The Expanse (ENT)

[Darth Wedgius]

Star Trek has been iffy on enlisted ranks.

Gene Roddenberry once wrote:

Although the Enterprise is a military vessel its organization is only semimilitary. The 'enlisted men' category does not exist. Star Trek goes on the assumption that every man and woman aboard the USS Enterprise is the equivalent of a qualified astronaut, therefore an officer.

Then we have this bit from "The Drumhead":
PICARD: Did you ever consider applying to the Academy, going the whole route, apply to become an officer?
TARSES: My parents wanted me to. And then I thought about it. I used to sit under this big tree near the parade grounds

It's the money thing all over again. What are the faithful to do when their sacred texts are inconsistent?

JIHAD! Admiral Ackbar!

I generally assume that Roddenberry's initial vision caused some confusion, but the on-screen evidence seems to be that they have enlisted. Though Starfleet is only semi-military (they don't seem to have the restricted line officer vs. unrestricted line officer distinction at all), it's hard to imagine they don't have enlisted personnel. Even with all the automation on-board, there is going to be a lot that doesn't involve leadership but are going to require human (well, sapient) flexibility and judgement.

Even SG-1s writers had weird stuff happening in a definitely military organization (the U.S. Air Force). IIRC, Daniel Jackson took command of the Prometheus, with no one so much as raising an eyebrow.

Edit: Restricted line officers in the U.S. Navy have technical expertise that makes them valuable in their positions (Scotty, I think), but won't be put in command of a combat unit, while unrestricted line officers (Riker) can be. One novel (The Kobayashi Maru) had Scotty having gone through the courses necessary for command of the Enterprise, probably to avoid the incongruity. There are also staff officers, who have professional careers that are intertwined with their naval careers but aren't just their naval careers, like doctors and lawyers. It's complicated.

[TrueMetis]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

[CrypticMirror]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

Obviously Star Trek takes place in the same universe as I Dream Of Jeannie then, where the astronuts were officers. This is now canon. Not like the existence of magic genies would break Trek canon anyway.

[Madner Kami]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

Astronauts during Gene's time were always military, there were no civilians going to space back then.

[TGLS]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

Astronauts during Gene's time were always military, there were no civilians going to space back then.

Most of ASG4 (Recruited in 1965) were civilian scientists (though some retired military). Neil Armstrong was also a civilian.

[Robovski]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

Astronauts during Gene's time were always military, there were no civilians going to space back then.

Most of ASG4 (Recruited in 1965) were civilian scientists (though some retired military). Neil Armstrong was also a civilian.

Considering that the show would have been in development when the first civilian astronauts were being recruited I think we can forgive Gene for not knowing that at the time. Not saying he couldn't have changed it later, just for the Original Series it's a forgivable assumption.

[Madner Kami]

Perhaps someone should have explained to Gene that astronaut is a civilian position. There's no rank that comes with it. Astronauts with rank earned that rank totally separately.

Astronauts during Gene's time were always military, there were no civilians going to space back then.

Most of ASG4 (Recruited in 1965) were civilian scientists (though some retired military). Neil Armstrong was also a civilian.

They may not have been part of the military when they joined, but all the astronauts have a military background and came to the project due to their military background. Armstrong, for example, was a pilot for the US Navy, then, lateron, a testpilot for various military projects via NACA, which directly lead to his involvement.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

TOS is one of the very few 50+ year old shows I can think of that has a substantial segment of the overall audience that might not watch any other older shows. The fact is, its ambiguity and/or disregard for military ranks makes it no different than most other shows of its era. A Jack Webb production might put in some effort for real world believability, there was the odd show like The Defenders, but most series were more like TOS. As seen in later Trek series, its nothing unusual for television today either. And you only have to take one look at Discovery to see that the modern take on proper military (or submilitary, quasi-military, whatever) discipline, protocol, and etiquette is as bad or worse than ever.

If Roddenberry were trying to communicate some kind of meaning with the way Trek ranks were organized, he would have put a more explicit message in the show.

[Madner Kami]

Given Roddenberry himself was an Air Force pilot, one would assume he should have had a better understanding of military hierarchies. But then again, flyer rankings are a bit muddled compared to general military anyways. You are right though, what military is and what military is displayed as, hinges on the perception of the author.

[Riedquat]

Why would an organisation in the future necessarily follow any particular current military organisation instead of just borrowing some of the names? It's true that it comes across more a case of "never really thought about it or looked at it closely", so it is more a case of getting it wrong, but I don't see any reason why the differences couldn't be deliberate and valid.