Captain's choices on colony ships

[Strato Incendus]

In order to discuss several questions regarding my generation-ship story in parallel, without making a single thread go all over the place, this is one thread (of most likely several ones) that I'm opening in parallel. This one is less about technical questions per se, but rather about tactical choices the crew of a ship can make as a result of the technical parameters.

Secondly, I think we can widen this particular discussion to any type of colony ship in general - generation ships, sleeper ships, clone ships, seed ships etc. - as long as they still have a human crew, or a crew made of robots, or at least an AI steering it, any type of entity that can make choices for the ship while it is on its journey.

After all, that's what stories live from: Character's choices and their consequences.

The main problem I'm experiencing right now is: Most things you would expect a ship commander on Earth to have to do at some point don't work (at least not without loads of setup and explanation) for commanders of interstellar colony ships. Because in contrast to Star Trek ships that can hop around between systems, do cartography, diplomacy, trading etc., these ships are essentially still like arrows, pointed at a particular star system and then shot at the maximum feasible speed. If they didn't have to slow down at the end, one might as well treat them the same way like a probe with a solar sail that gets hit by a laser (as planned for the Breakthrough Starshot project).

Two major questions arise for me as a result:

1) What plot-relevant decisions is the commander of a colony ship supposed to make if
- they can't change course
- they can't slow down
- they can't have the ship pick up certain elements from space, or from planets and moons they pass on the way (since that would require slowing down, and potentially changing course, too)
- they can't go anywhere else to refuel the ship (like indeed by picking up stuff from space, planets, or moons), because colony ships are usually sent somewhere where the crew will be the first settlers (i.e., there are no pre-existing space stations you could get your fuel from)
- they don't engage in combat, diplomacy, or trade with any other species (and if they had to, again, that would require them to slow down first)

2) If no such tactical decisions can be made, why does the ship need a military command structure to begin with?
In one Voyager episode, Captain Janeway explicitly mentions that a ship is not a democracy. Rather, it's still a military hierarchy, and in Star Trek, this makes sense: A lot of the orders need to be implemented quickly, without questioning, and you need people in various positions on the ship based on their competence - not their popularity with the rest of the crew.
But colony ships don't act like Star Trek explorer ships. If the captain can't make any of the decisions I listed above, does the ship even need a "captain" in a military sense? Or would the ship rather have a traditional government, like any country on Earth? In the latter case, of course that government could be totalitarian, but it would no longer be required for the mission to work; it could also be a democratically elected body.

In my story, it's especially important, because the commander turns into the antagonist. And antagonists need to be even more active than protagonists, since they are usually the ones pushing the protagonists out of their comfort zone in the first place.

So I certainly don't want my ship's commander to be like Cersei Lannister in GoT Season 8, just standing by the window drinking wine all the time. Or like Admiral Thrawn in Star Wars "Rebels", where for the longest time he's an intimidating and "cool", but also rather passive villain, just watching all the events unfold, always claiming that everything was going according to plan, even things that looked like setbacks, and rarely ever interfering himself.So far, I'd say my antagonist is pretty active in the story, indeed. But this falls apart if

a) the decisions she gets to make are physically implausible to ever be regarded as actual options (like picking up hydrogen from space, or emergency-stopping the ship), and

b) if given this, the setting can no longer legally justify why the ship's commander needs to have this level of authoritarian power in the first place (=why the ship should have a strict hierarchy of competence, rather than of popularity, i.e., a democracy, if being the most competent person on board, and thereby becoming the captain, doesn't actually allow you to do all that much). In order for somebody to become able to abuse their power, the society around them first needs to give them (or at least allow them to reach) such levels of power in the first place.With my story essentially being that of a mutiny, of course I could still establish the status-quo of the ship as a dictator ship (gap intended) for the sake of it, and then have the mutineers overthrow the commander. However, this would run counter to the idea that the mission was founded in good faith, trying to export the best values humanity had achieved so far.

What my story needs before the rebellion is the gradual slide from a liberal into a totalitarian society, given external necessity - not a cartoon-villain overlord in a pre-established regime. Yes, you can still tell such a story about external necessities causing a reduction in freedom, even with a democratic society on board the ship. (There is sufficient inspiration for this in the real world, both recent and current...) But there will be a limit to that.
It's far easier for the commander to eventually even override basic human rights if the ship is at heart still a military hierarchy, than if the commander is elected by the ship citizens, and could be removed in a heartbeat by independent courts and/or a parliament that no longer trusts them.

A society with functioning division of powers doesn't really require a mutiny / rebellion, does it? ;) Because in such a society, there is already a "proper", peaceful way towards a powershift.

At that point, my mutiny story would turn into a story about a political campaign, trying to get the opposition elected to implement certain legal changes (while the one in power oppresses said opposition, uses legal tricks and "emergency situations" to extend their own term etc.). And such a story might as well be told on Earth; the specific setting of a generation ship would no longer be required.

 

[Drakkith]

1) What plot-relevant decisions is the commander of a colony ship supposed to make

That depends on your plot. If the ship can't stop, change course, turn around, or do any maneuvering then obviously your plot won't have anything to do with the crew or the captain actually maneuvering the ship.

2) If no such tactical decisions can be made, why does the ship need a military command structure to begin with?

A generation ship is essentially an ultra-isolated town/city. The governmental body may or may not have a militarized force for policing the crew (or some other reason) depending on how you want the society to function and what you've written as their background. A bunch of colonists sent by an authoritarian, militaristic regime are probably more likely to have a militarized force on board than one sent by a private corporation controlled and operated by pacifists.

But colony ships don't act like Star Trek explorer ships. If the captain can't make any of the decisions I listed above, does the ship even need a "captain" in a military sense? Or would the ship rather have a traditional government, like any country on Earth?

That's up to you. People are varied enough in their behaviors and beliefs that nearly any combination of societal traits can be made to work. Pacifists could have a marine detachment on board if it was required by the government, for example. You could absolutely have a Captain who's rank is literally just an honorary title. Perhaps they are the Mayor, or simply the ruling council's appointed leader for that month, and it's simply tradition to call them Captain.

You could also have a literal Captain, as in the naval rank. Perhaps the colony ship was sent out by a militaristic regime who have appointed an actual naval officer as the leader.

What my story needs before the rebellion is the gradual slide from a liberal into a totalitarian society, given external necessity - not a cartoon-villain overlord in a pre-established regime. Yes, you can still tell such a story about external necessities causing a reduction in freedom, even with a democratic society on board the ship. (There is sufficient inspiration for this in the real world, both recent and current...) But there will be a limit to that.
It's far easier for the commander to eventually even override basic human rights if the ship is at heart still a military hierarchy, than if the commander is elected by the ship citizens, and could be removed in a heartbeat by independent courts and/or a parliament that no longer trusts them.

As you've said at the end of your post, you can do certain things just as well on Earth as you can on a generation ship. So either sprinkle in things that can't be done on Earth into the main story, or make the main story about something that can't happen on Earth. A political upheaval can be done in either setting, but a political upheaval on a generation ship whose cause ultimately comes from something specific to being on a generation ship and has specific challenges to overcome that can only happen on a generation ship is what helps your story stand out.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

@Strato Incendus, I feel you're overthinking this. What's the core of your narrative? If that's clear to you, then setting up your colony ship (or whatever environment you feel works for the story) at the level of detail you're asking should be straightforward.

Indeed, @Drakkith has nailed most answers in the reply above: "That's up to you."

Also, you've used the term "physically implausible" as a constraint to your story, and I'm wondering why? It is easy to be bogged down in real-world aspects of your ship, but even Alistair Reynolds, who is lauded for his "no FTL" stance as that breaks physics as we know it, has to wave his hands and obviate reality when it comes to telling his stories.

If you tell a story smoothly, with emotionally engaging characters, avoiding deus ex machina solutions, and ensuer your tech is not described in such excruciating detail that the reader is bored...then you'll be ahead of most sci-fi authors

 

[Strato Incendus]

Also, you've used the term "physically implausible" as a constraint to your story, and I'm wondering why?

I’d say any story promises a certain level of realism / unrealism with its setting. If you then later on stray too far from that, whatever audience you’ve attracted will be pulled out of the story:

- Star Trek’s warp drive may be beyond the scope of current science, and it might even be something that will never be achieved. However, this is the standard Star Trek viewers have gotten used to. If someone started using the Force in Star Trek, however (someone who is not a Q or a comparably powerful entity), those same viewers would call that “unrealistic”.

- Star Wars, meanwhile, has always had more supernatural elements included in its setting. And just like the warp drive, the Force has been accepted from day one. Something like the Holdo manoeuvre, meanwhile, was not taken well by the fans. Simply because it was not implied to be the result of Force usage, nor something that could be explained in terms of how the hyperdrive normally works in this universe.

I’d certainly agree with you that sci-fi focusing on travel below light speed can be classified as a sub-genre in and of itself - meaning, one with a generally higher level of realism compared to Star Wars and Star Trek. Yet, even in that setting, we’re already questioning the feasibility of other sub-light-speed engines, like black-hole drives. Getting an audience used to such levels of realism, only to then hit them with “sudden stops of a spaceship that travels at 10% light-speed”, or “picking up materials from space while traveling at that speed”, would be rather inconsistent, wouldn’t it? ;)

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Yet, even in that setting, we’re already questioning the feasibility of other sub-light-speed engines, like black-hole drives. Getting an audience used to such levels of realism, only to then hit them with “sudden stops of a spaceship that travels at 10% light-speed”, or “picking up materials from space while traveling at that speed”, would be rather inconsistent, wouldn’t it? ;)

Are you expecting to educate a cohort of readers, @Strato Incendus in some aspect of realism?

If your black-hole drive can suddenly brake the ship from 10% light speed, so what? It's up to you - in your novel - to write a consistent worldview. Star Trek and Star Wars weren't anything before they were created, and it's only because they've been wildly, commercially successful that aspects such as "Beam me up, Scotty", and "Use the Force, Luke" have entered our collective consciousness. (And remember, Star Trek wasn't even that successful on the initial TV run.)

And just like the warp drive, the Force has been accepted from day one. Something like the Holdo manoeuvre, meanwhile, was not taken well by the fans. Simply because it was not implied to be the result of Force usage, nor something that could be explained in terms of how the hyperdrive normally works in this universe.

How far into things was the Holdo manoeuvre? Because even with the best scenario planning, if you're writing speculative fiction, then it's almost impossible to maintain a wholly consistent milieu beyond two or three books. I'm currently putting together a database of multiple ship fleets, thousands of crew, hundreds of colonies, and about two thousand events to try and do just that, and I know from the last trilogy I wrote, I'm still going to trip up over aspects I've already baked into my little universe in the first novel. Hopefully, they are not enough to pull readers out of the story, but that's what proofreaders help with.

Anyway, it's your choice, but there are many novels that are a fun read, with consistent worldviews, that most of us have since forgotten but were not 'feasible' in the real world. Remember, it's science fiction, so a degree of unfeasible is required. Otherwise, it's just fiction using science as a scaffold, and that's very different beast.