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.
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)
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)
I'll note that we also seem to have Progress spacecraft, TKS spacecraft, and Soyuz spacecraft. I'm not sure if we want to rename all of these articles to the (spacecraft) convention, or if we should move this to Dragon spacecraft, and similarly for Orion. — PyTom (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose SpaceX is a commercial firm, so this would be like aircraft, and also SpaceShipOne. Progress, Orion, Apollo, TKS, Soyuz, are all governmental programs. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Support. This fits the current naming system better. — Huntster (t@c) 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Support. As stated above it seems consistent. --Craigboy (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong support per above and the newly-implemented WP:SPACENAME --GW… 18:15, 13 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)
Thanks. I'll work to get this clarified in the article at some point. N2e (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Naming of the Dragon spacecraft
This is interesting. According to this, ostensibly reliable mainstream news media source, "The Dragon space capsules are named after Puff the Magic Dragon, since many critics considered the mission to be impossible" according to unnamed "SpaceX officials."[1]
I had not read this before. If it is confirmed in a second source, I will add it to the article. Or alternatively, other editors may want to add it based on the one media source we have here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Another source that I know of that can confirm this information is from this interview of Elon Musk:
I don't know how "reliable" you can consider a YouTube video, but the interview appears to be legitimate and it is in Elon Musk's own words. Mr. Musk also gives the origin of the name of the Falcon Rocket (aka the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars). Does that count at a "second source" of information here? --Robert Horning (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Launch escape system design and testing -- wording
Word choice: "reputed", vs "stated" (User:129.54.8.46) vs "claimed". It seems to me that "claimed" is really more accurate and preferable, being asserted here in a commercially competitive environment. But others may want to weigh in. Wwheaton (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
My concern here is that all of this information is really just derived from the primary source, namely the SpaceX website. There is no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the information on either site, but I am questioning the value of a "second source" of information here. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
where?
and the launchpad is in what place ? Penyulap ☏ 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Err, it's NOTanARTICLE about a spacecraft if it doesn't tell you where on earth the launch pad is. (some text removed)Penyulap ☏ 04:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article about a specific spacecraft, but rather a class of spacecraft manufactured as the same model design. Your question here is more like "what road can I find a Ford Mustang being driven on?" This spacecraft can be launched at, and SpaceX is seeking to launch this spacecraft class at multiple locations. Your question is moot and the answer doesn't belong in this article unless you are giving some context to the question. While in practice it will usually be launched on a Falcon 9 rocket, in theory even that isn't strictly necessary as the Dragon spacecraft can be launched on top of any rocket with the necessary thrust to get it to orbit. A better question would be "Where has this spacecraft been launched at in the past?" I won't bother giving an answer because that question has already been answered and is in the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, you're not making any sense. SpaceX COTS missions all launch from the Cape.--Craigboy (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What Cape ? the cape of good hope, cape Canaveral, cape Horn ? There was a single mention of Canaveral in the entire article when I brought this up, and that was in a caption for an image. The craft is commercial, that is true, but it is also in a physical place, English readers across Europe, India, Asia, everywhere may not have any idea where Cape Canaveral is, especially when it is only written once in the entire article. Rather than add the information myself, I'd rather know for certain this simple piece of missing information before putting it in, as there would be plenty of Dragon experts here, and for that matter, the asking may inspire someone to think 'where is it, oh hey, omg the article doesn't even say that, oops! better put that in quick !' so instead of typing me an answer they could just as well save time by turning their expertise to the article. As I understand there are a few launch sites geographically close together in the US, Kennedy and the air-force base as well, so clarifying for each launch is better than BB I would think. Penyulap ☏ 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "BB"? Clarification on the launch site has been added, see below.--Craigboy (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Craigboy. By BB I meant that rather than dive in and state that Dragon is taking off from Canaveral in the USA, I figured to ask first, as there is no shortage of American Spaceflight fans familiar with the scattering of launch sites, pads and scheduling. So I decided initially not to wp:bb, in retrospect, I should have just gone ahead. Penyulap ☏ 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2012[5]
SpX-3
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2013[5]
SpX-4
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2013[5]
SpX-5
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2014[5]
SpX-6
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2014[5]
SpX-7
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2014[5]
SpX-8
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2015[5]
SpX-9
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2015[5]
SpX-10
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2015[5]
SpX-11
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2015[5]
SpX-12
TBA
Hardware scheduled to arrive at launch site in 2015[5]
(clarified text) no mention of the location of the launch site. Penyulap ☏ 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be in line with other spacecraft articles. None of the other spacecraft articles link to launchpads. As to the list, even List of unmanned spaceflights to the International Space Station doesn't mention launch sites. Perhaps you are confusing spacecraft with their launch systems? The Dragon's launcher, Falcon 9, does reference its launch pad(s). --IanOsgood (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there are stub articles, poorly written articles or FA quality articles out there should have no bearing on what is done to improve this article. If it's going to talk about a launch site, it's fundamentally bad writing to leave out where that launch site is, my apologies to all if I have been rather blunt on that point, but it is incredibly poor form to have such an awful approach to writing.
Further, if you wish to hold back an article based on a comparison to another poorly written article, you're comparing the wrong articles, someone mentioned this article is about a spacecraft, and the List of unmanned spaceflights to the International Space Station is a list class article, which poses the question, if this article is simply a list of flights, where is the real article about the Dragon spacecraft ?
Spacecraft and readers come from all over the world, writing the article from the perspective of a reader from an unknown location is the proper way to write the article. Penyulap ☏ 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should be added to COTS/CRS mission section and I have done so.--Craigboy (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The acronym NASA could be expanded on at least once in the whole article as well, certainly Americans know what it means, but if I were to start saying CSME this and CSME that, you might ask for it to be explained at least once also, this policy helps explain a little. Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently there's some debate whether or not NASA needs to be written out. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronym_exceptions. I've noticed the Progress mission pages simply say "Baikonur Site 1/5" with no mention of Kazakhstan. I'd consult with some of the older editors before making any vast changes.--Craigboy (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sweet ! they have a list, I wasn't aware of that. It's a good idea to update those progress pages, just so long as it gives some clarity, as there are more rockets from more places taking to the heavens. India and Korea may well be up there before anyone updates some of our pages, so it's good to write years ahead, more years ahead for quieter articles, and less for busy ones. This dragon is seriously exciting, I said it before and I'll say it again, it's one sexy looking spaceship. :) Surely there have to be some notable notables noticing this.
Can anyone explain please (if there is any reason) why they chose the name Dragon for a metallic spacecraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.191.243 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to put this into the article somehow. It would be nice if we could get some reliable sources about this "fact", as I questioned the earlier YouTube reference as a reliable source... even though it was an interview of Elon Musk where I think it could be counted as reliable in this instance for something of this nature. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll add it in with the Space.com source above. Michaelmas1957 05:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Payload
In the COTS-2-Press-Kit from 5th May 2012 (page 27) it is written, that Dragon could lift 3310kg payload to orbit.
There are some contradictions in Dragon (and other SpaceX's hardware) numbers between sources. That leads to inaccuracies in published data.
I found this one: Pressurized volume inside Dragon can't be 10 m3. Reference (3) claims that's the pressurized payload volume. From the draft included in the same document and with a little geometry we can conclude total pressurized volume is a bit over 15 m3.
I won't edit the article but maybe someone would like to check it, and do the fix if I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.83.223 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I see your math? I don't see any contradictions so you're going to have to be more specific.--Craigboy (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Current Space Flight?
Should the {{current spaceflight}} tag be added due to the missions that are currently using the Dragon? Usacfg (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It was a little while ago; someone removed it after the Dragon docked with the ISS. I'm not very good with tags myself, but if you think it's relevant, add it. Michaelmas1957 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Are the solar panels connected to the trunk allowed to destructively reenter along with the trunk? Some way to connect them to the station or bring them back safely would save a lot of money and material. Bizzybody (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are attached to the expendable trunk. Yes, it would be nice to recover and reuse them, but that's probably not cost-effective at present, since a controlled reentry of the trunk would add considerable complexity and support requirements. The Falcon 9 (launch vehicle) first stage is intended to be recoverable, which is easier since it doesn't require atmospheric re-entry. The second stage is hoped to be recoverable eventually, but that capability hasn't been developed yet. It would be similar issue as with the Trunk and solar cells. Storing the panels in the recoverable Dragon capsule would increase complexity and expense, and reduce the available cargo space. It would be nice to include some mention of this issue in the article itself, but I don't have an encyclopedic reference for it.
An expendable trunk DOES impact the "reusability" of the Dragon system. --Robert Keiden (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Production section
Under the Production subheading, the second sentence incorrectly states as present fact a prediction made in 2010. Given SpaceX's history of wildly optimistic time frames, it may or may not be true. If it is true, there needs to be a reference cited from the year 2012 for the statement, not just the prediction from 2010. Furthermore, while SpaceX can presumably use all the Falcon 9 rockets it produces, does it really need to crank out so many Dragon capsules? Dragon is reusable. SpaceX hasn't lost one yet. If SpaceX really produced one every three months since 2010, they would likely already have more than enough (6-7) to complete every mission out to 2020. The statement does follow what Musk said in the interview, but common sense suggests he was speaking compactly about a capability for Dragon and an actual production rate for Falcon.
The current page reads:
"In December 2010, the SpaceX production line was reported to be manufacturing one new Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket every three months. By 2012, production turnover had increased to one every six weeks."
Short term correction for the 2nd sentence (pending further fact-checking): "By 2012, production turnover was planned to become one every six weeks."
Yes, of course that highlights your facts are out of date, but writing as if the underlying information was updated when it was not is inaccurate. "By 1975, we should all be commuting to work in flying cars." -> "By 1975, everyone was commuting to work in flying cars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.73.206 (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'll change the text to reflect that. Michaelmas1957 12:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I need to find a reliable source for this bit of information, but SpaceX is required under the COTS contract to produce a new Dragon capsule for every flight to the ISS. SpaceX retains ownership of those vehicles and may reuse them for other separate missions, but that does imply at least a dozen different Dragon capsules will be built between now and 2016 when the COTS contract is currently anticipated to be completed. With other projects that seem to be using Dragon vehicles, I could see a regular production of this spacecraft on the order of at least a couple to as many as four per year now that SpaceX is moving into regular serial production. This said, I don't think SpaceX has a dozen Dragon capsules on hand at the moment as there have been several design changes and it is still going through an engineering development phase rather than serial production. I just read an article which stated that the Dragon capsule for the next COTS flight is still under construction at the Hawthorne plant, sort of cementing the idea that there aren't a dozen capsules already completed.
BTW, the issues expressed here seem to apply to other SpaceX related articles, as forward looking statements haven't panned out as well as Elon Musk had hoped, at least for specific deadlines and anticipated launch dates. The Falcon 1 article in particular is in horrible shape and needs some serious pruning and cleanup. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the issues expressed here are not unique to SpaceX, but endemic within the space development industry (both private and public). Unrealistically optimistic projections are the norm and not the exception. (It's considered moderately exceptional that SpaceX successfully launched their hardware at all.) IMO, the subject could be worth splitting into a new article on its own, since it affects everyone across the board.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
DragonRider Picture
At the press conference there was a mock-up of Dragon Rider. Not the one we have seen before, this one one had the LAS engines mounted (on the outside, it looked nice!). Be good if we can get a picture, but I haven't found one yet. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅ 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Found one. Not a complete shot, but you can see it in the background. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅ 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, cropped it and added it to the article. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅ 19:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure its the same mock-up, they just changed the outer mold.--Craigboy (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
210 days
"For typical missions, DragonRider would remain docked to the ISS for a period of 180 days; it is required to be able do so for 210 days, the same as the Russian Soyuz spacecraft."
pretty sure that this is wrong, the soyuz is rated at 1 year minimum on orbit. msn is full of it, along with whatever other refs there are that i haven't checked yet. Penyulap ☏ 22:22, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The information listed seems to be confirmed by the Power Point slides and the James Oberg reference. My very faulty memory and something that is most definitely not a reliable source seems to confirm what you said about the Soyuz, but I wouldn't even know where to begin to back up that claim. More importantly, unless you can come up with something that is more reliable or at least more current than the James Oberg reference, this fact and piece of trivia must stand. I think it may be possible that the Dragon spacecraft doesn't fit the same profile of the Soyuz spacecraft and may last longer. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading somewhere that it could stay docked about 400 days. But now I can't remember where I read that... WingtipvorteX(talk)∅ 20:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The easy place to search is possibly the explosive bolt that they took out of the soyuz and returned to earth for examination. I'll figure the 'trivia' can wait for an extraordinary reference to back the claim. The capabilities of the Soyuz are not trivial. Penyulap ☏ 09:19, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
According to http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/responses/nasa/2012-05-09_NASA_Response.pdf Soyuz on the ISS are used for up to 180 days, and are certified by RSA for up to 200 days. (if May 2012, and Charlie Bolden are current and reliable enough.) I can't find a definitive source for Soyuz having a "210 day limit", but some NASA and other pages make that claim. The "210 day limit" appears to a new requirement for commercial vehicles under development, that slightly exceeds Soyuz' shelf-life. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The best refs for Russian craft are Russian refs if you can find 'em, or ESA refs. What NASA leaves out is absolutely staggering I kid you not, they are good for free pics, and a lot of info, but their descriptions of Russian hardware and missions are appalling. Penyulap ☏ 23:15, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, your severe bias is well-known, well documented and has been proven to lack logic. I still remember your crazy argument about how APAS was used in the 1960s because some obituary said so despite what other American (and Russian) sources and reason said.--Craigboy (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
yes, it's true, I'm just too focused on reality. Like the ISS, there are 8 solar arrays if you go by what NASA says, you can even cite it to them. They control the whole thing too, they just don't mention they have no engines and no bridge to do it from and their ground control operations consist mostly of watching a TV feed from moscow. Thing is, Nasa is biased, they all are, I'm just 5 times as biased as everyone else because I combine the biased sources of all the 5 partners rather than relying exclusively on nasa bias, which other editors call 'the nasa brochure' effect. Dragon is the same, everyone is biased, spacex has the final say, because it is their machine and they built it. Soyuz is the same, the Russians get the same final say because they built the thing. So call me biased because I don't rely on nasa exclusively, it's true. Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
If it's a question of what the hardware can do and what happens when it can't, Oberg may be as good as Bolden (and neither as good as primary sources) but "certification" is a legal fiction, where I would presume the contracting parties (NASA and their Russian counterparts) to be authoritative unless those parties disagree. (Unless there is no internal consistency at all, which could also be the case.)--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a different cultural approach, the Americans are big on rubber stamps and 'certification' and the paperwork shuffle. not a criticism, that is what they do with the budget money, they consume 12 times the space budget of China, who have a station and a way to get there. Russia is not focused on certification, they focus on making things better if they break, and making everything repairable on orbit, so how long something is good for is like 'I don' understand zee question'. They worry about deterioration and research it, like with the bolts, but the Soyuz systems are not limited the same way as, say, the shuttle with a power system that is on the clock and can't be shut down, after 14 days or so, that shuttle has run out of power and that's final, docked or not.
The 210 day certification of the Soyuz is meaningless in many ways, and soon they will quite possibly do the Mars 500 prep on the ISS, the duration will be 12 months, and the Soyuz's may remain for the 12 months with the crew, although not mentioned yet and not definite. They have swapped crew around on different ships before. depends how they do the experiment, if it has half the crew swapped in the middle or not. If not, they'd keep the ships on orbit for the full 12 months.
The hardware is the question, I don't know what the Dragon relies upon for it's service life, but the Soyuz is not really limited, all it's systems operate indefinitely, the ships computer is shut down, and every few weeks the station computer wakes it up and says hello how are you, how you feeling (status report) and lets it know what's been happening and where they are (navigation information on current position in case the soyuz needs to be used to escape later) and that sort of thing, they are quite nice to each other. At the start of the ISS they weren't speaking to each other, and a crew member had to go into the soyuz and talk to the ship's computer manually, hmph. Certification of the USOS was focusing on a lot of things but one big standout was power supplies and how long the service life of rechargeable batteries is in different systems. Anyhow, I should shut up, research beats talk any day, but they are the avenues to search along. Long term exposure to radiation and battery life, but the former more likely than the latter. Does the dragon heat the seals for it's airlock ? if they are cold, that will limit the service life right there. Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Soyuz cannot stay docked for 12 months, please stop saying it can while you continue to not produce any sources that say otherwise.--Craigboy (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
Just popping in to give a reminder to be civil and assume good faith. User:Penyulap, you need to provide sources to back up your statements. This discussion is in the contradiction section of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, which is off-limits for a civil discussion. Remember this is not a forum for discussing whether or not NASA's certification policy is adequate or who runs the better space agency, this is for improving the article. We consider NASA to be a reliable source and, unless it can be proven otherwise, it will remain that way.
If this discussion does not turn for the better, I suggest you stay cool and WP:DISENGAGE for a while. Cheers! WingtipvorteX(talk)∅ 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Selection by NASA
Looks like it is set in stone now, just got this from spaceX:
NASA SELECTS SPACEX TO RETURN AMERICANS TO SPACE
(Hawthorne, CA) – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) today won a $440 million contract with NASA to develop the successor to the Space Shuttle and transport American astronauts into space.
This is a decisive milestone in human spaceflight and sets an exciting course for the next phase of American space exploration, said SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk. SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown.
SpaceX expects to undertake its first manned flight by 2015 – a timetable that capitalizes on the proven success of the company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft combination. While Dragon is initially being used to transport cargo to the International Space Station, both Dragon and Falcon 9 were designed from the beginning to carry crew.
Under the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative's base period, SpaceX will make the final modifications necessary to prepare Dragon to safely transport astronauts into space. These include:
Seats for seven astronauts.
The most technically advanced launch escape system ever developed, with powered abort possibilities from launch pad to orbit. SpaceX will demonstrate that Dragon will be able to escape a launch-pad emergency by firing integrated SuperDraco engines to carry the spacecraft safely to the ocean. SpaceX will also conduct an in-flight abort test that allows Dragon to escape at the moment of maximum aerodynamic drag, again by firing the SuperDraco thrusters to carry the spacecraft a safe distance from the rocket.
A breakthrough propulsive landing system for gentle ground touchdowns on legs.
Refinements and rigorous testing of essential aspects of Dragon's design, including life-support systems and an advanced cockpit design complete with modern human interfaces.
SpaceX will perform stringent safety and mission-assurance analyses to demonstrate that all these systems meet NASA requirements.
With a minimal number of stage separations, all-liquid rocket engines that can be throttled and turned off in an emergency, engine-out capability during ascent, and powered abort capability all the way to orbit, the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed.
Not yet. They were one of the three selected, plus this isn't the final round of CCDev (there will be a further down select)--Craigboy (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
They're definitely the front runner, though. Michaelmas1957 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I was simply stating they haven't yet selected "SpaceX to return Americans to space".--Craigboy (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Cargo Craft Payload Capacities and Summary of All Active and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft
For everyone's information, I have collected the following info:
Cargo Craft Payload capacities to Low-Earth Orbit:
Space Shuttle: 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
Progress: 2,350 kg (5,200 lb)
Automated Transfer Vehicle: 7,667 kg (16,900 lb)
H-II Transfer Vehicle: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb)
Dragon: 6,000kg (13,227lb) [approx.]
(information taken from the wiki page of each vehicle)
Please also see a Summary of All Current and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft (with proper names and company names) here:
Please use this info and update it/add to it as you see fit. It's some of the most important stuff that people will likely want to know about current human space travel.
--Radical Mallard (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's listed under "COTS Related". I was going to wait until Cygnus launched to get the payload info.--Radical Mallard (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should add it because the comparison between the vehicles is much more complicated than just the mass they can deliver to orbit.--Craigboy (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is even the second flight to the ISS only loaded to 15% (550kg)? Is the Falcon9 still at and thrust level incompatible with the 3310kg payload?--Stone (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Great question. I was flabbergasted when I read that low published mass payload number as well. If anyone has a source that explains it, the info ought to definitely be used to improve the CRS SpX-1 article, and perhaps the main Dragon (spacecraft) article as well. It is difficult to believe NASA isn't taking up all the cargo capacity that is a) needed in the station, b) approved for carriage on Dragon (e.g., I don't think Dragon was built to do the large amount of hypergolic propellant that is carried on-board the Russian Prospect resupply spacecraft; could be other special cargo types as well), and c) would fit in the Dragon. Is it perhaps that the pressurized cargo volume maxima is being reached and it just happens that such low-density cargo does not get close to the mass maxima for the space transport trip? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
6.8 cubic metres (6800 l)with 550kg makes a density of 0.1 kg/l. The other supply spacecrafts have a similar volume to mass ratio. A average density of 0.1kg/l looks very odd. Is it possible that the Falcon9 is not good enough to lift more? --Stone (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If I had to speculate, I would suspect that NASA doesn't quite trust SpaceX yet with vital payloads. There could also be other reasons for the lack of payload, but speculating that the lift isn't there doesn't sound right either. The previous flight included a secondary mission that had the 2nd stage continue a burn to a high altitude orbit (not quite GEO, but the apogee of the final orbit was over 10 million meters. Is it possible in this upcoming flight that SpaceX is trying to put a dummy satellite into GEO, just to prove they can accomplish the task? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make ISS people happy send them fresh water and fruits. ISS always needs alot of fuel. These items are not a risk if lost. So I would fill it to max. Also stuff wich you can re-sell after reentry would make more sense than to leave it empty.--Stone (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Dragon doesn't transport fuel (only Progress and ATV do) and Zvezda's tanks can only hold so much.--Craigboy (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources so this information could be put into this article? Raw speculation is fine for a fan forum, but I would presume that something of this nature would be talked about by a reputable news organization or at least somebody covering commercial spaceflight activity in one of the various trade journals about spaceflight. It certainly would be something worth adding into this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The numbers of SpaceX are sparse and most of the time with an margin due to advertising. The truth is not clear if you do not have all numbers.--Stone (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I presume that NASA holds press conferences and that presumably somebody from Wikipedia/Wikinews might even be able to ask a question at that press conference about this information? Either that or somebody else who is really hungry for a juicy story to try and get to the bottom of this issue? Even a letter to a congressman asking why tax dollars are being spent so foolishly for sending essentially an empty spacecraft to the ISS? I just can't imagine this getting a pass from those who may be writing articles about spaceflight, especially a known critic of SpaceX like Andy Pasztor of the Wall Street Journal?
Regardless, this figure seems to be comparable with the COTS 2 payload, and the question wasn't raised there. Perhaps this is a tempest in a teapot, but it does seem like something which could be asked in a variety of places which could be turned into a reliable source. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The press conference is on Saturday, I strongly believe someone will bring up the question. SpaceX COTS 2 was a demo mission that was required to perform a lot of different test maneuvers before it could berth with ISS. It was also filled with only low value cargo and I believe at the time the ISS was still pretty full from STS-135 (but don't quote me on that). Also in my opinion Pasztor is an idiot.--Craigboy (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that Andy Pasztor is an idiot, but one thing I think is pretty certain is that he is no SpaceX fanboi who will buy the company line in a press release. If there was anything which could put SpaceX in a negative light, he would be nearly the first person to write an article about such a topic. Sending an e-mail to him as a story suggestion on something like this would be like throwing a match into a gasoline tank. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In the pre-launch news conference on 6 Oct, SpaceX prez Gwynne Shotwell pretty much answered this question head on (it was the first question of the Q&A portion of the news conference). The cargo upmass on this flight is relatively low-density; thus low mass relative to volume. A few minutes earlier, in her prepared remarks, she indicated that the interior pressurized cargo volume of the Dragon would be more full than was seen on the COTS 2/3 mission, appearing to fill up each of the major areas where cargo can be stowed, including the central region which was unused on the last flight. The NASA guy also seemed to indicate that their might have been some payload processing snafus on the NASA side, but that was less explicit. I suspect we'll see this covered in the space press in the next day or two and will be able to locate a secondary source for this info to go into the SpaceX CRS-1 article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If you review the CRS contract you'll find that NASA decides how much is sent up and returned by Dragon on the CRS flights, not SpaceX. SpaceX is contracted for a minimum of 20 tonnes (metric I think) with options for more flights if NASA decides they are required. SpaceX is like FedEx in this sense, they simply provide the vehicle.
Further investigation by readers will elicit the fact that the F9 was carrying ballest and the OrbCom test satellite which clearly demonstrates considerable capability. If NASA had wanted more carried then the ballest and/or the secondary payload would have been ditched. And further, NASA interview indicated that the extra shuttle flight had stuffed the ISS with extra provisions to allow for delays in the COTS program. Downmass was more important than upmass on this flight and probably future flights as well since no other existing vehicle has this capability, i.e. getting back science experiments, equipment for refurbishment, etc. There's been plenty of discussion about all of these aspects on space-related sites and press but perhaps not in the general news outlets. I refer you to a couple of good ones: www.spaceflightnow.com and www.nasaspaceflight.com --2403:3B00:201:333:891E:FEB9:B328:67CF (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)BeanCounter
Headline Image Free Alternatives
The Headline image is a screengrab from a SpaceX demo video. I am sure that SpaceX is delighted that the image that shows up on Wikipedia is from their promotional material, it seems to go against Wikipedia's policies to use non free media when it is not necessary. Numerous Public Domain/Free Licensed shots of the Dragon exist, such as This One (NASA). Unless an Exterior shot of an ISS rendezvous is considered necessary, I think that we should use a NASA pic, seeing as there are quite a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usacfg (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
That only shows the CRS Dragon and not DragonRider.--Craigboy (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
That only shows the CRS Dragon and it doesn't show Dragon in its deployed form.--Craigboy (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
GA nomination
This article is detailed, well-sourced and well-illustrated without being excessively long - I think it could qualify as a Good Article. I'm going to nominate it now. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A few things:
Few points
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?
These sub-sections seem out of place in the history section, since they are proposals only. I'd like to move them to the "Design" section, where it seems a more natural follow-on from the other three versions of Dragon listed there. I'll wait a week to see if anyone strongly objects, but anyone who strongly agrees is welcome to take the initiative. -- PaulxSA (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Will a Dragon Spacecraft ever be re-used?
Seems like we are using a new Dragon Spacecraft for each mission. Is the mission name also the name of the actual spacecraft used? Wasn't the real savings of Dragon that the spacecraft could be sent back into space, or are they planned to be retired after each mission?
user:mnw2000 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The NASA specs for the contracted Cargo Resupply (CRS) missions to the ISS require a new Dragon for each mission; standard operating procedure for the legacy US space program. SpaceX is planning on using refurbished Dragons for the the DragonLab commercial missions that are on their launch manifest. But I have not seen anything in the public news feeds (meaning WP:V information) about how easy or hard it has been for SpaceX to fill up (sell) the cargo manifest for the commercial DragonLab missions they have scheduled. If anyone sees a source for such info, please let us know. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
SpaceX plans to eventually start reusing the capsules (ever couple of months they'll restate it during press conferences or interviews) but I don't think they've released a timetable on when they will refly one.--Craigboy (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Info
Musk recently stated that the manned variant won't have solar arrays, he didn't clarify if the next version of the Cargo variant will also not have them. The quote starts at about 23 minutes into the video.
Very interesting news. Of course, with Musk's Tesla experience on that technology front, I can see the tradeoff of larger battery pack versus complexity for the relatively short-duration missions to ferry some crew to the Space Station. Did the Space Shuttle have much in the way of solar arrays? Or did the Shuttle also use the battery approach? ... or fuel cells? or what? N2e (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Space Shuttle used fuel cells. Boeing's CST-100 is also planned to use batteries. The reason why the DragonRider and CST-100 designs can get away with this is because they only have a free flight time of a few days with the rest of the mission spent attached to the ISS and receiving power from its massive arrays.--Craigboy (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The trunk's protective thermal control coating
Z-93C55 was developed by Alion Science and Technology Corp., based in McLean, Va. Prior to being used on Dragon it was part of Materials International Space Station Experiments (MISSE)-1 and 2. The coating is an evolution of Z-93P, which was used on many other NASA missions.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130014266_2013014076.pdf
--Craigboy (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Introduction too much about SpaceX
The introduction of this article talks more about the company SpaceX than about the Dragon vehicle. I think one line about the company, and a link to the Wiki page, is enough, especially in the introduction text. 24.132.119.228 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to log in. Message above is from: Erwin (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Dragon v2
Info on the second version of Dragon (not to be confused with DragonRider, the still yet-to-be-publicly-disclosed crew-carrying version of Dragon with super draco rocket engines attached (for Launch Abort System capability and for the potential powered-thruster landings that SpaceX has been talking about.) has been released. Would usefully improve the article.
"Dragon got a few upgrades since its last trip to station.
To support more critical science payloads for the ISS, the spacecraft flying on Monday has nearly four times its previous powered cargo capability. Dragon will carry additional freezers in its pressurized section and for the first time ever, powered cargo inside its unpressurized trunk – NASA’s OPALS and HDEV experiments. The spacecraft is also sporting redesigned cargo racks to accommodate the additional payloads. Read more about OPALS at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/861.html, read more about HDEV at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/917.html"
I don't have the time to update the article just now. So leaving this on the Talk page for others, or for the future. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I believe it was SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell, in her "Space Show" interview a few weeks ago, that referred to the Dragon on this mission as "version 2". Links to her interview are in a few of the various SpaceX-related wikipedia articles; or I could probably find it if needed. I'm not sure if the two NASA links above refer to it as v2 or not; haven't read them yet. N2e (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
CRS-3
Updated section for CRS-3 which is underway. Someone like to add anything to it? Because of the weather it is unclear whether the 1st stage of the Falcon 9 rocket can be recovered at sea. See this article: SpaceX Launches Cargo and Tries a Rocket RecoveryRadical Mallard (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Article says that Dragon capsule is designed for recovery/reentry and reuse. Would be nice if the mission table identified the capsules and if they were recovered and considered reusable ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
For the CRS missions, NASA decided that it didn't want to risk reuse, as it was unproven. Part of the reason the missions are so expensive (130 million each) is that NASA decided to pay for a new Dragon capsule for each and every one of the 12 deliveries, plus 3 capsules for test use (later decreased to 2 test capsules). The NASA CRS capsules may end up being retrofitted and reused for future DragonLab missions, but they won't be used for crew delivery because the Dragonv2 is quite different than the v1 currently in use (it includes launch abort capabilities, for one). As of right now no Dragon has been reused after its initial mission, due to lack of near-term customer commitment, and the fact that every launch opportunity for the next 2 years is already tied up with other missions. — Gopher65talk 12:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
