Talk:SpaceX Dragon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA nomination

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon (spacecraft)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please adress the concerns raised by User:Stone:

General characteristics

18 attitude control thrusters insted of 18 Draco thrusters whoold be mor informative
The SuperDraco should be separated from the General characteristics because it is a future upgrade and not a

General characteristics.

With a production of 1 each three months there must be 4 from 2011 and 8 from 2012. Overall 12 Dragons. Is this fact?

Demonstration flights

launched a stripped-down version Why?
Operational flights section is a little short amount of cargo andreturn cargo might be a good addition.
Red Dragon and Mars One Dragon are relative long for the far future developpment they reflect.

Red Dragon

The 2018 launch for it is no longer possible, it was never in the last three selected missons for 2018. Was it a offical proposal?

Radiation tolerance

What is the difference to the shuttle or the sojus? It experienced some events which are normal in this aproach.
Red dragon was always quoted to be different in design?

--Stone (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the lead should not contain material and thus does not need citations - could these been removed and the material moved/copied to the body with them?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been a week with no improvements I have to fail this sorry.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Split

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

With the unveiling of Dragon V2 last month, the different design, systems, and capabilities supports a restructuring of this article into at least two (maybe three) different articles. I'm detailing below my thoughts on a three article breakout (the names are just a rough sketch):

1) Dragon (spacecraft family) - Essentially a streamlined version of the lead of this article with a summary of the different spacecraft designs the evolve under the Dagon umbrella, with links to the detailed articles for each spacecraft. 2) Dragon V1 - Details the design, capabilities and history of the cargo version. 3) Dragon V2 - Details the design, capabilities and history of the crewed version.

Until recently, it sounded like the only real difference that V2 would bring to the table is life-support systems and seats (to grossly over simplify this...), but it's clear that we're really now dealing with two very different spacecraft based on a shared platform. Since the V2 is yet to fly, I'm open to keeping the article as is until flight tests begin, but it's my opinion that we have enough to support multiple articles at this point. Just wanted to field opinions before taking any drastic action. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. This is exactly what we did with the Falcon 9 article. It was split into four articles: Falcon 9, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and SpaceX reusable launch system development program. It sounded like a good idea at the time, but the end result was that instead of having one decent, well kept article, we had four which we had to upkeep with the same number of edit-hours per week. Given that there are only maybe 3 to 6 of us who edit the various SpaceX articles on a semi-regular basis (and honestly, most of it is done by one editor, N2e), adding any additional workload might make things difficult.

So my conclusion is that since I haven't been pleased with the state of the Falcon 9 articles since the split, and I don't think I'd be pleased with the state of 2 or 3 Dragon articles either. I'm honest to goodness thinking about suggesting we re-merge three of the four Falcon 9 articles, leaving only the reusable launch system article separate. — Gopher65_talk 16:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As an informed outsider I'd agree with Gopher65's proposal to re-merge the three F9 articles; there's an awful lot of duplication amongst them. On the other hand, the two Dragons really do seem to be "two very different spacecraft based on a shared platform" and so to warrant two articles. For now at least. -Arb. (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm swayed by Gopher65's reasoning, as at the current state of Dragon V2, unique articles would still overlap considerably. Once the new craft gets off the ground I think we'll have more to work with, but in the interest of keeping things tidy, I'm happy to leave it as is. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is enough differentiation between the spacecraft to just have two articles - this one and the V2. Everything relating to the COTS Dragon here, everything relating to the CCDev Dragon V2 there. Since the V2 page already exists, migrating everything not COTS out of this article will keep this article focused. A(Ch) 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mars One has not contracted SpaceX

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Mars One has not contracted SpaceX, and the section is missing reliable current citations. I'm deleting it, again. Do not replace it unless there are very good quality citations, and not from Mars One, but a source such as CBS News, Spaceflight Now, or NASAspaceflight.com. SpaceX has said it has not been contacted, and certainly has not signed any contracts with Mars One.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think removing this will need consensus first. There's clearly at least one objection to removing that content. I can find a few sources now about Mars One Dragon.

Sorry for not noticing this talk page, my browser might have been stuck on a cached page. Appable (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully in favor of removing the Mars One section. If Mars One ever contracts SpaceX to develop a vehicle it can be added. The Mars One Dragon is discussed in the Mars One page; no need to include a fictional version of Dragon here. MONDARIZ (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mars One

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

@2601:204:cd00:d630:800d:25fb:9c71:d31d, Gaelan, Abebenjoe, Craigboy, N2e, and Spencerian: Sorry about so many names, just sending to everyone who might have an opinion. I propose that the Mars One section of this article be removed in its entirety. There are no reliable sources linking SpaceX with Mars One, and SpaceX has stated they have no relationship with the Mars One project. Therefore, I believe that content on Mars One in this article is irrelevant. Each of the other proposals are clearly linked, with reliable sources, to SpaceX. For example, a report cited in this article on Red Dragon states "The SpaceX capsule, he said, would be used to take people to low-earth orbit; SpaceX would have most of the capabilities needed to put material on Mars. He reported that SpaceX developers had been thinking along these lines." Mars One clearly has no relationship with SpaceX unlike all other cited projects. Appable (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If it has no source tying SpaceX plans to work with Mars One, then I concur and it should be removed. As I understood all the early Mars One press, MO was just showing a few pics of a Dragon spacecraft as a conceptual possibility. If they have nothing more now, after these years, then it does not belong in a SpaceX capsule article as an advert for Mars One. N2e (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete it with extreme prejudice. It is unsourced, and Mars One is a scam. If pops up again, delete it on sight.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

-- I have removed the entry several times now and someone keeps putting it back. Mars One are not being taken seriously by anyone. They are not an aerospace company, they are no more than a bad joke. Their relationship with SpaceX is non-existent nor could they ever afford to work with them. It's insulting to even take the company seriously, and it bears no relevance to SpaceX or the Dragon Spacecraft so it's a mystery as to why someone keeps adding it unless they are associated with Mars One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CD00:D630:44E2:810D:F8AD:8D23 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no credible citations or news that links SpaceX to NASA (itself clearly developing the Space Launch System for this) in reference to any Mars missions or development, let alone Mars One. At best, the "news" is how that group's developments are considering the rental/purchase of a Crew Dragon spacecraft, but this is not at all substantiated. I'd hate to suggest semi-protecting the article, but it might need to be done. -Spencerian (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename SpaceX CRS-n missions to Dragon CRS-n

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dragon editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2016 : from Dragon (spacecraft) to SpaceX Dragon

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dragon (spacecraft) → SpaceX Dragon – WP:NATURALDAB and "SpaceX" is shorter than "(spacecraft)". The term "SpaceX Dragon" is also frequently used [1][2][3] so is a pretty commonly encountered formulation. This would match other commercial products from other companies which are not primary topics, such as Ford Mustang, IBM Personal Computer, Boeing 747, Sega Genesis, etc -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose — it seems "Dragon" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this piece of technology, and the parenthetical spacecraft is simply the Wiki-policy approach to disambiguation of all of the various things named Dragon that have articles in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE and conforms to WP:NATURALDAB that avoids using unnatural parenthetical disambiguation in favor of natural disambiguation, which uses forms already in popular use, in this case "SpaceX Dragon". Which is why we do Boeing 747 instead of 747 (airliner) and Ford Mustang instead of Mustang (sports car) or Honda Accord instead of Accord (family car) ; even though "747", "Mustang" and "Accord" are more commonly uses than those forms with the brands attached. The forms with brands attached are also frequently used, and have the advantage of natural disambiguation. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. This is widely used WP:NATURALDIS.[4] It also allows us to avoid the problems with the disambiguator "spacecraft" mentioned below; this is now a family or line of crafts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment — while I don't believe "SpaceX Dragon" is a better article name for this article, it is probably the case that the parenthetical needs to change sometime in the future. Dragon is no longer a single spacecraft, but is rather, now, become a family of spacecraft. Currently is, and has been since the article was created, Dragon (spacecraft) So better might be Dragon (spacecraft family), somewhat analogous to Merlin (rocket engine family) or Raptor (rocket engine family). Up until recently, the Raptor article had been named Raptor (rocket engine). And several years ago, Merlin (rocket engine) underwent a move to Merlin (rocket engine family) N2e (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2016 (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.

Reusable

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this capsule reusable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.77.142 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not reusable. Elon Musk was asked in October 2014 what his plans are for a reusable second stage (i.e., Dragon); you can watch his answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PULkWGHeIQQ&t=419. Essentially: In many missions (i.e. from a geostationary orbit, 36,000 km from Earth), using the current technology, getting the upper stage back is "really difficult". But the next generation of (much bigger) rockets will be designed for full reusability, because those are the ones that will be going to Mars and back many times. He believes (at the time of the video, 2014) that testing of those could begin around 2019 or 2020. But watch his answer, it's only 2 minutes long. --Jhertel (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"...reusable second stage (i.e. Dragon)" You are confusing Dragon (payload) and 2nd stage. Dragon capsule is designed for both reentry and reusability. They even designed the heatshield for multiple uses before replacement. Only the trunk and nosecone are expended. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me! --Jhertel (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dragon 2 Cargo name and usage

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year quotes Elon as saying:

"SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew."

While it doesn't clear up the naming issue, it does clear up that cargo flights to the ISS are going to use a Dragon 2-based capsule. Greg (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Split off the list of missions

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

SPLIT OFF SpaceX Dragon#List of Dragon missions to List of SpaceX Dragon missions

I suggest that the List of Dragon missions section be split off into a separate article. I suggest the new article be called List of SpaceX Dragon missions. This would be comparable to the Falcon 9 mission list at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and complementary to that. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support I am the nominator -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The list of Dragon missions is very short, I don't see the necessity to hide them -- Special:Contributions/Aérospatial (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – Not really useful per WP:NOPAGE, current article is the best place to aggregate all information. — JFG ^talk 09:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- If we're aggregating all info, why are you agreeing that we should remove the Dragon V2 and Red Dragon missions? -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's quite a different spacecraft. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is serving as the Dragon family article, so it isn't a different spacecraft, it is a version of the Dragon family. If we go for a different spacecraft approach, we'd need to split off a Dragon V1 article (and clearly make this a family article only), or split off a Dragon family article (and let this serve solely for V1 Dragon) -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, reading this article again, it is not really acting as a Dragon family article; it mostly describes the Dragon CRS spacecraft and its re-badged DragonLab which has never flown and is essentially the same hardware. Dragon 2 has only a few lines and is fully described in its own article. Red Dragon has also just a few lines and its main article is focused on missions to Mars with a future Dragon variant (likely a close derivative of Dragon 2). So I would say that we do not have a "Dragon family" article right now, nor do we need one; we may want to fork one out later when new variants actually start flying, and if we find WP:RS analyzing the various Dragon-branded spacecraft as a family. In the meantime, this article should keep only Dragon CRS missions, Dragon 2 should show the test flights and planned early missions, and Red Dragon should keep focusing on the future missions to Mars. — JFG ^talk 05:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose —PSR B1937+21 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now, but may be good to revisit at a later time (when more Dragon missions and variants have flown). Appable (talk | contributions) 06:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- PSR B1937+21 has proposed that all the Dragon variant flights be removed from this article, so whatever later time, the list will be fragmented across several different articles -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment – Missions to Mars with Red Dragon have been cancelled in favor of a larger spacecraft with a different landing strategy. — JFG ^talk 22:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I suggest all Dragon 2 and Red Dragon missions be moved to the corresponding articles. —PSR B1937+21 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to just have a separate Dragon list article? FH and F9 are listed in a single list, instead of two separate locations for F9 and FH -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I Oppose this alternate proposal, as it makes little sense to separate them into multiple different articles, when a single list in its own article makes more sense, akin to the Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy list which is a single list article. Thus it makes more sense with my initial proposal of having a Dragon mission list article instead of 4 or more different mini lists at Cargo Dragon V1, Cargo Dragon V2, Crew Dragon V2, Red Dragon V2 -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Name change

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello JFG and Sario528, I was the one who changed the name "Dragon 2" to "Crew Dragon" in the SpaceX_Dragon and Dragon 2 pages. The reason was that the http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon page only mentioned the name "Crew Dragon" and not "Dragon 2" (anymore). SMApers (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@SMApers: Thanks for the pointer. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily follow WP:official names; what counts is the most-used name by sources, and SpaceX is only a primary source. Let's wait a bit until secondary sources pick up the name; then we should conduct a WP:move request to change the article title. If that is approved, then the name can be changed everywhere. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Before you start to change the names here, let's simply wait until it gets used in an actual flight. Naming conventions at SpaceX seem to be in a flux for most of its equipment until it goes into an actual flight.... where you have to admit that the public name is really mostly done for PR purposes. The first flight is upcoming and when that happens you will have more sources to be using than you can shake a stick at. --Robert Horning (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Dragon logo?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the logo featured here [5] the (cargo) Dragon logo, and if so, then it should appear on this page (if a cleaner version of the logo is found) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on SpaceX Dragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320032815/http://www.spacex.com/SpaceX_Brochure_V7_All.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/SpaceX_Brochure_V7_All.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425062652/http://www.nal-jsc.org/Presentation_NASA%20Alumni%20League_JSC__Bowersox_%20Final_012511%20(2).pdf to http://www.nal-jsc.org/Presentation_NASA%20Alumni%20League_JSC__Bowersox_%20Final_012511%20%282%29.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0608/18cots/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14411983/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/news/071019-rocketplane-pulledplug.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Employees.html?c=y&page=2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=2009_2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090618
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news%2FCOTS09209.xml&channel=awst
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/111209dates/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612112809/http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS04S_SAA-SpaceX.pdf to http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS04S_SAA-SpaceX.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/10/spacex-launch-abort-system-receives-preliminary-approval/
Added archive https://archive.is/20130104234510/http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html to http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/10443-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-master-private-space-dragons.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104010401/http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120203325/http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/01/23/NAC_Science_Meeting_ReportOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf to https://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/01/23/NAC_Science_Meeting_ReportOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426013514/http://new.livestream.com/spacex/events/2833937/statuses/48058415 to http://new.livestream.com/spacex/events/2833937/statuses/48058415
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612112809/http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS04S_SAA-SpaceX.pdf to http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS04S_SAA-SpaceX.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

CRS2

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Which spacecraft will be used? A refurbished Dragon version 1 or a Dragon version 2 vehicle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.235.194 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SpaceX Dragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceX Dragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus confirming the current title, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX Dragon → Dragon (spacecraft) – The article was moved from Dragon (spacecraft) to the current title in November 2016, following a poorly-attended move request which did not establish consensus. (Dear Amakuru, let me WP:TROUT you belatedly for this premature close.) The titling guidelines at WP:SPACENAME clearly discourage listing a manufacturer name in front of a spacecraft or rocket name: we have Falcon 9, not SpaceX Falcon 9, and Cygnus (spacecraft), not Orbital ATK Cygnus. Heck, SpaceX Dragon is even listed in WP:SPACENAME as an example of what not to do! I therefore request to move the title back to the standard form Dragon (spacecraft). — JFG ^talk 15:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think it was a terrible close when the strength of arguments were analysed. Seems like a fairly textbook example of WP:NATURALDIS and example sources were given last time to support the assertion that the SpaceX Dragon name is found widely. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Only two comments except the nominator, one for, one against? Nah, you should have relisted. Or !voted your opinion per your comment here. Anyway, that's an old story, let's see what happens now. — JFG ^talk 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah brah, it was the correct close then, and barring some major change in the general approach to WP:NATURALDIS, the best solution now ;) --Cúchullain ^t/c 03:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:NATURAL._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose Looks like WP:SPACENAME is wrong and needs to be updated in the era of commercial spaceflight. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how "the era of commercial spaceflight" should make naming conventions any different. Cygnus is as commercial as Dragon, and is not titled with its manufacturer's name. Of course such conventions can be discussed at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight if you feel they need to change. — JFG ^talk 22:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevent comparison. Sources mostly call Cygnus just "Cygnus". Sources call this topic "SpaceX Dragon" (or more rarely SpaceX's Dragon). The buried "essay" at WP:SPACENAME, which says to subvert the standard WP:CRITERIA by removing the manufacturer, is what needs to be corrected. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMON. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. JFG is off base here. As was pointed out in the last RM, the construction "SpaceX Dragon" is widely used in the sources and as such is perfectly acceptable natural disambiguation. WP:SPACENAME needs to be updated to bring it in line with the general disambiguation practices.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:46, 14 February 2018 (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.

End of production

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has the production of the Dragon version 1 ended? How many Dragen version 1 were produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.231.134 (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure but I know that after the CRS-12 SpaceX stated that that would be the last mission to use a new Dragon 1. (1 ish minute into the webcast). So presubly they halted production, not sure on the number of Dragon 1 produced though. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

missions table

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Seems to me that the table should include payload mass and downmass also. Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good idea, it might get too overwhelming at the table though, maybe instead of putting in the separate column just put in the "Remarks" section.

I would like to see undocking date and/or de-orbit date included. AncientBrit (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC) (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

173.52.238.41 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Mission	Payload	Downmass	Ref
CRS-1	882 pounds (400 kg)	1,673 pounds (759 kg)	[6]
CRS-2	1,493 pounds (677 kg)	3,020 pounds (1,370 kg)	[7]
CRS-3	Example	Example	Example
CRS-4	Example	Example	Example
CRS-5	Example	Example	Example
CRS-6	Example	Example	Example
CRS-7	Example	Example	Example
CRS-8	Example	Example	Example
CRS-9	Example	Example	Example
CRS-10	Example	Example	Example
CRS-11	Example	Example	Example
CRS-12	Example	Example	Example
CRS-13	Example	Example	Example
CRS-14	Example	Example	Example
CRS-15	Example	Example	Example
CRS-16	Example	Example	Example
CRS-17	Example	Example	Example

A list of spacecraft and their current status

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A list of all the Dragon spacecraft produced with: the type (Dragon 1, Dragon 2), the number of times they have gone into orbit, the number of person transported to the ISS, the date of the first and last mission, and the final disposition of the spacecraft itself (i.e. destroyed, stored, displayed at museum, etc.)

user:mnw2000 10:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaScript

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I searched through SpaceX job offers and although some mention Javascript those that are for Dragon don't. Until there is no official information about the dragon's stack I don't think you can say the GUI is made with JS. --Nux (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW. If someone links to a Rickrolling video then it doesn't sound like a valid source 😉. See: [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nux (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)