Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Dragon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:SpaceX Dragon

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 5 March 2012 (Archiving 18 thread(s) from Talk:Dragon (spacecraft).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2

Three years versus ten

Ok, these SpaceX guys will do three years what took ten years and three times the money to ESA and JAXA to achieve - so where is the trick ? 193.56.37.1 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

ISS Common Berthing Mechanism

The opening paragraph uses this term which I thought should be linked, only I cannot find anything else that indicates it is an official term in any of the other articles. I have found:

  • ISS docking compartment which refers to a Russian component attached to the bottom, Earth-facing port of the Zvezda Service Module and which provides docking ports for the Soyuz-TMA and Progress-M spacecraft. It also has two airlocks to accommodate spacewalks by Russian cosmonauts wearing Orlan-M spacesuits.
  • Joint Airlock which refers to a module based on the shuttle docking mechanism and attached to the starboard side of the Unity Module and was designed to be able to host spacewalks with both the American and Russian spacesuits

In any event is the term we are using here ISS Common Berthing Mechanism a real term or do we need to find a better less ambiguous term? Dalf | Talk 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Common Berthing Mechanism" is the official name for docking ports on the US segments of the station, such as on the Unity node, Node 2, Node 3 etc. The "ISS docking compartment" you described is in the Russian segment and quite different docking ports than those in the US segment. The "Joint" airlock (actually now replaced with the "Quest" airlock) was for spacewalks and is also quite different to the CBM's. I added a link to the name in the article for clarity. Subzero788 | Talk 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures/promotional shots I've seen have only shown HTV/Cygnus/Dragon Cargo berthed to the CBMs. And DreamChaser/CST-100/Dragon Crew docked to a PMA (specifically the PMA on Harmony).--Craigboy (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Found some info "Any vehicle docking to the United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) portion of station will use the [Common Docking Adapter] system. This includes new commercial crew vehicles."http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/articles/000000914.html --Craigboy (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SpaceX and America's Space Prize?

This article states that SpaceX could be eligible to win the America's Space Prize, but on the page for the America's Space Prize, the rules state that a company cannot have accepted government funding for the project and also says clearly that SpaceX is ineligible for having accepted funding from NASA. So which one is right? Guypersonson 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename article to "Dragon (spacecraft)"?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. We'd need another discussion to decide what to do with other pages for standardization purposes, but both patterns of disambiguation seem reasonable. There are many pages that don't use parentheticals when the addition of the disambiguating word can be a natural part of a noun phrase. Dekimasuよ! 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this article is named "SpaceX Dragon" vs. "Dragon (spacecraft)"? I ask this after noticing that the Orion craft article is named "Orion (spacecraft)". For consistency it seems like it should be one or the other. Just to add a little confusion, the article for Apollo is named "Apollo spacecraft" which seems even less consistent with article naming conventions. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Current Progress

I would like to propose a section named 'Current Progress'. I reckon that there would be more and more updates in the future and rather than have them here and there, the latest updates shall be updated therein. There had been a major update from SpaceX in their December 07 release.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got not problem with a new section, but I would call it "Development" so it will have some historical context once the system is live. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. We should just keep the section updated when new developments come along rather than have it all over the article.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Launch escape system coverage

The current article doesn't describe any kind of launch escape system for Dragon. Has SpaceX discussed this anywhere? (sdsds - talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It will be built into the side and may be used for landings on land. [1]--Craigboy (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added significant material to the article on this recently, per new sources that document SpaceX's design objectives and spacecraft plans. Please take a look. N2e (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Volume and payload

The article currently states: "Can carry over 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) and 14 m3 (490 cu ft) in cargo configuration" which is sourced by reference no. 12 (as of 2010-02-03). Reference 12, accessed 2010-02-03, states:

  • 6,000 kg (13,228 lbs) payload up-mass to LEO; 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs) payload down-mass
  • Payload Volume: 10 m3 (245 ft3) pressurized, 14 m3 (490 ft3) unpressurized
  • Supports up to 7 passengers in Crew configuration

One observation and a question:

  • Observation: the currently cited payload mass is incorrect, by a large amount.
  • Question: how should we interpret volume? Does the Dragon spacecraft, whether Crew or Cargo configuration, always have 10 m3 of pressurized volume and 14 m3 of unpressurized volume, for a total of 24 m3? Or does the reference mean that Dragon Crew has 10 m3 of volume, total, and that Dragon Cargo has 14 m3 of unpressurized volume, total? Or something entirely different? N2e (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest updating the payload capacity to 6,000 kg to agree with the SpaceX reference and qualifying this as "payload to LEO". This might be greater than payload to ISS. The graphic and text would lead a reader to conclude that this is payload to ISS, which is what we really want to provide. Does anyone know how to interpret the SpaceX reference? What is their meaning of LEO? What inclination and altitude? Does the stated 6,000 kg include fuel to reach the ISS and de-orbit? Or is 6,000 kg the usable payload delivered to ISS? Rebbargynnep (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)



To N2e, the total volume is 44 m3.--Craigboy (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)



The Article now states the Launch Payload as 6,000 kg, which is misleading when viewed in comparison to the Articles of the three other current ISS Supply Vehicles. (ATV, HTV and Progress)
The articles of the other Supply Vehicles refer to the Pressurized Payload when stating "Launch Payload".
The 6,000 figure for the DragonX is definitely not the Pressurized Payload.
The SpaceX website states:"6,000 kg (13,228 lbs) payload up-mass to LEO".
While the DataSheet says:"6.000 kg total combined up-mass capability".
Both descriptions are vague and could mean either: [Pressurised Payload + Unpressurised Payload + Fuel], or the total Launch Mass of the Dragon Vehicle. [Vehicle + Fuel + Payload]

It should be clear in the Article, that the Dragon Capsule is a smaller Vehicle, on a smaller Rocket than HTV and ATV, but with the important return capability.
Return capability ads weight and thereby reduces payload weight, but is a key capability missing with the retirement of the Shuttle. -- Xylf (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Given the increased probability that SpaceX Dragon will be one of NASA's low earth orbit vehicles transporting humans, I'm just dumping some sources from a Google News search here. Fact is that with the cancellation of Constellation, this will be one of a handful of relevant US spacecraft. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

News items

SpaceX website

Here's a few more. These are mostly interview's with Elon Musk, so they are essentially primary sources. I've used one or two here and on the SpaceX page. aremisasling (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SM or LM

Does this system have a service or logistics module like most other designs of it's type for the crewed version? Does the spacecraft have all of it's logistical needs taken care of within the lander? Dreammaker182 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Belatedly, I'm responding to this question. Yes, the manned spacecraft has a service module just like the unmanned version. Elon Musk is quoted to having said that the only differences between the unmanned and the manned version is that the manned version has a control console for the pilot and there is a launch escape tower that will be on top of the vehicle. Logistics such as maneuvering thruster fuel, power generation (via solar panels/batteries), and other incidental consumables (besides food) are indeed carried in the service module, including some "trunk" stowage for payloads that don't necessarily need to be inside a pressurized vehicle nor returned to the Earth at the end of the flight. This "service module" is also jettisoned at the end of the flight just prior to re-entry.
As far as a "lander" is concerned, I'm curious what you mean by a lander? The Dragon is using a ballistic re-entry mode similar to how the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules returned astronauts to the Earth. That is not a lander in the traditional sense, although I suppose it could be considered one. Please explain if you are still confused to describe what exactly you are looking for here? --Robert Horning (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
From what I have read and seen in diagrams, the "trunk" section just holds unpressurized cargo and solar panels. The hypergolic fuel for the Draco thrusters is carried in the aft section of the capsule just above the heat shield. That is why the aft section of the capsule only holds three people. As for consumables, I do not believe that they are a problem seeing as Dragon is designed simply to haul people to and from the ISS. I think the flight is shorter when launched from Cape Canaveral as opposed to the Baikonur Cosmodrome where Soyuz flights are launched (it takes the Russian two days to catch the ISS). In short, the trunk section only provides power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.1.207 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The Dragon spacecraft is being designed for a long-term duration flight profile... at least for the DragonLab and cargo flights. I saw a source that suggested it might be capable of being in orbit for a year or more before coming back to the Earth, and I'm fairly certain that Elon Musk has at least considered the possibility of a [Circumlunar trajectory|circumlunar orbit] profile with the Dragon vehicle. That may require some additional hardware and/or multiple flights (or a 3rd stage on the Falcon 9-Heavy) but it is something that SpaceX is looking into and is one of the overall design goals of the vehicle. It certainly isn't just trying to make the minimum profile capable of getting to the ISS, although admittedly a long-term flight of the Dragon may have to get rid of the extra "passengers" in the "bottom" of the capsule.
Elon Musk has stated his long-term goal is to eventually get to Mars. Normally I would consider a guy who says that to be nutty, but in his case I think he at least has a running start to make it happen. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Are "Dragon Cargo" and "DragonLab" the same thing?

I'm not clear on this. Are "Dragon Cargo" and "DragonLab" the same thing? The SpaceX Dragon page says "SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation."

So it would seem DragonLab is the non-ISS, non-NASA version of cargo-only Dragon spacecraft, while Dragon Cargo is the cargo-only Dragon version for the government/NASA launches? What do we have in verifiable sources that shows the two are the same? Clearly, SpaceX is making some distinction between the two craft. As it is now, many of the specs given in the article for Dragon Cargo are sourced to a Dragonlab spec sheet. I don't think we can do this; that is to say, the spec for an Acme Widget cannot be claimed as the spec for a Baker Widget. N2e (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

One "DragonLab" source of data can be found here: http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
It isn't very clear in terms of what SpaceX implies here in terms of the DragonLab vehicle, and it seems more to be a marketing method than something specific to the Dragon spacecraft. Here is a quote that is from the main website:
"SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation." (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)
In other words, they are marketing the non-government non-ISS cargo flights with the DragonLab moniker. I would like to get some verification on this, but it seems like SpaceX is planning on allowing multiple customers on a single flight with the Dragon capsule, where there would be some sort of standardized pallet or craft dimensions that could be used for experiments in space. From a marketing perspective, that sounds quite impressive, and that explains the multiple DragonLab flights already on the manifest.... where SpaceX is already making a promise that a flight will happen and all that a customer has to do is be ready to ship something when that flight goes up. This is sort of trying to treat spaceflight using an airline model.
As I said, this needs to have some additional source material found. I'm sure SpaceX could answer those kind of questions directly, but that seems to violate WP:OR in some aspects if that is done. I'll have to do some digging around (google searches, looking up conferences where SpaceX has talked about the DragonLab, and elsewhere) to find some more details). Yes I do believe verifiable content can be found on this topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad you are looking for sources, as I am. Until then, I guess it is the case that SpaceX simply has said very little about it to date. N2e (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the information we have from the SpaceX published sources. Please review it and feel free to copyedit/improve it as appropriate. N2e (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lunar/Martian requirements for heat shield

A recent addition (verified and sourced I might add.... thanks Arb!) notes that the heat shield can withstand "up to Lunar and Mars reentry velocities". I presume that this is in reference to a trip to the Moon or to Mars that has a return trajectory that has little or no adjustment (other than minor course corrections) when it hits the Earth's atmosphere.

While I appreciate over-engineering for some aspects of what SpaceX is doing, is there any indication other than this cryptic statement that SpaceX intends to fly the Dragon spacecraft anywhere other than Low-Earth Orbit? If so, that is ground breaking and even newsworthy by itself. While technically the Soyuz spacecraft (in part designed for the Soviet lunar program even if not officially claimed) can do this, that would make the Dragon to be technically the third spacecraft to hold this distinction and the first one produced in the 21st Century to make this accomplishment. If/when there is some official commentary by SpaceX or some very reliable source for this in terms of flight profiles to another celestial body, I would love to see it added to this article or even simply have it posted here to this talk page. Certainly it is something very interesting. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a FORAtv interview with Elon musk where he talks about having SpaceX put humans on Mars. Just go to the hughlights widget under the video player section here. --U5K0 (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are two interesting, fairly thorough, SpaceX/Musk sources published this month (August 2010) that could be useful in your search for sources:
Several facts about Dragon, as well as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, or SpaceX more generally could be sourced from these articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology: manned and unmanned

The article currently has a section entitled "Specifications (Both manned and unmanned versions)". Given the dynamic changes in vernacular English language over the past five decades, I think it might be better to say "Specifications (Both crewed and uncrewed versions)". Any objections? N2e (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I made the change. N2e (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see it before the change, but I'll throw in a post-facto support for the change. aremisasling (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In some contexts, isn't "uncrewed" used to describe autonomous passenger carrying vehicles, such as some airport subways? -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Do you have a source that would reflect this? If not, we need not concern ourselves about it in Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Who deleted the main article image and why?

The page for it is completely gone and I can't figure out why it was removed.--Craigboy (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lunar reentry velocity?

No head shield is required to reenter the Moon that has no atmosphere. Something is strange with this sentence. Reentering Earth when returning from the Moon, maybe? Audriusa (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is based upon a quote from Elon Musk that was paraphrased, and I'll admit it is not necessarily the best wording. The original quote is here:
"It's actually the most powerful stuff known to man. Dragon is capable of re-entering from a lunar velocity, or even a Mars velocity with the heat shield that it has," Musk said. --Spaceflight Now - original source of quote
Yes, the intention is that the heat shield can withstand re-entry velocities from missions to the Moon or Mars and use the Earth's atmosphere as an aerobrake to slow down as a part of the re-entry process. These velocities can be much higher than is typical for a LEO mission profile and really does represent a significant technological development worthy of note in and of itself. I should note here that the only spacecraft to actually perform a maneuver like this for manned spaceflight (there have been a couple other unmanned spacecraft too) is the Apollo Command Module. It also represents a future flight profile that SpaceX is aiming for, with the intention of doing a "deep space" mission with the SpaceX Dragon capsule.
All this said, the current Falcon 9 vehicle isn't powerful enough to take this capsule to any place other than to the ISS and other similar LEO orbits. BTW, I reworked the lead paragraph a bit here, but would welcome somebody else attempting to rephrase this in a better manner. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Robert, I very much appreciate your insightful work on this article. Question about your assertion: "the current Falcon 9 vehicle isn't powerful enough to take this capsule to any place other than to the ISS and other similar LEO orbits.": Is it really that the upper stage engine is insufficiently powerful? Or is it that, given current mass fractions etc., the current Falcon 9 launcher would have insufficient fuel to take any substantial payload beyond LEO? In other words, with LEO propellant depots a refueled Falcon9/Merlin1c upper stage might well be able to put the craft on a deep-space mission. No? N2e (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the concept of propellant depots has yet to be proven or organized in any substantial manner, particularly for manned spaceflight. There might be something to the concept to go somewhere else, but it would require something equivalent to the Saturn V third stage to be lofted into orbit and fueled in some manner to at least get to a lunar orbit.
On the other hand, since I wrote that response SpaceX has proposed the idea of the Falcon XX, which has the payload capacity of launching the same tonnage to LEO as a Boeing 747 can carry for a typical trans-oceanic flight. Yeah, my jaw dropped when I looked at that number, and presumably if you threw a Dragon capsule at the top of that beast it could easily make a trip to Mars and back. It really is an issue of getting enough propellant into orbit.
There are always going to be options to try different things, and apparently Elon Musk does have some big plans for the Dragon in the future. It will be interesting to see what stuff he is going to push for once he gets the Falcon 9 put into regular service. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

I have reverted to the original orange format for the infobox, until there is consensus to use another style formatting. I prefer the original orange style as well, which means based on the edit history is a majority of the original. Therefore please discuss proposed changes here.

As for stating class="infobox" is site standard ; please note WP:MOS is just a guideline, and WP:NORULES. If there is consensus for a different style that appears better, then it should be used. - Aeonx (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the table format is consistent between the various unmanned resupply spacecraft. I would encourage you to encapsulate the formatting into an {infobox}-like template which could be used more conveniently across these articles. That way, if a different style is agreed upon, it can be applied consistently by changing it in only one place. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That was inappropriate. That hard-coded table is rich with issues, besides the 'orange'. Got a rational for the colour? The MOS says to not hard-code things like colour without a valid rational: WP:Deviations. No talk here is going to trump the site standards such as class="infobox" and the MOS; see WP:CONLIMITED. Aeonx, you've userboxes posted indicating coding experience. The code you reverted to is full of crap; cellspacing and cellpadding on data cells and header cells, where they have no effect (they only apply to the table-element). and there's the mind-numbingly bad code: colspan="1".
IanOsgood, you're right, of course, about shifting to a template; that's been my intent all along, as I indicated here. Off to find the appropriate template. And thanks for pointing at the others that need fixing. I'd noticed Shenzhou (spacecraft)#Shenzhou spacecraft but had not realized that this sort of junk had been so widely copypasta'd Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning is simple. In my opinion it looks better, both in orange and using the hard formatting. In fact, using the class="infobox" makes the whole infobox far too wide for the article page (regardless of your browser resolution width). Aeonx (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, both are inappropriate. Whatever formatting details belong in a template; on invoking {{infobox}} for most of it. Encapsulation, and all. I've addressed the width issue by hard-codding the overall width to the 22em used in std infoboxes. The orange was just some random colour someone picked, long ago. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I am definitely not opposed to change, and in fact I would create the infobox template to conform to the standards; but I don't have much experience with that specifically and I don't have the time at this moment to do the required research and testing. However, I am very happy to work with you to provide feedback and try to come up with something that fits in with the wider consensus and still looks appealing. Perhaps if you want to draft up a template, I'll see if I can work on it to. Feel free to ping my talk page. Aeonx (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at other spacecraft articles and see that this is a wide spread problem. I believe what's happened is that most of these articles were created in the very early years of the project — before templates even were part of MediaWiki. All infoboxes used to be implemented with embedded markup and templates and specific one such as infobox and the corresponding css class were developed to address the general issue of stuff being endlessly copypasta'd to yet-moar articles. It's a problem out on the smaller projects, too.
I'm busy, too, but will nip away at this, as I have time. When I've something interesting, I will ping you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't we using {{Infobox spacecraft}} here? Is there something wrong with the way this template looks? Mlm42 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
See: {{Spaceflight infoboxes}}. {{Infobox spacecraft}} is really intended for use on unmanned spacecraft. That said, it is being used on articles such as Shenzhou (spacecraft), and a gloss of Spacecraft reveals a general consensus that the term applies to both manned and unmanned craft. The two uses will involve different information, like number of crew... So, we either need to enhance {{Infobox spacecraft}} to be more suitable to both types of craft or have parallel infoboxes for the two types. I'm open to either, but am inclined towards extending the {{Infobox spacecraft}} to support more parameters. This page is not really the place for this discussion; how about taking it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight to get moar views? Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've raised the question of expanding the infobox at the WikiProject Spaceflight talkpage. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, User:Huntster and I have been having a discussion on this on our respective Talk pages, and a few article pages, for half a year or more. I just invited him over here to weigh in if he's still interested. N2e (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a long-delayed project. I'm setting up a sandbox for ideas and designs at User:Huntster/Sandbox/2, so please weigh in with thoughts and suggestions on the talk page. The biggest idea is to trim things down and standardise formats a little better than the array of templates we already have. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Importance?

I seriously doubt this is a top importance article for any of its Wikipedia projects. Although the Dragon has the design goal of human spaceflight, it shouldn't have top importance until it actually flies someone. And I'm not sure how a capsule can get top importance in the Rocketry project when it isn't even a rocket! --IanOsgood (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NASA funded "Development? or "...COTS mission no. 1?"

The current lede includes the text "Development was partially funded through a Space Act Agreement under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program." It has no source. My question is was it "development" of the Dragon that was partially funded by NASA, or was it the specific mission, Dragon C1, that was funded by NASA under COTS? Or something else and neither of my two statements captures it correctly? N2e (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

NASA signed a contract to fly several missions into space with the goal to demonstrate resupply capabilities with the ISS. There was some up-front seed money based upon meeting preliminary milestones before flight, and some of those included Dragon development. I think that is what is being referenced here. The source would be from the NASA COTS directors if you needed a formal source. The missions themselves also had some additional funding "earmarked" just for making the vehicles get into space, aka the COTS flights too. The answer is both, plus the fact that SpaceX has been getting at least some outside funding. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I tried to make a little bit of progress on clarifying this yesterday, by copyediting and by creating separate sections for the NASA-contracted cargo launches—which include, as I understand it per the sources, an additional three contract development missions to demonstrate safety vis a vis the ISS and NASA-driven safety standards—AND a separate (and later) NASA program to facilitate commercial company progress with development of additional human-carrying capabilities on commercial (non-NASA) technologies in order that NASA might be able to subsequently purchase commercial crew missions to and from the ISS after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The work I've done to date is in the body of thea article; it may be that the lede needs a bit of copyediting as well. Anyone care to help out? N2e (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename article to Dragon (spacecraft)

I see this was proposed a few years ago, and didn't go through, so I'll propose it again. For consistency among other spacecraft articles, I think we should call this article Dragon (spacecraft). At the moment that page is a disambiguation page, but this problem could be solved with a hatnote linking to Dragon (rocket), which is considerably less well-known. Also, see the recent discussion here. Mlm42 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. My rationale is that it is both more clear to the average Wikipedia reader—who will clearly see that this particular "Dragon" is a vehicle of type spacecraft—and also consistent with many other spacecraft articles as well as SpaceX's own terminology for the spacecraft. N2e (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I continue to support the name change. But I will note here for the record an additional rationale, and a possible explanation for why SpaceX Dragon was a good name in the past and is not the best name for the present and future, where Dragon (spacecraft) is better. At the time of the previous merge proposal (late 2007), it would be correct (and fair) to see the Dragon as just yet one more spacecraft concept vehicle, with some amount of paper design, but real uncertainty about whether it would ever fly, on a launch vehicle that was yet to fly, by a rocket company that was yet to have a successful orbital launch. In that situation, best to have that company's concept spacecraft be associated with the company name: thus, SpaceX Dragon. Now that the rocket company has been successful with two orbital rocket designs, and the launch vehicle on which the Dragon flys has made two (of two attempts) successful launches, and the Dragon has actually flown in space, I think Dragon (spacecraft) is a much better name now. It is, indeed, the spacecraft with the name "Dragon." Cheers.
  • Neutral/Don't Care - If you want to choose a flavor of the month with the article title, I really don't care. Just make sure that article title, whatever you want to name it, is listed in Dragon (disambiguation) properly and that SpaceX Dragon redirects to the new title. A fair number of articles link to this under the current name, so the main thing is to avoid double redirecting issues if you decide to change the name again in the future. Generally I don't get worked up with article titles and links as long as it gets there eventually. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Most of those incoming links are probably through the three templates at the bottom of the page.. so they'd be easy to change. And I think there's a bot that takes care of double redirects anyway. Mlm42 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus to move the page. I'll request G6 deletion of the redirect to facilitate this. --GW… 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello all. The move has been completed. SpaceX Dragon has been left as a redirect, which I assume is OK. The fair use rationale in the info box image has been updated to link to the new title; the other images all seem to be from Commons so no problems there. A number of double redirects have been fixed. The sort key has been updated. The Dragon (disambiguation) page has been updated. The links in the three templates have been updated. Would someone check that I haven't missed anything? Just ping me if the admin tools are needed. Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Dragon/Archive_1&oldid=480407016"