Author Topic: The naming of ships and spacecraft  (Read 10583 times)

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • England
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 293
The naming of ships and spacecraft
« on: 02/22/2014 12:40 pm »
I've always been fascinated by the naming process for spacecraft, ever since I read into the shuttle's having the names of famous sailing ships.

There seems to be a move towards mythical and fanciful names with some spacecraft, from Dragon to Orion, but also real names, such as the ATV fleet.

The UK's two new Super Carriers are going to have the names HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales, where as previous and current Royal Navy carriers had names like HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious and HMS Invincible.

Has there been a trend towards naming vehicles after people? Seems most are being given names of people now?

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #1 on: 02/22/2014 12:44 pm »
They do seem to be naming them after people a lot more. The recent Cygnus was too.

Figures for the UK to name them after the Royal Family members, I think that's an old tradition too. Googled the ones you mentioned. Very nice new carriers you've got there.


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #2 on: 02/22/2014 04:43 pm »
This is reuse of an old name.  During World War 2 battleship HMS Prince of Wales was sunk by the Japanese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

Offline Space Pete

Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #3 on: 02/22/2014 05:21 pm »
Very nice new carriers you've got there.

Agreed! Can't wait to see them set sail with a deck full of F-35B's and a Union Jack flying proudly in the wind.

However, I've read that there is a notion to re-name HMS Prince of Wales to HMS Ark Royal.

Some cool photos of their construction are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 05:23 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #4 on: 02/23/2014 07:51 am »
Very nice new carriers you've got there.

Agreed! Can't wait to see them set sail with a deck full of F-35B's and a Union Jack flying proudly in the wind.

However, I've read that there is a notion to re-name HMS Prince of Wales to HMS Ark Royal.

Some cool photos of their construction are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers

Don't you meant the White Ensign. The Union Jack is not usually hoisted on Royal Navy ships. Sadly it would only be about a dozen aircraft of all types embarked under current budget plans.  :(  So the carriers will not be much more potent than the soon to be retired Invincible class.


Offline Space Pete

Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #5 on: 02/23/2014 10:12 pm »
Don't you meant the White Ensign. The Union Jack is not usually hoisted on Royal Navy ships. Sadly it would only be about a dozen aircraft of all types embarked under current budget plans.  :(  So the carriers will not be much more potent than the soon to be retired Invincible class.

Ah yes, good point! ;)

With regard the carriers only carrying 12 aircraft - that will be true during routine peacetime operations. But the carriers can support a "surge capacity" of up to 60 F-35B's during times of operational need.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2014 10:20 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #6 on: 02/23/2014 10:18 pm »
I wouldn't go counting F-35B's until they're hatched...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #7 on: 02/24/2014 09:24 am »
Don't you meant the White Ensign. The Union Jack is not usually hoisted on Royal Navy ships. Sadly it would only be about a dozen aircraft of all types embarked under current budget plans.  :(  So the carriers will not be much more potent than the soon to be retired Invincible class.

Ah yes, good point! ;)

With regard the carriers only carrying 12 aircraft - that will be true during routine peacetime operations. But the carriers can support a "surge capacity" of up to 60 F-35B's during times of operational need.

Think it's a few more aircraft than 12.

IMO. The Royal Navy will have no surge capacity for a very long time. The Royal Navy will not have the GSE, munitions & HR resources to even fully embarked a wartime complement on a single carrier. From my understanding the carrier have to be more or less be refitted quickly to be able to take on a wartime complement. We will get the spectacle of the Royal Air Force imitating the Fleet Air Arm, without going into which Royal Air Force and British Army asserts gets press-ganged.

But to get back on topic and no more comments on Naval contingencies.  :-X The Royal Navy usually have quite a few warships name for Royalty and Duchies along with a bunch of historical ship names the Royal Navy wants to keep in commission..

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #8 on: 02/24/2014 04:10 pm »
Talking about naming of spacecraft, brings me back to the big push of naming OV-101 Enterprise instead of Constitution.  Unfortunatley this kind of backfired on the public who pushed for OV-101 being named Enterprise as she never saw the vacuum of space unfortunatley.

Has anyone heard of any possible names  for the booster part of SLS. MPCV is now "Orion", but what about the bottom end?
Paul

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #9 on: 02/24/2014 09:00 pm »
Talking about naming of spacecraft, brings me back to the big push of naming OV-101 Enterprise instead of Constitution.  Unfortunatley this kind of backfired on the public who pushed for OV-101 being named Enterprise as she never saw the vacuum of space unfortunatley.

Has anyone heard of any possible names  for the booster part of SLS. MPCV is now "Orion", but what about the bottom end?

Not officially. But have been discuss extensively in this forum.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30009.0

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #10 on: 02/25/2014 01:07 am »
what about the bottom end?
Balrog

Online Chris Bergin

Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #11 on: 07/04/2014 02:54 pm »
First of the Royal Navy Super Carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, now named.

Notice how in the video they do not shy away from "her" and "she":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28146412

« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 03:01 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ronpur50

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Brandon, FL
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 1884
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #12 on: 07/04/2014 05:12 pm »
This is a list that Robert Pearlman posted in collectSpace:

Recommendations by an ad hoc committee on names for Space Shuttle Orbiters; chose "names having significant relationship to the heritage of the United States or to the Shuttle's mission of exploration."
Recommended List of Orbiter Names
(In descending order of preference)
1.Constitution
2.Independence
3.America
4.Constellation
5.Enterprise [reserved for possible 5th orbiter, to carry on OV-101's name]
6.Discoverer
7.Endeavour
8.Liberty
9.Freedom
10.Eagle
11.Kitty Hawk
12.Pathfinder
13.Adventurer
14.Prospector
15.Peace

Not sure how to link to the actual post.  But I often wonder after seeing this list what would our world be like if we needed 15 orbiter names!!

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000555.html

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #13 on: 07/04/2014 06:56 pm »
 Hopefully, the era of naming great craft after politicians and NASA  administrators will come to an end. Going from a name like Enterprise to Ford or Hubble to JWST was a travesty.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Liked: 728
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #14 on: 07/04/2014 08:06 pm »
Very nice new carriers you've got there.

Agreed! Can't wait to see them set sail with a deck full of F-35B's and a Union Jack flying proudly in the wind.

However, I've read that there is a notion to re-name HMS Prince of Wales to HMS Ark Royal.

Some cool photos of their construction are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers

Continuing the off-topic-ness! If you go to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance YouTube page (do a search for QEClassCarriers, I can't get the link to display properly here), then I created most of the timelapse videos you'll see there. You may notice the traditionally welcoming and beautiful Scottish weather (eg wet, windy and cold)!

And, back on-topic: Large modern ships are *very* interesting in terms of a comparison with spacecraft - they are largely sealed, artificial environments, with multiple layers of redundancy (though with breathing air and oxidiser easily available). They have the advantages/disadvantages of gravity, and are just as likely to involve cases of projectile vomiting. Unlike aircraft, you can't land quickly (or at all, sometimes) if there is a problem, and mission times can be measured in weeks and months. Overall, ships of any size are *much* more dangerous internally than spacecraft - there are lots of ways to get yourself hurt. Externally, in poor conditions 'EVA' work is far more dangerous - there are few cases (well one) of near-drownings in a spacesuit! Oh, and then there are submarines...

In short, there is a lot to be learned from ships which is directly applicable to spaceflight - possibly more than from aviation (which itself uses a lot of sea experience and tradition).

As for naming, I think that the Shuttle program got it pretty right: Fleet number, then name, with such names being impersonal but memorable. If we see another 'class' of vehicle then I'd like to see early astronauts being commemorated in a similar way. Bases on the Moon and Mars should be named after people who have walked on other worlds than the Earth, or follow a naming tradition appropriate to that planet (women for Venus, musicians for Mercury etc).
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 08:13 pm by Bob Shaw »

Offline Space Pete

Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #15 on: 07/06/2014 11:05 pm »
Absolutely love HMS Queen Elizabeth. Britain doesn't usually do US-style big, but this time we have. Can't wait to see F-35s aboard. Awesome.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 11:06 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #16 on: 07/07/2014 02:12 pm »
Aircraft? Carriers?
For a few seconds I was under the impression that this might be a new VG thread.

But no, it's about big hunks of floating metal that can be easily sunk by an errant torpedo. And F-35's are not really interesting either regardless of them currently being grounded as a result of their tail ends spontanously catching fire.

Then again, the F-35 program is expected to cost 400 billion US$ by the time all is said and done. And then to think that people complain about the measly 100 billion US$ the ISS has cost so far.

But, this is all OT anyway. Cue Lar...  ;)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #17 on: 07/07/2014 02:43 pm »
Quite!  You guys! (*stamps foot*)

Reusable spacecraft get names. Historic spacecraft get names... commercial expendables, not so much. Just serial numbers. It will be interesting to see if SpaceX and others end up naming their commercial launchers once they are consistently reusable... maybe like some cultures not naming babies till they are a month old, they won't get a name until after one successful launch?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #18 on: 07/07/2014 03:36 pm »
I'm a fan of threads self-correcting themselves and going back on-topic (because often going off-topic is a good way to introduce new ideas).

When it comes to naming ships, politics has played a big role in the U.S., and presumably is playing an increasing role in the UK as well.

That's also been true for NASA naming missions, although there it's more a case of bureaucratic politics. For instance, why do some spacecraft get names, like Spirit and Curiosity, whereas other spacecraft only get descriptive names and acronyms, like Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter? A big part of the explanation comes from where the mission originates. If it is a competed mission, the team that is competing is trying to capture peoples' imaginations, and they also want something interesting. But if it is not competed, or if it originates within the agency, then the bureaucratic impulse to not be noticed takes over. They worry that if they pick a name for it, then people will say "Why did you waste time on a frivolous activity like naming it? Get back to work!"

I think it's a shame that some of these missions, like LRO, didn't get a cool name. But there's a desire by some involved to not do anything that will get them noticed, and that they think might get their budget cut.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: The naming of ships and spacecraft
« Reply #19 on: 07/07/2014 04:07 pm »
A nit, Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity and Curiousity were rovers (and arguably therefore not spacecraft, although that's an argument for a different thread). Giving them names was very shrewd as it built interest, and it made it far easier to write stories about them than if they just had numbers...

Well crafted names can add a LOT. But overuse maybe not so much. Most people remember Apollo 11's names, Eagle and Columbia but I bet not too many remember Apollo 16's names.

PS I'm a fan of self correcting (or gently nudged) threads too, rather than wholesale trimming, where possible.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2014 04:08 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1