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)

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)

Mars One[edit]

@2601:204:cd00:d630:800d:25fb:9c71:d31d, Gaelan, Abebenjoe, Craigboy, N2e, and Spencerian: Sorry about so many names, just sending to everyone who might have an opinion. I propose that the Mars One section of this article be removed in its entirety. There are no reliable sources linking SpaceX with Mars One, and SpaceX has stated they have no relationship with the Mars One project. Therefore, I believe that content on Mars One in this article is irrelevant. Each of the other proposals are clearly linked, with reliable sources, to SpaceX. For example, a report cited in this article on Red Dragon states "The SpaceX capsule, he said, would be used to take people to low-earth orbit; SpaceX would have most of the capabilities needed to put material on Mars. He reported that SpaceX developers had been thinking along these lines." Mars One clearly has no relationship with SpaceX unlike all other cited projects. Appable (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If it has no source tying SpaceX plans to work with Mars One, then I concur and it should be removed. As I understood all the early Mars One press, MO was just showing a few pics of a Dragon spacecraft as a conceptual possibility. If they have nothing more now, after these years, then it does not belong in a SpaceX capsule article as an advert for Mars One. N2e (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete it with extreme prejudice. It is unsourced, and Mars One is a scam. If pops up again, delete it on sight.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

-- I have removed the entry several times now and someone keeps putting it back. Mars One are not being taken seriously by anyone. They are not an aerospace company, they are no more than a bad joke. Their relationship with SpaceX is non-existent nor could they ever afford to work with them. It's insulting to even take the company seriously, and it bears no relevance to SpaceX or the Dragon Spacecraft so it's a mystery as to why someone keeps adding it unless they are associated with Mars One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CD00:D630:44E2:810D:F8AD:8D23 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no credible citations or news that links SpaceX to NASA (itself clearly developing the Space Launch System for this) in reference to any Mars missions or development, let alone Mars One. At best, the "news" is how that group's developments are considering the rental/purchase of a Crew Dragon spacecraft, but this is not at all substantiated. I'd hate to suggest semi-protecting the article, but it might need to be done. -Spencerian (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename SpaceX CRS-n missions to Dragon CRS-n[edit]

Dragon editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)