7
$\begingroup$

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) are contracts awarded by NASA for delivery of cargo and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) on commercially operated spacecraft. SpaceX signed a contract for 15 launches, the first of which was named CRS-1, and launched on 7th October, 2012.

Subsequent launches were named using step-iteration. However on June 28, 2015, CRS-7 experienced a launch failure, resulting in a 'loss-of-vehicle'.

Presuming SpaceX gets FAA clearance to re-fly the mission, what will the launch be called? What is the protocol followed for naming launches in the events of A) failure with loss-of-vehicle or B) failure with an undamaged vehicle.

In the event that the launch is transferred to another corporation (eg. Orbital Sciences), are the old naming conventions retained?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Since Elon himself, or some students he hired, seem to come up with the crazy names thus far, I'd propose: "Of course I'll come back to you, honey", "Sorry, I didn't mean to hit you that hard", "I hope you will stand up for me this time", "Burn burn burn". Pick your favourite ;-) $\endgroup$ – LocalFluff Jun 30 '15 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ Considering the CRS-6 landing, 'I hope you will stand up for me this time' is my pick! $\endgroup$ – Vedant Chandra Jun 30 '15 at 18:55
16
$\begingroup$

The next Orbital Cygnus flight, on Atlas V is called Orb-4 (per SpaceflightNow.com's launch schedule).

Since the lost flight was Orb-3, then we can assume that SpaceX will follow a similar pattern and the next flight will be CRS-8.

The next Progress is named 60, after Progress 59 failed. So looks like the pattern (2 data points makes a line, one data point tells you everything when on the Internet) is to just increment the count and move on.

$\endgroup$
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ +∞ for "one data point tells you everything when on the Internet" $\endgroup$ – Vedant Chandra Jun 30 '15 at 16:48
4
$\begingroup$

Mission names are never reused. Even if the mission never launches or fails to reach orbit, reusing the name would cause confusion in documenting separate missions.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How about adding an 'A' to the name. How about Soyuz 18 and 18a? Ok, that is the only example I could find, so meh. Mostly disprove my own point. Nuts to that! $\endgroup$ – geoffc Jun 30 '15 at 22:08
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @geoffc, in the Soviet Union, failed missions never existed, so there's no re-use of names. $\endgroup$ – Mark Jun 30 '15 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark Budda boom. Good point. The non-people. $\endgroup$ – geoffc Jun 30 '15 at 23:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.