[FPSPACE] Bias & ISS flight designations

[DSFPortree at aol.com]

Jonathan:

> or future space historians will have 
> brain seizures.

I'm barely in the future at all, and I'm already having brain seizures. 

So far the most coherent-seeming overview I've found is on the Energia site. 
Here's the URL, in case anyone here hasn't looked at it yet -

http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/iss-develop-01.shtml

To answer my earlier question about the Tito flight, I've come up with the 
following designation for the first segment (launch to ISS docking) of the Tito 
flight

Soyuz-TM 32/ISS Lifeboat Replacement 2S/ISS Visiting Crew (VC)-1

The first term refers to the spacecraft used. The second refers to the 
purpose of the mission and is independent of the spacecraft involved. The third 
refers to the crew and is independent of the first two.

On board ISS, the designation would be 

ISS VC-1

The crew's vehicle would be ISS, not Soyuz-TM 32 or Soyuz-TM 31. Their 
mission would center on ISS activities, not on Lifeboat Replacement. So the first 
two terms can be ignored.

For the last segment (ISS undocking to landing) it would be

Soyuz-TM 31/ISS Lifeboat Replacement 2S/ISS VC-1

Now, my great fear is that I might add yet *another* designation system to 
the mix and contribute to the brain melt of space historians yet unborn. I 
*think*, however, that the designation above makes some sort of sense (I can 
explain it, anyway) and is consistent with at least the most common official 
designations.

It's hard to be consistent across US and Russian missions. For example, 

STS-105/ISS Assembly Flight 7A.1/ISS Expedition 3

STS-105 isn't the vehicle, it's the overall mission designator. ISS Assembly 
Flight 7A.1 puts the mission in the context of the ISS assembly sequence. ISS 
Expedition 3 is more or less independent of the first two.

At ISS, the mission would be

STS-105/ISS Assembly Flight 7A.1

Returning from orbit, it would be 

STS-105/ISS Assembly Flight 7A.1/ISS Expedition 2

Again, the third term is more or less independent of the first two.

Does anyone have a better way of doing this?

David

David S. F. Portree
Science writer & historian
dsfportree at aol.com
Flagstaff Arizona USA

DSFP homepage
http://members.aol.com/dsfportree/dsfp.htm