CCtCap Mission Naming, Callsigns

[the_other_Doug]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue, but it might be interesting to discuss it.

The CCtCap missions will be designated officially rather like the CRS flights.  However, I'm fairly confident that the mission designations won't be used as radio callsigns.  You certainly never heard anyone radio up to a Shuttle "STS-93, Houston" or somesuch.

There are three basic precedents they could follow:

1)  Name the flights numerically after the spacecraft series, a la Gemini and Apollo.  The first unmanned flight of a manned Dragon could be Dragon 1, for example, and the first manned flight might be Dragon 3 or Dragon 4.  I'm thinking Orion will use this approach, the first manned flight being dubbed Orion 3 or something like that (even though the mission is EM-2, I'm not hearing "EM-2, this is Houston" somehow).

This would not work as well for the CST-100, unless they came up with a sexier program name than CST-100.  "Houston, this is CST-100 7, over" is a bit of a mouthful.

2)  Name the individual spacecraft, as was done for the Shuttle fleet.  They'll be re-used, so you can have a nice little stable of named spacecraft of each type.  So, if you name a Dragon "Elon," for example, whenever a crew would fly that particular Dragon, their callsign would be "Elon."  (Though the gods help us if Musk does this and continues his homage to Iain M. Banks...)  This would work for all of the upcoming spacecraft models.

3)  Follow the Russian tradition and allow the commander and/or crew to adopt a preferred callsign, also somewhat reminiscent of the Apollo astronauts naming their CSMs and LMs for callsign purposes.  So, regardless of which Dragon or CST-100 is being flown (or re-flown) and regardless of the official mission designation, you could decide to adopt the callsign Cedar.  Or Snoopy.  Or Aurora.  Or Boom Monster. 

At least this would bypass the possibility, if the Dragons are allowed to be named by Elon, of working our way down the IMB naming list...

[woods170]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue

IMO discussing this almost three years before the first mission, even here at NSF, is slightly premature.

[ChrisWilson68]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue

IMO discussing this almost three years before the first mission, even here at NSF, is slightly premature.

Three years sounds like just about how long such a discussion is likely to take.  I think we started just in time if we're to finish by the first launch.

[ChrisWilson68]

Should we start CCtCap callsign bingo?  I call "Puff".

[Jarnis]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue

IMO discussing this almost three years before the first mission, even here at NSF, is slightly premature.

Only slightly. I would have waited until after pad abort myself, but hey, I see a thread is up already.

 

Next up: Guesses on crew of the manned test flight and the first operational flight. Just need NASA to first name the group that will be training for the new vehicles to start that one... 

[MattMason]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue

IMO discussing this almost three years before the first mission, even here at NSF, is slightly premature.

Three years sounds like just about how long such a discussion is likely to take.  I think we started just in time if we're to finish by the first launch.

It's a good thread to consider. Remember that NASA has had historical headaches with astronauts on defining ship and mission call signs. First came unofficial nicknames where NASA cringed a bit:

Molly Brown: From the "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" Broadway show, given to Gemini 3 by Gus Grissom as a not-so-veiled reference to the loss of his Mercury spacecraft. NASA didn't like it and ordered another name, where the crew suggested Titanic. NASA grudgingly relented.

"Spider' and "Gumdrop", given to the first manned LM and its CSM on Apollo 9. NASA was hoping for something more dignified...

...And didn't get it when Apollo 10's crew chose "Snoopy" and "Charlie Brown" for the lunar dress rehearsal mission.

Neil Armstrong's crew felt more inclined to the historic nature of their first landing attempt, naming their ships "Columbia" and "Eagle." The remaining spacecraft names in the Apollo program also seemed to get a greater vetting, but how NASA improved their approval process isn't clear to me. Hopefully someone knows of this history. (I found the naming of 13's spacecraft coincidentally ominous given that mission's accident.)

The Shuttles were easy, being reusable spacecraft. In fact, NASA seemed enthusiastic about the naming process, even with a few geeks convincing them/President Ford to name the first Orbiter "Enterprise" rather than "Constitution." After Challenger's loss, it was fascinating to find a national contest where children solicited names for the new Orbiter.

With so many reuseable ships on the horizon, and all commercially built (meaning that they may go free-style with the naming themselves) it's a little premature but a curiosity on how NASA can or will influence or discourage naming practices. To give an example, naming the first Crew Dragon "Puff" might seem a whimsical idea until you dig down into the song history of "Puff the Magic Dragon," where some made unsubstantiated claims that the song spoke of drug references, a story that the songwriters vehemently rejected.

It's that kind of controversy that NASA wants to avoid.

Edit: typo

[Jim]

NASA really has no say.  These are commercial space craft and it is the companies call

[abaddon]

IMO discussing this almost three years before the first mission, even here at NSF, is slightly premature.

I would love to hear what you think about MCT.  But I don't read those threads.

[MattMason]

NASA really has no say.  These are commercial space craft and it is the companies call

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, except most of these spacecraft are contracted for NASA ISS flights, right? Branding is important to them, especially if they're paying for the use of the capsule and in a very public crew return mission. In your experience, would this be a valid argument for NASA to ensure that commercial naming doesn't cause embarrassment or even scandal, especially in this high-bit rate social media world where such flippancy is instantaneous and permanent?

[Jim]

There are three basic precedents they could follow:

1)  Name the flights numerically after the spacecraft series, a la Gemini and Apollo.  The first unmanned flight of a manned Dragon could be Dragon 1, for example, and the first manned flight might be Dragon 3 or Dragon 4.  I'm thinking Orion will use this approach, the first manned flight being dubbed Orion 3 or something like that (even though the mission is EM-2, I'm not hearing "EM-2, this is Houston" somehow).

This would not work as well for the CST-100, unless they came up with a sexier program name than CST-100.  "Houston, this is CST-100 7, over" is a bit of a mouthful.

2)  Name the individual spacecraft, as was done for the Shuttle fleet.  They'll be re-used, so you can have a nice little stable of named spacecraft of each type.  So, if you name a Dragon "Elon," for example, whenever a crew would fly that particular Dragon, their callsign would be "Elon."  (Though the gods help us if Musk does this and continues his homage to Iain M. Banks...)  This would work for all of the upcoming spacecraft models.

Naming the flights and call signs are two different things.
Right now, commercial cargo is in play and it already has an applicable process.  Spacex has had 5 flights and they are called CRS-X.  However, the vehicle is still called Dragon.  It is much like the shuttle program with STS numbers and orbiter names.
There is no need to add a numerical designator to Dragon and CST-100 call signs.

[Jim]

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, except most of these spacecraft are contracted for NASA ISS flights, right? Branding is important to them, especially if they're paying for the use of the capsule and in a very public crew return mission. In your experience, would this be a valid argument for NASA to ensure that commercial naming doesn't cause embarrassment or even scandal, especially in this high-bit rate social media world where such flippancy is instantaneous and permanent?

They will fly on their own before they are used for a NASA mission.  Names don't really matter.  ISS module names, meh.  They are still nodes and labs and PLM.   Opportunity and Spirit, naw, it was MER A & B.  Curiosity, phfft, still MSL

[SWGlassPit]

They will fly on their own before they are used for a NASA mission.  Names don't really matter.  ISS module names, meh.  They are still nodes and labs and PLM.   Opportunity and Spirit, naw, it was MER A & B.  Curiosity, phfft, still MSL

This -- with the exception of Columbus (for some reason), nobody at JSC outside of PAO uses the fancy hardware names.  Instead of Unity, Harmony, Tranquility, Destiny, Kibo, Quest, Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs, Poisk, Rassvet, Leonardo, Canadarm 2, and Nauka, they say Node 1, Node 2, Node 3, US Lab, JEM, Airlock, FGB, Service Module, DC1, MRM2, MRM1, SSRMS, and MLM.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

They will fly on their own before they are used for a NASA mission.  Names don't really matter.  ISS module names, meh.  They are still nodes and labs and PLM.   Opportunity and Spirit, naw, it was MER A & B.  Curiosity, phfft, still MSL

This -- with the exception of Columbus (for some reason), nobody at JSC outside of PAO uses the fancy hardware names.  Instead of Unity, Harmony, Tranquility, Destiny, Kibo, Quest, Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs, Poisk, Rassvet, Leonardo, Canadarm 2, and Nauka, they say Node 1, Node 2, Node 3, US Lab, JEM, Airlock, FGB, Service Module, DC1, MRM2, MRM1, SSRMS, and MLM.

It's also heavily about the PR. As a layman, I refuse to think about the MSL as MSL on first glimmer; I think of the Curiosity rover. Not to mention that wonderful lines such as [paraphrasing - can't remember the actual rendition] "we'll see where our Curiosity will take us" and "...The Eagle has landed" tend to spawn out of those signs.

It's hard to get sentimental about spaceflight (and sentiment is great for PR), if the ships are nameless machines. You give a machine a name, and it humanises it and bestows it with a unique personality.

Of course, objectively, it doesn't matter if you call your capsule/orbital lifting body/colony ship/probe/rover/space station "Venture", "Freedom", "providence", "International Space Station", "CRS-7", "STS-135", "Apollo-13", "Skylark", "Columbiad", "Enterprise" or "Think of the Civilian Applications". Indeed, sequential numbering does prove more informative for the average layman, but also significantly less sexy.

Sexiness wins funding too, not just science.


Edit: My suggestions for a Dragon and a CST:

Dragon 2: "Siegfried" (from European mythos - well, 'Muricans are just Space Europeans, right)?

CST-100: "Reliance" (A virtue indicative of the present state of commercial HST upon the people of the United States of America, along with the international partners also footing the bill for the International Space Station. Besides, "Reliance" is close to "Reliant", and it didn't gel with me Boeing flying the "Enterprise"). 

[Jim]

It's also heavily about the PR. As a layman, I refuse to think about the MSL as MSL on first glimmer; I think of the Curiosity rover. Not to mention that wonderful lines such as [paraphrasing - can't remember the actual rendition] "we'll see where our Curiosity will take us" and "...The Eagle has landed" tend to spawn out of those signs.

It's hard to get sentimental about spaceflight (and sentiment is great for PR), if the ships are nameless machines. You give a machine a name, and it humanises it and bestows it with a unique personality.

When you have worked on MSL since 2003, it already has a personality and it is not nameless.  MSL is just short for Emessel.  Renaming spacecraft exasperates those who worked on the spacecraft.

[llanitedave]

They will fly on their own before they are used for a NASA mission.  Names don't really matter.  ISS module names, meh.  They are still nodes and labs and PLM.   Opportunity and Spirit, naw, it was MER A & B.  Curiosity, phfft, still MSL

This -- with the exception of Columbus (for some reason), nobody at JSC outside of PAO uses the fancy hardware names.  Instead of Unity, Harmony, Tranquility, Destiny, Kibo, Quest, Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs, Poisk, Rassvet, Leonardo, Canadarm 2, and Nauka, they say Node 1, Node 2, Node 3, US Lab, JEM, Airlock, FGB, Service Module, DC1, MRM2, MRM1, SSRMS, and MLM.

It's also heavily about the PR. As a layman, I refuse to think about the MSL as MSL on first glimmer; I think of the Curiosity rover. Not to mention that wonderful lines such as [paraphrasing - can't remember the actual rendition] "we'll see where our Curiosity will take us" and "...The Eagle has landed" tend to spawn out of those signs.

It's hard to get sentimental about spaceflight (and sentiment is great for PR), if the ships are nameless machines. You give a machine a name, and it humanises it and bestows it with a unique personality.

Of course, objectively, it doesn't matter if you call your capsule/orbital lifting body/colony ship/probe/rover/space station "Venture", "Freedom", "providence", "International Space Station", "CRS-7", "STS-135", "Apollo-13", "Skylark", "Columbiad", "Enterprise" or "Think of the Civilian Applications". Indeed, sequential numbering does prove more informative for the average layman, but also significantly less sexy.

Sexiness wins funding too, not just science.


Edit: My suggestions for a Dragon and a CST:

Dragon 2: "Siegfried" (from European mythos - well, 'Muricans are just Space Europeans, right)?

CST-100: "Reliance" (A virtue indicative of the present state of commercial HST upon the people of the United States of America, along with the international partners also footing the bill for the International Space Station. Besides, "Reliance" is close to "Reliant", and it didn't gel with me Boeing flying the "Enterprise"). 

If Dragon 2 is going to be Siegfried, then the first stage will have to be named "Roy".

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

It's also heavily about the PR. As a layman, I refuse to think about the MSL as MSL on first glimmer; I think of the Curiosity rover. Not to mention that wonderful lines such as [paraphrasing - can't remember the actual rendition] "we'll see where our Curiosity will take us" and "...The Eagle has landed" tend to spawn out of those signs.

It's hard to get sentimental about spaceflight (and sentiment is great for PR), if the ships are nameless machines. You give a machine a name, and it humanises it and bestows it with a unique personality.

When you have worked on MSL since 2003, it already has a personality and it is not nameless.  MSL is just short for Emessel.  Renaming spacecraft exasperates those who worked on the spacecraft.

Undeniably those that work on the spacecraft should make the call, as they're the people who actualise the project and actually put the human hours in.

The reason why I fail to view MSL as MSL (and it is a failing on my part, Jim), is because when I saw that dramatic CGI rendition of the landing event, the video concerned had 'Curiosity' stuck right across the top. A considerably greater number or people are going to be aware of "the Curiosity rover" but not of the "Mars Science Laboratory".

My (uninformed) assumption had always been that whoever designated the Mars rovers with their given names had some direct connection to those involved with the project's actual hard grind. It's disheartening if this is not actually the case.

[Jim]

My (uninformed) assumption had always been that whoever designated the Mars rovers with their given names had some direct connection to those involved with the project's actual hard grind. It's disheartening if this is not actually the case.

It is either public naming contest or HQ decree and not grassroots.

[A_M_Swallow]

There are plenty of Dragon names around that SpaceX could use.

List of dragons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dragons

List of dragons in mythology and folklore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dragons_in_mythology_and_folklore

[Endeavour_01]

It is certainly too early for the responsible parties to be concentrating on this issue, but it might be interesting to discuss it.

The CCtCap missions will be designated officially rather like the CRS flights.  However, I'm fairly confident that the mission designations won't be used as radio callsigns.  You certainly never heard anyone radio up to a Shuttle "STS-93, Houston" or somesuch.

There are three basic precedents they could follow:

1)  Name the flights numerically after the spacecraft series, a la Gemini and Apollo.  The first unmanned flight of a manned Dragon could be Dragon 1, for example, and the first manned flight might be Dragon 3 or Dragon 4.  I'm thinking Orion will use this approach, the first manned flight being dubbed Orion 3 or something like that (even though the mission is EM-2, I'm not hearing "EM-2, this is Houston" somehow).

This would not work as well for the CST-100, unless they came up with a sexier program name than CST-100.  "Houston, this is CST-100 7, over" is a bit of a mouthful.

2)  Name the individual spacecraft, as was done for the Shuttle fleet.  They'll be re-used, so you can have a nice little stable of named spacecraft of each type.  So, if you name a Dragon "Elon," for example, whenever a crew would fly that particular Dragon, their callsign would be "Elon."  (Though the gods help us if Musk does this and continues his homage to Iain M. Banks...)  This would work for all of the upcoming spacecraft models.

3)  Follow the Russian tradition and allow the commander and/or crew to adopt a preferred callsign, also somewhat reminiscent of the Apollo astronauts naming their CSMs and LMs for callsign purposes.  So, regardless of which Dragon or CST-100 is being flown (or re-flown) and regardless of the official mission designation, you could decide to adopt the callsign Cedar.  Or Snoopy.  Or Aurora.  Or Boom Monster. 

At least this would bypass the possibility, if the Dragons are allowed to be named by Elon, of working our way down the IMB naming list...

I have been thinking about this too (as well as Orion naming but that is another thread for another time). Given all the MCT, BFR, and SLS discussions here I don't think it is premature to think about this.

I think the naming of spacecraft is very important. It creates a connection to the craft and the mission. OSC has named each of their Cygnus craft and ESA named all the ATVs. Obviously it is up to SpaceX, Boeing, and a lesser extent NASA to decide what to name the flights. Personally I would be fine with either naming according to the shuttle scheme (Name the capsule and call the flight CC-1 or something) or according to the Apollo naming scheme (Dragon 1).

If I had to put money on it I would say that they will follow the shuttle scheme given the reusability of the capsules. However, the naming might not be as "broad" (e.g. naming a CST-100 " Gypsey Danger" vs. "Discovery")

[erioladastra]

NASA really has no say.  These are commercial space craft and it is the companies call

The companies will name the vehicles.  NASA will designate them PCM-1, PCM-2 etc