6

Is there a single word to describe an entity (for example a boat, ship or power station) that requires some crew, staff or manning in order to function?

This is subtly different from using the words manned or crewed to describe an entity that is currently staffed, since this does not mean that it must be staffed to operate.

Kynth
  • 171
  • 2
    I'm sure NASA's boffins would distinguish one of the two kinds of spacecraft they might work on as "manned", long before there was actually a crew inside it. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '11 at 15:22
  • 2
    I disagree. "Manned" means that it has a crew, not that it needs one. – Kit Z. Fox Jul 28 '11 at 15:51
  • 3
    non-automated? Automated would say doesnt need a crew. – Chad Jul 28 '11 at 17:37
  • 1
    @Chad: non-automated sounds technically exactly right, but takes some thought to realize that it means 'necessarily manned'. – Mitch Jul 29 '11 at 00:44
  • 1
    @mitch I agree which is why i didnt want to post is as an answer, I don't think I would be happy with that for this question were it mine. My problem is coming up with a word that encoumpasses both needs a crew but doesnt have one and needs a crew and has one. – Chad Jul 29 '11 at 12:46
  • @Chad I must admit that's my quandary at the moment. Mitch sums it up well for me in the comment to his answer where he states we seem to lacking an affix that means "needs to be". – Kynth Jul 29 '11 at 12:55
  • @Kit - Disagree with your disagree. When NASA speaks of their "manned spaceflight program", they are not saying they currently have folks in space right that minute. They are talking about projects that require astronauts vs. projects that don't. – T.E.D. Jul 29 '11 at 19:56

6 Answers6

8

The straightforward

'does not require a crew' -> 'unmanned'

leads me to think that it is appropriate to use:

'requires a crew' -> 'manned'

Mitch
  • 71,423
  • 3
    I would think that "manned" more describes the current state of having a crew rather than the state of needing a crew. – FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Jul 28 '11 at 15:46
  • 3
    This is precisely how "manned" is used by, for example, NASA. – Marthaª Jul 28 '11 at 15:52
  • 3
    So, literally, 'manned' means 'currently has people on board' and doesn't imply necessity. But I think there is an implication that the mention of it being 'manned' means it needs to be. There's no affix in English (that I am aware of) that adds 'needs to be'. So the perfect single word may not exist. – Mitch Jul 28 '11 at 16:31
  • 2
    @frustrated: "manned" is most definitely used to describe a vehicle that requires occupants without the need for the occupants nor the craft to even exist. ( http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:d6DlGE2EiecJ:www.nasa.gov/pdf/382362main_40%2520-%252020090801.1.mars2019.pdf+manned+mission+to+mars&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYNwTyGgy0MUKRu6B58hkXOJIIMnUgFs8T9n3TPuUsEuCQOF5_B3gc3GjK9I-RFP2wO5yjH9YzhxbU1otl9FBl8_ljm4QjOV_D5PwRQLx0rJ-S4RjzBqrrTtzufHGwgpIPmttH&sig=AHIEtbSqwRCFCy54FCHEzsKKl_tJizNHYQ ) – horatio Jul 28 '11 at 18:12
  • @horatio: I don't get it. people required but not really? Oh... with respect to the space program...then are you suggesting that there might be a word that captures subjunctive necessity? – Mitch Jul 28 '11 at 20:07
  • 3
    There is apparently a conception amongst the comments here that a "manned spacecraft" can only be called "manned" when there are actually people sitting in the chairs. My comment merely offers a real-world example of how this requirement is not in fact the case. – horatio Jul 28 '11 at 20:12
  • @horatio: Oh, which gives support to my answer, which I don't necessarily hold to myself. – Mitch Jul 28 '11 at 20:16
  • Well HAL was a manned spaceship but it did not actually require a crew. – Chad Jul 28 '11 at 20:18
  • technically, HAL was part of the crew. – horatio Jul 29 '11 at 13:53
  • @horatio: from another movie: "Part of the ship, part of the crew" – Mitch Jul 29 '11 at 14:01
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD4F-mEMlRo – horatio Jul 29 '11 at 15:32
  • This is the right answer. An "unmanned spacecraft" is one that never needs a pilot, not one that requires one but currently doesn't have one – T.E.D. Jul 29 '11 at 20:10
  • I have accepted "Manned" as the correct term to use, although it is not ideal. Mitch sums up the problem by saying there is no affix that anyone is aware of that means "needs to be". T.E.D. also made a convincing case that Manned can mean a project that requires crew, verses projects that do not. – Kynth Aug 01 '11 at 07:56
2

"Must be manned" works but you require one word. Ununmanable means what you want, but it doesn't sound right and isn't a word. Manned works, but only in certain contexts. In others it can mean currently manned. It is your best bet for a single word though.

Other short phrases you could use. Dependent on crew. Manually controlled.

Joel
  • 338
  • Sounds good to me. I agree that "manned" is probably the best single-word option, but unlike the current top-rated Answer you at least point out that it isn't a perfect choice for all contexts. And you've suggested other phrases as more precise alternatives, which does no harm if there isn't a "Perfect Answer" available. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '11 at 22:12
1

nonautonomous

This is the opposite of autonomous which can mean to operate independently with out need of outside influence. Autonomous is often used to decribe automated robitic structures that do not require input from humans to perform their tasks.

Laurel
  • 66,382
Chad
  • 1,196
0

The problem with "manned" and "unmanned" is that is can be confused with the autonomous state of the object. Unmanned aerial vehicles are actually piloted by remote control from an undisclosed location, and could not achieve the required task without the crew being present.
I think a better word would depend on how you are describing the entity, like a factory could be automatic in nature or require operators. Maybe "Automatic" to indicate no crew required, and piloted/staffed/manned for an entity requiring an operator.

FossilizedCarlos
  • 259
-1

my suggestion:

"The spaceship must be occupied."

to occupy:

–verb (used with object) 1. to take or fill up (space, time, etc.): I occupied my evenings reading novels. 2. to engage or employ the mind, energy, or attention of: Occupy the children with a game while I prepare dinner. 3. to be a resident or tenant of; dwell in: We occupied the same house for 20 years.

Kit Z. Fox
  • 27,819
Daniel
  • 486
  • 2
    does suggest a very small single "seat" sort of craft with a little green sign on the door lock though! – mgb Jul 28 '11 at 15:56
  • I don't see any reason for swappinig to "occupied", when your phrasing would be far more precise (and common, I think) if it used OP's own "crewed" or "manned". – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '11 at 22:05
-2

Is there a single word to describe an entity that needs a crew/staff or requires manning in order to function.

Will "recruiting" do? as in A company needs crew, so it is recruiting

Thursagen
  • 41,919