USCV Crew Rotation Question

[John_Marshall]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

[Rik ISS-fan]

Boeing committed to redo the uncrewed test flight. And afterwards they have to do the crewed test flight before starliner is certified for a crew rotation. So it's very likely SpaceX will do both Crew-1 and Crew-2 flights.

And I think this is for the better. Starliner should have been used for cargo return as well to prove the reentry system, with at least three flights.

I have another question. Nasa is planning several year long flight missions in the coming years. But the commercial crew vehicles are only certified for up to nine month flight duration (~210 days). Thus year long crew members will have to swap from crew vehicle. Now there is a complication with the dissimulator redundancy. The IVA suites (reentry suites) are vehicle specific. If for example crew-2 is a SpaceX crew dragon and Crew-3 is a Boeing Starliner, and NASA plans a year long mission for one or several of the crew-2 astronauts. They will require an IVA suit for both crew Dragon and Starliner. How is NASA planning to deal with this?

[Lars-J]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

I strongly suspect that NASA will rename and/or re-number the commercial crew flights. Very soon. Otherwise SpaceX will fly Crew-3 before Crew-2 (Boeing). So things will get odd very fast.

[DwightM]

I have another question. Nasa is planning several year long flight missions in the coming years. But the commercial crew vehicles are only certified for up to nine month flight duration (~210 days). Thus year long crew members will have to swap from crew vehicle. Now there is a complication with the dissimulator redundancy. The IVA suites (reentry suites) are vehicle specific. If for example crew-2 is a SpaceX crew dragon and Crew-3 is a Boeing Starliner, and NASA plans a year long mission for one or several of the crew-2 astronauts. They will require an IVA suit for both crew Dragon and Starliner. How is NASA planning to deal with this?

I wondered that myself.  My presumption would be that they'd rotate on the Soyuz flights once the barter agreement takes effect.

[John_Marshall]

Rik, you're right, but isn't the Crewed Flight Test now an actual ISS expedition crew flight, like DM-2 is? I think I saw that somewhere, so I had wondered if Chris Ferguson's crew would replace Mike Hopkins' crew and then either be replaced by Suni Williams' crew or the next Dragon crew. And re your question (and Dwight's reply), I had figured they would send up a commercial crew taxi flight and maybe swap the capsule order for two flights (so, e.g., Dragon, Dragon, Starliner, Starliner).

Lars, I think they may have already (at least I've seen that unofficially on spacefacts.de), so I may have been using the old titles. Perhaps the better question would have been to ask what crew is currently planned to replace Mike Hopkins' Dragon crew.

[Nomadd]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

I strongly suspect that NASA will rename and/or re-number the commercial crew flights. Very soon. Otherwise SpaceX will fly Crew-3 before Crew-2 (Boeing). So things will get odd very fast.

Not sure about that. If the name is how the missions are referred to in the billion or so related documents, that might not be practical.
 I'm not sure if it's true or just another baseless early stage space legend, but a few insiders have claimed that NASA dodged a major problem via SpaceX going considerably beyond contract requirements in having capability available.
 Even in my neighborhood, I've heard from certain sources that there's been a serious shift from a "lean production" attitude to an "assume nothing goes to plan" attitude. Or, "How to be launching two weeks after you blow up your pad 101".

[rockets4life97]

I'm not sure if it's true or just another baseless early stage space legend, but a few insiders have claimed that NASA dodged a major problem via SpaceX going considerably beyond contract requirements in having capability available.
 Even in my neighborhood, I've heard from certain sources that there's been a serious shift from a "lean production" attitude to an "assume nothing goes to plan" attitude. Or, "How to be launching two weeks after you blow up your pad 101".

SpaceX is maturing and profitable. You can hire more generously and have extra hardware like dragon capsules and Starship test stands if you have the money in the bank. This should be a pretty clear sign that reusability of F9 and Cargo Dragon is paying off. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is coming away with pretty hefty profit margins from the CRS and CC contracts.

[Jorge]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

I strongly suspect that NASA will rename and/or re-number the commercial crew flights. Very soon. Otherwise SpaceX will fly Crew-3 before Crew-2 (Boeing). So things will get odd very fast.

Not sure about that. If the name is how the missions are referred to in the billion or so related documents, that might not be practical.

Every operational Commercial Crew mission changes names once. USCV-<n> is a NASA placeholder name for a mission that has not yet been assigned a provider. When that happens the mission gets a SpaceX (Crew-<n>) or Boeing (PCM-<n>) specific name.

[Sesquipedalian]

I'm not sure if it's true or just another baseless early stage space legend, but a few insiders have claimed that NASA dodged a major problem via SpaceX going considerably beyond contract requirements in having capability available.
 Even in my neighborhood, I've heard from certain sources that there's been a serious shift from a "lean production" attitude to an "assume nothing goes to plan" attitude. Or, "How to be launching two weeks after you blow up your pad 101".

I'm not quite sure how to parse all this.  Is the major problem that SpaceX was going beyond contract requirements, or was this the means of dodging another problem?  Is the "capability available" something unique to SpaceX, or is it the fact that there are two crew providers?

Is the "serious shift" something on NASA's part or SpaceX's part?  I can think of reasons for either interpretation.  That said, SpaceX hasn't blown up a pad since 2016, unless you're counting Starship testing.

[Rik ISS-fan]

I think the serious change is the flight duration extension of SpaceX Crew dragon DM2, from 10 days to about 100days. NASA had only 1 ISS crew member and has to do about 6 EVA's (spacewalks) in the coming months.
HTV-9 delivered new Li-ion batteries that replace old NiH2 batteries, and two new science racks. Bartolomeo, ColKa and Bishop Airlock are new facilities that have to be integrated into the ISS. These new facilities provide a lot of additional capacity for ISS commercialization. But with only 1 US crew member they couldn't be taken into operation. Nasa had to ask Russian cosmonauts for a lot of help.
This was caused by a 3,5-4 year delay in the crew vehicle development program. Totally understandable, and acceptable because safety first. And cost hasn't increased a lot, only 3%. But the ISS US side required multiple astronauts to service all the equipment, hardly any science could be done.

I don't see the huge cost for SpaceX in extending the Demo-2 duration. When crew dragon is docked to the ISS it's in a hibernation mode. How many SpaceX ground controllers are required during this phase?
Those labor cost are the additional cost to SpaceX. In return (and because NASA is convinced of the reliability) SpaceX is allowed to use reused falcon 9 and Dragon 2 on future crew missions.
The PR value, and goodwill for SpaceX for extending demo-2 is huge if you ask me.

But I do not expect that Boeing crewed demo flight (BOE-CFT) will be extended. One it's a much less proven system (3th launch for both Starliner and Atlas V N22) thanks to cargo Dragon the Falcon9-Dragon system has a 20 mission heritage. More importantly 'if' crew dragon is certified, Nasa doesn't have the requirement for the BOE-CFT crew to stay long on the ISS. Returning faster results in faster Starliner certification.

[SteveU]

[snip]

But I do not expect that Boeing crewed demo flight (BOE-CFT) will be extended. One it's a much less proven system (3th launch for both Starliner and Atlas V N22) thanks to cargo Dragon the Falcon9-Dragon system has a 20 mission heritage. More importantly 'if' crew dragon is certified, Nasa doesn't have the requirement for the BOE-CFT crew to stay long on the ISS. Returning faster results in faster Starliner certification.

Italics mine - now that the race is finished, IMO getting both systems certified as soon as possible in the best interests of everyone.

[Steven Pietrobon]

But I do not expect that Boeing crewed demo flight (BOE-CFT) will be extended. One it's a much less proven system (3th launch for both Starliner and Atlas V N22) thanks to cargo Dragon the Falcon9-Dragon system has a 20 mission heritage.

My understanding is that there is very little in common between Dragon and Dragon 2. Its basically an all new design. Note also that Boeing has had significant experience with X-37B, but that didn't seem to help much with Starliner.

[Nomadd]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

I strongly suspect that NASA will rename and/or re-number the commercial crew flights. Very soon. Otherwise SpaceX will fly Crew-3 before Crew-2 (Boeing). So things will get odd very fast.

Not sure about that. If the name is how the missions are referred to in the billion or so related documents, that might not be practical.

Every operational Commercial Crew mission changes names once. USCV-<n> is a NASA placeholder name for a mission that has not yet been assigned a provider. When that happens the mission gets a SpaceX (Crew-<n>) or Boeing (PCM-<n>) specific name.

For anybody who wasn't around in the old days, this is the guy who knows more about space ops than any other four people combined around here, and needs to chime in way more often.

[Sesquipedalian]

I think the serious change is the flight duration extension of SpaceX Crew dragon DM2, from 10 days to about 100days.

The "serious shift" I was referring to (and the reason I put "serious shift" in quotes) was "a serious shift from a 'lean production' attitude to an 'assume nothing goes to plan' attitude".  That part of my post was asking whose attitude shifted.

My post was pretty much entirely in direct response to Nomadd.  I would be grateful if he could elaborate on his points.

[Hog]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I've been wondering: now that Boeing's Crewed Flight Test has slipped behind Crew-1, will it be the crew rotation flight replacing Crew-1 (and presumably becoming Expedition 66/67, with the MS-18 crew as Expedition 65/66), in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) would presumably be delayed six months or so, or will Crew-2 still replace Crew-1, in which case it seems like the Crewed Flight Test would probably go back to a short-duration flight?

I strongly suspect that NASA will rename and/or re-number the commercial crew flights. Very soon. Otherwise SpaceX will fly Crew-3 before Crew-2 (Boeing). So things will get odd very fast.

Not sure about that. If the name is how the missions are referred to in the billion or so related documents, that might not be practical.

Every operational Commercial Crew mission changes names once. USCV-<n> is a NASA placeholder name for a mission that has not yet been assigned a provider. When that happens the mission gets a SpaceX (Crew-<n>) or Boeing (PCM-<n>) specific name.

For anybody who wasn't around in the old days, this is the guy who knows more about space ops than any other four people combined around here, and needs to chime in way more often.

Agreed, his posts (all few hundred pages of them) are a great read and a wealth of knowledge.

[AndrewRG10]

But I do not expect that Boeing crewed demo flight (BOE-CFT) will be extended. One it's a much less proven system (3th launch for both Starliner and Atlas V N22) thanks to cargo Dragon the Falcon9-Dragon system has a 20 mission heritage. More importantly 'if' crew dragon is certified, Nasa doesn't have the requirement for the BOE-CFT crew to stay long on the ISS. Returning faster results in faster Starliner certification.

CFT was the one that was extended first. DM-2 was not going to be extended because it wouldn't be possible with the capsule. Until the IFA one blew up. CFT on the other hand is a full-flight ready capsule and thus was announced to be extended well to full flight well over a year ago.

[kdhilliard]

Crossposting from General Discussion » General Discussion » Flight crew assignments:

Again from anik
https://twitter.com/anik1982space/status/1281522732677636096
Google translation
French astronaut Tom Peske can fly to the ISS six months earlier, in February 2021, on the Crew Dragon (USCV-2) instead of USCV-3 due to the fact that Russia is giving up its place on this flight

[billh]

Space Shuttle flights used to fly out of numerical order all the time, didn't they? Once you define a mission and give it a designation I think that would carry through until the mission flies.

[cwr]

Space Shuttle flights used to fly out of numerical order all the time, didn't they? Once you define a mission and give it a designation I think that would carry through until the mission flies.

I have no special knowledge, but the way I understand the commercial crew nomenclature is as follows:

1) USCV-N are mission designations for NASA long distance planning. They occur in sequence every 6 months.
2) As the USCV missions firm up they are assigned to one of the certified commercial crew providers and
    at that point they become Crew-M for a SpaceX assignment or Starliner-M for a Boeing assigned flight.
3) My impression is that Crew-N will be sequential with SpaceX and Starliner-N will be sequential within
    Boeing crew flights. Similar to the way Commercial Cargo missions were numbered.
4) So my understanding is that USCV-1 will become Crew-1 assuming DM-2 completes its mission
    successfully and certification of SpaceX occurs so that USCV-1 can fly on a dragon in September 2020.
5) Assuming USCV-1 does fly as crew-1 in September 2020 that says crew-1 will return in March 2021
    and since there will be an overlapping handover that means that USCV-2 needs to be assigned
    to a certified provider in time for launch about the beginning of March 2021. I don't know how much
    notice is required but I suspect this means that the USCV-2 provider will have to be certified probably
    no later than early January 2021 - or at least NASA was very confident of certification at that time.
6) If I had to guess, this probably means that Boeing CFT won't fly in time to get certified before NASA
    has to assign USCV-2 to a certified provider, i.e USCV-2 may well be assigned to SpaceX to fly Crew-2
    and the 1st Boeing certified flight would be Starliner 1 launching around the beginning of September 2021
    before Crew-2 returns from the ISS later in September 2021.
7) After that they would probably alternate with Boeing launches in September and SpaceX launches
    in March of each year.

Hope that makes sense

Carl

[Steven Pietrobon]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

[king1999]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

Crew Transport Service?

[king1999]

Space Shuttle flights used to fly out of numerical order all the time, didn't they? Once you define a mission and give it a designation I think that would carry through until the mission flies.

I have no special knowledge, but the way I understand the commercial crew nomenclature is as follows:

1) USCV-N are mission designations for NASA long distance planning. They occur in sequence every 6 months.
2) As the USCV missions firm up they are assigned to one of the certified commercial crew providers and
    at that point they become Crew-M for a SpaceX assignment or Starliner-M for a Boeing assigned flight.
3) My impression is that Crew-N will be sequential with SpaceX and Starliner-N will be sequential within
    Boeing crew flights. Similar to the way Commercial Cargo missions were numbered.
4) So my understanding is that USCV-1 will become Crew-1 assuming DM-2 completes its mission
    successfully and certification of SpaceX occurs so that USCV-1 can fly on a dragon in September 2020.
5) Assuming USCV-1 does fly as crew-1 in September 2020 that says crew-1 will return in March 2021
    and since there will be an overlapping handover that means that USCV-2 needs to be assigned
    to a certified provider in time for launch about the beginning of March 2021. I don't know how much
    notice is required but I suspect this means that the USCV-2 provider will have to be certified probably
    no later than early January 2021 - or at least NASA was very confident of certification at that time.
6) If I had to guess, this probably means that Boeing CFT won't fly in time to get certified before NASA
    has to assign USCV-2 to a certified provider, i.e USCV-2 may well be assigned to SpaceX to fly Crew-2
    and the 1st Boeing certified flight would be Starliner 1 launching around the beginning of September 2021
    before Crew-2 returns from the ISS later in September 2021.
7) After that they would probably alternate with Boeing launches in September and SpaceX launches
    in March of each year.

Hope that makes sense

Carl

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

[vp.]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

So, why not dragon 1, dragon 2 ...

[kdhilliard]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

So, why not dragon 1, dragon 2 ...

Because there are cargo Dragon flights to enumerate, crew Dragon flights to enumerate, and Dragon Capsule versions to enumerate.

Typically, Dragon 1 refers to the original cargo capsule design (which first flew in 2010 and was used for all 20 CRS1 Space Station resupply missions from 2012 through 2020), while Dragon 2 refers to the updated capsule design which comes in both a crew variant (which first flew orbitally in 2019, though it did fly the Pad Abort Test way back in 2015!) and a cargo variant (which will fly in 2020Q4 for the first CRS2 Space Station resupply mission).

Early on, Dragon 2 was referred to as Dragon v2, but that was determined to be an unfortunate moniker for a modern spacecraft.

^{"I Aim at the Stars, but sometimes I hit London."}

[Jorge]

... in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) ...

2) As the USCV missions firm up they are assigned to one of the certified commercial crew providers and
    at that point they become Crew-M for a SpaceX assignment or Starliner-M for a Boeing assigned flight.

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

All post-certification Starliner missions are numbered PCM-<n>, and Suni's crew is PCM-1.

<meme>Always has been.</meme>

[Hog]

Space Shuttle flights used to fly out of numerical order all the time, didn't they? Once you define a mission and give it a designation I think that would carry through until the mission flies.

STS-1 through STS-9 flew in numerical/manifested order, then the system was changed for STS-41B which was the 10th STS mission.
KSC launches were designated-1 and Vandenberg launches-2, the first Vandenberg launch was to be STS-62-A (6=fiscal year 1986, 2=Vandenberg and A= the first scheduled launch from that launchsite of that specific fiscal year

It's all explained better under the "Flight numbering" section of this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Flight_numbering

For the programs first RTF, STS-26 Vandenberg Polar launches were cancelled, "(UN)lucky STS-13 was left in history, so the decision to return to conventional mission numbering was made.
 It wasn't until 2009 that the manifested flights and the correct numerical order finally coincided.  The 127th Space Transportation System mission, STS-127, was actually the 127th launch of a space shuttle which occurred on July 15, 2009 using OV-105 Endeavour.

The Dragon-2 spacecraft named Endeavour, remains docked to ISS currently demonstrating safe haven and crew-escape/rotation capabilities for NASA, under contract from Space-X.  Commercial Crew Development is a huge step in the right direction for the United States of America and all her "space friends".

C'mon Boeing, we're waiting for you to relegate the Russian Soyuz to American ISS tertiary redundancy duty.  IMO It's embarrassing that Soyuz was ever allowed to provide primary crew rotation duty for the US astronaut corps to get to the US portion of the ISS.  Perhaps it was the ultimate expression of "international co-operation" but it sure felt/smelled like something else.

[Cherokee43v6]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

It is CST and it stands for Commercial Space Transport

[AnalogMan]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

It is CST and it stands for Commercial Space Transport

Boeing have said that CST stands for Crew Space Transportation

See this Boeing Blog article from April 2011:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111113111953/http://boeingblogs.com/bds/as-we-see-it/2011/04/boeing-supporting-next-phase-of-us-space-journey.html

[king1999]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

So, why not dragon 1, dragon 2 ...

You need to have meaningful short names. Demo-1 and Crew-1 are very straightforward and convey the primary goal of the mission. Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 do not have any specific meaning except that they have been used for different versions of the Dragon.

[king1999]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

It is CST and it stands for Commercial Space Transport

Yep those acronyms are getting out of hand, mainly because C=Cargo/Crew/Commercial.

[NX-0]

The flight order will be, by my reckoning:
Demo-2
Crew-1 -SpX
Crew-2 -Spx
CFT
Crew-3 -SpX (because this will be a warm hand-off and Starliner can't be certified until after it lands)
Crew-4 -Boe (Williams, Casada, Epps +1)

[Ronsmytheiii]

The flight order will be, by my reckoning:
Demo-2
Crew-1 -SpX
Crew-2 -Spx
CFT
Crew-3 -SpX (because this will be a warm hand-off and Starliner can't be certified until after it lands)
Crew-4 -Boe (Williams, Casada, Epps +1)

I'd switch Demo-2 (for Boeing) with Crew-1, it will help the crew workload to have extra astronauts on ISS to assist (5 USOS astronauts vs 1 before Crew-1)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1298602979105415170

Boeing says it's “making excellent progress” toward launching a second unpiloted test flight of its Starliner capsule to the space station by the end of this year or in early January, paving the way for the first Starliner crew test flight in mid-2021. spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/25/boe…

Quote from Boeing:

“After a successful OFT-2, Boeing and NASA will fly Starliner’s first crewed mission, the Crew Flight Test, in the summer of 2021, with the first post-certification mission, Starliner-1, tentatively scheduled for the following winter.”

Boeing demo 2 is now NET December, so definitely Crew-1 SpaceX first. Crew-2 SpaceX before Boeing CFT and I guess then SpaceX Crew-3 in 2021 Fall. Boeing Crew-1 currently winter 2021/22 but I could easily see that becoming spring 22 to be about 6 months after SpaceX Crew-3.

[yg1968]

... in which case Crew-2 (Suni Williams' crew) ...

2) As the USCV missions firm up they are assigned to one of the certified commercial crew providers and
    at that point they become Crew-M for a SpaceX assignment or Starliner-M for a Boeing assigned flight.

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

All post-certification Starliner missions are numbered PCM-<n>, and Suni's crew is PCM-1.

<meme>Always has been.</meme>

Incidentally, PCM stands for post-certification mission which is the generic name that was given to these missions in the CCtCap RFP.

[yg1968]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

I agree with Elon, I hate acronyms too. I try to avoid them when ever I can.

[soltasto]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

I agree with Elon, I hate acronyms too. I try to avoid them when ever I can.

Yeah, they are quite unnecessary. Starliner-1, -2... would be just fine.

I came to the conclusion that a lot of times people just try very hard to come up with acronyms just to complicate things up. As an Electronics engineer, VITAL is the perfect example: an acronym that contains two other acronyms (VHDL Initiative Towards ASIC Libraries), and when expanded it spells to 15 words (Very High Speed Integrated Circuit Hardware Description Language Initiative Towards Application-Specific Integrated Circuit Libraries). You either have to be insane or sadistic to come up with something like that.

[kdhilliard]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

I agree with Elon, I hate acronyms too. I try to avoid them when ever I can.

Yeah, they are quite unnecessary. Starliner-1, -2... would be just fine.  ...

Now I'm really confused.  I thought Crew-1, Crew-2, etc. weren't SpaceX designations, but were provider-agnostic NASA designations of Commercial Crew Post Certification Missions, ordered by flight date.  Thus it was appropriate to say, "SpaceX will fly Crew-1 and Crew-2, and with news that the first Starliner PCM is NET December 2021, it appears SpaceX will fly Crew-3 as well, with Boeing flying Crew-4."  Is that incorrect?

Where is the official definition of these designations?

Edit: Thanks Jorge!  So it's Boeing: PCM-n, SpaceX: Crew-n, & provider-agnostic NASA designation: USCV-n.

[Jorge]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

I agree with Elon, I hate acronyms too. I try to avoid them when ever I can.

Yeah, they are quite unnecessary. Starliner-1, -2... would be just fine.  ...

Now I'm really confused.  I thought Crew-1, Crew-2, etc. weren't SpaceX designations, but were provider-agnostic NASA designations of Commercial Crew Post Certification Missions, ordered by flight date.  Thus it was appropriate to say, "SpaceX will fly Crew-1 and Crew-2, and with news that the first Starliner PCM is NET December 2021, it appears SpaceX will fly Crew-3 as well, with Boeing flying Crew-4."  Is that incorrect?

It's incorrect. The answer is just one page back in this very thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51199.msg2096094#msg2096094

[Jorge]

SpaceX chose simple Demo-1, Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2... because Elon hates acronyms. CFT, USCV, CTS are all too confusing.

I agree with Elon, I hate acronyms too. I try to avoid them when ever I can.

Yeah, they are quite unnecessary. Starliner-1, -2... would be just fine.  ...

Now I'm really confused.  I thought Crew-1, Crew-2, etc. weren't SpaceX designations, but were provider-agnostic NASA designations of Commercial Crew Post Certification Missions, ordered by flight date.  Thus it was appropriate to say, "SpaceX will fly Crew-1 and Crew-2, and with news that the first Starliner PCM is NET December 2021, it appears SpaceX will fly Crew-3 as well, with Boeing flying Crew-4."  Is that incorrect?

It's incorrect. The answer is just one page back in this very thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51199.msg2096094#msg2096094

Of course, having said all that, I note that in the announcement of Jeanette Epps joining Suni Williams' crew, NASA used the term Starliner-<n> instead of PCM-<n>. Since Boeing's public press release used the same term, it's possible that Starliner-<n> is now the official term for Boeing post-certification missions, at least for public consumption.

[Zed_Noir]

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/future.html
page content dated: September 14th

Future Expeditions
Expedition 64
Launch: Oct. 14, 2020
Land: Spring 2021

SpaceX Crew-1
Launch: NET Oct 23, 2020

SpaceX Crew-2
Launch: Spring 2021

Boeing Orbital Flight Test (OFT) Crewed Flight Test (CFT)
Launch: NET June 2021

Boeing Starliner-1
Launch: NET Dec 2021

The chances that Starliner Crew-1 is ready by December 2021 is not high. Since it appears that the OTF-2 might not fly until January 2021 at the earliest. NASA should not compressed the review processes which is at least 6 months each for OFT-2 and CFT so that Starlliner-1 can fly in 2021. Especially after the OFT-1 mission.

[Thorny]

NASA should not compressed the review processes which is at least 6 months each for OFT-2 and CFT

Why would the review process be six months? Hasn't Boeing always said they expect a relatively short span between OFT and CFT (now that would be OFT-2 and CFT)?

[abaddon]

The days when that was believable are long gone.

[woods170]

NASA should not compressed the review processes which is at least 6 months each for OFT-2 and CFT

Why would the review process be six months? Hasn't Boeing always said they expect a relatively short span between OFT and CFT (now that would be OFT-2 and CFT)?

It is not up to Boeing to determine how much time passes between OFT-2 and CFT. NASA is in the lead there, because NASA is the certifying agency.

[SMS]

https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1313884429312557057

[DwightM]

Minor mental nag that I have with this.

Logistically this seems wasteful: You would need to bring your landing vehicle's suit with you on the launching vehicle and the reverse going back down (or consume cargo volume on the launching vehicle with an empty suit).

Both suits are mostly single piece which consumes precious monolithic cargo space on both flights.

Alternately Boeing and SpaceX could release adapters / converters for their umbilicals 

I'm sure they could launch the landing suit in the landing vehicle instead of needing to bring it along.  I'm wondering if they're considering doing this if an RSA cosmonaut does not fly on Crew-3 and they put the one-year NASA astronaut in or is either Marshburn or Chari being tapped for that?

[kdhilliard]

I'm sure they could launch the landing suit in the landing vehicle instead of needing to bring it along.

They would, of course, need four suits for two people, since the long-duration-stay astronaut would be ascending in a Dragon and returning in a Starliner -- the opposite of the commercial visitor.

It would be funny if they limited the commercial visitor to being a body double of the long-duration-stay astronaut.  (I wonder which pool of candidates is larger.)

[dcfowler1]

I thought the Boeing naming system is CTS 1, CTS 2, etc. Don't know what CTS stands for though.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2409

Crew Transport Service?

CTS = Crew Transfer System.