Talk:Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by SpaceX working group.

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]

IF it wasn't intended to separate from the 2nd stage, would it still qualify as a separate spacecraft ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2018 (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]

If this is verifiable, and you have a source, it may be added to the article. Until then, this is merely unfounded internet speculation by an anonymous IP editor and merits no further consideration. N2e (talk) 20:12, 9 December 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]

Strongest possible oppose all spacecraft are currently considered notable enough for inclusion, this one is no exception. If you want to change this, a more centralised discussion would be needed, for example at WP:SPACEFLIGHT. This article can be expanded with more information which would not fit in there. --G W… 10:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Dragon qualification boilerplate was notable as a space payload on its own. It may be the case that with the plethora of new nanosatellites being deposited into LEO this should change, and that some similar thinking about this relatively inert and low/limited activity payload witha short life might be appropriate, but I agree with GW that this is not the place to change what has become a Wikipedia de facto standard. Best to do that at WP:SPACEFLIGHT. N2e (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over ten days and there is no consensus to go forward with a merge. I will remove the merge tag from the article. N2e (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/04/spacex_falcon_9_in_orbit/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/04/spacex_falcon_9_in_orbit/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321164324/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/09/air-force-spacexs-falcon-9-first-launch-planned-for-nov-29-.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/09/air-force-spacexs-falcon-9-first-launch-planned-for-nov-29-.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What mass

As launched what was its mass, ie. did it represent an empty/dry dragon or one with max internal payload ? (then can fill in payload mass in List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches) - Rod57 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]