Talk:Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit

Opening heading

The article could give example items of the full Dragon that the Qualification Unit does not contain, that way the press cannot claim to have been cheated. For example seats, automated rendezvous system and possibly docking engine. Andrew Swallow (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit with Falcon 9 Flight 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In Favor - Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit is not notable in itself. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I think you'll find it's the other way round. Anyway, both are notable, its just a case of standardisation and avoiding duplication. DSQU should be maintained, and I would strongly oppose any proposal to reverse the direction of the proposed merger, based on precedent and de facto notability concerns. --G W… 12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One is the payload and one is the rocket. Both are notable. Rillian (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll withdraw for now. I think this is a wider issue that should be discussed at WT:ROCKETRY. I'll set up a discussion there later. --G W… 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I created Falcon 9 Flight 1 I based in on the previous article we had for the first successful Falcon 1 flight, Falcon 1 Flight 4, so that's where my thinking came from in terms of notability precedent. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a boilerplate isn't notable enough by itself, but I think it'd be more suitable to merge it into SpaceX Dragon. KimiNewt (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Established precedent would disagree with you on that. --G W… 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other boilerplate articles, and while this article may seem important at present, I really think that in time (in retrospect) it'll be just as important as other boilerplates which are included in various other articles. KimiNewt (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury and Apollo have plenty. --G W… 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link me to some? I honestly can't find any. KimiNewt (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To give three examples, one from each of the early US programmes; Big Joe 1, Gemini 1 and A-101. --G W… 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not separate from the rocket

It should be said somewhere that it is not foreseen to separate it from Falcon 9 and that this is the normal course of events, not a failure. Hektor (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{fact}} --G W… 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reentry?

Is there any plan to deorbit the DSQU? does it have a heat shield installed?132.10.250.80 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. --G W… 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit

The orbit was not reached. The air force measured an orbit from 235 x 273 km far away from the orbit spaceX wanted to reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.55.11 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SpaceX Dragon

As this is an engineering mockup for the full Dragon capsule, and that article contains some information about the DSQU already, it should merge there under the "Development" section. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]