Talk:SpaceX Crew-1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LiahJo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

USCV-1 is the generic term (US Crew Vehicle 1) as a placeholder on the NASA manifest for whichever crew vehicle - Dragon or Starliner - launches first. It is *not* specifically a Dragon flight. Current manifests (December 2018) list "USCV-1" as the possibility of either, with the appropriate crew depending on which spacecraft launches. USCV-2 will be the other spacecraft and crew, and it follows that barring any unforseen circumstances, one company will have the odd numbers and one will have the even numbers. I don't know if either spacecraft will carry its own designation internally or externally, such as Dragon-1 or Starliner-1. Wizardimps (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, so where is the source ? Hektor (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As far back as 2013, USCV-1 has been designated as the first US crew vehicle.
    • "Should the test missions prove to be successful, a winning company will be selected by NASA to conduct the first crewed mission to the International Space Station – a mission known as US Crew Vehicle -1 (USCV-1)." [1].
    • "With the launch of the first U.S. Crew Vehicle (USCV-1) mission now scheduled for no earlier than November 2017, it might seem easy to express pessimism about the future for the three finalists in NASA’s Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative." [2]
    • "The first two operational commercial crew flights, however, will only fly with two crewmembers each, with the other two seats reserved for cargo. These flights will be US Crew Vehicle-1 (USCV-1), which will occur from September to November 2018, and USCV-2, which will occur from December 2018 to June 2019." (out of date dates from 2017 article) [3].
    • USCV-1 is likely to be a SpaceX Crew Dragon unless their vehicle is not ready (for whatever reason) in time, but it is not guaranteed. I can't find any publicly available material, though, perhaps you'll find it if you're a subscriber to nasaspaceflight.com's L2 forum, which has copies of the planning manifest. Wizardimps (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

SpaceXNow

The source says “SpaceXNow is a fan made website and mobile application dedicated to following all things SpaceX.” Are fan made websites valid sources ? Hektor (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Depends on where they get their info from. Wizardimps (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a Move Request

Should these moves occur? These are the first operational missions (not test) for Dragon 2 and CST-100 Starliner

• USCV-1 → Crew Dragon-1 (or something similar)
  
• CTS-1 (USCV-2) → Starliner-1 (or something similar)
  
• USCV-3 → Crew Dragon-2 (or something similar)
  

The current names are fine (As of now, USCV-1, USCV-2, etc. may actually be the WP:COMMONNAME. ), but like Wizardimps stated above they are placeholders. The names proposed are from NASA's website here and here (see the "Post-Certification Missions" of each article). The issue with these proposed name is that they may not disambiguate enough with Crew Dragon Demo-1 (sounds to similar). For Starliner it may be okay though. Another issue with this is that USCV-1 may not actually be Crew Dragon it could be Boeing (see above, I'm actually leaning toward this idea because of the recent Crew Dragon anomaly, but this idea is not supported by sources). Sorry I didn't state any Wikipedia polices to support this name change, hence the reason why didn't start a move requeset.
OkayKenG (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, on CTS-1 (USCV-2), the previous mission per the infobox is USCV-1. But starting at Boeing Crewed Flight Test, per the infobox the nest mission is CTS-1 (USCV-2). So if A's next mission is B. Shouldn't B's previous mission be A. I understand why USCV-2's previous mission is USCV-1 (they are consecutive USCV launches), but how its like now doesn't seem consistent. (it could be just me that's confused, cuz I'm stupid (you known assume WP:Stupidity)) OkayKenG (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Do you have a source for "flight was named" as USCV-1? Because USCV-1 may not be for "First operational flight of Dragon 2" (made in December 2018) the diff Thanks! OkayKenG (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the schedule is in flux now. Better wait until NASA announces the next firm mission dates. I'll note that neither NASA nor SpaceX have ben very consistent with naming their missions… — JFG ^talk 07:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

One problem is that there are multiple concurrent numbering schemes:

1. NASA's internal manifest that lists US crew vehicle (USCV) flights to the ISS numerically, regardless of which vehicle that is, as USCV-1, USCV-2, etc., as the overall mission number

2. SpaceX's manifest that lists only their USCV flights to the ISS numerically, as (per the press kit) Crew Dragon-1, Crew Dragon-2, etc.

3. Boeing's manifest that lists only their USCV flights to the ISS numerically, as (per the press kit) Starliner-1, Starliner-2, etc.

You'll need an infobox that has both naming schemes for "next" and "previous" mission, depending on if you're referring to the previous overall mission or the previous mission by that company.

As for the naming, I suggest that the page name be "Starliner-x" and "Crew Dragon-x" and then as each launches, it gets a redirect from "USCV-x". I don't know how NASA will handle the numbering convention if one flights gets delayed and slips past the other, I can't see them keeping the numbering as "1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 5, etc." but I have not seen anything one way or the other.

Wizardimps (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG, Wizardimps, thanks for the responses. Will just wait. Hopefully not for long. Go SpaceX, Go Boeing, Go NASA! (go Earth!!)OkayKenG (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

USCV-1 → SpaceX Crew-1 – Since this article describes a Crew Dragon mission and lists a crew manifest for a Crew Dragon mission, and the "USCV" names do not seem to have been used in any official capacity for a long time and have never really taken off as clear, commonly recognisable names used in either first or third party sources as well, it's probably better to rename this article after the name designated by NASA in more recent times; "SpaceX Crew-1".[1][2][3] – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above in December 2018 and June 2019, internally at NASA, "USCV" is a generic term used as a placeholder generic term for an as-yet-unknown launch vehicle and spacecraft until it is decided which company (SpaceX or Boeing) will launch the crew. Right now, "Crew-1" and "Crew-2" are the names on internal planning documents (like the FPIP plan) for the missions carrying those astronauts, which happen to be both on SpaceX vehicles. Until it was certain that SpaceX would launch both of these crews, they were shown generically as "USCV-1" and "USCV-2". The third crew is currently shown on the planning charts as "USCV-3", and the next ones are similarly named "USCV-4", etc. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that if Boeing launches the third crew, it will be referred to as "Crew-3"; however, it might not be. Unfortunately, the FPIP planning document that shows these names is not available to the public, though it does leak out and can often be found behind a paywall at some sites.

I would say "hold off" at this point on renaming it as "SpaceX Crew-1", because we don't know what the nomenclature for subsequent crews will look like. If the third one is "Boeing Crew-1" then that's clear that USCV-1 should be retroactively renamed "SpaceX Crew-1" and USCV-3 should be "Boeing Crew-1", but if it's just "Crew-3" then they all should be in that format. Or maybe just "Crew-1" for now until we see what happens later. Wizardimps (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: Boeing's missions will be labelled "Boeing Starliner-x" or "Starliner-x", ect. Only the SpaceX missions will have "SpaceX Crew-x" or "Crew-x" designations. Sorry for not making that clear in my original rationale; the names can also be found on the Commercial Crew program press kit site linked as a source above. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support also all the SpaceX CRS missions should use SpX instead, like the Orb/OA/NG mission naming used for OSC; the timing of each mission and company would vary, such as when CRS mission timing got reshuffled between Orb and SpaceX -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Also rename USCV-2 to the Boeing naming method, because that will likely be reshuffled around again -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wizardimps. We have plenty of times to justify the common name of the article. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation Needed?

@PhilipTerryGraham:: You put a Citation Needed around the following info in the first paragraph: "Glover will become the first rookie to fly into orbit on an American spacecraft since STS-131, over a decade prior. He will also become the first African-American astronaut to fly in space since Alvin Drew launched on STS-133, and the first to live aboard the ISS."

If someone looks at List of astronauts by first flight they can easily find the first part, and List of African-American astronauts or the second part. Is that good enough? Or do you actually want someone to write an article saying that before you'll allow it to be cited? You can't claim "original research" because there's no research being done.

You also reverted my change from SpaceX Crew-2 being on USCV-2, you unhelpfully and incorrectly uncorrected it to show a Starliner mission without citing a source that specifically says that Boeing will be flying that mission when they won't even have flown their CFT flight yet, per the official schedule. -- Wizardimps (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: That would be borderlining on original research, in my opinion. It would be helpful to backup the claim with an actual source stating that Glover is such and such. As for your second point, would a good compromise perhaps be to cut the Commercial Crew Program succession out of {{Infobox spaceflight}} for now, until the schedule is made clearer? That would, in my opinion, help address concerns about the possibility of SpaceX Crew-2 coming before Boeing Starliner-1 without having to use outdated names such as USCV-2 or USCV-3. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think cutting the Commercial Crew succession out is a good idea. The problem is that USCV-2 (for example) will 100% be the next vehicle to launch after USCV-1, but it is officially unknown (that is, outside of NASA and the contractors, which have known for a while, but it's not publicly known) WHICH vehicle will fill that slot.

A really complicated way of doing it would be to have one article each for USCV-w, USCV-x, SpaceX Crew-y, and Boeing CTS-z, with the infobox from the current mission pointing to the USCV link to the next mission, and the USCV-w page says (more or less) "USCV-w is the wth commercial crew launch to the ISS, it will be either SpaceX Crew-y or Boeing CTS-z" (and I'm not sure what else). At such time when it is made public then edit and redirect the USCV-w article to the launch vehicle article, then update the next USCV-x article to include the next two sequential vehicles from each company.

The problem is that I can't think of an easier way to do this and still keep everything straight, and I'm not sure what else you'd put in a USCV article. The USCV-x name is a placeholder on NASA's schedule. This is different from shuttle missions, which had a designator (STS-xx) regardless of launch order in relation to other missions, and different from individual companies' cargo launches, which keep internal numbering that doesn't have anything to do with another company's. The closest thing I can think of is how you might have a link to "next cargo launch to ISS" in some infobox which could change depending on launch slips (e.g., HTV slips due to hardware problems which makes a Cygnus the next launch), but even then that's just a simple change in the infobox. This dual company USCV schedule feels unique.

And the way the various USCV mission pages (-2, -3, and -4) are written right now assuming a particular launch vehicle and crew, those pages will need to be almost completely rewritten if the launch vehicle with its crew changes (as it almost certainly will for each). My way, they're just crew pages and all you need to do with a USCV page is link to one SpaceX and one Boeing page.

TL;DR: The crew vehicle page should be separate from the USCV mission page, until a particular crew vehicle is assigned to a particular USCV mission. I hope this makes sense.-- Wizardimps (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wizardimps: I appreciate how much thought you put into it, but you yourself even described this idea as "really complicated". The obvious problem with this idea – per Wikipedia's outline on splitting articles – is that having separate pages, e.g. Boeing Starliner-1 and USCV-2, would be against the common requirements for either a size split or a content split; both articles would be too small at this stage to warrant a split, as one would be "not sure what else [we'd] put in a USCV article" other than a simple paragraph of explanatory information on the USCV name, and the articles not distinct enough to be clear and non-confusing to readers. You've probably noticed the merge discussion occurring at Talk:Commercial Crew Program right now; if people are honestly confused with CCDev and CCP, I'm almost certain people will be confused by the split of USCV names from the missions themselves. It'd be a thousand times easier to not try to play the crystalballing game and just resign trying to predict the future of CCP missions and just remove the CCP succession from {{Infobox spaceflight}} until the schedule is made more clear by NASA, SpaceX, and/or Boeing. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Crystal Ball

It is also officially unknown if the next Commercial Crew Program flight after USCV-1/SpaceX Crew-1 will be USCV-2/SpaceX Crew-2 or Boeing-CFT, but it will certainly not be Boeing Starliner-1 (or CTS-1, as I've heard it also referred to) since Starliner-1 will not fly until CFT flies and lands.

Similarly, it is officially unknown if the Crew Dragon flight after USCV-1/Crew-1 will be USCV-2/Crew-2 or Axiom Flight Name To Be Determined 1.

If you're going to remove "next flight" from the other USCV pages, then you have to do it here too, as your crystal ball information doesn't match mine. -- Wizardimps (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Preparations

First sentence of preparations section states that Roscosmos have a backup Soyuz assigned to take USCV-1 place in case of emergency occur. Citation is from 2012. Isn't it outdated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A312:C43C:D680:510A:EC91:F715:E018 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I added a tag noting that we need to update that sentence.OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have just withdrawn this sentence which was false. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"all times in utc"

under the timeline section, there is a comment saying "all times in utc". but all the timings are actually relative, so this isn't needed. am i allowed to remove it? Ajlee2006 (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ajlee2006: I have just commented that text out so it isn’t visible, it was there because times are usually posted along with the T+ times, see Demo-2. They just haven’t been sourced and added yet. Terasail II^[] 05:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is this being called the first private crewed flight?

Why is this being called the first private crewed flight when the first one actually took place on the 30th of May? Surely this is the second private crewed flight? 95.172.233.137 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the first "official", operational one: Demo-2 was just a demo flight. And it's more the first privately launched crewed flight, since a true "private flight" would be something like the Axiom-1 mission with four non-NASA crew who are visiting the ISS on what is officially called a "Private Astronaut Mission" (PAM). Wizardimps (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wizardimps, very much for your reply. Yes, I see what you mean by "privately launched". I should have worded my question better. However, if someone does something for the first time and calls it a "demonstration" and then does it again and calls it "official", this seems to me to be just a silly and confusing word game which I don't really understand the point of. The fact is that on the 30th of May, two real-life, living, breathing astronauts were launched into space aboard a privately owned craft so that was the first time and this more recent mission was the second time. Can anyone clearly explain to me the point of the distinction between the "demonstration" and "official" designations? 95.172.233.137 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating the timeline?

The timeline on this revision is still only to nosecone opening events. Maybe this document can be helpful for the docking sequence event? FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

FarhanSyafiqF, your request seems to be a reasonable in order to provide more in depth information on the docking . I noticed that the information came from NASA and this would seem to be a credible source. Any other input? Jurisdicta (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe no. I wish I have fluent English so I can edit that section. FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed it still has not been updated UnitedFarmingInc (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations for finally updating the timeline UnitedFarmingInc (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

question on the type of thrusters used in relocating Resilience spacecraft

I wrote that super draco is used in relocating crew 1 but after seeing the plume from sides of dragon in video i don't think it is super draco , might be draco or any other inferior thrusters as the ammount of theust in this casd is much lower to one seen in cases like inflight abort test of spacex. so please find and do the needful in case its not super draco thrusters to change in mission section of the page Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Super Dracos are only used in abort scenarios. The regular Draco engines are used for phasing and maneuver burns. Ng.j (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Insignia caption

@Ng.j: I'm unsure as to what the logic is behind repeating the name of the mission in the insignia caption. The insignia displayed in an infobox is never going to be of anything other than the mission the article is about, so I don't see the need to specify the obvious to the reader. — Molly Brown (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d rather not make assumptions about how a reader is going to come across that. It might be through a Google search, or another non WP distribution. Nevertheless, the additional text doesn’t take up a lot of room. From your history, I know you’re trying to trim a lot of info boxes but I think your considerable talents can be used on better things. I’m a fan of the things you’ve added rather than removed. Ng.j (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ng.j: I'll forgive your attempt to try and make this about me rather than the actual content itself, but surely we can appeal to common sense and recognize that, for example, an insignia for Crew-1 is never going to appear on an infobox for Crew-2 and vice versa. We should have a lot more faith in readers rather than presume they're that dumb. — Molly Brown (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)