Talk:Crew Dragon Demo-1

Requested move 27 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

---

• SpX-DM1 → Crew Dragon Demo-1
• SpX-DM2 → Crew Dragon Demo-2

– The mission's official names via NASA are "SpaceX Demo-1" and SpaceX Demo-2", as noted on their Commercial Crew Program (CCP) subsite [1], their CCP blog [2], and their press releases [3]. Sources from SpaceX themselves are extremely scare, and their latest press release on these missions are dated August 2018, which is a long time ago, which refers to the first flight as "SpaceX’s first demonstration mission" in prose writing [4]. In reliable third party sources, Spaceflight Now refers to the mission as "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2" in its launch schedule [5]. Space.com has referred to the missions since the beginning of 2019 as "Space X's Demo-1 Crew Dragon" [6], "Demo-1" and "Demo-2" [7][8], and "Crew Dragon Demo-1" [9]. Universe Today refers to these flights as "Demo-1" [10] and "Demo-2" [11]. Futurism refers to the mission as "Demo-1 (or DM-1)" [12]. Inverse refers to the missions as "Demo-1" and "Demo-2" [13].

No source in either article, nor any source listed here, refers to the missions as "SpX-DM1" or "SpX-DM2". They do not truncate the name of "SpaceX", nor is the hyphen located between "SpaceX"/"Crew Dragon" and "Demo". The hyphen is almost unanimously recognised among these sources to be between "Demo" and the number of the flight, and would make sense with NASA's mission naming practices à la Exploration Flight Test-1 and Exploration Mission-1. I am proposing that we rename the articles to "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2". The titles would most importantly be precise enough, under guidelines on precision in disambiguation, to distinguish from SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1, Dragon C2+ and Falcon Heavy test flight, SpaceX's other demonstration missions. "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2" could easily be confused for these aforementioned missions. The names also have a strong case for common name recognition, as "Crew Dragon Demo-1" is more often used in third party sources. "Crew Dragon Demo-1" has nearly eleven million results on Google [14], while "SpaceX Demo-1" only has three and a half million results [15].

For the sake of straightforward and concise discussion, Support Crew Dragon is supporting a move to "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2". Support SpaceX is supporting a move to "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2". Oppose is an opposition to the move proposal entirely, and a support of the status quo of "SpX-DM1" and "SpX-DM2". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• In NASA's own documentation (see here [1], for example) "SpaceX" is often abbreviated "SpX". This document contains a manifest published by the Flight Planning Integration Panel, commonly known as the FPIP chart, from 2014 at the start of the COTS program. The earliest flights show up here as "SpX-3", "SpX-4", etc. This other NASA page [2] from 2016 has "SpX-Demo1" and "SpX-Demo2" as the first two Demo missions. Throughout the documents, "SpaceX" is generally (although not exclusively) referred to as "SpX" (with mixed "SpX-3" and "SpX3" in the 2014 document, and even "SpX-3" and "SpaceX-3" on the same page). This is just to point out that "SpX" is an accepted abbreviation for "SpaceX".

As for "SpX-DM1" specifically, there are admittedly only a handful of nasa.gov sites that have this terminology, but it does exist (see here[3] for example; I found just five examples at nasa.gov sites). Nevertheless, it's not in any sort of wide usage at NASA itself.

All that said, the fact that your very first sentence says that the official names are "SpaceX Demo-1" and SpaceX Demo-2" should be what the names of these pages should also be. If you want to disambiguate them at the top of the page - "For SpaceX COTS Demo-1, see here" - that's fine. Or redirect "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "SpX-DM1" to "SpaceX Demo-1". I can get behind Support SpaceX to move the DM1 and DM2 pages to "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2" respectively.

- Wizardimps (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: Just because it's the official name, doesn't mean it isn't the most commonly recognizable name and the most precise and least confusing name for the mission, per my arguments above. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Launch is set to 3/2/2019, there is potential that SpaceX will release a press kit on their site, usually posted here. Presumably on their press kit they will have the official name of the mission. SpaceX usually posts the press kits 1-ish days before the launch. Also there's SpaceX's official flicker page here which says "Crew Demo-1 Mission" when they released photos of their Crew Dragon. Their manifest here, scrolling down says "NASA CREW (DEMO 1)".

Also (you may already know) a redirect page called "SpaceX-DM1", already exists. However this is confusing, on the edit history here says "N2e moved page SpaceX-DM1 to SpaceX DM-1: move the dash to make fully consistent with a large series of other articles in the "SpaceX CRS-n" series of article names". However looking at the 2015 edit history here, an edit summery says "N2e moved page SpX-DM1 to SpaceX-DM1: consistency with full name of the mission; same as other SpaceX missions contracted to NASA; "SpX" is just NASA shorthand on presentation slides". I just wanted to post evidence. If my evidence seems confusing please notify me and I will try to make it clear. Thank you! OkayKenji (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Crew Dragon - the Wikipedia article name should reflect what the test is testing. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A title using the code SpX-DM1 gives no information on what it is about, but using the common name/synonym is so much better as it is also descriptive. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Crew Dragon: Even if there were to be a single official name (which doesn't seem to be the case, in that NASA and SpaceX seem to refer to the mission in different ways), WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). A quick search of news articles reveals a wide variety of names ("DM-1 mission", "SpaceX's Demo-1 Crew Dragon test flight", "the SpaceX Demo-1 mission", "SpaceX Crew Dragon test launch", "Crew Dragon Demonstration Mission 1", etc.). Given that no single name leaps out as being the most common, "Crew Dragon Demo-1" seems sufficiently WP:CONCISE and rather more WP:PRECISE than "SpaceX Demo-1" (which could also refer to SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1). Alternatively we could aim for consistency with that previous demo flight, which would imply SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo Flight 1. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Is there any reliable official or third party source that can verify that "SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo Flight 1" is a name that is really used? Wikipedia's guidelines on disambiguation also states, "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, googling "SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo Flight 1" gives just one hit. But then again googling "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1" gives very few non-wiki hits, so maybe we should consider moving that article to be consistent with whatever we decide for this one! Rosbif73 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, once we reach consensus here, the same logic should be applied to Boe-OFT and Boe-CFT. For now, I'll add a note to the talk pages of those articles, pointing to this RM discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Crew Dragon As a SpaceX source, they released a press kit, [4] recently, where they call their mission "Crew Demo 1 Mission". It might be nice to reflect that. Also adding "Dragon" to the title is okay because it Precison, making it different from Boeing's test missions. Also seems more "Recognizability" "Naturalness". (quoted from Wikipedia's policy on titles) OkayKenji (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Crew Dragon Demo-1 and Crew Dragon Demo-2. We do not go by official names; clarity and precision are more important. — JFG ^talk 15:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Should the same logic be applied to cargo missions?

SpaceX CRS-xx → Dragon CRS SpX-xx -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@PSR B1937+21: I'm not aware of this naming scheme being officially used or commonly used to designate the CRS flights. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So the Orbital/Northrop articles should be renamed to OA/NG CRS-xx? -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@PSR B1937+21: Are there any official or reliable third party sources that use the "Dragon CRS SpX-xx" or "OA/NG CRS-xx" naming scheme? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The NASA page I gave earlier[5] shows the cargo launches as "OA-7" and "SpX-11" on the planning manifest. In general, internally the "CRS" part of the name is not used because (a) it's known by whoever is reading that they are cargo (CRS) missions, and (b) the available space for typing things out is at a premium. It may (or may not) be used external to NASA in this way, and I don't know if "used internal to the ISS community but not in general public use" is a valid factor in naming things on Wikipedia. -- Wizardimps (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: If an name used internally by NASA, but not by the media or the public, then it is not commonly recognisable among the media or public at large. I've taken a glance at Spaceflight Now, and they used "SpaceX CRS-16" and "NG-10" for the latest CRS flights. I can imagine that editors have opted to use "Cygnus NG-10" instead, as it would be more specific and less confusing than simply "NG-10". NASASpaceFlight.com used "Cygnus NG-10", so it doesn't violate guidelines against "obscure or made-up names." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose" It breaks with the standard used in the Cargo flights. If Anything it should be SpaceX-DM1.Metropod (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Metropod: As explained in my original nomination, both the official and common names for the flights don't place a hyphen there. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support SpaceX, this is a SpaceX flight, and it is commonly known as the Demo-1 mission, both by NASA and by SpaceX and on most media. So, support both "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2" article MOVEs, and believe that is somewhat better than the shorthand "SpX DM-1" and "SpX DM-2" shorthand designators that are seen on many NASA slides that have been released to the public domain, and used much less on SpaceX documentation. N2e (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@N2e: You say "most media", but you provided no citations, let alone ones to reliable third party sources. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-1, as it is the natural name and probably the most commonly used. I also support any other proposed name, it seems that almost anything is better than the current obscure title of this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Crew Dragon SpaceX's own page refers to the mission as "CREW DEMO-1 MISSION". The only place I've ever seen SpaceX written as "SpX" is on this Wikipedia page, which always seemed like a very awkward name. Why is a 6 letter name, itself already an abbreviation, being abbreviated further to just a cryptic three letter name? ArtOfWarfare (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"SpaceX" is abbreviated to "SpX" on NASA charts where the space for lettering is at a premium. That usage has spilled out into general use within the greater NASA community, though not universally and not to the general public (since you're not familiar with it, for example). -- Wizardimps (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Here's an update on the common name status. An exact phrase search on Google, which is to search for an exact phrase by bookending a term with quotation marks, turns up ~1.7 million results for "Crew Dragon Demo-1" [1], and only ~58,000 results for "SpaceX Demo-1" [2]. For comparison, "SpX-DM1" brings up ~18,000 results [3]. Space.com and Spaceflight Now have continued to use "Crew Dragon Demo-1" [4][5], and collectSPACE has used "Crew Dragon Demonstration-1" [6]. The Orlando Sentinel has used "SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-1" [7], while Ars Technica has used "SpaceX Demo-1" [8]. Both The New York Times and CNBC has used the more simple "Demo-1" [9][10]. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• support Titles should be spelled out.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: You need to make more clear wether you're supporting a move to Crew Dragon Demo-1 or SpaceX Demo-1. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• • the fomer.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the move since it is the common name. --Frmorrison (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: You need to make more clear wether you're supporting a move to Crew Dragon Demo-1 or SpaceX Demo-1. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2" Wikipedia is the only "big media" to use this silly and arcane, technical designation. It is not relevent that this is what NASA and the SpaceX engineers call it. This article's name violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which admonishes editors to "avoid overly technical language. Nick Beeson (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updates

Page 12-14 of NASA's Press Kit contain a good amount of information about the objectives/facts about the mission (Demo-1). I don't feel confident enough to know what info to add from this Press kit (plus I make a lot of mistakes, something I need to work on). If possible, can anyone, if they have the time to do so, add some of the press kit info into this page? (only if they find the info useful). Thanks! OkayKenji (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of info has been added already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.238.41 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Cargo?

There is a mention in this WP article of the spacecraft carrying cargo. I wonder if this is the mass simulator(s) or of it actually carries supplies to the ISS. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This mission does carry some 400 pounds of routine ISS supplies. Source: launch readiness review press conference. The panel was asked whether payload mass would be any different than for a crewed mission, and they answered that it would be roughly similar, without mentioning any ballast mass. I infer from those statements that the 400 pounds of cargo + the mannequin and its instrumentation would weigh about the same as 2-3 astronauts. — JFG ^talk 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To further explain, the cargo in this is non-essential, from office supplies (printer paper, Sharpies) to clothing to storable food to personal effects, maybe some fresh food. The rationale was that just in case something happened where this Crew Dragon couldn't dock for whatever reason, there would not be any loss to science or logistics on the ISS. All of the supplies are being added to storage. They will be taking some hardware down, though, the rationale being that since Dragon made it to the ISS safely, it's a pretty good bet that it'll make it down safely. Wizardimps (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Unique image as lead

I had earlier edited {{Infobox spaceflight}} to use an incredible photograph of the Crew Dragon silhouetted against the horizon, taken by Anne McClain, as its lead image. As a landscape photograph, it would help alleviate the vertical size of {{Infobox spaceflight}} while at the same time presenting a unique image from the mission as a way to uniquely identify the mission from a glance. There will be images of Crew Dragons launching, and there will be images of the Crew Dragon docked to the ISS on various other missions in the future, but this photograph will likely be a unique product of this mission, and thus should be presented as such. The manual of style states that "it is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." This is a unique opportunity to be able to do that for this page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The launch image can be kept in the gallery instead. — JFG ^talk 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I too think the leading image should be of the Dragon 2 capsule, not the launch. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Question based off the recent move

So, looking at this page [6] there seems to be a lot of Wikipedia articles that link to this one. Many of them seem to use "Spx-DM1" to link to this page. Should the titles of the Wikilinks be changed to reflect the recent move? If so should we used "Crew Dragon Demo-1" or "SpaceX Demo-1" as the title for the Wikilink? (by title I meant to say "Text to Display"

Also when "Spx-DM1" is used as the title for the link to this page in wiki-tables like here [7]. It might be "ok" to leave it as "Spx-DM1". Not sure though. OkayKenji (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what I said here. lol. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Did the coverage of this flight win an emmy?

Came here trying to find out if this flight was the one that won an Emmy. Other sources confirm yes, but I was a little surprised not find this (noteworthy?) info on this page. Is this worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.100.203 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it may be worth mentioning. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crew Dragon Demo-2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox displays C204 but links to C205

Not sure how to fix it, but the infobox links to the wrong vehicle. Somehow the code {{ComV|Dragon 2|C204}} appears as "Cargo Dragon C204" on the page but links to C205. See: Crew Dragon C204 -- Wizardimps (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: There was evidently an error with how {{ComV}} wikilinked to Crew Dragon C204. It's likely that code was copied and pasted to save time building the template, and the error was missed. I fixed it. — Molly Brown (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox says Cargo Dragon C204 when the vehicle title is Crew Dragon C204

Though C204 never ended up carrying any passengers, the model of the vehicle was a Crew Dragon; the page "Cargo Dragon" links to also calls it a Crew Dragon.