Talk:COTS Demo Flight 3

Has C2 and C3 been merged?

Seems like C2 and C3 has been merged into C2 to be launched on October 8th? Can someone confirm that? user:mnw2000 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems so, but no official word. Non-NASA, and non-SpaceX websites have stated that they are combined, but there is so much conflicting information out there right now, that this makes writing reliably about this mission, nearly impossible at the moment. I will be marking part of the article as dubious, mainly because we do not currently have reliable sources to cite, at least about the combined mission and the launch date.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. We have a confirming article, [1], that seem to confirm that C2 and C3 have been merged into one mission scheduled to launch on November 30th (a new date) with rendezvous and berthing with the ISS on December 7th. This article and several others need to be updated with this new information. I understand that this is not a official government or SpaceX article, but it seems to refer to a official meeting. This is good information as we move forward with these articles. Should the C2 and C3 articles be merged into a single article? user:mnw2000 14:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should merge them.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The objectives of C3 have been added to those of C2. What would have been the Falcon 9 flight for COTS 3 will be the first CRS mission. I think this article should be made to be an article about a mission that was canceled and a new article should be created for CRS 1 when there is enough information about it to do so. Wingtipvortex (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On 9 December 2011, the missions have been formally merged by NASA and are now the COTS Demo Flight. I believe we should keep this article until after the COTS 2 mission is completed and then merge it if the mission turns out be a success. If it isn't, than a COTS 3 mission will still be needed, so that would be the only reason for now to keep it.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved; consider merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

COTS Demo Flight 3 → COTS Demo Flight 2 – The COTS 3 mission is being combined with the COTS 2 mission. This has been reported in Aviation Week, 20 July 2011, and in Spaceflight Now, 25 July 2011. Having two articles is unnecessary at this time. --Abebenjoe (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. You are not suggesting a move, but in fact a merge. This discussion would probably be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. C2 is the NASA mission for a ISS fly-by of the Dragon spacecraft. C3 is hte NASA mission for the first docking of the Dragon spacecraft with the ISS. C2 is also scheduled to launch two satellites. The question now, is whether the two satellites will be be deployed in the new docking mission. I agree that NASA will eventually rename the mission (C2, C2', C3, etc.). However, for now the C2 mission, the fly-by of the ISS, seems to have been cancelled. The C3 mission seems to be the one now planned for November 30th. I recommend we merge the two articles together with a section mentioning the "cancelled" fly-by mission. user:mnw2000 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Merging articles in an editorial decision that any edit can perform. You do not need to go through the requested moves process for this. See Wikipedia:Merging for details. Jenks24 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

Since Dragon C2+ was an overwhelming success, there is no need for this mission and I will now start the merger process.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment: I don't think this article should be deleted, as the COTS Demo 3 flight will simply have become a mission that was never flown by SpaceX, but the possibility of it was always there. I don't know what the policy is for articles regarding cancelled space mission, but it would make sense to me to leave them. Of course, there will not be a lot of information about it. Granted, NASA may choose to call the first Cygnus flight COTS Demo 3, but that is beside the point as there is no information regarding that. My suggestion for the article would be to contain text similar to this: "COTS Demo Flight 3 was a proposed mission by NASA to be flown by SpaceX's Dragon/Falcon 9 to demonstrate Dragon's capabilities to berth to the ISS prior to the commencement of the Commercial Resupply Service missions. After the success of the COTS Demo Flight 1 mission, SpaceX requested and NASA approved a merger of the COTS 3 objectives into the COTS 2 flight provided all the COTS 2 objectives were successfully completed prior to berthing with the ISS. The COTS Demo 2 flight launched on (Date) as Dragon C2+, and after successfully completing all of the objectives for Demo 2, NASA allowed the Dragon capsule to berth with ISS. Dragon returned to earth via a splashdown on the Pacific Ocean on March 31 after having successfully completed to objectives of COTS Demo 2 & 3." Anyway, something like that. Thoughts? Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this is duplicate information, it might be seen by other editors as unnecessary. I don't necessarily disagree with Wingtipvortex's proposal, but I'm not sure if this article now meets notability standards. I guess what we really need is the opinion of an admin that specializes in mergers, and have them give their opinion on what to do.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I sent a message to Jenks24, since they seem to specialize in this kind of stuff, and they responded to the previous move request.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll preface this by saying that I am not familiar with the space project's notability guidelines or general practices. But from my layman's perspective, you have three options: (1) COTS Demo Flight 3 remains an article and is edited towards Wingtipvortex's suggestion, explaining that it was a proposed mission that got merged into another one. In general, there is nothing that prohibits us having an article on something that was only proposed (I'm sure there are numerous examples) as long as subject of the article is notable, i.e. it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That said, if the information in this were to be basically a duplication of what is in COTS Demo Flight 2, then it would be pointless. Which leads me to (2) you could turn this article just into a redirect to COTS Demo Flight 2 (or a specific section if that would be better). (3) If, however, you come to the conclusion that COTS Demo Flight 3 is not notable enough for an article, and/or is too much of a duplicate, but that COTS Demo Flight 3 contains information that would be beneficial to the COTS Demo Flight 2 article, then you would perform a merge. Basically, you would cut-and-paste the info from this article that you think should be incorporated into COTS Demo Flight 2. Use an edit summary along the lines of "Merging content from COTS Demo Flight 3" and then fill in a {{copied}} template, which you place on the talk page (I can help with that if you want). Then you turn the COTS Demo Flight 3 article into a redirect to the COTS Demo Flight 2 article. IMO, either option 2 or 3, depending on whether you think any information needs to be merged or not, would be the better choice, but I will leave it up to you guys who are knowledgeable about the subject to decide. I've now watchlisted this page, so feel free to ask me any follow-up questions and my apologies if this has covered stuff you were aware of, but I thought it better to be overly thorough than not clear enough. Jenks24 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what is being forgotten here is that neither "COTS Demo Flight" 2 nor 3 was actually flown. The combined mission was C2+. Therefore, I would suggest we move flight 2 to Dragon C2+ (also eliminating the ridiculous descriptive title in favour of the actual mission name), merge this into it, and include a section on the original, two-mission, plan. --W. D. Graham 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I like W.'s proposal, though that will also mean a redirect for COTS Demo Flight 1, which should be Dragon C1.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I cannot understand why we are using descriptive titles for these pages, and I would wholeheartedly support bringing them in line with every other spaceflight that we have an article for --W. D. Graham 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

W.'s proposal sounds like a good compromise to me. It also makes a lot of sense. We should probably set up redirects for COTS 1, 2, 3 and CRS-1. Wingtipvortex (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that the article in its current state could remain if that is what we choose to do. Wingtipvortex (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, this article contains duplicate information, that is covered in the Dragon C2+ article, so seeing that it is a duplicate, it should be merged.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any objections to merging into a combined C2+ article, so I'll go ahead and do that. --W. D. Graham 14:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)