Talk:Dragon (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA nomination[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon (spacecraft)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please adress the concerns raised by User:Stone:

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?

--Stone (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the lead should not contain material and thus does not need citations - could these been removed and the material moved/copied to the body with them?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been a week with no improvements I have to fail this sorry.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have any capsules been reused[edit]

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)

Proposed Split[edit]

With the unveiling of Dragon V2 last month, the different design, systems, and capabilities supports a restructuring of this article into at least two (maybe three) different articles. I'm detailing below my thoughts on a three article breakout (the names are just a rough sketch):

1) Dragon (spacecraft family) - Essentially a streamlined version of the lead of this article with a summary of the different spacecraft designs the evolve under the Dagon umbrella, with links to the detailed articles for each spacecraft. 2) Dragon V1 - Details the design, capabilities and history of the cargo version. 3) Dragon V2 - Details the design, capabilities and history of the crewed version.

Until recently, it sounded like the only real difference that V2 would bring to the table is life-support systems and seats (to grossly over simplify this...), but it's clear that we're really now dealing with two very different spacecraft based on a shared platform. Since the V2 is yet to fly, I'm open to keeping the article as is until flight tests begin, but it's my opinion that we have enough to support multiple articles at this point. Just wanted to field opinions before taking any drastic action. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. This is exactly what we did with the Falcon 9 article. It was split into four articles: Falcon 9, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and SpaceX reusable launch system development program. It sounded like a good idea at the time, but the end result was that instead of having one decent, well kept article, we had four which we had to upkeep with the same number of edit-hours per week. Given that there are only maybe 3 to 6 of us who edit the various SpaceX articles on a semi-regular basis (and honestly, most of it is done by one editor, N2e), adding any additional workload might make things difficult.
So my conclusion is that since I haven't been pleased with the state of the Falcon 9 articles since the split, and I don't think I'd be pleased with the state of 2 or 3 Dragon articles either. I'm honest to goodness thinking about suggesting we re-merge three of the four Falcon 9 articles, leaving only the reusable launch system article separate. — Gopher65talk 16:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
As an informed outsider I'd agree with Gopher65's proposal to re-merge the three F9 articles; there's an awful lot of duplication amongst them. On the other hand, the two Dragons really do seem to be "two very different spacecraft based on a shared platform" and so to warrant two articles. For now at least. -Arb. (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm swayed by Gopher65's reasoning, as at the current state of Dragon V2, unique articles would still overlap considerably. Once the new craft gets off the ground I think we'll have more to work with, but in the interest of keeping things tidy, I'm happy to leave it as is. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think there is enough differentiation between the spacecraft to just have two articles - this one and the V2. Everything relating to the COTS Dragon here, everything relating to the CCDev Dragon V2 there. Since the V2 page already exists, migrating everything not COTS out of this article will keep this article focused. A(Ch) 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mars One has not contracted SpaceX[edit]

Mars One has not contracted SpaceX, and the section is missing reliable current citations. I'm deleting it, again. Do not replace it unless there are very good quality citations, and not from Mars One, but a source such as CBS News, Spaceflight Now, or SpaceX has said it has not been contacted, and certainly has not signed any contracts with Mars One.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think removing this will need consensus first. There's clearly at least one objection to removing that content. I can find a few sources now about Mars One Dragon.
Sorry for not noticing this talk page, my browser might have been stuck on a cached page. Appable (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm fully in favor of removing the Mars One section. If Mars One ever contracts SpaceX to develop a vehicle it can be added. The Mars One Dragon is discussed in the Mars One page; no need to include a fictional version of Dragon here. MONDARIZ (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)