groups of people in small spaces for long periods of time. Some key factors of that structure:
1) Consistency - in armies, each company can and does operate independently, and variations in discipline between units is less of an issue. On a ship, the various subunit members all eat, sleep and shower together, so you need one rule for all. This one rule is provided by the captain.
2) Linkage- in armies, companies or other sub-units can and do operate at least semi-independently. On ships, everybody by definition is one group. If the engineers don't keep the ship running, all other sub-units fail immediately.
Item #2 in particular drives ship organization. The subordinate officers and crew are grouped functionally, not tactically. Engineers provide power and propulsion, weaponeers provide firepower, and all of these groups report to one tactical leader, the captain.
Now, whether the captain is a captain, a colonel or some made-up rank depends greatly on how the space force came into being. But functionally, whoever's in charge of the ship is the lowest officer with tactical initiative. This is a function of the ship being the smallest tactical unit. Whether that ship sails a sea under wind power or space under warp drive, the same rules apply.
Moving on, at one of the panels, Bill Fawcett asked a question I didn't have a good answer to. The panel was "Space Battles are not Sea Battles," and Bill asked if the traditional naval command structure would survive into space. I said yes, and Bill asked why. Actually, he pressed the question, and Mike Moscoe said "because we're Navy." The panel was out of time, so that more-or-less stuck.
But the real answer, one that I couldn't verbalize until after the panel, is this. Ships have an organizational structure designed for large groups of people in small spaces for long periods of time. Some key factors of that structure:
1) Consistency - in armies, each company can and does operate independently, and variations in discipline between units is less of an issue. On a ship, the various subunit members all eat, sleep and shower together, so you need one rule for all. This one rule is provided by the captain.
2) Linkage- in armies, companies or other sub-units can and do operate at least semi-independently. On ships, everybody by definition is one group. If the engineers don't keep the ship running, all other sub-units fail immediately.
Item #2 in particular drives ship organization. The subordinate officers and crew are grouped functionally, not tactically. Engineers provide power and propulsion, weaponeers provide firepower, and all of these groups report to one tactical leader, the captain.
Now, whether the captain is a captain, a colonel or some made-up rank depends greatly on how the space force came into being. But functionally, whoever's in charge of the ship is the lowest officer with tactical initiative. This is a function of the ship being the smallest tactical unit. Whether that ship sails a sea under wind power or space under warp drive, the same rules apply.