With so many viable designs for a diplomacy-focused ship, maybe we shouldn't pick just one. We can prototype multiple different refit designs, while still starting a new ship project for a longer-term improvement. Even just going for two ships might be useful, with one more immediate refit and one long-term new ship. We can get the best of both worlds (or more) by constructing both worlds at the same time. (Just like baking two cakes, only we don't eat our starships, so...)

Remember that refits have a political point cost, and new ships take research teams, so every ship has a cost. In practical terms, fewer ship types makes it easier to do assignments.

What does actually building a one-off getus over the theoretical design get us before we start deployment?
 
A spacer is someone who works or lives in space though.

Crewman is part of a ships crew.

Rather different meanings.
I regard 'spacer' as being equivalent to 'sailor.' If we would call naval ratings 'sailors' in real life where all our ships are sea ships, it would be reasonable to call naval ratings 'spacers' in a fictional setting where all our ships are space ships.

Also, neither 'crewman' NOR 'spacer' is a perfect tool for differentiating between individuals in Starfleet service and individuals not in Starfleet service but who, like Starfleet, happen to work in space. That is not the point of the rank title. The point is to have a noun that accurately describes our low-ranking crew members, and it is as accurate to call them 'spacers' as it would be to call Navy personnel on Earth 'sailors.'

I would definitely prefer 'sailor' to 'spacer'.
Would require a bit more 'space is an ocean' than I'm comfortable with, and may weird out people from planets with little or no seafaring nautical tradition. Vulcans who live on a desert planet, Tellarites who don't have a 'world ocean' and instead have small landlocked seas; Orions whose seafaring tradition is millenia dead with a corpse on a planet that is itself a millenium dead; Yrillians who have an extremely active spacefaring tradition to draw on and whose seafaring tradition is likewise about as forgotten as the Orions', and so on.
 
Last edited:
What does actually building a one-off getus over the theoretical design get us before we start deployment?
I think he means getting multiple designs, as they spawn refits of the centaur to new 1500t cruisers.
These designs include (there are more but this are some of those that can be ordered next snakepit):
a variant of the rennie
Based on the centaur
Kepler variants
another kepler variant
these are existing ships redesigned for diplomatic duty and we expect to be able to start building them soon

And at least 2 new design
1050t diplomatic frigate
A 1500t cruiser
Both of these will require a research team and a prototype before production can begin.

All of the SDB agrees that we could use at least one of these but there is debate on what the best choice is.
Most of the choices can wait till the snakepit, with the exception of the centaur-P as the cheapest way to get some of those is by refitting our existing centaur-A's into the P version instead of the centaur-B and that is decided at the next shipbuilding vote.
 
I regard 'spacer' as being equivalent to 'sailor.' If we would call naval ratings 'sailors' in real life where all our ships are sea ships, it would be reasonable to call naval ratings 'spacers' in a fictional setting where all our ships are space ships.

Also, neither 'crewman' NOR 'spacer' is a perfect tool for differentiating between individuals in Starfleet service and individuals not in Starfleet service but who, like Starfleet, happen to work in space. That is not the point of the rank title. The point is to have a noun that accurately describes our low-ranking crew members, and it is as accurate to call them 'spacers' as it would be to call Navy personnel on Earth 'sailors.'
Point.

When you call someone crewman though, has little to do with space or ships, but with being one of a moving vehicles operators. Like tanks, airplanes, submarines, or ships.
 
Last edited:
I think we're getting into the territory of PC for PC's sake with all these terms. Canonically, all of the Trek series used "crewman" as the general term for people working on the ship/station. It's understood that this term is also used to refer to female (and presumably other gendered) personnel.
 
Is there a reason we couldn't develop both the Centaur P and the P Renny?

Prinny forever Dood.
 
I think I got it, we could use spacehand, but it has the issue of, well, non hand species feeling left out.

So, we should call our crew: Drones.

Now, if only we could design some enlistment nanites... :D
 
...Oh my.

Point.

When you call someone crewman though, has little to do with space or ships, but with being one of a moving vehicles operators. Like tanks, airplanes, submarines, or ships.
Yes, but by the same token it's generic in a setting where all sorts of things have "crews."

So, something like this?
When you combine 'sailor' with 'celestial bodies' it certainly comes to mind easily.

I think we're getting into the territory of PC for PC's sake with all these terms. Canonically, all of the Trek series used "crewman" as the general term for people working on the ship/station. It's understood that this term is also used to refer to female (and presumably other gendered) personnel.
Honestly my choice of 'spacer' isn't really a PC thing, I honestly like it better, but I see what you mean.
 
"Crewperson" only sounds awkward because it has too many syllables. English could really use a one-syllable gender-neutral alternative to man/men, but I'm no linguist.

English used to have that. It was the word.... "Man"

"Wereman" was a male man

and

"Wifman" (Eventually Woman) was a female man
 
Werewolf is man-wolf. My god.

Though shouldn't it be manwolf in that case? Or is mythology, like some deviantart accounts I follow, implying werewolves are only hot muscular guys??????????????????????
 
Back
Top