Talk:SpaceX Dragon 2

Dragon V2 testing

The dates for the initial test flights have been announced. Nov 2014 for the pad abort test, and Jan 2015 for the in-flight about test. Source here. N2e (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-entry is specified at 3.5 G in the article. This seem to be linked to V1 as per one of the cited documents. The other link is no longer working. So this data requires additional citation specific to V2. Sivaraj 05:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraj (talk • contribs)

The date for the Dragon 2 pad abort test is NET 5 May 2015. NASA TV will be carrying it live. The inflight abort test will be using the F9R Dev2 vehicle, repurposed to be the inflight abort vehicle. It is expected to launch in July 2015. The same Dragon test article will be used for both test flights.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Info

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35381.msg1338628#msg1338628 --Craigboy (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

$160,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard - Math seems wrong. 7 seats @ $20M = $140M. Danwoodard (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox information very dated

The dimensions stated in the Infobox are wrong, and very dated. The sources are from 2008 and 2010, before the Dragon 2 was finalized. Other dated information throughout the article as well.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No longer called "V2" It's now called "Dragon 2", or "Crew Dragon", etc.

The Dragon V2 name is no longer the spacecraft's name, it is Dragon 2. The article's title should therefore also be changed to reflect this major change.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And the manned variant is called Crew Dragon.--Craigboy (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently, "Dragon 2" links to "Dragon V2"; should I swap the two pages? Zlsa-design (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we'll want a fairly reliable source on that claim before any changes like that. SpaceX has been referring to it as Dragon 2, but they've never denied the Dragon V2 name and it's possible that Dragon 2 is just a shortening. Appable (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The press materials for the Pad Abort Test consistently called it "Crew Dragon". I'd suggest renaming the article "Crew Dragon", with redirects from Dragon V2 and Dragon 2. Electrons are cheap, we can always move it again if the name continues to evolve. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In the same press material they link to older releases which still show "Dragon 2". As a theory they might be referring to Crew Dragon as the one that carries crew and Dragon 2 as the vehicle with Superdracos to avoid limiting Dragon 2 to only crew. Regardless, they haven't edited articles that they clearly know about, and the website still interchangeably refers to Dragon 2 and Crew Dragon. This might be a case like the Wikipedia page on GSLV Mk III vs LVM-3, as no official name preference has yet been announced and the website still refers to both names for the same vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appable (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It clearly is no longer called "V2." This should be changed to Dragon 2 or the most current name, Crew Dragon.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't Dragon V2? I think they are making a distinction between Crew Dragon (caries crew) and Dragon v2 (version two of Dragon with different body, pressure vessel, etc.) SpaceX hasn't made a statement on which is correct. Appable (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So what should we call those cargo-carrying 2nd generation Dragon then? (ugh come on SpaceX PAO, standardize your names please!) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what SpaceX is naming it. Once SpaceX standardizes a name or there's something like "first demo mission of Dragon 2/Crew Dragon/Dragon v2" then it might be time to decide. For now I think any of those names are equally valid. 06:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the most recent statement from SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/05/06/crew-dragon-completes-pad-abort-test It refers to the vehicle as "Crew Dragon". We should match the most recent SpaceX nomenclature, since that is canonical, even if SpaceX decide to rename the vehicle again tomorrow. We can rename the article as many times as SpaceX renames the vehicle. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the large number of different names used for this later version of their human-carrying-capable space capsule does make it a bit of a challenge to get it right. SpaceX have clearly used all of the names mentioned previously, in different sources. And the good news is that all of them are mentioned in the lede, in the first sentence of the article. And I believe each has a redirect to this page under the various names SpaceX has used; so methinks that our readers on-wiki are getting what they need.

In my view, given the variety of names used, and even the specific NASA-centric context of the earliest flights for this new spacecraft, it is not surprising that "Crew Dragon" is the most recently used name. However, it is not clear to me that SpaceX doesn't just consider the whole thing (the "superclass") "Dragon V2", and is calling the particular Dragon V2s that will be contracted to NASA to carry NASA astronauts (the "subclass") "Crew Dragon". Moreover, over the life of the new version of Dragon, it is quite likely that the basic model will be used to carry commercial astronauts as well (say, Bigelow, or other SpaceX astronauts) and it is not clear at all that SpaceX intends to use the descriptor "crew" to speak of them; nor that if the version 2 capsule is used for cargo sometime in the future, that the basic model (the superclass) would be called "Crew Dragon" rather than "Dragon V2" or "Dragon 2".

Having said that, others may have different views. But given the "name" of this Talk page section based on Craigboy's post is not even the same name as the most recent name suggested by cscott, or other names suggested above, I would think that a fresh Talk page section, with a very specific proposal, would be in order be anyone who still wants to argue for an article move. Then, we could actually have a concrete discussion on that narrow proposal, and half a good chance at seeing whether we have consensus for the change. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed the section name to better reflect the width of the scope of the discussion, and various serious proposals and/or thinking-in-text about how the article name should be reconsidered. Now: "No longer called "V2" It's now called "Dragon 2", or "Crew Dragon", etc."; had previously only mentioned the first of those. N2e (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Given recent press statements and youtube videos from SpaceX, it might be good to restart this discussion. Most press releases, etc, use Crew Dragon now. Appable (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's "Dragon 2", not "Crew Dragon" or "Dragon V2": http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39180.msg1527790#msg1527790 Apparently Phil Plait was also corrected: https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/727572334953963521 -- I'm trying to get the specifics of his correction on record in Slate so we can point to a published source. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

...and that's happened: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/03/spacex_announces_a_mission_to_land_on_mars_by_2018.html now has an update indicating that "Originally called the Dragon V2, SpaceX now refers to it as simply Dragon 2. This post has been udated to reflect that." Case closed? C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: @N2e: @Galactic Penguin SST: (hello from NSF!) @Abebenjoe: ^ see above.

Requested move 28 May 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. After relisting and more discussion has taken place, it seems consensus supports this move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Dragon V2 → Dragon 2 – As per sources above, it hasn't been called V2 for some time now, for obvious reasons (V-2) Fgf10 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, the Nom is correct. I am pretty sure the 'v' was for 'version' anyway, and should not have been capitalised. But in any case Space X is now just calling it the Dragon 2.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – While this one press article says that SpaceX calls it Dragon 2, the official SpaceX pages themselves still call it just Dragon and Crew Dragon, including in prose about the new version such as "Dragon's first manned test flight". Similar to how they treated Falcon 9 naming, they may decide to keep simply Dragon as "the latest version of our spacecraft". WP:TOOSOON — JFG ^talk 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment – @Cscott: We cannot quote the Slate article as a WP:RS about the name change because you claim that you intervened to get the journalist to change his text in order to fit the new name you wish to list on Wikipedia. Surely you did this in good faith but unfortunately this action disqualifies the source per citogenesis. — JFG ^talk 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: That is an incorrect reading of events. As the author explicitly mentions, the proper terminology was brought to his attention *before my intervention* ("just got word", not "because you said so"), based on direct feedback from SpaceX. "Thanks for letting me know" should be easily recognized as mere politeness. My follow-up tweets were only an attempt to better document the *source* of the correction. The correction at the end of the slate article read (and still reads) "Originally called the Dragon V2, SpaceX now refers to it as simply Dragon 2." which makes it clear that the source of the correction was SpaceX (not some random guy on twitter), but I was hoping for something like "Gwen Shotwell at SpaceX let me know that SpaceX now refers to it as simple Dragon 2" or something like that. I was *unsuccessful* in that attempt. No change was made on my account; there was no citogenesis. (And the term "citogenesis" would not actually be applicable to this case in any case, since the term refers to the press quoting material from Wikipedia which then ends up back in Wikipedia as a citation. The article is not named "Dragon 2" and there is no indication that the source changed it to "Dragon 2" *based on reading something on Wikipedia*. This line of argument is specious. If anything, it happened the other way around: the journalist originally incorrectly used "Dragon V2" based on the wikipedia article title, *and was corrected by a more-authoritative source*.) C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cscott: Many thanks for the clarification, and you're right that is not a case of citogenesis, I stroke this qualification in my argument above. I still think it's too soon to change the article name, as a sample of recent news reports shows a mix of "Dragon V2", "Dragon 2", "Crew Dragon" and just "Dragon", so that "Dragon 2" currently fails WP:COMMONNAME, and I see no name change at spacex.com. All the alternate names redirect here anyway so there's no harm done for readers; let's be patient. — JFG ^talk 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As per nom. V2 is a silly name anyway. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge the "silliness" of a product name. Ever heard of the Chevy Nova story? (the car that "doesn't move" in Spanish) -- they still sold well. — JFG ^talk 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We can rename it to just "Dragon" if/when SpaceX makes that change. At the moment the crew and cargo vehicles are distinct and we have evidence SpaceX is using "Dragon 2" to refer to the crew vehicle in conversations with journalists.C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. While "Crew Dragon" and "Dragon 2" are both used by SpaceX and news media, I think "Crew Dragon" implies crew too heavily (we know that a version of Dragon 2 will be used for cargo, per NASA CRS-2 source selection document). At any rate, I certainly believe "Dragon V2" is the wrong name for the article given that the name is clearly being abandoned - and Dragon 2 seems to be the most neutral name with the most similarity to the current article title. Acknowledge JFG's case thus far, but I believe SpaceX's deliberate avoidance of that name for a while means that regardless of what the common name is, it certainly isn't Dragon V2. Appable (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Move back to "Dragon V2" or to "Crew Dragon"

"Dragon 2" isn't a good naming cause the uncrewed Dragon isn't called Dragon 1, but Dragon V1 or simply Dragon. "Dragon 2" would rather be the name of a mission of the Dragon spacecraft. I suppose a move either back to "Dragon V2" or to "Crew Dragon". WP articles in other languages also call this "Dragon V2". --212.186.14.29 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

image?

where is the unveil image that used to be in the article?

Landing

Many changes: - https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/19/15999384/elon-musk-spacex-dragon-capsule-mars-mission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.84.175 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Added some details re parachute only being developed, no legs, effort to qualify for safety as reason. crandles (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

3-D printed engines

The article currently states that the SuperDraco is the second fully 3-D printed rocket engine, with the Rutherford being the first. This is incorrect, as the Rutherford is not 'fully' printed. While the primary components are printed, there are secondary components that are traditionally manufactured. I have not changed the article because I am unsure if the SuperDraco is 100% printed or if it has some traditionally made parts. If it does have some standard made parts then we need to drop the 'fully' otherwise, we can remove all mention of the Rutherford and restore to say the SuperDraco is the first 100% 3-D printed engine. Sario528 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2018

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Questions of scope can continue to be discussed as necessary outside the context of this move request. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Dragon 2 → Crew Dragon – Recent announcements from SpaceX and NASA have consistently called this new capsule "Crew Dragon".[1][2][3][4] Same for recent media reports.[5][6][7][8] The "Dragon 2" moniker is nowhere to be seen. — JFG ^talk 12:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME --Ita140188 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Opposed Their toy, their name. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are to versions of Dragon 2: "Cargo Dragon 2" and "Crew Dragon 2 (Reminds me of the Douglas DC-3 civilian aircraft, renamed Douglas C-47 for the military. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's been the official name for a while now. I don't see why we shouldn't change it. XYZt (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm confused. XYZt (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above. Name it as it is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, change article scope - Obviously NASA and SpaceX are releasing contradictory statements here on what the actual name of the spacecraft is; concerns about which have been raised below. Picking up on Rowan Forest and N2e's comments and Appable's citation for a "Crew Dragon 2" and "Cargo Dragon 2", I think it'd be best to keep the "Dragon 2" name and change the article's scope to one that reflects a greater spacecraft class, with two variants with their own dedicated sections. Currently, the article scope seems to be one that documents a single spacecraft, rather than a class of spacecraft, as the "Crew" and "Cargo" variants imply. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Definitely agree that the scope is incorrect here. There isn't enough of a difference to justify two articles for Crew and Cargo variants, but this article fails to mention the cargo variant (and so does Commercial Resupply Services#Commercial Resupply Services 2).

I'd start working on including information in both of those articles, but I'm not sure about policy/guidelines for changing article scope during a move discussion. I would expect this discussion wouldn't happen if this was scoped to refer to both variants, so maybe it's best practice to wait for the move discussion to close? Appable (talk | contributions) 14:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hold on, let's discuss—I see the strong support above of 4 editors in the first two days, and it may be okay to change it after we discuss. But is it not that this spacecraft is simply a second version of the design for the Dragon spacecraft, and importantly, a design that SpaceX intends to use in the future both for cargo transport flights AND also for human-carrying passenger and crew transport flights. Thus, my "maybe" on the matter.

I would think we should have more sources over a bit longer period of time, as SpaceX uses this vehicle design for both cargo and human-transport missions, before we rename it based on a number of sources that are only referring to the one particular use of Dragon 2 that NASA has contracted for. That particular use case for this Dragon 2 vehicle, on that contract, with that customer, is obviously called "Crew Dragon", 'cause that's the NASA frame of reference. But personally, I'd like to see sources for cargo flights with this version 2 spacecraft also call it "Crew Dragon", and do that for a while and a number of diff sources. I've not yet seen this. But I'd think we should have that before moving the article to a new name that covers only one of the use cases for this spacecraft design. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Prior to filing this move request, I had the same questions regarding cargo usage. I did not find any recent source (say, less than a year old) talking about the Dragon 2 cargo version. Indeed, the more this spacecraft design progressed, the less attention was given to the cargo use case. Note that the original Dragon capsules are being refurbished and reflown to fulfill the CRS contracted missions, and SpaceX has announced that all future resupply missions will use refurbished Dragons. Unless we see new information, we can safely distinguish the new Crew Dragon as fulfilling only the crewed missions (with potentially some supplies flying with the astronauts, and some additional stuff carried in the trunk). If some future CRS missions are announced to fly the crew-compatible Dragon design, we will be able to revisit the issue. As we stand today, I don't think SpaceX would waste flights of the more complex and bulkier crew capsule to carry cargo only. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IIRC from the public NSF forums, the new Cargo Dragon will look quite different from the crew, with no trunk fins nor superdracos. Not sure if this has an effect on the move, but just a note about the difference between the two variants. So the lead section will have to be rewritten.XYZt (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) (Edited 4:48, 19 August 2018)

• Strong oppose. An April 2018 NASA Office of Inspector General report regarding the status of the CRS2 program specifically refers to SpaceX's cargo spacecraft proposal as "Dragon 2". Furthermore, on page 28 and 29, the report compares schedules for "Cargo and Crew Dragon 2". In general, sources that are discussing the cargo variant use "Cargo Dragon" or "Cargo Dragon 2" whereas sources discussing the crew variant use "Crew Dragon" or "Crew Dragon 2". The existence of a large number of sources discussing Crew Dragon is simply that all of them are writing about Dragon as a human spaceflight vehicle; it is not an indication that the "Dragon 2" name is no longer favored. Appable (talk | contributions) 00:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. We should clarify this in the article's lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – In the scenario where SpaceX will later introduce a cargo version of Dragon 2, we should have a new, separate article for that, perhaps called "Cargo Dragon" (we'll know the appropriate name when that spacecraft variant is announced). The current article is about Crew Dragon (nobody calls it Crew Dragon 2). Given that the cargo version would have no launch escape thrusters, and no life support system, it's essentially a different vehicle sharing some components such as the heat shield and the docking port. — JFG ^talk 10:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The above OIG report states on page 13: The Dragon 2 was initially designed for crew missions, but with modifications, the spacecraft can also be used to transport cargo. In the view of official sources, Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon are both variants on Dragon 2. In general, it appears this article is scoped in a misleading way. There's far more sources discussing Crew Dragon, so all of the information presented here is about the crew variant. We should try to scope this so that it includes Dragon 2 as a cargo vehicle (probably a section at this point, as we don't have very much information); the variants have far too many commonalities (propulsion, structure, communications, and GNC – per Figure 5) to justify an entire separate article. Appable (talk | contributions) 13:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep both versions of the capsule in one article for simplicity. We do not have separate articles for different versions of an airliner either. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is simply not enough public information to create 2 articles on 2 very similar variants. At the present time, I consider that it is perfectly fine that this page states there are 2 versions. Respectully, I took the initiative to add/adapt it, and I hope that more knowledgeable editors correct and add information to that effect. After your inspection, we could close this Move request. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Is Dragon 2 to be "caught" in some sort of floating raft, rather than a pure splashdown?

This is quite interesting. The news site Teslarati is reporting that SpaceX may be designing their recovery system for Dragon 2 to include a large raft-like floating landing glove structure. Here is that story:

• SpaceX gears up for Crew Dragon’s first recovery with a giant inflatable cushion, Teslarati, Eric Ralph, 19 August 2018.

The article includes this qualifying statement: "... all signs seem to indicate that SpaceX is planning to recover their first Crew Dragon spacecraft with a giant inflatable cushion ..." , so it may be premature to explicate this in the WP article. Still, interesting. Worth watching for confirmatory sources in the coming months. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Launch masses hard to find

Article does not clearly indicate max launch mass of crewed and cargo versions (including trunk) : dry mass (inc trunk) + propellants (400 gal) + other fluids ? + (max cargo or max crew mass) ? - (eg how does it compare to the LEO capability of Falcon 9 FT) - Rod57 (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (due to no consensus). Many agree that although the vehicle that is the topic of this article might currently be referred to as Crew Dragon, ultimately it will be used for cargo as well, so the proposed title is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Dragon 2 → Crew Dragon – SpaceX, NASA and journalistic sources during launch preparations have consistently called this vehicle "Crew Dragon" or just "Dragon". No recent sources call it "Dragon 2". The cargo version will not fly until 2020, and will be a significantly different vehicle. — JFG ^talk 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a common practice for SpX to simplify their product's name and drop the version(they never use "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5", etc) . I think the Crew Dragon can be considered a simplification of Crew Dragon 2. And it'll be better to keep crew and cargo variants in one article as the cargo fleet will be reused and refurbished crewed capsules.PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that "the cargo fleet will be reused and refurbished crewed capsules"? — JFG ^talk 09:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

http://electriccargods.com/2018/08/28/spacex-has-no-plans-to-reuse-crew-dragon-spaceships-on-nasa-astronaut-launches/ (better source needed) PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that a better source is needed. Strange that this one does not mention removing the launch escape system (four pairs of Super Draco thrusters) and their propellant, which make up a lot of useless mass for cargo. I wonder whether NASA prefers a higher upmass value or an abort system. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Inspired by Tesla's Roadster, I suggest Dragon 1 and 2 articles be renamed SpaceX Dragon (2010) and SpaceX Dragon (2019), respectively. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on common sense grounds; the article talks about the Crew Dragon and the Cargo Dragon variants of the Dragon 2 spacecraft, not just the Crew Dragon. JFG, you recognise the Cargo Dragon variant in your rationale, but you failed to mention whether you're proposing that the article should change its scope, or a separate article be created for Cargo Dragon. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just trying to follow sources. Nobody knows how the future cargo variant will be named, and "Dragon 2" has fallen out of use for a long time already, so that it fails WP:COMMONNAME (see prior move requests). Regarding scope, I think it's perfectly fine to have a section about the cargo variant in this article, stating that it will be a derivative version of Crew Dragon, until such time as more details emerge. — JFG ^talk 09:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Crew" shall not be considered part of the name. It only indicates the capsule's function. I think SpaceX Dragon (2019) is a better choice. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Crew Dragon" is more than an indication that it's a Dragon spacecraft that carries crew. It is the WP:COMMONNAME used in the vast majority of sources. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:commonname. When more info about the cargo version appear we can think about what to do, but for now almost all sources refer to this as Crew Dragon.--Ita140188 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• oppose Dragon 2 capsules can be flow in both configurations, and by that I mean it can fly one time with crew and then a different time in Cargo mode. The intention is to reused the flown Crew Dragons as the Cargo Dragons once CRS2 flights start. Says it right there in the article header.Metropod (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support After watching the launch broadcast and all three press conferences in full I don’t think I heard NASA or SpaceX say “Dragon 2” even once. Per WP:commonname. Also I believe that all the cargo dragons will be reused “Crew Dragons”, capable of supporting humans even if none are on board, so the difference between the two seems to me artificial. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The following recent sources refer to Dragon 2 with respect to the Demo-1 mission to the ISS on 2 March 2019:
  1. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/spacex-historic-dm-1-dragon-2s-maiden-flight-iss/
  2. SpaceX Crew Demo-1 live audio launch commentary at approximately (T+00:01:01), stating "[...] ascends through the atmosphere carrying the SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule [...]"

Babaloo Bayou (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, at the beginning of the same video (2:05), the SpaceX representative takes care to say: We'll be using the terms "Crew Dragon" and "Dragon" interchangeably to refer to this next iteration of our spacecraft. She does not say "Dragon 2" but "the next iteration". — JFG ^talk 12:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support The SpaceX official website calls it the Dragon without distinguishing between crew and cargo variants. The optimal solution would be to merge with SpaceX Dragon, but otherwise, simply calling it Crew Dragon seems like the best solution. If SpaceX themselves don't call it Dragon 2, there is no reason to make up a model number to distinguish it. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Of the three suggestions put forth by XYZtSpace, suggestion 2, which advises moving this article to Crew Dragon and having it exclusively cover the crew dragon is the best option. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • A Google search for Dragon 2 brings up as many results for the How to Train your Dragon movie series as there are for the spacecraft, and all the results about the spacecraft (other than the link to this article) refer to it as the Crew Dragon, clearly placing this in the realm of WP:COMMONNAME. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment To summarize, there are a number of suggested ways of splitting the topics between SpaceX Dragon and Dragon 2.
  1. SpaceX Dragon covers the 1st gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2 covers Crew Dragon and 2nd gen Cargo Dragon. (current)
  2. SpaceX Dragon covers both the 1st and 2nd gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2->Crew Dragon covers the Crew Dragon
  3. SpaceX Dragon covers the 1st gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2-->Crew Dragon covers Crew Dragon; A future article covers the 2nd gen Cargo Dragon. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 21:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per XYZt's 2nd idea, and also WP:commonname. I think this would be the most intuitive setup, and perhaps SpaceX Dragon can be renamed to Cargo Dragon to further prevent confusion. Biglulu (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • But then how does one describe the "Crew Dragons" after they are converted to cargo mode, as is SpaceX's intentions to reuse them as such?Metropod (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here is trying to quantify the ship. Yes, it is a Crew Dragon. But it (or at least it's siblings) will become a cargo dragon later. Having two articles describing the different life stages of the same capsules, treating them as different ships, seems redundant, but at the same time, just renaming the article could be confusing if the article is named after only one of the those life stages. The capsules are "Dragon 2", Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon is simply how the insides are furnished. There is theoretically nothing stopping them from restoring a cargo dragon to crewed flight later. And I feel it's to the detriment of the subject to only put emphases on one aspect of it. Metropod (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Metropod: While technically true that a Crew Dragon can carry cargo, it isn't being designed for that purpose. There is no reason to have an inaccurate article title simply because a crew dragon can carry things other than crew. Additionally, it isn't accurate to say that "the capsules are "Dragon 2", Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon is simply how the insides are furnished. There is theoretically nothing stopping them from restoring a cargo dragon to crewed flight later." 1st generation cargo dragons lack the SuperDraco engines needed for emergency launch escapes. They also don't have a reusable nose cone, they store the solar panels during launch differently, and Gen1 dragons dock using the Canadarm whereas Crew Dragons will dock directly with the ISS. In other words, they are most assuredly different vehicles, and not just the same vehicle with different interiors. If Crew Dragons get converted back to the Gen1 cargo variant, that is irrelevant. I too support merging the articles, but none of this is a rationale not to move this one in the meanwhile. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Puzzledvegetable:I'm sorry, it's exactly accurate to say what I said because the Dragon 2 can be flown as both a crewed capsule and as a cargo carrier. What the Dragon 1 does or doesn't do is irrelevant to what Dragon 2 does. The stated operational plan, from Elon himself, is to fly each Dragon 2 first in "CREW DRAGON" configuration, and then switch them to "CARGO DRAGON" configuration for future use. This allowing the Dragon 1 capsules to all be retired, planed for when the first run of CRS contract missions are complete with CRS-20. As I said, theoretically speaking, after a flight or two in CARGO DRAGON mode, a Dragon 2 could be switched back to CREW DRAGON, and then switched back to CARGO again later. There is nothing stopping them from doing that short of "We don't want to."Metropod (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
      • The point I am trying to make, is that the difference between the two spacecraft is not just interior configuration. They are different craft with different specifications and capabilities. If this means we should merge the articles, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, we are discussing whether or not to rename the article to Crew Dragon or keep it as Dragon 2. We certainly can't call it the latter, because that isn't its name. No official sources have called it that. Crew Dragon is fine, because it is the common name, and it distinguishes it from the version that can't carry crew. If Crew Dragons are intended to later be used for cargo, than fine. That's why I support a merge. But that is completely irrelevant to what we call this article. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)(Edit-SpaceX themselves call it Crew Dragon and they are certainly aware of what they plan on using it for. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC))
        • OK, look, you seem to be hung up on the idea that Cargo Dragon = Original Dragon. In this circumstances, it does not. As I and other have said, the plan is, once a Dragon 2 has completed it's crewed flight, it will have it's seats removed, and then be used for a CRS cargo flight later. the "C100 Class" Dragons, the ones currently flying, will be retired, and the "C200 class", the Dragon 2, will do all the work. There isn't going to be a "OK, these capsules will fly with crew, and these will fly with cargo" they are going to reuse the capsules for different jobs. Metropod (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
          • And yet, despite that, SpaceX still calls it the Crew Dragon, and Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon are still being used by the majority of sources to distinguish between Gen1 and Gen2 variants, respectively. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The term Dragon 2 refers to a class of spacecraft. This particular class of spacecraft can be used in either a crewed or a cargo configuration. As a comparison, consider the Boeing 747. The most recent version is the 747-8. The -8 comes in both passenger and cargo variants, but are still considered to be essentially the same aircraft. SpaceX calling it "Crew Dragon" is no different then Boeing saying "747 Intercontinental". Sario528 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds PhilipTerryGraham and Metropod have articulated above. It is known that there should be a Cargo Dragon in the near future and this is already mentioned in the article. Currently, I see no reason to split it, because the crew and cargo versions share too many features. On the other hand, to name an article after just one of the versions it is about, is wrong. Igor Krein (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suspend this request Ideally we should go by the nomenclature SpaceX uses, but they are bing a bit coy and none of the current option proposed here are entirely satisfactory. The press kit for the DM-1 mission refers to the previous Dragon and an earlier "iteration." I would suggest suspending this move request until after the next cargo mission, CRS-17 currently scheduled for April 25, and see if SpaceX uses some clearer language we can then use.--agr (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article includes information about both the Crew Dragon and the Cargo Dragon configurations of the Dragon 2. The Dragon 2 can be a Crew Dragon or a Cargo Dragon. One NASA article being used in support uses both "Dragon 2" and "Crew Dragon" equally and interchangeably. My understanding is that there haven't been any Cargo Dragon 2 flights yet, but they are being planned. This would make "Crew Dragon" appear disproportionately often in sources compared to "Cargo Dragon". Renaming it would be confusing and inaccurate. Danielklein (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dragon 2 is the name of the craft. Additional names describe usage / configuration. Others have already said this, I'm just casting my "Vote" GeeBee60 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

---

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

Section about the spacesuit

Should there be a section on the custom spacesuit in this article? – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dragon V2 01.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing the Technical specifications section to Design

Based on @JFG's suggestion of rewording Dragon 2#Technical specifications to prose, I suggest shifting the section's focus entirely to cover the general design of the spacecraft. After all, a lot of the things listed in that section aren't really technical specifications (e.g. the part on propulsive landing), and could benefit from being grouped into subsections and elaborated upon.

A draft can be found here. It's still incomplete and contributions are welcome. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a really good draft to me. Add some sources, at least one per paragraph, and you're good to go. — JFG ^talk 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(possible) Minor wording issue

"Dragon crew members will wear a custom space suit designed to protect them during rapid cabin depressurization. It is intended to be worn only inside a pressurized spacecraft for intravehicular activities (IVA type)." This might be a little conflicting because although yes it is only designed for use inside a pressurized spacecraft, saying protect them during cabin depressurization seems conflicting.
So is it okay if it is reworded as this "Each crew member wears a custom space suit fitted for them. The suit is primarily designed for use inside the Dragon (IVA type suit), however in the case of a cabin depressurization the suit can protect the crew members." 173.52.238.41 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dragon 2 anomaly section

@N2e: Hi! One of the statement's which said "On 20 April 2019 during a static fire of Dragon's SuperDracos an explosion occurred at a test located at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1." which was reverted because "the source does not provide detail on what was firing or not firing at the time of the anomoly".

But the source does say, "...the anomaly that occurred today during part of the Dragon Super Draco Static fire Test at SpaceX Landing Zone 1...", yes the wording that was used on Wikipedia could be misleading, but just wondering on the specifics what it was reverted. (link to source). And the other source does say "Based on the sourced info, the fact that the anomaly happened during the final test suggests that the anomaly likely had to do with the firing of the SuperDraco engines. While the specifics behind the anomaly have not yet been confirmed," (link to source).
Maybe a better reword could be "On 20 April 2019, while in the processes of the "Dragon SuperDraco Static Fire Test", there was an explosion at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1"? Maybe? But if I'm incorrect, thanks for correcting my error, I need to be more careful! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got the nuance of that quite well. The source did not make clear that the static fire was occurring or had been initiated. I had an objection to how the prose attributed the failure causally, in a way the source did not support. More especially, many sources are saying different things in the (unfortunately, sometimes careless) rush by news people to get this new "news" published. I'd have no particular problem with your wording as you proposed 173.52.238.41, as that makes clear that it was the part of a broader test procedure with a stated purpose, while not saying the static fire had been initiated.

(but do keep in mind, there is often a debate in rocket and spaceflight circles over the technical correctness of explosion vs. a deflagration in these sorts of incidents. Since one cannot expect mainstream non-technical journalists to grok that distinction, many sources will use the term "explosion" (sometimes, carelessly) for what is correctly a deflagration. I doubt that is a huge issue this time around 'cause explosion seems reasonably likely from a preponderance of sources I've seen. But it is a distinction worth keeping in mind, and you want to be sure of the quality of your source, or that many sources agree, before using the "explosion" term in a spaceflight-related Wikipedia article.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so basically we have to wait until we get more info after the investigation into the accident (most likely will be from SpaceX). Thanks.173.52.238.41 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Other crewed orbital spacecraft" subsection

I've changed the list into a table: in the list presentation it seemed difficult to read and compare (at least to me). It might be also a good idea to re-order the lines or to colour the status cells "by readiness": this table contains already-flying vehicles and those that are only promised in some future. --S-Gatekeeper (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Change the title

Hello all, I have been reading about this crew capsule and I was wondering why the title is "Dragon 2" and not "Crew Dragon", I was wondering if anyone with a higher rank could move this article to the correct subject. Thank You!👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.246.185 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

as noted higher up, because we've had this conversation several times already; it will not be moved because "Crew Dragon" and "Cargo Dragon" are two possible configurations of a single C200 "Dragon 2"-class spacecraft. As it stands, the plan is once a Dragon 2 capsule has flown as a "Crew Dragon" for a USCV crew rotation mission, it will be reconfigured as a "Cargo Dragon" for CRS flights. the Demo 2 crew capsule will probably fly CRS-21 in cargo mode as the C100 series "Dragon 1"-class are being retired. Metropod (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Are seven seats still possible?

As I understand, after a redesign only four seats are available. Does it mean that now the Dragon 2 is a four-seater, or will seven-seat versions be available? It's unclear to me. The Russian version of the article now says that it's a four-seater. --CopperKettle 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX is still saying it is "capable of carrying up to 7 passengers" on their site: https://www.spacex.com/dragon --Sam (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The NASA commercial crew flights for to ISS are planned to carry up to four people. But I have never seen any reference to a design change limiting Dragon 2 to four passengers. Seven is what it's capable of; four is what the tenant customer plans to use. Fcrary (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! But try saying that to Russian Wikipedia editors, who proudly display a capacity of 4. --CopperKettle 08:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the English and Russian Wikipedias are separate. I doubt the standards for having reliable sources are identical. That do they cite for the number of seats? Fcrary (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SpaceX B.1046.4 Explosion.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• SpaceX In-flight Abort Illustration.jpg (discussion)
• Spx launch.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight to in flight abort test?

There have been a lot of recent additions to the section on the In Flight Abort test. At the moment, it's about seven times as long as the similar section on the Demo-1 orbital flight test. I think that is a little unbalanced. Does anyone else have an opinion in the subject? Fcrary (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Speed

Why Dragon 2 speed isnt listed? Is it unknown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.142.157 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? As an orbital spacecraft, if reaches orbitabl speed (about 7.8 km/s), relative to Earth, but aside from that, all speeds in space are relative to another object. The target speed is a few cm/s relative to ISS. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Cargo Dragon or Cargo Dragon 2?

Since Dragon 1 is the original Cargo Dragon. 205.175.106.159 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Two reasons: First, officially, the original version is simply named "SpaceX Dragon". "Dragon 1" is technically a retronym. Second, because a single Dragon 2-Class capsule can fly in both crew and cargo configurations, it would be confusing for a ship to be said to switch from "Crew Dragon to Cargo Dragon 2" Metropod (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Add section for the touchscreen cockpit

One of the most interesting features of the Dragon 2 spacecraft is the design of its touchscreen cockpit. I suggest adding a section covering this aspect of the craft. The SpaceX software team recently completed a Q&A which has official technical information: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/

Full disclosure: I worked on the program — https://twitter.com/klebba/status/1102300821130104833

--Klebba (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2020

• Dragon 2 → SpaceX Dragon (2019)
• SpaceX Dragon → SpaceX Dragon (2010)

– Previous move requests to Crew Dragon failed because the same vehicle will be used for cargo transport as well as crewed missions. However, "Dragon 2" is an artificial distinction for lack of a generally-accepted name, as was "Dragon V2" earlier. SpaceX calls the new vehicle just "Dragon",[9] as they call their "Block 5" rocket just "Falcon 9". The proposed change uses the year of first flight as a disambiguator, similarly to the way various generations of cars using the same commercial name are titled, absent a distinctive model type such as BMW 3 Series (E36). See for example Tesla Roadster (2008) and Tesla Roadster (2020), or Fiat 500 and Fiat 500 (2007). We also gain consistency by including the manufacturer name for both articles. Naturally, "Dragon 2" and "Crew Dragon" would still redirect here, while "Cargo Dragon" should be a dab page. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Years as disambiguation are awkward. The capsule is called Dragon 2 everywhere, including various SpaceX pages: in the docking simulator, in this talk transcript, ... We could split this page into Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon as they were confirmed to be separate vehicles. --mfb (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to have consistency with the automotive industry?

The ships are “Dragon 2” class. That’s what they’ve been calling them since they realized “hey, V2 might be a little insensitive to call a rocket”.

The fact SpaceX is anything but consistent is down to human nature. We want the easy way. The Falcon 9s currently flying are fully, technically known as “Falcon 9 1.2 ‘Full Thrust’ Block 5”, where Block 5 is the 5 variation of 1.2, meaning the Falcon 9 class has had 7 different iterations, (1.0,1.1, 1.2 blocks 1-5) and one could argue the 1.0 was a completely different rocket.

This change does not help the article at all. Metropod (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)