Talk:Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-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
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Opening heading[edit]

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)

Merging Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit with Falcon 9 Flight 1[edit]

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)

  • 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. --GW 12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One is the payload and one is the rocket. Both are notable. Rillian (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    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. --GW 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    Established precedent would disagree with you on that. --GW 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    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)
    Mercury and Apollo have plenty. --GW 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Can you link me to some? I honestly can't find any. KimiNewt (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    To give three examples, one from each of the early US programmes; Big Joe 1, Gemini 1 and A-101. --GW 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not separate from the rocket[edit]

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)

Reentry?[edit]

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)

  • No and no. --GW 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orbit[edit]

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)

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)

Merge to SpaceX Dragon[edit]

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)

  • 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. --GW 10:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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