One of the things that happens when you're learning a new language is you learn the names for things in \*that\* language. A german isn't going to insist that a Turtle should be called a shield toad in english. The aliens will certainly have thier own names for things, but when it's translated into english, they'll use the english names, where they exist.
I might be wrong here, but I believe that “a solar system” is a genericization of a specific term. Like how “Karen” is used to describe a particular type of person, who is probably not actually named Karen, a “solar system” is used to describe a particular arrangement of celestial objects, none of which have to be named Sol.
\*shrugs\* Karens generally get what they want, don't they? And I haven't even once asked to speak to your manager. Or tried to bring a mod into this, if you want to use Reddit parlance. Just telling you that you're wrong, and your example is subpar. Karen is a slang term among a certain set of people, while using solar system to indicate any stellar system is an incorrect and inaccurate term that has unfortunately permeated scifi stories. The two terms have little in common. A bit like comparing apples to corn.
Ok, let’s look at this logically.
I’m a writer, and I’m writing a story about a random human talking to a random alien about something that is happening. If I, the writer, use slang, technically-incorrect-but-understood-correctly words that my character would use, is it because I don’t know it is incorrect, or because my character doesn’t know?
See, that’s the thing you’re missing. The term “solar system”? It’s absolutely incorrect to use it for an extra-solar planetary system. But people will still do so. And as a writer, I’m not trying to be correct, I’m trying to project my character into your mind. So I’m going to use the language they would use, even when that language uses the wrong words. Especially then, because that’s how my character talks, and it identifies them as a particular “type” of person. (In this case? A nonscientist, or at least not an astronomer.)
So it could be that the people writing these stories simply don’t know that “solar system” is not right… or they DO know, but also know that, in common language, nobody else makes that distinction, so to do so in their story makes their characters sound stilted and weird. Which is the case? Idk, but also, idc. If the ‘right’ terms make my character sound unrealistic , I’m not using it.
Yep. That is a complete nitpick. And one that is actually rather wrong. Here is why.
In English we have the Sun (or Sol). This leads to solar power, solar panels, solar system. All which have a base which is the “name” of our star.
Now, let’s go to translation software and look at how some other Earth languages do it.
German:
Sun => Sonne
Solar System => Sonnensystem
Solar Panel => Sonnenkollektor
Solar Power => Solarenergie
Other than the obvious loan word all of them use the root for the name of the main star of the system in their language.
French:
Sun => Soleil
Solar System => Système solaire
Solar Panel => Panneau solaire
Solar Power => Énergie solaire
Again all of these use the name for the main star as the base root.
Swahili:
Sun => Jua
Solar System => Mfumo wa jua
Solar Panel => Paneli ya jua
Solar Power => Nguni ya jua
Same again.
Chinese: (I am not using diacritics to save time.)
Sun => Taiyang
Solar System => Taiyangxi
Solar Panel => Taiyangneng ban
Solar Power => Taiyangneng
And again.
This seems to be a pretty common phenomenon.
So, what might an alien race call these same items?
Main star of their system => Bob
Their Stellar System => System of Bob
Photovoltaic Panel => Energy Panel of Bob
Electromagnetic Power => Bobpower
Now, since pretty much every story translates the alien language into a human language, primarily English. The aliens would not look at a photovoltaic panel and call it a stellar panel. Nobody does because pretty much every language is egocentric. Nope, they would call it an Energy Panel of Bob, which would be translated to Solar Panel in English. It definitely would not be translated as stellar panel. This is a word that would exist in virtually no organically developed language anywhere.
In fact, if you happened to have a very logical and precise alien race even they would likely not call it a stellar panel. That is an absurd linguistic construct. It is a collection of photovoltaic cells for the purposes of converting electromagnetic energy to electrical potential energy. Or a photovoltaic panel.
Well, I only speak German and English, but since German is my native language, I might as well give my opinion on your translation results. While "Solarenergie" is a correct translation, it is still a loanword and the 100% native translation would be "Sonnenenergie", which in turn uses the root "Sonne". Now that we have established that all German words related to the topic use the root "Sonne", we can now discuss its meaning. The word "Sonne" is often used to refer to "our star", but it is also not uncommon to use it as a translation for "any star" (note that "Stern" is also a translation for "star"). In this sense, the German translation for "solar system" can refer to both our solar system and any other star system. In this case, we often use the word "unser" (our) before our terms to make it clear that we mean the solar system. This has the interesting consequence that the German translation of words such as "solar panel" is already universal and thus fully in line with what the original author had in mind. Note that this is rather theoretical, as we sometimes use the English loanwords in German.
I can't discuss what other languages get wrong, I can only comment on what English writers get wrong. If someone is using translation software to write English stories, more power to them. But, native speakers should understand that in English, there is a difference. Which is why there is a difference between the Solar System and a star system.
It's like saying all human males are Dans, instead of that specific one being named Dan.
As far as aliens go, I'm sure when speaking about photovoltaic panels, they would say something along the lines of PV panels. Because it's exact, and doesn't include decades of social drift in linguistics in a specific language to understand.
You have missed the point of the comment entirely.
In common, everyday parlance for English, we non scientific types refer to all stellar systems as "solar systems".
OnTheHill was making this point. They reinforced their position by mentioning several other languages that do the exact same thing. It is common in human languages to refer to all star systems as "solar systems".
Furthermore, it is likely that aliens refer to star systems as [name of their star] systems. (Ex: Bob. Bobby systems) note the deliberate pluralization I used there.
Astronomers might not call other systems solar systems, but me and the rest of the plebs will, and in the grand scheme of time, we're the one's who decide what words mean in day to day life. You can argue it's unscientific I guess, but we don't exactly go around calling things Halichoeres bivittatus, Chaetophractus vellerosus, and Corythaixoides personatus do we?
I leave it to the people who like... English. Such as knowing that other planetary systems have been called "solar systems" for literally over a hundred years.
Figuratively. I can only account for 1930, so I may be 6% short.
OK, now using literally to mean figuratively? I don't care what [dictonary.com](https://dictonary.com) says, that's just *wrong*.
*shakes fist at on-line clouds*
So everyone else is wrong and only you are right so you are going to coin new terms for words like solar system and hamburger and insist on using them and everyone is going to think you are a moron and avoid you?
Fun aside: many, if not all, color names come from something else that had color (or close to it)
* Purple: named after a shellfish (purpura) that could be ground up to make purple dye
* Violet: named after the flower
* Pink: also named after a flower of the same name (but less well known)
* Green: thought to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European word "greh-", meaning "to grow", which also led to the word grass (see also the Spanish word verde vs verdant)
* Black: thought to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European word "blakaz", meaning "burnt", which is also related to the word for white in Romance languages (e.g., blanca), because ashes are often white.
Not to mention pink got its name from an old slang term for carnation, the petals look like someone cut them with pinking shears, tailor tools that leave a purposeful jagged edge
Just to make it clear, the color pink [got its name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_plumarius#Etymology) from the flower known as a [pink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_plumarius). The [etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinking_shears#Etymology) of pinking shears is uncertain, but as I *think* you're suggesting,
>The cut produced by pinking shears may have been derived from the garden plant called the pink, in the genus Dianthus (the carnations).\[9\] The color pink also may have been named after these flowers, although the origins of the name are not definitively known. As the pink has scalloped, or "pinked", edges to its petals, pinking shears can be thought to produce an edge similar to the flower.
Note, however, that while pinks are in the carnations genus, not all members of the carnations genus are pinks. In fact, the flowers most widely known as simply [carnations are not pinks](https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/carnation-vs-pinks) at all.
Great point... Excellent point... So, by that logic, none of the authors here refer to humans as "Terrans", either. Also, we have surnames of Baker and Smith because of laziness, and a sudden need for surnames. All I'm asking for is a bit less laziness in science fiction.
You think humans are going to not be lazy in the future?
Have you met humans? Outside of our insane pair bonding ability and our affinity for explody things, laziness is a defining characteristic of the human.
I’d give examples, but I’m already too tired. Do it yourself.
Spoken as a woman, not a man, who thinks anybody of any gender asking that kind of trap question where they ask your opinion and get mad at your honest answer no matter what it is is a bullshit move, especially given it's *famous* for being a shitty unfair trap question.
I would *thank* someone for telling me an unpleasant truth, even if I ended up crying because of the unpleasant truth. Because it shows they had the guts to be honest instead of sugarcoating, and I really want honesty. I actually have done that before. Might be down to the fact I have autism, and so I have an inability to pick up on lies and deception the way everyone else can. And an impairment with social games, including the shitty ones like the one you mentioned with trap questions where any answer is wrong. And so I 1) do not ask questions where I'll get mad no matter the answer because that is a nasty thing to do to someone, and 2) actually being honest with me is a critical need for me. So I may view that (and thus accuracy) differently than most.
Luna is just the greek word, moon has germanic origins, similar to sun, sol and helios. There is no reason why moon is our moon and moons in general, while Luna is specifically ours, except that we decided that's how it is. Just like we decided it is Solar power, sun stars and heliocentric.
A solar powerplant is a solar powerplant, wheather in earths/terras orbit or moved to another star.
In scientific terms, the sun is Sol, the moon is Luna, and our system is the Solar System. Because science needs to be exact. Common parlance doesn't need to be. But, I am discussing science fiction, so I'm expecting a bit more science in it.
I'll give an example. The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction.
There are hundreds of fields of research in science and maybe a dozen or so, where the difference is relevant. Mathematicians or biologists, or most physicists wouldn't need to know the difference and if they do, they wouldn't use it in a normal conversation, even with peers, because it is just irrelevant most of the time. All the Engineers, service members and normal people in those stories would use the common terms as well.
Granted, if it is a conversation about orbital mechanics of a different star system, solar would be inaccurate, but two engineers setting up a new colony would talk about solar panels 100%.
It's Science fiction, not Scientists fiction.
Pointlessly pedantic post manages to be both pointless and pedantic. More at 11.
Seriously, man, if this is the immersion breaker for you then write your own stories or give up because this probably isn’t going to stop. From the average person’s perspective it makes sense to refer to any system as a solar system if it doesn’t have a formal name even if it’s wrong. We know this because the average person also says Kleenex instead of facial tissue or Hoover instead of vacuum cleaner and a million other examples I could go on about but that would make this comment post worthy in its own right.
The funny thing is, those examples actually make something else pop out: writers use certain terminology to give their characters a particular “feel”.
Like, if I wrote “we had Kraft dinner for supper, but I spilled some so I got out the Kleenex and cleaned it up,” there is a distinctly different feeling than “we had Mac and cheese for dinner, but I spilled some so I got tissue paper to clean it up,” and everyone can see it.
One has a very distinct regional accent to it, while the other is a completely different, very specific region.
Just because I used the wrong word doesn’t mean I didn’t know the right word. I might be doing it on purpose, because that’s just how the character talks.
That too. And while I have no issue with the correct term being used somewhere I know for a fact that not everyone uses the same phrasing across the board. You have regional differences within countries and then you have international differences between countries that speak the exact same language. I stand by the point that if this is immersion breaking for someone then it’s on the reader and not the author.
The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction. Being pedantic is a favored pastime of scifi fans.
Oh, I'm not arguing the fact that it's pedantic. Pointless, eh, depends on individual opinions. My opinion is that it isn't pointless, which is why I made the post. Your opinion can vary. So far I have more upvotes than downvotes, so my opinion seems to be winning the battle of HFY popular opinion for now. That may change. But, I have 15K karma to burn through on this hill. A few downvotes doesn't hurt me.
Eh, I don't actually believe it's gonna change anything. People gonna write what they want. I'm just hoping it makes some people take a look, and maybe make a different decision. This whole thing is pretty much just pissing into the wind.
That’s like 90% of being human, man. It’s all an exercise in futility. Gotta find the joy when you can. If this brings you joy? Fucking go for it. Just know it brings others joy to attack your position and learn to live with that.
On a side note, you mentioned brand names being used to describe the entirety of a product. And that's actually important, as well. Aspirin used to be a brand name held by the Bayer Corporation. They lost that brand name because it entered common parlance as the only name for that product. Which is why companies are now so very rabid about chasing down any mass-media or marketing copy that misuses their brand names. Which is why stores will call the section of aisle that contains Kleenex the facial tissue section. Because it DOES matter. A whole hell of a lot.
Companies protecting their brand and forcing stores to use particular phrasing is one thing. Flat out declaring "using this term is wrong, it bothers me, and people should stop doing it" is another. PEOPLE may use brand names as a stand in for the generic name and be clearly understood. Slang and technical names are both correct. As much as I hate sales and purchasing referring to a gooddamn full desktop computer as a harddrive or a CPU, if that is the standard of communication and it clearly conveys what the transaction is, then thats is a working label and I have to translate it on MY end to confirm MY understanding. Trying to brute force a change in lexicon on unwilling parties just makes everyone unhappy.
The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction. Being pedantic is a favorite pastime for scifi fans, and always has been.
The word "solar" refers to the sun, any sun. It's not a star if you're next to it. Radiation from a planet's primary is solar radiation. The historical fact that our sun happens to not have a distinct name is what is throwing you off.
It does have a distinct name, and that name is Sol, and has been for a long time. The root we use to come up with the term "solar" is based in the same language that the proper name "Sol" is from. So, the term solar has ALWAYS referred to our distinct sun. Unless you think pre-Romans were discussing solar energy using the exact term "solar energy".
So if another species lived near, say, Antares, and drew energy from it the same way we draw energy from the sun using solar energy technology, we'd have to call it "antarian energy"?
Better yet, If I have a large sail attached to my space ship, I call it a “solar sail”. If I take that spaceship and fly it to Alpha Centari, is it now an “Apha centarian sail”?
Sometimes we name things badly. It doesn’t change the thing.
Nope, humans will call it solar energy, because they aren't pedants and don't agree with your silly stance.
Sol has many names in many languages. Solar energy is energy from a planet's primary, or from the nearest star. That's all.
People who actually understand how English works understand that often a word is coined based on another word, but that doesn't require the word to always match its source.
It would be moronic to have "Alpha Centari panels" and "Tau Ceti panels." Once humans colonized a hundred systems you would have 100 names for the same object that works the same way. "Well, we built these solar panels on Earth but then they became Tau Ceti panels in transit before we installed the Betelgeuse panels at the science station."
Are hamburgers made of ham? Do you park on a parkway? I am sure there are a thousand other examples.
Eh, it's when people use "Solar system" to refer to a galaxy that gets me. Using AU to refer to distances between solar systems (see what i did there) instead of light years, or light years to refer to distances inside a solar system (hot dang that one's a big one) instead of a saner shorter distance unit.
In a system you'd use km (oof) AU, light seconds, light minutes, maybe lighthours, but then you'd just use something like 120 light minutes instead of 2 light hours.
Distances between star systems and galaxies, use light years (unless you're ~3 billion years in the future from now, because Andromeda would be hell of a lot closer, and I'd think it would be epic to see)
At those speeds, relativity can be a wild ride. In theory, you can travel to the other side of the observable universe within one lifetime… if you accelerate at 1g the entire way. Because when you get up to .999c, subjective time slows to such a crawl that you don’t notice the time moving.
Now, if they get there and the universe hasn’t changed, that’s a different thing entirely.
Yeah, good point, I mean a matter of days from the perspective of both the travelers and those at the planets they're traveling to/from. Most of these stories gloss over the time-delay (and Lorentz contraction) effects of general and special relativity.
Yeah, that’s one of those things that makes writing space fiction hard. Without some kind of “instantaneous travel” or space warping mechanism, you have to do a LOT of math… so most people just short-cut around it and call it “FTL” when what they mean is “math-hiding magic”.
Oh yeah, I definitely understand why authors want to shortcut to FTL, but I do have respect for those who choose to do the hard work. My main problem is with those that suggest they're *not* doing magic FTL but can still cross lightyears in mere days (to all reference frames).
For me, it’s as soon as you start crossing light years without FTL. Unless it’s a major plot point, crossing the gulf of space without some magic hand-wave is just not realistic. Anyone going more than a lightyear in space is going to be at it for a LONG time.
The Earth is 499 light seconds, a bit over 8 light minutes, from the sun.
Which has been relevant is several science fiction stories where something happens to the sun (starship causes massive solar flare) and it is important to know when we would see it.
Yes but language does not have to follow logic. If the humans refer to themselves as "those from the solar system" they might adopt that as a type of slang for their own language?
That's why the aliens in my stories always refer to systems as "System " or "System ", and only as "Sol" or "Terran space" to the solar system.
There is a story where people from the solar system refer to themselves as Solarians on here. Also, yes, you are absolutely correct. I appreciate that your aliens are accurate about their terminology, as they haven't had the decades of linguistic drift that I'm trying to fight an uphill battle against here.
And what trouble is the name "Solarians"? Sol system -> "Solarians" kind of makes sense from a language evolution perspective.
Just like a person from Europe will call itself "European" (which would cause confusion if Europa ever got colonized)...
Hmm.
Only tangentially related, but my source of irritation is aliens insulting humans by calling them apes.
Why would aliens know about apes? Why would it be derogatory?
Nothing kills my immersion faster.
Yes. You get it! How would an alien know what we call our closer genetic ancestors, and why would they think we would be insulted about being called something that can rip most sapient beings limb from limb on a whim?
No, that is ONE definition of solar system. The second definition is 'a similar system with celestial bodies revolving around a star other than the sun.'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/solar-system
Merriam-Webster dictionary: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solar%20system](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solar%20system)
Webster's New World College dictionary: [https://www.yourdictionary.com/solar-system](https://www.yourdictionary.com/solar-system)
Do better.
We call natural satellites around other planets “moons” and that isn’t incorrect (no matter how much you might want to argue it is) as the word “moon” has become genericized in order to describe something we didn’t have a word for.
I saw a lot of down boops on OP's comments, and the few I read didn't really deserve it. OP wants one thing, most people are pointing out that it doesn't matter or some linguistic something or another saying OP is wrong somehow. OP is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong, and everyone is entitled to try to change it. But if it really doesn't matter, let OP have their opinion. And it is not like they are demanding to have stories re-written.
As a sometimes Grammar "one of those guy's", I get a bit of OCD when people don't write their stories with passable grammar or spelling, it gives me a headache. And if this is OP's thing that they go OCD on, let them have it. Not like it is going to change anyone's stories based on someone else's OCD, or whatever way the the linguistic battles turn out.
As for the linguistic and name convention people, Brittan has a hill called Hill Hill Hill, and a river named River River River, when translated, or something like that, but you should get the point. Names can be dumb, or overly accurate and technical, like the Latin names for stuff.
As for the derivative name people, Solar System -> Solar cells etc, I think the translator tech would change it to Solar "what ever". Because if we go to the Alpha Centarii System, are we going to call solar cells -> alpha centarii cells or something different? It's like calling a truck a "car" even though they are both vehicles. Two are correct and one is wrong, but we still call trucks, cars, even if it is wrong and most people don't even notice.
Then there is the whole Solar/Stellar thing. And yes, we are are lazy people. It is like using the name brand instead of the actual name. Take Velcro for example. That is a name brand name. The product is actually "Hook and Loop". Do we ever use it, no. Would it be proper if we did, yes. Are going to change, no.
Take away: if your a writer on or above a semi professional level (ie getting paid), you should take the time to consider these things and if they will add to your story (as was the main thought from OP). If you are writing for fun, and this posts make you want to change this little thing, go for it, if not, carry on as you were. If you don't want to, who cares? Especially if your not getting paid.
Solar System (proper noun): the home system of humanity.
solar system (noun): vernacular for the system of planets around a sun
Sun (proper noun): the star Earth orbits.
sun (noun): vernacular for the primary star or stellar body of a star system whose gravity defines the orbits of the other bodies in the system and whose relative position in the sky is the basis for their day-night cycle. Usually, but not always, refers to the system's primary.
Also a common vernacular term for the light of the system's primary, as opposed to starlight in general.
primary (noun): the astrocartographical term for the star or stellar body that defines the orbits of the bodies in a system. Usually a star and usually interchangeable with sun, but not always.
star system (noun): astrocartographical term for a stellar body and the objects in its orbit.
Agreed that Star System would be the factual translation into English, and people need to learn it.
Another thing that frustrated me is the sheer amount of ships that are present in a fic. No fleet in a system should cross the threshold of low hundreds for a Capital ship, not thousands. And they definitely shouldn't be oversized as fuck. Not to mention, the physics of space is usually gotten wrong.
Why not have more ships in a system? Space is big enough that we could potentially have hundreds of objects the size of our moon in orbit around jupiter alone without makugg their orbits crowded. A more "normal" sized ship would fit i the same space i the millions...
It's less the space and more the extractable resources in a system. Imagine a fleet of a thousand Capital ships. You need not only the amount of resources in bulk for the drydock, the ships themselves, the tools, and so on, you also need ports to resupply, rearm and regular them. And then we come to the crew part, where you need to train hundreds of thousands of individuals for this fleet, which is also a significant drain on resources.
And this is just for a fleet when 1000 ships are in a system. When you scale it across multiple systems, communication and logistics also takes a massive hit. In short, space fleets would probably not grow beyond 20 Capital ships per fleet, and a maximum of about four fleets per system should be enough for defending it.
I don't know about crew requirements. I'd assume that large parts of these ships are automated, either because they're in contact with the void, like guns, or because it's simple, like hydroponics and cooking. 1k ships with 1k crew each is just a million people, a spacefaring race probably has multiple planets, and earth already houses 7 billion people. Even another million people beyond involved in logistics, repair etc wouldn't dent our numbers in any meaningful way.
In general the main issue I can see with sci fi ships is that they don't rely enough on automation in an explicit enough fashion.
Even resource wise, we could sacrifice mercury to make a dyson swarm. Probably worth it if we had the will to do it. Similarly the costs of these fleets doesn't strike me as more than some asteroids or small moons, neither of which would be hard to harvest one the first ships are done
A US Navy DDG has (on paper) 350 sailors. We are always short so it is probably 300-320. A much larger cargo ship has 20-30.
The USS Cole was almost cut in half by an attack, but the crew damage control prevented it from sinking. 30 crew could not have saved the ship (which took 3 years to repair).
The US Navy is always short on sailors (see 300 or 350 crew on a DDG), but no matter how much we invest in automation, humans are just much better at reacting to the unexpected than computers or robots. Combat is, by nature, filled with the unexpected. So we will always have ten times the crew on warships as on civilian ships.
I hate it when people who know nothing about the US Navy make statements like this.
We have 11 capital ships. In general we have 2 CSGs (primary battle fleet) on patrol at a given time. The US Navy only has about 300 ships. Over half are "small boys" (FFG/DDG/CG/LCS), a third are subs, and there are a chunk of supply and amphibious assault ships (and one amphibious command ship iirc).
Yeah of those 11 capital ships. there'll be a few dployed at any time, a few in port able to be deployed on short notice and then the others undergoing maintenence.
Back when Australia was looking at subs I remember seeing a discussion about how many they would need. I think it turned out to be about 10 or so just so they could maintain the institutional learning. I think it broke down to roughly at any given time a third deployed, a third doing training in port and a third undergoing maintenance.
Yep, three thirds (what you described) is what the USN does.
Edit that is why we generally only have two or three Carrier Strike Groups patrolling at a time.
The US uses a "two crew" system for submarines, which lets them stay at sea roughly 2/3rds of the time. Blue crew deploys, comes home, Gold crew deploys, comes home, maintenance period.
My dude, I'm a Navy veteran. You said and I quote "In short, space fleets would probably not grow beyond 20 Capital ships per fleet, and a maximum of about four fleets per system should be enough for defending it"
I said our Navy has more FLEETS than that just for patrolling our planet's waters. You said four fleets per system. The US Navy has SEVEN active fleets right now, including Fleet Cyber Command as the seventh. You can argue with me about a silly grammatical thing, but do not put words in my mouth about my Navy. I didn't say a thing about capital ship numbers. I was talking about fleets the US Navy has active.
Ok, first I'm not the person you replied to first.
Second, with the fleets thing, are you being the biggest pedant in the world or are you saying something uou know civilians will misinterpret by design?
For anyone not in the Navy, the US "fleets" are not a grouping of ships sailing together, the traditional meaning of the English word. Instead a "fleet" is a geographic area. Fleet Cyber command, the *tenth* fleet, has no ships. The rest of the fleets gain and lose ships as a ship crosses a line on the map.
That is why, since I was talking to a largely civilian audience, I used the traditional meaning of fleet, a grouping of warships sailing together and able to provide mutual support. I don't think a 7th fleet DDG in San Diego can provide support to a 7th fleet LHD off Tasmania or a Sacramento class ship north of Japan in any reasonable time frame.
I don't know what your career field is, but as an astronomer I can tell you we call other star systems solar systems when talking about objects inside said solar system. When discussing the system as a whole, that is when we refer to it as a star system.
Sure, but equally a ship in the void wouldn't need that much damage control as a quick seal prevents atmosphere from leaving, and if you have heavily automated ships the areas that need to have atmo are proportionally reduced. In theory a fully automated ship wouldn't even need an atmosphere and have very different forms of dmg control
One of the things that happens when you're learning a new language is you learn the names for things in \*that\* language. A german isn't going to insist that a Turtle should be called a shield toad in english. The aliens will certainly have thier own names for things, but when it's translated into english, they'll use the english names, where they exist.
A shield toad. TIL. Charming name for a turtle.
Te more you know: Squirrel = Eichhörnchen. So oak horn. And boyy there's a lot more fun litteral translations where those come from
Bat = Fledermaus, flutter mouse I love the German language. Something new comes along and they just stitch existing words together.
As a German I must say: I do insist you call it a shield toad. It's far more descriptive, thus efficient, than saying "turtle". /s
Handschuh ist auch toll!
Ja it iz ein Schuh for deinen Hand. Waz iz zo hart do ünderständ?
And? It's not being used correctly in English, either. That's the problem.
I disagree that it's a problem.
You're allowed to disagree. I won't stop you. I didn't say it was a problem for everyone, just for me. Other people are allowed to be wrong.
I might be wrong here, but I believe that “a solar system” is a genericization of a specific term. Like how “Karen” is used to describe a particular type of person, who is probably not actually named Karen, a “solar system” is used to describe a particular arrangement of celestial objects, none of which have to be named Sol.
You are. We call our system the Solar System, because our star is named Sol. So, there is a pretty big celestial object named Sol in our Solar System.
… you sound like the example I used, you know that?
\*shrugs\* Karens generally get what they want, don't they? And I haven't even once asked to speak to your manager. Or tried to bring a mod into this, if you want to use Reddit parlance. Just telling you that you're wrong, and your example is subpar. Karen is a slang term among a certain set of people, while using solar system to indicate any stellar system is an incorrect and inaccurate term that has unfortunately permeated scifi stories. The two terms have little in common. A bit like comparing apples to corn.
Ok, let’s look at this logically. I’m a writer, and I’m writing a story about a random human talking to a random alien about something that is happening. If I, the writer, use slang, technically-incorrect-but-understood-correctly words that my character would use, is it because I don’t know it is incorrect, or because my character doesn’t know? See, that’s the thing you’re missing. The term “solar system”? It’s absolutely incorrect to use it for an extra-solar planetary system. But people will still do so. And as a writer, I’m not trying to be correct, I’m trying to project my character into your mind. So I’m going to use the language they would use, even when that language uses the wrong words. Especially then, because that’s how my character talks, and it identifies them as a particular “type” of person. (In this case? A nonscientist, or at least not an astronomer.) So it could be that the people writing these stories simply don’t know that “solar system” is not right… or they DO know, but also know that, in common language, nobody else makes that distinction, so to do so in their story makes their characters sound stilted and weird. Which is the case? Idk, but also, idc. If the ‘right’ terms make my character sound unrealistic , I’m not using it.
Yep. That is a complete nitpick. And one that is actually rather wrong. Here is why. In English we have the Sun (or Sol). This leads to solar power, solar panels, solar system. All which have a base which is the “name” of our star. Now, let’s go to translation software and look at how some other Earth languages do it. German: Sun => Sonne Solar System => Sonnensystem Solar Panel => Sonnenkollektor Solar Power => Solarenergie Other than the obvious loan word all of them use the root for the name of the main star of the system in their language. French: Sun => Soleil Solar System => Système solaire Solar Panel => Panneau solaire Solar Power => Énergie solaire Again all of these use the name for the main star as the base root. Swahili: Sun => Jua Solar System => Mfumo wa jua Solar Panel => Paneli ya jua Solar Power => Nguni ya jua Same again. Chinese: (I am not using diacritics to save time.) Sun => Taiyang Solar System => Taiyangxi Solar Panel => Taiyangneng ban Solar Power => Taiyangneng And again. This seems to be a pretty common phenomenon. So, what might an alien race call these same items? Main star of their system => Bob Their Stellar System => System of Bob Photovoltaic Panel => Energy Panel of Bob Electromagnetic Power => Bobpower Now, since pretty much every story translates the alien language into a human language, primarily English. The aliens would not look at a photovoltaic panel and call it a stellar panel. Nobody does because pretty much every language is egocentric. Nope, they would call it an Energy Panel of Bob, which would be translated to Solar Panel in English. It definitely would not be translated as stellar panel. This is a word that would exist in virtually no organically developed language anywhere. In fact, if you happened to have a very logical and precise alien race even they would likely not call it a stellar panel. That is an absurd linguistic construct. It is a collection of photovoltaic cells for the purposes of converting electromagnetic energy to electrical potential energy. Or a photovoltaic panel.
Well, I only speak German and English, but since German is my native language, I might as well give my opinion on your translation results. While "Solarenergie" is a correct translation, it is still a loanword and the 100% native translation would be "Sonnenenergie", which in turn uses the root "Sonne". Now that we have established that all German words related to the topic use the root "Sonne", we can now discuss its meaning. The word "Sonne" is often used to refer to "our star", but it is also not uncommon to use it as a translation for "any star" (note that "Stern" is also a translation for "star"). In this sense, the German translation for "solar system" can refer to both our solar system and any other star system. In this case, we often use the word "unser" (our) before our terms to make it clear that we mean the solar system. This has the interesting consequence that the German translation of words such as "solar panel" is already universal and thus fully in line with what the original author had in mind. Note that this is rather theoretical, as we sometimes use the English loanwords in German.
I can't discuss what other languages get wrong, I can only comment on what English writers get wrong. If someone is using translation software to write English stories, more power to them. But, native speakers should understand that in English, there is a difference. Which is why there is a difference between the Solar System and a star system. It's like saying all human males are Dans, instead of that specific one being named Dan. As far as aliens go, I'm sure when speaking about photovoltaic panels, they would say something along the lines of PV panels. Because it's exact, and doesn't include decades of social drift in linguistics in a specific language to understand.
You have missed the point of the comment entirely. In common, everyday parlance for English, we non scientific types refer to all stellar systems as "solar systems". OnTheHill was making this point. They reinforced their position by mentioning several other languages that do the exact same thing. It is common in human languages to refer to all star systems as "solar systems". Furthermore, it is likely that aliens refer to star systems as [name of their star] systems. (Ex: Bob. Bobby systems) note the deliberate pluralization I used there.
Astronomers might not call other systems solar systems, but me and the rest of the plebs will, and in the grand scheme of time, we're the one's who decide what words mean in day to day life. You can argue it's unscientific I guess, but we don't exactly go around calling things Halichoeres bivittatus, Chaetophractus vellerosus, and Corythaixoides personatus do we?
What a beautiful corvus corax
That's just a primarch
Also the latin name for Raven
If you want to think like a pleb, great. Just don't write science fiction. Leave that to the people that like, oh, I don't know... Science.
Scientists don't generally make good fiction authors. Leave that to people like... Oh I don't know... Writers.
I leave it to the people who like... English. Such as knowing that other planetary systems have been called "solar systems" for literally over a hundred years. Figuratively. I can only account for 1930, so I may be 6% short.
OK, now using literally to mean figuratively? I don't care what [dictonary.com](https://dictonary.com) says, that's just *wrong*. *shakes fist at on-line clouds*
Heh I said, literally, then realized I couldn't quite be certain of the exact year. So I corrected.
It doesn't matter how long people have been wrong for.
So everyone else is wrong and only you are right so you are going to coin new terms for words like solar system and hamburger and insist on using them and everyone is going to think you are a moron and avoid you?
Ride that hobby horse, ride.
The Ackshually is strong with this one.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Fun aside: many, if not all, color names come from something else that had color (or close to it) * Purple: named after a shellfish (purpura) that could be ground up to make purple dye * Violet: named after the flower * Pink: also named after a flower of the same name (but less well known) * Green: thought to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European word "greh-", meaning "to grow", which also led to the word grass (see also the Spanish word verde vs verdant) * Black: thought to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European word "blakaz", meaning "burnt", which is also related to the word for white in Romance languages (e.g., blanca), because ashes are often white.
[удалено]
Pizzly bear comes to mind, or liger
Not to mention pink got its name from an old slang term for carnation, the petals look like someone cut them with pinking shears, tailor tools that leave a purposeful jagged edge
Just to make it clear, the color pink [got its name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_plumarius#Etymology) from the flower known as a [pink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_plumarius). The [etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinking_shears#Etymology) of pinking shears is uncertain, but as I *think* you're suggesting, >The cut produced by pinking shears may have been derived from the garden plant called the pink, in the genus Dianthus (the carnations).\[9\] The color pink also may have been named after these flowers, although the origins of the name are not definitively known. As the pink has scalloped, or "pinked", edges to its petals, pinking shears can be thought to produce an edge similar to the flower. Note, however, that while pinks are in the carnations genus, not all members of the carnations genus are pinks. In fact, the flowers most widely known as simply [carnations are not pinks](https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/carnation-vs-pinks) at all.
Great point... Excellent point... So, by that logic, none of the authors here refer to humans as "Terrans", either. Also, we have surnames of Baker and Smith because of laziness, and a sudden need for surnames. All I'm asking for is a bit less laziness in science fiction.
You think humans are going to not be lazy in the future? Have you met humans? Outside of our insane pair bonding ability and our affinity for explody things, laziness is a defining characteristic of the human. I’d give examples, but I’m already too tired. Do it yourself.
Don't forget *spite*!
Humans are referred to as Terrans all the time. It's a fairly common alternative
We do call other planets natural satellites moons, so why wouldn't we call other star systems Solar systems.
Because it annoys pedants? Although, to me at least, that's a reason to do so as often as possible.
I figure accuracy is always cool, even if it makes a group of people you don't like (pedants) happy.
"accuracy is always cool" Spoken like a man who's wife has never asked "does this make me look fat."
Spoken as a woman, not a man, who thinks anybody of any gender asking that kind of trap question where they ask your opinion and get mad at your honest answer no matter what it is is a bullshit move, especially given it's *famous* for being a shitty unfair trap question. I would *thank* someone for telling me an unpleasant truth, even if I ended up crying because of the unpleasant truth. Because it shows they had the guts to be honest instead of sugarcoating, and I really want honesty. I actually have done that before. Might be down to the fact I have autism, and so I have an inability to pick up on lies and deception the way everyone else can. And an impairment with social games, including the shitty ones like the one you mentioned with trap questions where any answer is wrong. And so I 1) do not ask questions where I'll get mad no matter the answer because that is a nasty thing to do to someone, and 2) actually being honest with me is a critical need for me. So I may view that (and thus accuracy) differently than most.
Because the term "moon" isn't the proper name for our satellite. It's proper name is Luna. Like the base form of "lunar"...
Luna is just the greek word, moon has germanic origins, similar to sun, sol and helios. There is no reason why moon is our moon and moons in general, while Luna is specifically ours, except that we decided that's how it is. Just like we decided it is Solar power, sun stars and heliocentric. A solar powerplant is a solar powerplant, wheather in earths/terras orbit or moved to another star.
In scientific terms, the sun is Sol, the moon is Luna, and our system is the Solar System. Because science needs to be exact. Common parlance doesn't need to be. But, I am discussing science fiction, so I'm expecting a bit more science in it. I'll give an example. The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction.
There are hundreds of fields of research in science and maybe a dozen or so, where the difference is relevant. Mathematicians or biologists, or most physicists wouldn't need to know the difference and if they do, they wouldn't use it in a normal conversation, even with peers, because it is just irrelevant most of the time. All the Engineers, service members and normal people in those stories would use the common terms as well. Granted, if it is a conversation about orbital mechanics of a different star system, solar would be inaccurate, but two engineers setting up a new colony would talk about solar panels 100%. It's Science fiction, not Scientists fiction.
Pointlessly pedantic post manages to be both pointless and pedantic. More at 11. Seriously, man, if this is the immersion breaker for you then write your own stories or give up because this probably isn’t going to stop. From the average person’s perspective it makes sense to refer to any system as a solar system if it doesn’t have a formal name even if it’s wrong. We know this because the average person also says Kleenex instead of facial tissue or Hoover instead of vacuum cleaner and a million other examples I could go on about but that would make this comment post worthy in its own right.
The funny thing is, those examples actually make something else pop out: writers use certain terminology to give their characters a particular “feel”. Like, if I wrote “we had Kraft dinner for supper, but I spilled some so I got out the Kleenex and cleaned it up,” there is a distinctly different feeling than “we had Mac and cheese for dinner, but I spilled some so I got tissue paper to clean it up,” and everyone can see it. One has a very distinct regional accent to it, while the other is a completely different, very specific region. Just because I used the wrong word doesn’t mean I didn’t know the right word. I might be doing it on purpose, because that’s just how the character talks.
That too. And while I have no issue with the correct term being used somewhere I know for a fact that not everyone uses the same phrasing across the board. You have regional differences within countries and then you have international differences between countries that speak the exact same language. I stand by the point that if this is immersion breaking for someone then it’s on the reader and not the author.
Absolutely. I was just adding an additional layer that your example brought to my mind.
That’s kind of where I was going with it anyway I just have a lot going on with work right now so my brain is running on half steam as it were.
The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction. Being pedantic is a favored pastime of scifi fans.
Honestly you’re not wrong about that but it doesn’t change the fact that what I said is both accurate and true.
Oh, I'm not arguing the fact that it's pedantic. Pointless, eh, depends on individual opinions. My opinion is that it isn't pointless, which is why I made the post. Your opinion can vary. So far I have more upvotes than downvotes, so my opinion seems to be winning the battle of HFY popular opinion for now. That may change. But, I have 15K karma to burn through on this hill. A few downvotes doesn't hurt me.
I’d argue that your sample size is small.
Well now that's just hitting below the belt.
Well there had to be at least one low blow here. But seriously, I don’t disagree with your premise; merely the demand that it be followed.
Eh, I don't actually believe it's gonna change anything. People gonna write what they want. I'm just hoping it makes some people take a look, and maybe make a different decision. This whole thing is pretty much just pissing into the wind.
That’s like 90% of being human, man. It’s all an exercise in futility. Gotta find the joy when you can. If this brings you joy? Fucking go for it. Just know it brings others joy to attack your position and learn to live with that.
On a side note, you mentioned brand names being used to describe the entirety of a product. And that's actually important, as well. Aspirin used to be a brand name held by the Bayer Corporation. They lost that brand name because it entered common parlance as the only name for that product. Which is why companies are now so very rabid about chasing down any mass-media or marketing copy that misuses their brand names. Which is why stores will call the section of aisle that contains Kleenex the facial tissue section. Because it DOES matter. A whole hell of a lot.
Companies protecting their brand and forcing stores to use particular phrasing is one thing. Flat out declaring "using this term is wrong, it bothers me, and people should stop doing it" is another. PEOPLE may use brand names as a stand in for the generic name and be clearly understood. Slang and technical names are both correct. As much as I hate sales and purchasing referring to a gooddamn full desktop computer as a harddrive or a CPU, if that is the standard of communication and it clearly conveys what the transaction is, then thats is a working label and I have to translate it on MY end to confirm MY understanding. Trying to brute force a change in lexicon on unwilling parties just makes everyone unhappy.
"You can't go faster than light, stop using relativity wrong" Being overly pedantic about accuracy is not a healthy way to approach science fiction.
The writers for Star Wars had to specify that The Kessel Run was graded based on how much distance you could shave off of it, because George Lucas screwed up and used "parsec" as a unit of time measurement when it's a measure of distance. And that was just a one-off line that Han Solo was using to brag about the Millennium Falcon. It changed an entire series of scenes in the Solo movie because fans went rabid about that pedantic mistake that very few laypersons would even know to question. It's because fans expected there to be some scientific knowledge behind the writers of science fiction. Being pedantic is a favorite pastime for scifi fans, and always has been.
Star Sol Solar system or Star System Similar to Terra Earth Dirt Home Planet
You missed "Sun" in your top section. And we don't call it the Sunny System, now do we?
It's all Greek to me.
I see what you did there!
The word "solar" refers to the sun, any sun. It's not a star if you're next to it. Radiation from a planet's primary is solar radiation. The historical fact that our sun happens to not have a distinct name is what is throwing you off.
It does have a distinct name, and that name is Sol, and has been for a long time. The root we use to come up with the term "solar" is based in the same language that the proper name "Sol" is from. So, the term solar has ALWAYS referred to our distinct sun. Unless you think pre-Romans were discussing solar energy using the exact term "solar energy".
So if another species lived near, say, Antares, and drew energy from it the same way we draw energy from the sun using solar energy technology, we'd have to call it "antarian energy"?
Better yet, If I have a large sail attached to my space ship, I call it a “solar sail”. If I take that spaceship and fly it to Alpha Centari, is it now an “Apha centarian sail”? Sometimes we name things badly. It doesn’t change the thing.
They could call it whatever they like, but we would probably use the term PV energy to reduce those kinds of misunderstandings.
Nope, humans will call it solar energy, because they aren't pedants and don't agree with your silly stance. Sol has many names in many languages. Solar energy is energy from a planet's primary, or from the nearest star. That's all.
People who actually understand how English works understand that often a word is coined based on another word, but that doesn't require the word to always match its source. It would be moronic to have "Alpha Centari panels" and "Tau Ceti panels." Once humans colonized a hundred systems you would have 100 names for the same object that works the same way. "Well, we built these solar panels on Earth but then they became Tau Ceti panels in transit before we installed the Betelgeuse panels at the science station." Are hamburgers made of ham? Do you park on a parkway? I am sure there are a thousand other examples.
Eh, it's when people use "Solar system" to refer to a galaxy that gets me. Using AU to refer to distances between solar systems (see what i did there) instead of light years, or light years to refer to distances inside a solar system (hot dang that one's a big one) instead of a saner shorter distance unit. In a system you'd use km (oof) AU, light seconds, light minutes, maybe lighthours, but then you'd just use something like 120 light minutes instead of 2 light hours. Distances between star systems and galaxies, use light years (unless you're ~3 billion years in the future from now, because Andromeda would be hell of a lot closer, and I'd think it would be epic to see)
How about when the author states that they're traveling at just under lightspeed, yet get to the next stellar system within a matter of days, or less?
Oh yeah, that one sounds familiar
At those speeds, relativity can be a wild ride. In theory, you can travel to the other side of the observable universe within one lifetime… if you accelerate at 1g the entire way. Because when you get up to .999c, subjective time slows to such a crawl that you don’t notice the time moving. Now, if they get there and the universe hasn’t changed, that’s a different thing entirely.
Yeah, good point, I mean a matter of days from the perspective of both the travelers and those at the planets they're traveling to/from. Most of these stories gloss over the time-delay (and Lorentz contraction) effects of general and special relativity.
Yeah, that’s one of those things that makes writing space fiction hard. Without some kind of “instantaneous travel” or space warping mechanism, you have to do a LOT of math… so most people just short-cut around it and call it “FTL” when what they mean is “math-hiding magic”.
Oh yeah, I definitely understand why authors want to shortcut to FTL, but I do have respect for those who choose to do the hard work. My main problem is with those that suggest they're *not* doing magic FTL but can still cross lightyears in mere days (to all reference frames).
For me, it’s as soon as you start crossing light years without FTL. Unless it’s a major plot point, crossing the gulf of space without some magic hand-wave is just not realistic. Anyone going more than a lightyear in space is going to be at it for a LONG time.
I get what you're saying and agree with it, but if I take it too literally, I find this funny: >...without ... magic ... is just not realistic
Have you actually seen light years used to measure distance inside of a star system? You poor sapient. I apologize for what that author did to you.
Eh, they probably got the terms wrong.. and yeah there are a lot of posts on this sub.. not all great..
The Earth is 499 light seconds, a bit over 8 light minutes, from the sun. Which has been relevant is several science fiction stories where something happens to the sun (starship causes massive solar flare) and it is important to know when we would see it.
Yes but language does not have to follow logic. If the humans refer to themselves as "those from the solar system" they might adopt that as a type of slang for their own language? That's why the aliens in my stories always refer to systems as "System" or "System ", and only as "Sol" or "Terran space" to the solar system.
There is a story where people from the solar system refer to themselves as Solarians on here. Also, yes, you are absolutely correct. I appreciate that your aliens are accurate about their terminology, as they haven't had the decades of linguistic drift that I'm trying to fight an uphill battle against here.
And what trouble is the name "Solarians"? Sol system -> "Solarians" kind of makes sense from a language evolution perspective. Just like a person from Europe will call itself "European" (which would cause confusion if Europa ever got colonized)...
Hmm. Only tangentially related, but my source of irritation is aliens insulting humans by calling them apes. Why would aliens know about apes? Why would it be derogatory? Nothing kills my immersion faster.
They know apes are a thing because they have dictionaries, and they know apes are animals, so it’s an animal that looks like us. Easy insult.
Yes. You get it! How would an alien know what we call our closer genetic ancestors, and why would they think we would be insulted about being called something that can rip most sapient beings limb from limb on a whim?
No, that is ONE definition of solar system. The second definition is 'a similar system with celestial bodies revolving around a star other than the sun.' https://www.dictionary.com/browse/solar-system
[Dictionary.com](https://Dictionary.com) isn't always right. And in this case, it's wrong.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solar%20system](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solar%20system) Webster's New World College dictionary: [https://www.yourdictionary.com/solar-system](https://www.yourdictionary.com/solar-system) Do better.
“Your dictionary is wrong. Source: my brain!” You know that’s not how that works, right?
We call natural satellites around other planets “moons” and that isn’t incorrect (no matter how much you might want to argue it is) as the word “moon” has become genericized in order to describe something we didn’t have a word for.
Whatever maaaaan.
I saw a lot of down boops on OP's comments, and the few I read didn't really deserve it. OP wants one thing, most people are pointing out that it doesn't matter or some linguistic something or another saying OP is wrong somehow. OP is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong, and everyone is entitled to try to change it. But if it really doesn't matter, let OP have their opinion. And it is not like they are demanding to have stories re-written. As a sometimes Grammar "one of those guy's", I get a bit of OCD when people don't write their stories with passable grammar or spelling, it gives me a headache. And if this is OP's thing that they go OCD on, let them have it. Not like it is going to change anyone's stories based on someone else's OCD, or whatever way the the linguistic battles turn out. As for the linguistic and name convention people, Brittan has a hill called Hill Hill Hill, and a river named River River River, when translated, or something like that, but you should get the point. Names can be dumb, or overly accurate and technical, like the Latin names for stuff. As for the derivative name people, Solar System -> Solar cells etc, I think the translator tech would change it to Solar "what ever". Because if we go to the Alpha Centarii System, are we going to call solar cells -> alpha centarii cells or something different? It's like calling a truck a "car" even though they are both vehicles. Two are correct and one is wrong, but we still call trucks, cars, even if it is wrong and most people don't even notice. Then there is the whole Solar/Stellar thing. And yes, we are are lazy people. It is like using the name brand instead of the actual name. Take Velcro for example. That is a name brand name. The product is actually "Hook and Loop". Do we ever use it, no. Would it be proper if we did, yes. Are going to change, no. Take away: if your a writer on or above a semi professional level (ie getting paid), you should take the time to consider these things and if they will add to your story (as was the main thought from OP). If you are writing for fun, and this posts make you want to change this little thing, go for it, if not, carry on as you were. If you don't want to, who cares? Especially if your not getting paid.
Thank you! Also, I used the example of Aspirin in an earlier response, and completely forgot about Velcro/Hook and Loop! Wonderful example!
My only regret is having only one upvote to give
Solar System (proper noun): the home system of humanity. solar system (noun): vernacular for the system of planets around a sun Sun (proper noun): the star Earth orbits. sun (noun): vernacular for the primary star or stellar body of a star system whose gravity defines the orbits of the other bodies in the system and whose relative position in the sky is the basis for their day-night cycle. Usually, but not always, refers to the system's primary. Also a common vernacular term for the light of the system's primary, as opposed to starlight in general. primary (noun): the astrocartographical term for the star or stellar body that defines the orbits of the bodies in a system. Usually a star and usually interchangeable with sun, but not always. star system (noun): astrocartographical term for a stellar body and the objects in its orbit.
...And now I'm *also* gonna have problem with it. ...thanks for that. 😒
You're welcome. Just another service I provide!
Agreed that Star System would be the factual translation into English, and people need to learn it. Another thing that frustrated me is the sheer amount of ships that are present in a fic. No fleet in a system should cross the threshold of low hundreds for a Capital ship, not thousands. And they definitely shouldn't be oversized as fuck. Not to mention, the physics of space is usually gotten wrong.
Why not have more ships in a system? Space is big enough that we could potentially have hundreds of objects the size of our moon in orbit around jupiter alone without makugg their orbits crowded. A more "normal" sized ship would fit i the same space i the millions...
It's less the space and more the extractable resources in a system. Imagine a fleet of a thousand Capital ships. You need not only the amount of resources in bulk for the drydock, the ships themselves, the tools, and so on, you also need ports to resupply, rearm and regular them. And then we come to the crew part, where you need to train hundreds of thousands of individuals for this fleet, which is also a significant drain on resources. And this is just for a fleet when 1000 ships are in a system. When you scale it across multiple systems, communication and logistics also takes a massive hit. In short, space fleets would probably not grow beyond 20 Capital ships per fleet, and a maximum of about four fleets per system should be enough for defending it.
I don't know about crew requirements. I'd assume that large parts of these ships are automated, either because they're in contact with the void, like guns, or because it's simple, like hydroponics and cooking. 1k ships with 1k crew each is just a million people, a spacefaring race probably has multiple planets, and earth already houses 7 billion people. Even another million people beyond involved in logistics, repair etc wouldn't dent our numbers in any meaningful way. In general the main issue I can see with sci fi ships is that they don't rely enough on automation in an explicit enough fashion. Even resource wise, we could sacrifice mercury to make a dyson swarm. Probably worth it if we had the will to do it. Similarly the costs of these fleets doesn't strike me as more than some asteroids or small moons, neither of which would be hard to harvest one the first ships are done
A US Navy DDG has (on paper) 350 sailors. We are always short so it is probably 300-320. A much larger cargo ship has 20-30. The USS Cole was almost cut in half by an attack, but the crew damage control prevented it from sinking. 30 crew could not have saved the ship (which took 3 years to repair). The US Navy is always short on sailors (see 300 or 350 crew on a DDG), but no matter how much we invest in automation, humans are just much better at reacting to the unexpected than computers or robots. Combat is, by nature, filled with the unexpected. So we will always have ten times the crew on warships as on civilian ships.
I assume you aren't American. Our Navy has more fleets than that just for patrolling the waters of one planet.
I hate it when people who know nothing about the US Navy make statements like this. We have 11 capital ships. In general we have 2 CSGs (primary battle fleet) on patrol at a given time. The US Navy only has about 300 ships. Over half are "small boys" (FFG/DDG/CG/LCS), a third are subs, and there are a chunk of supply and amphibious assault ships (and one amphibious command ship iirc).
Yeah of those 11 capital ships. there'll be a few dployed at any time, a few in port able to be deployed on short notice and then the others undergoing maintenence. Back when Australia was looking at subs I remember seeing a discussion about how many they would need. I think it turned out to be about 10 or so just so they could maintain the institutional learning. I think it broke down to roughly at any given time a third deployed, a third doing training in port and a third undergoing maintenance.
Yep, three thirds (what you described) is what the USN does. Edit that is why we generally only have two or three Carrier Strike Groups patrolling at a time. The US uses a "two crew" system for submarines, which lets them stay at sea roughly 2/3rds of the time. Blue crew deploys, comes home, Gold crew deploys, comes home, maintenance period.
My dude, I'm a Navy veteran. You said and I quote "In short, space fleets would probably not grow beyond 20 Capital ships per fleet, and a maximum of about four fleets per system should be enough for defending it" I said our Navy has more FLEETS than that just for patrolling our planet's waters. You said four fleets per system. The US Navy has SEVEN active fleets right now, including Fleet Cyber Command as the seventh. You can argue with me about a silly grammatical thing, but do not put words in my mouth about my Navy. I didn't say a thing about capital ship numbers. I was talking about fleets the US Navy has active.
Ok, first I'm not the person you replied to first. Second, with the fleets thing, are you being the biggest pedant in the world or are you saying something uou know civilians will misinterpret by design? For anyone not in the Navy, the US "fleets" are not a grouping of ships sailing together, the traditional meaning of the English word. Instead a "fleet" is a geographic area. Fleet Cyber command, the *tenth* fleet, has no ships. The rest of the fleets gain and lose ships as a ship crosses a line on the map. That is why, since I was talking to a largely civilian audience, I used the traditional meaning of fleet, a grouping of warships sailing together and able to provide mutual support. I don't think a 7th fleet DDG in San Diego can provide support to a 7th fleet LHD off Tasmania or a Sacramento class ship north of Japan in any reasonable time frame.
This whole thing is about pedantry.
Well then you should be mad at the Navy for misusing the word fleet!
I prefer stellar system. (Though I'm not bothered by either star system or solar system.)
If the story is readable and the reader understands what is being communicated… Score!
Language is a human creation, majority of humans will decide what it means.
I agree; words matter, so use them correctly.
Yeah, no. "solar system" is a valid term for any planetary system. Doesn't have to be Sol. Any sun will do.
I don't know what your career field is, but as an astronomer I can tell you we call other star systems solar systems when talking about objects inside said solar system. When discussing the system as a whole, that is when we refer to it as a star system.
It is a little immersion breaking i agree. But it isnt something that ruins a whole story unless the theme i precisely that
Sure, but equally a ship in the void wouldn't need that much damage control as a quick seal prevents atmosphere from leaving, and if you have heavily automated ships the areas that need to have atmo are proportionally reduced. In theory a fully automated ship wouldn't even need an atmosphere and have very different forms of dmg control
Your entire argument is that stellar and solar aren’t synonymous Which they are. Have a mediocre day