SpaceX Acronyms and Nomenclature

[Shanuson]

Hi,
If you have never read a post and stumbled over the meaning of some acronym or word this is not for you.
I know there is a List for Acronyms used in Space Flight,
This list is general though and I thought we start collecting all those acronyms you read in your favorite SpaceX threat and create a list with small explanations what they mean. This topic is not to discuss the mentioned thing/part/mission. Do so in the appropriate thread.
If you have some word/acronym, that you think is missing, post it or send me a PM and I will try to keep this list updated. Of course do so also if you can not agree with one of the explanations I give.
~Shanuson

So lets give it a try and see where we go with the once that just came to my mind:

BFR: Big F***ing Rocket(?): Future heavy lift rocket with a large core diameter (>=10 Meter)
BFR-R: Reusable version of the BFR

CRS: Cargo Resupply Service: Contract from NASA to resupply ISS with cargo.
CCDev: Commercial Crew Development: Name for all efforts to develop commercial crew transport systems to space.
CCiCap: Commercial Crew Integrated Capability: Current initiative by NASA to help the development of a commercial CTS
CCtCap: Commercial Crew Transportation Capability: Future initiative by NASA to help the development of a commercial CTS, Successor of CCiCap
COTS: Commercial Orbital Transportation Services: Precursor to CRS. NASA initiative to develop commercial cargo transport systems to space.
CTS: Crew Transport System
CUCU: COTS UHF Communication Unit: A Crew Command Panel (CCP) that will be used for commanding the Dragon vehicle during unberth operations.  This device is carried aboard the ISS, not on the Dragon.

Draco: Rocket engine used in the Dragon capsules
Dragon: The cargo space capsule used to resupply the International Space Station.
DragonFly: Future space capsule capable of landing propulsivly on land after a mission or the name of the test program to achieve such a thing?
D-V2: Dragon V2: Crewed version of the Dragon capsule.

Falcon: Name of the current family of launch vehicles/rocket
F9: Falcon9; expendable single core 9 engine version of the rocket
F9 V1.1: Falcon 9 Version 1.1: Current Version of the F9. Included are some features that will be used in F9R such as legs.
FH: Falcon Heavy; Heavy-lift version of the F9 with 3 1st stage cores
F9R: Falcon9 Reusable: The reusable version of the Falcon 9, still in development.
F9R-Dev1: Test Article for landing a first stage, used in the current tests in McGregor Texas. Successor of Grasshopper.
F9R-Dev2: Test Article for landing a first stage, will be used at SpacePort America, New Mexico

GH: Grasshopper: Test Article for Landing a first stage. Was used in McGregor to test propulsive landing.
GH 2: Grasshopper 2: Older name for F9R-V1

LAS: Launch Abort System

Merlin: Liquid Oxygen and Kerosin main rocket engine family currently used on all Falcon Rockets
M1D: Version D of the Merlin rocket engine
MCT: Mars Collonial Transporter: Planed future Spaceship to send people to Mars.
MVac: Merlin engine optimized for vacuum operation.  It is the sole engine on the Falcon 9 upper stage.

Octaweb: Structure at the end of the Falcon9 V1.1 rocket that holds all 9 M1Ds in an octal pattern with a central engine. 

PICA-X: Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator -X: Material used for the head shields of the Dragon capsules.

Raptor: Future rocket engine more powerful than Merlin

SuperDraco: Larger version of the Draco engine, used in the LAS of D-V2 and for propulsive landings.

[rcoppola]

Just a couple things to be conscious of so as not to confuse the matter.

F9 v1.1 & F9R have been reported and discussed as being the same thing. (it's still debated by some though although you'd be better off combining those 2. Such as "F9 V1.1 AKA F9R, or however you want to. But they are not 2 separate launchers.

F9R-V1 & V2 is actually called F9R Dev-1 & Dev-2. They are not versioned like you have them.

[Jim]

Why is this Spacex only?  The first 7 items are generic.  And why does Spacex need its own list?

[deruch]

GH- Grasshopper
GH2- see Grasshopper 2

MVac- Merlin engine optimized for vacuum operation.  It is the sole engine on the Falcon 9 upper stage.

[Shanuson]

Why is this Spacex only?  The first 7 items are generic.  And why does Spacex need its own list?

SpaceX does not really need its own list, but does it hurt?
A shorter version than the PDF is easier to handle and should contain less multiple-used acronyms.
People new to this will find it easier to look up stuff.

And well maybe you are right. If someone has to look something up they will use Google anyway so this list wont be used.
But I will have fun collecting all the information and maybe others too.

[Jim]

Why is this Spacex only?  The first 7 items are generic.  And why does Spacex need its own list?

SpaceX does not really need its own list, but does it hurt?

They can look here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.msg1202940#msg1202940

[Lar]

There is value in a general acronym resource. I checked the other thread and currently the attachment seems to be missing but I've reached out to Pagheca to try to sort that out.

Edit: it is fixed now and the PDF (which is a very big compilation!!! truly nice work) is now attached to the lead post, and P has said it will be periodically updated....

There is also value in company specific acronym resources as well.

After consulting with Chris and meekGee I invite the readership to thrash out how you all want to handle this. One thread only, or one generic plus one for each company as volunteers are found to host them. Once consensus is reached I'll trim away all the discussion  (so don't say anything you don't mind being trmmed away) and preserve a record of the consensus and place it in the header.

the thread starter, or mods, can modify the starting post to include new acronyms as they are found and recognized/defined.

If anyone has a big issue with this approach, PM me...

[meekGee]

My proposal is that Shanoson will keep the lead post updated based on inputs from down thread.
If acronyms are date-sensitive, maybe add the date at the end of their line.

And am I mistaken, or was "RUD" used by SpaceX?

They also had acronyms for their control centers, sometimes used during the webcasts, but I forget what they were.

Also, SPAM, and PICA-X

There was also Dragon Eye, and there was another sensor that had an acronym.

[Jim_LAX]

Here's a "crazy" one to add that's unique to SpaceX:

COTS UHF Communication Unit (CUCU) Crew Command Pane (CCP) that will be used for commanding the Dragon vehicle during unberth operations.  This device is carried aboard the ISS, not on the Dragon.  I would guess it is only used with the Cargo Dragon since the Dragon V2 uses a different docking system.

[king1999]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

[baldusi]

Here's a "crazy" one to add that's unique to SpaceX:

COTS UHF Communication Unit (CUCU) Crew Command Pane (CCP) that will be used for commanding the Dragon vehicle during unberth operations.  This device is carried aboard the ISS, not on the Dragon.  I would guess it is only used with the Cargo Dragon since the Dragon V2 uses a different docking system.

Is not because of docking system. Is used to command (among other things) abort from the ISS. It won't be needed for manned Dragon.

[Jim]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

that isn't a Spacex unique acronym.

That is why I think separate acronym threads are a bad idea.  There are very few Spacex unique ones compared to the overall volume.

Even RUD is not Spacex unique.

CUCU for all we could be a NASA acronym.

[tobi453]

SpaceX - space transportation company:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX
Spacex - contemporary art gallery in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex_%28art_gallery%29

[meekGee]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

Even RUD is not Spacex unique.

I've developed a new pet peeve since the launch. Am I the only that prefers the industry euphemism RUD not be used ever again? Has to be something better.

It isn't an industry euphemism, but a Spacex one

So....  which way is the wind blowing this morning?   Or is the point just being negatory in general?

[sugmullun]

For us acro-challenged, a reply editor feature which automatically links to a definition 

[woods170]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

Even RUD is not Spacex unique.

I've developed a new pet peeve since the launch. Am I the only that prefers the industry euphemism RUD not be used ever again? Has to be something better.

It isn't an industry euphemism, but a Spacex one

So....  which way is the wind blowing this morning?   Or is the point just being negatory in general?

Look at the dates. RUD may have been Spacex-specific at one point in time, but it clearly is not these days.

[Jim]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

Even RUD is not Spacex unique.

I've developed a new pet peeve since the launch. Am I the only that prefers the industry euphemism RUD not be used ever again? Has to be something better.

It isn't an industry euphemism, but a Spacex one

So....  which way is the wind blowing this morning?   Or is the point just being negatory in general?

No, just reflecting reality on this forum, which this acronym list is for.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1112325#msg1112325
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32875.msg1098848#msg1098848
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30308.msg978683#msg978683
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27791.msg939553#msg939553
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27791.msg939553#msg939553
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30053.msg964571#msg964571
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27489.msg843811#msg843811
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26327.msg790510#msg790510
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27289.msg829514#msg829514
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30576.msg992905#msg992905

[majormajor42]

are there acronyms or specific nomenclature to describe the different versions of FH?

FH - not reusable or crossfed
FH - crossfed FHx? FHX?

FH - reusable strap-on boosters FHr?
FH - full 1st stage reusability (all three cores)  FHR?
   
I wonder if proposed 2nd stage reusability will add new acronyms to the mix.

Certain logic would remove LAS from the list. It is quite common. I thought RTLS was practically SpaceX specific but I see that it was one of the abort modes of STS.

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

that isn't a Spacex unique acronym.

"BFR" in SpaceX pertinent forums, or "SpaceX BFR" is our title for a specific rocket that uses the Raptor engines, yes? So should stay. Whereas MCT refers to the spacecraft that rides on top of BFR. Or is BFR in this case and MCT synonymous? Even the wiki article for MCT seems unclear. At first it sounds like the whole system, including the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. But them it goes on to say that SpaceX has not named the MCT launch rocket, therefor we call it BFR till SpaceX gives us a name.

I think that is different than some people referring to SLS or Ares V as a BFR, just a nickname for something that already has a somewhat proper name.


     

[meekGee]

BFR - Big Falcon Rocket when reported by mainstream media

Even RUD is not Spacex unique.

I've developed a new pet peeve since the launch. Am I the only that prefers the industry euphemism RUD not be used ever again? Has to be something better.

It isn't an industry euphemism, but a Spacex one

So....  which way is the wind blowing this morning?   Or is the point just being negatory in general?

Look at the dates. RUD may have been Spacex-specific at one point in time, but it clearly is not these days.

I know the dates...

So SpaceX coins a term, and it takes.

I think that makes it a good entry for a SpaceX acronym list.

Besides, at least on the English speaking side, they are the only ones that have had one... 

[Jim]

Besides, at least on the English speaking side, they are the only ones that have had one... 

So, ULA has RUD free engines?

[meekGee]

Besides, at least on the English speaking side, they are the only ones that have had one... 

So, ULA has RUD free engines?

Since the term was coined, I believe they have a RUD-free record, yes.

Not because the term doesn't apply to them, but because they've having a really good run.

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

Why would you care so much whether a general-purpose SpaceX originated term should or shouldn't go in it?

[Jim]

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

It can be combined with other one,  because aside from a few unique ones, the rest apply across the board.  There should be one list covering everything.  there Spacex doesn't need anymore preferential treatment.  BFR is an example.

[meekGee]

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

It can be combined with other one,  because aside from a few unique ones, the rest apply across the board.  There should be one list covering everything.  there Spacex doesn't need anymore preferential treatment.  BFR is an example.

SpaceX threads generate a lot more readership and interest than the other ones, and it would be a good resource for people who are here to read these threads.

It is the same reason why SpaceX has its own section on the site organization.  Just count the page views.

For this reason, terms that are used often in SpaceX threads should go in.

There's nothing really more to it.

[rcoppola]

FWIW, and it's a very small thing in the grand scheme:

Personally, I'd prefer one unified list that has a specific SpaceX section for those items that are unique to them. For a few reasons:

1. It's more convenient and technically accurate.
2.Most importantly, it allows a much fuller context as to what makes SpaceX different (or similar) to other systems. Context is important to understand what has been. what's currently standard and what's unique to what and how SpaceX is doing something.

If we isolate out SpaceX from other systems, it actually does them and the newly interested a disservice by not highlighting these things within a broader industry context. IMO.

[meekGee]

FWIW, and it's a very small thing in the grand scheme:

Personally, I'd prefer one unified list that has a specific SpaceX section for those items that are unique to them. For a few reasons:

1. It's more convenient and technically accurate.
2.Most importantly, it allows a much fuller context as to what makes SpaceX different (or similar) to other systems. Context is important to understand what has been. what's currently standard and what's unique to what and how SpaceX is doing something.

If we isolate out SpaceX from other systems, it actually does them and the newly interested a disservice by not highlighting these things within a broader industry context. IMO.

That's a fair proposal.

The thing is, the general list is A) a PDF, and B) is 310 pages long.

It's not as immediately accessible and updatable as the simple format of an acronym thread with a flat first post.

If someone wants to maintain the much more comprehensive list, broken down to sections by provider, then it's a worthy project.

For now, the leading post of the SpaceX Acronym list points to such a comprehensive list, which is at a minimum good enough.

[arachnitect]

I think there's a place for a sticky "Spacex Glossary" so people can figure out what "MCT" or whatever generally refers to without wading through a huge speculation thread.

But general acronyms and terms should be left to google or the general acronym list.

The schism between the spacex section and the rest of the forum is already wide enough, no need to drive the wedge deeper.

[MP99]

I think there's a place for a sticky "Spacex Glossary"...

Can it also include notes re incorrect usages, such as "Spacex"? (Big grin smiley.)

Cheers, Martin

[AJW]

Can't this be done as a browser plug-in where if you leave your cursor on a term it pops up a definition and possibly links?  Much faster than going back and forth to an acronym list.

[meekGee]

I think arachnitect's notion defines what the metric is for inclusion in this section.

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

It doesn't really matter if the term is SpaceX-only or not.  A simple forum search for the term, limited to the SpaceX threads, should tell us whether it should be on the front Acronym/nomenclature page.


 

[Lar]

Some overlap is fine in my view.

[Jim]

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

And the orientation should be generic and not slanted towards Spacex, because this site is not Spacex indoctrination.

[Lar]

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

And the orientation should be generic and not slanted towards Spacex, because this site is not Spacex indoctrination.

If we have two or more of these resources, one generic, one SpaceX,  one ULA, one Ariane, etc then each one will have a slant... and that will be OK.

So far I am seeing a consensus (however weak) that multiple threads/resources are at least harmless, if not actually beneficial. That doesn't mean everyone agrees. But that there is possibly such a consensus.

(all this metadiscussion will be trimmed away once the consensus is clear)

[deruch]

SD: SuperDraco