Talk:SpaceX CRS-1

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.
 
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Dragon CRS-1 merged to Dragon C3 on 2012-06-01.

Text from old talk page[edit]

I've created this given that this will be SpaceX's next mission and information about it will start to appear now that COTS Demo 2 is complete. I know there is a lot more info than what I've put in, it will be added as I find sources for it. The help of more experienced editors will be appreciated. Wingtipvortex (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move to SpaceX CRS-1 or Dragon CRS-1[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Move to CRS SpX-1.

"Dragon C3" is incorrect, because this isn't a COTS demonstration flight. So you may ask than what should we call it? Well NASA calls the mission SpX-1 but that title would be confusing because SpaceX has flown other missions. Sometimes NASA refers to the mission as CRS-1 and subsequent SpaceX missions as CRS-2, CRS-3, CRS-4...but that title would also be confusing because Orbital Sciences also has CRS missions that are called CRS-1, CRS-2, CRS-3.... So I propose we move this page to SpaceX CRS-1 or Dragon CRS-1.--Craigboy (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we call it Dragon CRS-1 (Like I originally called it and moved it to Dragon C3 due to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COTS_Demo_Flight_3#Merger_proposal), then that would mean if SpaceX ever uses a different vehicle, we start counting again. If we use SpaceX CRS-1 and they stat using a different vehicle (or Dragon v2 for that matter), we continue with the numbering. Where it is going to get really confusing is when Dragon starts flying non-NASA missions. I don't disagree with you, the name doesn't matter to me. I think the biggest question is what does the 'C' stand for? is is for COTS? CRS? or Cargo? I assumed it was cargo, therefore my original move. The COTS flights weren't named 'Dragon COTS Demo Flight #,' so if we follow that standartd, these flights should be just 'CRS-#.' If it is cargo, then I think the current name is the correct one. If a non-NASA flight comes up, then it would be Dragon C# (assuming cargo flight) in the same numbering; the name of the mission (i.e. CRS, COTS, etc...) can be listed in the intro. If it is not Cargo, then yes, a move would be appropriate. Whatever the case, what we decide now will set how all the future Dragon flights are named, so we must choose carefully. I'm very open about this, lets just make sure we make a good decision. Wingtipvortex (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Upon further research it seems like others are also calling this spacecraft Dragon C4, which also makes me very confused about what the C actually stands for. The "COTS Demo Flight 2" page will probably be renamed to "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2" once the Orbital Sciences' demo gets closer. We need to decide if this article is about the Dragon spacecraft being used on the mission or if it's about the SpaceX CRS-1 mission itself, although I prefer the later. For DragonLab missions, the articles could be called DragonLab 1, 2, 3.... And for the Bigelow missions they probably wouldn't use the same acronym, so they might call it Bigelow Cargo Resupply-1 or something. When Dragon capsules start to be reused and they began to be given names then I think we should follow the Space Shuttle page model (EX: Explorer (Dragon spacecraft)).--Craigboy (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that COTS Demo missions are sequential, and Cygnus will fly COTS Demo Flight 3... Some further thoughts: It seems pretty conclusive that Dragon C# are the names of the spacecraft, whatever the C stands for. Eventually Dragons will be reusable and named, with the same capsule being used for several missions. So whatever they are called (assuming there is a 'fleet' of Dragons, or not), we'd have several articles with the same name if we name them after the spacecraft. So this article should be CRS-1, which is the mission name. My guess is that it will simply be CRS-1, and if a Cygnus flight takes place next('pretend' situation), it'd be CRS-2. If that is the case, then we don't need to worry about SpaceX, Dragon, Cygnus or Orbital prior to the mission identifier. Then, in the article, we indicate which company and spacecraft fly the mission. Much like Shuttle flights, which are STS-#, and then in the article it mentions which orbiter. In this case, it would be CRS-1, flown for NASA by SpaceX's Dragon C3. I'm not surprised some are calling this C4. I really doubt the boilerplate Dragon that flew on Falcon 9 Flight 1 should count as C1, as it was not an operational spacecraft. Furthermore, the COTS Demo 1 patch/logo says C1. Your suggestion for DragonLab agrees with this: DragonLab # flown with Dragon C#. Then whatever Bigelow decides to name their missions, flown by Dragon C#. When DragonRider starts doing runs, CCDev-#(or whatever they end up being called) for NASA, taking into account that SierraNevada will fly missions too, and those may use the same sequence of mission numbers. My suggestion is to forget the prefeix (SpaceX, Dragon, etc..) and just name this CRS-1. If it turns out that Cygnus uses its own numbering of CRS flights, then we can rename to SpaceX or Dragon. I'm still not decided one way or another if it should be the company name or the vehicle name that precedes the mission name if it came to that. Whatever the case, we need consistency in both all COTS/CRS flights (Dragon, Cygnus), and all SpaceX flights. Adding complexity to the situation, Falcon 9 will fly its own satellite delivery missions, which will make 'Falcon 9 Flight #' articles necessary when no dragon is atop. Speaking of which, we should set redirects for the Falcon 9 flights with Dragons to the mission page. What do you think? Drop prefixes and just go with CRS-1? Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I misspoke when I said "Dragon C4", I meant to say "Dragon C3". The demo flights don't appear be entirely sequential, I believe this because I've never heard of Orbitals' "COTS Demo Flight 4". On ISS Flight Plans, NASA refers to the CRS missions as either "SpX-#" or "Orb-#" (source). "CRS-#" only seems to be used when when its clear which vehicle they are talking about it (source) and even then the SpX and OSC mission numbers remain independent from one another. So with that in mind, I listed some possible names below.--Craigboy (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A.SpaceX CRS-1 (SpX CRS-1) and Orbital CRS-1 (Orb CRS-1) - Closest to the actual designation but the name "Orbital CRS-1" may be confusing to readers.
  • B.SpaceX CRS-1 (SpX CRS-1) and Orbital Sciences Corporation CRS-1 (OSC CRS-1) - Pretty close to actual designation but "Orbital Sciences Corporation CRS-1" may be too long of a title.
  • C.Dragon CRS-1 and Cygnus CRS-1 - Short and not confusing but not that similar to the actual designations. Also Dragon V2 may throw off the naming system. Names might not be able to be acronymed further unlike the previous two suggestions.
Right now I'm leaning towards A.--Craigboy (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Of those three options, I'd agree with you and think A is the most appropriate. I think it OK to shorten to Orbital, as we don't ever really write Space Exploration Technologies for SpaceX. I however, want to suggest two more options:
  • D.CRS SpX-# and CRS Orb-# - These would have the actual mission designation, preceded by CRS, which is the program under which each mission is flown.
  • E.CRS SpaceX-# and CRS Orbital-# - Not the actual mission designations, but closest while retaining some clarity (nobody would have to guess what SpX or Orb mean).
D makes most sense to me, given that it is what NASA calls them. Going off your first document, it means we would have to change the Demo names to CRS SpX-D# and CRS Orb-D#. This would work out quite nicely I think, as the difference between COTS and CRS can confuse readers. COTS are just the demo flights for CRS. What do you think? I'm with D, we'd have the actual mission designation, and we can always clarify in the intro. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I like D. You can move this page to "CRS SpX-1" when you want. For now I think we should still put off renaming the COTS Demonstration Flight pages.--Craigboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it, I hope you don't mind.--Craigboy (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. The interface has been giving me 404 errors all day, so I've been unable to do much. Thanks! Wingtipvortex (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Good news! Apparently NASA calls the missions CRS SpX-1 and CRS Orb-1. See slide 25.
A toast to our genius! Lets keep that guy handy in case there are ever any disputes about the article names. It still remains to possibly rename the COTS flights. Those are discussions to have in those article's talk pages. No hurry though, I think. WingtipvorteX (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: In this link, NASA calls the mission SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight. WingtipvorteX (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's basically the same thing we're calling it.--Craigboy (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes thank goodness. It is really disheartening how little information is available about these flights and how disorganized their site is. Every meaningless detail is there for all their missions, if you know where to look, but these commercial missions, which are supposedly theirs as well, are a big blank. I'm not expecting SpaceX to be as open as NASA, they are a private company, but thankfully they share more information than, say, Blue Origin, of which we know basically zero. Sorry, </rant> now. Back to work. :) WingtipvorteX (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Main Image[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was leave current image

Craigboy: I just wanted to get your opinion on the image in the infobox right now. I don't dislike it, but given that we now have public domain pics of a Dragon berthed/being berthed to ISS, wouldn't we prefer to have one of those until we have the mission logo? I've uploaded a few already, and can upload a few more. Wingtipvortex (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the artist's rendering because it doesn't represent a specific Dragon mission.--Craigboy (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. I personally don't like the rendering much, as some of the details are a bit off the actual Dragon/Canadarm2/ISS, and it is a bit overused(just about every SpaceX and COTS related articles seem to have it. Enough to where I'd rather use a picture from a previous mission until we have imagery (patch/logo, hardware even if it is just sitting in a hangar) from this mission. Truthfully, it doesn't matter much, and I'm OK with leaving it as is until we can add more to the article. Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Well hopefully one of these days NASA will toss together a CRS program logo and we'll be able to use that for missions that don't yet have patches.--Craigboy (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I can put one together for use in the meantime. I'm clueless, would that be acceptable per WP policy?? WingtipvorteX (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, here is one
CRS-NonOfficial-Logo.svg
Nothing fancy, just a vector of Dragon being captured, but nice enough to be used I think. WingtipvorteX (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should use anything unofficial.--Craigboy (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, now that I think about it, not a good idea. WingtipvorteX (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits by Andropolis0023[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User no longer causing problems --WingtipvorteX PTT 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add proper references to those launch dates. We need to have where you got the information from. I won't revert your edits just yet, but I haven't found anything updating the launch date. That is something you need to do quickly(think 12 hours or so), we can't be giving mistaken information and citing a reference that does not contain supporting information. WingtipvorteX (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to the prior version. Feel free to add the new dates when you have references. Cheers! WingtipvorteX (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems like my revert did not go through. Thanks Skip237 for getting to it. WingtipvorteX (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

General reminder[edit]

It is not surprising that the scheduled launch date changes as we get closer. It is OK to change it, but when we do so, we need to either add a reference for that new date or make sure the references already there support that change. We've now had a few instances of editors (IPs and non-Wikipiedia users) changing the date(s) and leaving the old refs without adding new ones while the old ones did not indicate a change. Remember that all content must be verifiable and the burden of evidence resides with the one making changes. If you find the date to have changed and either don't know how to add a ref or for some reason can't provide one, post in the talk page and we'll work it out. But so long as unreferenced dates keep making their way into their article, they will be removed.--WingtipvorteX (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rating this article on the project's importance scale[edit]

Both the previous flights are rated High-class on the Spaceflight importance scale. I'm not sure if this flight qualifies as a "High-profile single spaceflights, highly-used "series spacecraft" (high) since

  • 1) we don't know if it will be high profile, and
  • 2) it is not a single spaceflight, it will be the first of a series of flights.

Mid importance is "Most non-routine spaceflights, most manned spaceflights." This is neither a manned flight, and it will be the first of a series of routine flights. Low importance is "Routine spaceflights, many non-unique spacecraft." This seems to be the best fit. Right now CRS missions are not routine, so this flight may qualify for mid importance. If it does become high-profile then it is a no brainier, but I'm not sure we can predict that. Any thoughts? --WingtipvorteX (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I rated this mission as low importance, as this is a relatively routine mission, and definitely not as important as the Dragon C2+ mission.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Info[edit]

Cargo:
– 1 Orbcomm satellite (150kg) + ISS related pressurized cargo
– 500 kg of return cargo
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talkcontribs) 1:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

unclear citation style[edit]

Just added the tag. Seems like the last updates the sources were put in parenthetical referencing, while we had been using a reference section at the end of the article. I will try to get to it, but don't have a timeline. Tagged just in case someone can fix it. --WingtipvorteX PTT 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

Given that we now have pictures of the actual hardware that will be used for this mission, would anyone object to removing the rendering in the infobox, placing it in the gallery, and then placing the WDR image in the infobox? --WingtipvorteX PTT 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. If anyone strongly objects to this, feel free to change it again. --WingtipvorteX PTT 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A launch date for CRS SpX-1 is back on NASA's schedule[edit]

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html --Craigboy (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently it's 7 October 2012 20:34 EDT with a back-up date for the 8th.--Craigboy (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. --WingtipvorteX PTT 23:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it.--Craigboy (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of new info[edit]

"The Dragon will be filled with about 1,000 pounds of supplies. This includes critical materials to support the 166 investigations planned for the station's Expedition 33 crew, including 63 new investigations. The Dragon will return about 734 pounds of scientific materials, including results from human research, biotechnology, materials and educational experiments, as well as about 504 pounds of space station hardware.

Materials being launched on Dragon will support experiments in plant cell biology, human biotechnology and various materials technology demonstrations, among others. One experiment, called Micro 6, will examine the effects of microgravity on the opportunistic yeast Candida albicans, which is present on all humans. Another experiment, called Resist Tubule, will evaluate how microgravity affects the growth of cell walls in a plant called Arabidopsis. About 50 percent of the energy expended by terrestrial-bound plants is dedicated to structural support to overcome gravity. Understanding how the genes that control this energy expenditure operate in microgravity could have implications for future genetically modified plants and food supply. Both Micro 6 and Resist Tubule will return with the Dragon at the end of its mission.

Expedition 33 Commander Sunita Williams of NASA and Aki Hoshide of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency will use a robot arm to grapple the Dragon following its rendezvous with the station on Wednesday, Oct. 10. They will attach the Dragon to the Earth-facing port of the station's Harmony module for a few weeks while crew members unload cargo and load experiment samples for return to Earth."

http://newspacewatch.com/articles/nasaspacex-set-oct-7-for-cargo-mission-to-the-iss.html

--Craigboy (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NASASpaceflight.com's L2 Premium section is also starting to fill up with interesting information, but much of that info is pay-wall protected, so it is harder to use with this article. If I see something startling wrong in the article, and there are no other sources but the pay-wall ones, than I likely use that info in that context only.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You can also discuss it here (on talk page) if you see any contradictions between what's in the article and what's on L2.--Craigboy (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
But I do have question, do you know if an emblem has been or is planned to be released for the mission?--Craigboy (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Upmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html

Downmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html

--Craigboy (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Capacity[edit]

Why is even the second flight to the ISS only loaded to 15% (550kg)? Is the Falcon9 still at and thrust level incompatible with the 3310kg payload?--Stone (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Great question. I was flabbergasted when I read that low published mass payload number as well. If anyone has a source that explains it, the info ought to definitely be used to improve the CRS SpX-1 article, and perhaps the main Dragon (spacecraft) article as well. It is difficult to believe NASA isn't taking up all the cargo capacity that is a) needed in the station, b) approved for carriage on Dragon (e.g., I don't think Dragon was built to do the large amount of hypergolic propellant that is carried on-board the Russian Prospect resupply spacecraft; could be other special cargo types as well), and c) would fit in the Dragon. Is it perhaps that the pressurized cargo volume maxima is being reached and it just happens that such low-density cargo does not get close to the mass maxima for the space transport trip? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I've heard some speculation but nothing solid. But I'm pretty confident the upload mass will increase on the later flights.--Craigboy (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the article? I don't suggest we speculate why, but simply state the published max capacity as opposed to what is going up this time. --WingtipvorteX PTT 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a grand idea! N2e (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In the pre-launch news conference on 6 Oct, SpaceX prez Gwynne Shotwell pretty much answered this question head on (it was the first question of the Q&A portion of the news conference). The cargo upmass on this flight is relatively low-density. A few minutes earlier, in her prepared remarks, she indicated that the interior pressurized cargo volume of the Dragon would be more full than was seen on the COTS 2/3 mission, appearing to fill up each of the major areas where cargo can be stowed, including the central region which was unused on the last flight. The NASA guy also seemed to indicate that their might have been some payload processing snafus on the NASA side, but that was less explicit. I suspect we'll see this covered in the space press in the next day or two and will be able to locate a secondary source for this info. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS-1/Dragon Pre-Launch Briefing has three nice facts stated:1) the 165kg of the secondary satelite 2) the low density of the chargo for this flight 3) 60 metric tonns for the 12 flights up and down . Making 5318 kg for each following missions going to 59% lading for the 6000kg up and 3000kg down. The low density is strange, but OK. The 60t estimate for 12 flights sounds challenging but we will see what CRS-is lifting.--Stone (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Those numbers you analyze are useful, Stone. I wonder if a part of our confusion, in trying to get all this represented correctly in a Wikipedia article, is that there doesn't seem to be a clear source on how much of the upmass they are carrying in the internal pressurized space, versus the external (exposed to space) cargo trunk? Is the 20 MT contracted amount for the 12 flights all internal pressurized cargo on the upmass side of the equation? (Obviously, all the downmass will be in the pressurized space.) Does SpaceX get any mass credit on their contract for the larger/bulkier-but-unpressurized cargo they carry to ISS in the trunk? (cargo that is then removed by the CanadaArm, presumably, and affixed to one of the external platforms on the ISS.) N2e (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe the 20 mt includes both pressurized and unpressurized mass (on some of the upcoming CRS missions NASA has several payloads scheduled to ride in the trunk). Here is the section of the press conference Stone is referring to in #2 and #3.--Craigboy (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mission name again[edit]

NASA is now calling this mission CRS-1 or SpaceX CRS-1 see here. But there is also SpaceX-1 CRS and a few other combinations. I don't think we should move anything yet. I'm simply bringing this up as a note that we will have to deal with it later. --WingtipvorteX PTT 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The patch is also calling it SpaceX CRS-1.--Craigboy (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it appropriate now to propose a move. What do you think? --WingtipvorteX PTT 00:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I vote yes TMV943 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Support an article move. I would have liked to see "SpaceX" spelled out, rather than "SpX", even before the patch came out, as Wikipedia naming conventions go for full names in article titles. I think the patch makes it sufficiently official to do the move now. N2e (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Support I agree, I just wanted to make sure there was a consensus before moving it.--Craigboy (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- the move was completed, by Craigboy, on 6 Oct 2012.

Image gallery[edit]

Here is the Kennedy Media Gallery, which has some good pictures of for the mission. There are some great ones of the Dragon/F9 mating that would likely have a good place in the article. --WingtipvorteX PTT 20:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One of them has since been added, I've also uploaded many more of the higher quality/unique ones onto wikicommons.--Craigboy (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Press Kit now available[edit]

As of today there is a new mission patch. It is displayed on the SpaceX Press Kit off of their website. I think its addition would be nice. I don't know how to do it myself. 69.161.16.61 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Joe 10/04/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.16.61 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. It contains the mission patch and some other goodies. --WingtipvorteX PTT 00:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It also contains a mission timeline and the Cargo Manifest. Both important to the article. And the patch and kit call the mission SpaceX CRS-1. --WingtipvorteX PTT 00:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Launch Briefing on Saturday, October 6th at 6:00 PM EDT (20:00 UTC)[edit]

NASA TV link
--Craigboy (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Instantaneous launch window(again)[edit]

As I was watching the NASA ISS update yesterday, they mentioned the CRS-1 launch has an instantaneous launch window. For the previous dragon flight we had guessed this was because of all the fuel that would be needed to maneuver around the station for tests. This time they are not doing that, so is there an explanation why the window is instantaneous? I'm not only curious, but this might be worthy of being included in the article. --WingtipvorteX PTT 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's instantaneous because Dragon has to launch when the ISS is in certain place in orbit. SpX-1 and all future missions will have daily launch opportunities as opposed to the every three days launch opportunities we had for COTS 2.--Craigboy (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, I understand the relative position in orbit. I recall the shuttle had a much wider launch window by comparison (they could launch early and get ahead of the station, or launch late and catch up to it). Obviously there isn't as much room here, but is this something that will change with F9v1.1? Or is it strictly dependent on Dragon? As far as daily launch opportunities, do you have a link that explains it? Not that I don't believe you (plus, it is published that the second attempt is the next day!), I'm just trying to satisfy my inner space geek and learn how it works, as I had thought the correct alignment of the ISS ground-track and the Cape had to be fairly close for Dragon (Soyuz has the capability). --WingtipvorteX PTT 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────  Done SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell explained this in the pre-launch press conference. The launch window is not, technically, an instantaneous launch window this time around, as it was on COTS-2+. However, the launch window is sufficiently short (I don't believe she specified the number, but 7 to 10 minutes would be about the expected norm for Falcon 9) that -- should any problem develop that necessitated a halt in the countdown -- that the minimum normal reset time to assure everything is in order to restart the countdown would be longer than the window. Thus, there is effectively an instantaneous launch window for this launch. If the first window had been halted for ANY reason, they would have moved the launch back at least one day to the second scheduled launch window. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, this makes a lot of sense. Either SpaceX is reading this talk page (as they answer all our questions), or we are really, really average minds and come come up with hard questions :P --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

First-stage engine anomaly[edit]

There was an engine anomaly in one of the nine first stage engines that resulted in automatic shutdown of that engine, and a resultant longer burn of the remaining eight engines, in order to place the rocket at the proper velocity and position to prepare for second-stage ignition. I have added a stub of this information to the article, with a citation. Obviously, much more information will appear in the mainstream space press in the next few days, and we should definitely plan to update that entire section in the details are published. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this should go in the flight day 1 section of the article? What is interesting to me is that SpaceX didn't mention this in their email, they must not be too happy about it. Did the anomaly happen before the normal 2 engine cut off? Or if afterward, did an engine restart? It seems odd that they would have had 8 engines on, as it is 9 at launch, and 7 a few minutes afterward. --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I read of the explosion of one of the nine engines: http://www.slashgear.com/spacex-reporting-tiny-explosion-in-dragon-iss-launch-08250913/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.90.42 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 8 October 2012
  • As I am reading more and more about this, I can't help but feel something is odd about this 'anomaly.' Some say it was an explosion, SpaceX disagrees. The video does show parts of the rocket coming off. SpaceX claims this was part of a system to relieve pressure in the engine should something bad happen. This sounds like a whole load of BS to me: I've never heard of such system. Has anyone? As far as I know, SpaceX has never advertized this. It seems to me this would add complexity to a rocket designed to be simple. I know I'm crystal balling and this is all speculation on my part. Anyone else think something is out of place in the information being published? --WingtipvorteX PTT 03:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they claim there was a system to relieve pressure, but that the engine turning happened to create enough pressure to break the fairing that covers the corner of Engine 1, I think they are trying to distinguish it from a full on explosion TMV943 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. While there is not exactly a system designed to relieve pressure, there are Kevlar layers in some of the material between strategic parts of the engines, and any good designer would make such a ballistic shielding design have a weaker area that is, under high pressure, more likely to stand up on the sides toward the other engines and be weaker on the sides to the outside of the rocket. I work with a couple of propulsion engineers and they have talked about what is usually done on these sorts of multi-engine designs. It won't contain a catastrophic engine explosion, but for something like this, where the real-time sensors sensed the pressure drop in the engine, and then rapidly cut off fuel flow to the engine, it is quite plausible that the pressure would be substantially more relieved on the outside (thus taking apart the rather thin fairing around the no. 1 engine (but also covers the nos. 3, 7 and 9 "corner" engines) rather than, necessarily, cause a problem with an adjacent engine. This is exactly the sort of good design that one would expect to see in a launch system explicitly designed for "engine out" capability.
While we'll all have to wait for the full details on this (and you can be sure that the NASA contract with SpaceX will require NASA access to the detailed sensor data from the flight so that NASA can do independent analysis), the data released by SpaceX to date is a quite plausible explanation for a rocket engine problem. And the flight's continuation and successful orbital trajectory of the primary payload speaks a great deal for a fault-tolerant design that SpaceX employed here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that seems more logical than what I was thiking. Here is what I got from SpaceX, also on their website:

Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.

— SpaceX, SPACEX CRS-1 MISSION UPDATE, October 8, 2012
They way they said it, "Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected" sounded to me as if they (or the rocket) chose to eject them. As you said, they have to tell NASA exactly what happened. Hopefully NASA has to make the information public. In any case, it wasn't a nominal launch as they both claimed. A successful launch where everything worked as it is supposed to, yes. Not a launch where there weren't any problems. --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A component can be designed to eject due to a failure severing designed weak points, such as in a fairing, rather than permit pressure or components to remain within the assembly and result in further damage. From the video, there appeared to be a flare from the engine, then what appeared to be a section of fairing being lit by the engine exhaust. The telemetry should help with a post-mortem analysis of the engine failure, such as turbo pump failure, high pressure line failure, etc and I'm willing to guess that SpaceX will post the determination of cause of the failure.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because the reason given for its proposed deletion is untrue - I fail to find "patent nonsense". --Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because it looks like a coherent article to me.

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I see no problem with this page. It is perfectly coherent and I fail to see why it is even under consideration. Basically, an argument in defense of the article would be improper because there is no valid argument for its deletion. Why was this notice posted? Either the article has been heavily (and I mean mean HEAVILY) edited since the notice was first posted or its posting was an act of trolling) --ValekHalfHeart (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD was trolling. This article is currently ITN. --WingtipvorteX PTT 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What Wingtip said. When a page is nominated for CSD or PROD deletion, and is clearly inappropriate, you may simply reverse the nomination. I've just done so; the evidence indicates that the user who nominated this page is simply vandalizing. NTox · talk 23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Imperial units[edit]

For a mission of international interest to the international space station, one would assume that we would use metric measurements by default, not Imperial units. (And for the record, I live in the U.S.) Kaldari (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, in a sense. Not because it is an international project, but because it is a science-related article. See WP:UNIT, should be SI first, then converted to US. I guess the argument could be made that this isn't a science-related article, but that would be a weak argument IMO. --WingtipvorteX PTT 17:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsuccessful Secondary Payload[edit]

ORBCOMM is saying that due to the anomaly in Engine 1, the second stage could not complete the second burn for placement of their prototype in the proper orbit.

The OG2 prototype satellite, flying as a secondary payload on this mission, was separated from the Falcon 9 launch vehicle at approximately 9:00 pm EST. However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended. ORBCOMM and Sierra Nevada Corporation engineers have been in contact with the satellite and are working to determine if and the extent to which the orbit can be raised to an operational orbit using the satellite’s on-board propulsion system.

— ORBCOMM

--WingtipvorteX PTT 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is consistent with all the sources I've read. Since the ORBCOMM statement is a primary source, it is probably best to source the rationale for the ORBCOMM OG2 sat not being taken to the higher orbit by the Falcon 9 second stage from one of the many secondary sources that are now, a couple days after the launch, covering the topic. (Including some of the newer sources now used in the article, but published in the last day or so.) So feel free to improve the article on the topic of the outcome of the secondary payload. N2e (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
However, just a note on this: in the space industry, and space "market" such as it exists recently in the near-total monopsony of government-purchased space services (and, usually, government-purchased spacecraft too), do note that any launch provider is quite happy when the the primary payload is 100% successful (as the primary payload customer pays 95%-99% of the cost of the mission, determines the launch date/time, determines the orbital plane, and places a large number of contractual constraints on the secondary payload [providers (e.g., when the secondary payload can be powered on (usually, only after primary payload separation), when the upper stage can (or cannot) be reignited for a second burn to an alternate orbit, etc.). Why, because the secondary payload pays a MUCH lower rate, and the insurance costs for secondary payloads assume the higher risk on secondary payload mission success precisely because of those many limitations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Orbcomm has said mostly the same thing:
"Had Orbcomm been the primary payload on this mission, as planned for the upcoming launches, we believe the OG2 prototype would have reached the desired orbit," Orbcomm said Thursday. --http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121011orbcomm/
Orbcomm is filing for an insurance claim due to the failure, but they were able to test some critical sub-systems that will enable Orbcomm to deploy their next generation satellites in the future as a prime customer. The only issue that needs to be pointed out is that this was originally supposed to be a payload on a Falcon 1, but due to restructuring at SpaceX and apparently a loss of demand by customers, the Falcon 1 isn't flying. I don't know how much that decision has impacted flights like this, but it will be interesting to see how this impacts the future of the SpaceX manifest. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
One other thing that might be worth mentioning. Technically, the Falcon could have placed Orbcomm satellite into the desired orbit. That is, it had enough fuel and guidance control to do so. The reason it wasn't placed into the desired orbit was because of safety protocols for the ISS. This dictated that the Orbcomm satellite be released when it was. --71.214.222.30 (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, there are no sources indicating it was a technological failure of the rocket. Per the sources, it seems merely to be a case of the primary payload provider insisting on a fairly restrictive safety protocol, which is entirely the right of the contract negotiators making the contract between SpaceX and the primary payload purchaser, and that Orbcomm signed up for this launch opportunity under those known contractual conditins. That is, there was some contractual risk that the secondary payload would not be delivered to the higher orbit, and that risk was entirely accepted by, and borne by, Orbcomm and its insurers. This is why secondary payload launch fees are 1/40th to 1/50th of the cost of the launch to the primary payload contractor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ice Cream[edit]

With all the buzz about the ice cream, should we include information about it? It seems like it could be a controversial addition to the article, so I'd prefer to have consensus for adding it before it is done. --WingtipvorteX PTT 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For things like this I would strongly recommend that you try to establish some notability to the issue (aka have at least two or three independent sources discussing this item) and watching out for WP:UNDUE violations. In spite of the fact that it is a silly item in the manifest and completely irrelevant to the mission or the operation of the ISS, it was widely talked about in a number of places and was therefore something relevant for discussion in this article on Wikipedia as a sentence or two in a discussion of the payload in general.
Something else that may useful with this is a poster that was added to the payload by the SpaceX team which built the Dragon capsule, where the crew who built the capsule signed their names on the poster with a picture of the whole development team on the factory floor of SpaceX. Also whimsical, if enough sources talk about it there should be some mention in the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that is what I was thinking. If it is added, it should be carefully done and with the consensus of all the editors who regularly work on the article. I don't much care personally if we mention the ice cream or not, but the media is making such a big deal out of it. --WingtipvorteX PTT 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Article update in progress[edit]

Dragon's hatch was closed at about 18:00 UTC (11:00 PST) on 27 October 2012.

Dragon was released at 13:29 UTC (06:29 PST) on 28 October 2012.

Dragon splashed down at 19:22 UTC (12:22 PST) on 28 October 2012.

Dragon was retrieved from the ocean by the American Islander.

Dragon arrived at the Port of Los Angeles on 30 October 2012. (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121030port/)

--Craigboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting that it was ground operators who performed most of the un-berthing operations. Definitely worth mentioning in the article, I think. --WingtipvorteX PTT 15:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This is news to me, do have a link to an article where I can read about it?--Craigboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
No article, but this video. --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. You can go ahead and add if you like.--Craigboy (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'm very out of time now, so unfortunately I won't be able to add it. --WingtipvorteX PTT 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


It's 2016, and section "Remainder of mission (11 to 28 October)" (2012) is still in future tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.41.170 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A record that goes unnoticed[edit]

SpaceX CRS-1 spent roughly 18 days attached at the International Space Station, which is the longest amount of time for any American spacecraft. STS-123, which previously held the duration record, was attached to the ISS for only 11 days and 20 hours.--Craigboy (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anomaly information[edit]

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/spacex-and-nasa-still-determining-reasons-for-falcon-9-engine-failure

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121114anomalies/#.UKVmI4b0bKh

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/707197main_Suffredini_ISS_NAC_20121114.pdf

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa8b87703-93f9-4cdf-885f-9429605e14df --Craigboy (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good info on the OS of the Dragon and F9 in that interview. Probably even a good source for the Shuttle flight computers as well.--WingtipvorteX PTT 22:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Another issue with the CRS-1 flight was the loss of power to a freezer carrying biological samples on the spacecraft upon splashdown. Suffredini said that none of the samples were compromised by the loss of freezer power. He said SpaceX was working to limit water intrusion into those systems. “The fix that was necessary was to a better job of sealing up the boxes,” he said. Those components will be sealed up better for CRS-2, with an “ultimate” redesign planned for CRS-3".

https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:929ec15c-3c9e-4e8d-b3db-bf0f65af09ad --Craigboy (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator after considering pertinent responses from fellow editors — JFG talk 10:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


– The naming of Dragon missions is an anomaly compared to all the other unmanned spaceflights to the ISS, or even to all spaceflights, which usually bear the name of the spacecraft, not the manufacturer or LSP. See Progress M-29M, Kounotori 5, Cygnus CRS OA-6, etc. This would improve the clarity in lists of spaceflights such as {{Orbital launches in 2015}} or ISS#Scheduled missions. We don't launch a Korolev, we launch a Progress. We don't launch an Orbital, we launch a Cygnus. We don't launch a SpaceX, we launch a Dragon. — JFG talk 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, as per JFG's argument. Rmvandijk (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The argument against would be that most sources to those articles, including all NASA documents, refer to the missions as "SpaceX CRS-n". With that logic the Cygnus CRS-n articles should be renamed to Orbital ATK CRS-n though. I don't have a strong opinion. Ulflund (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Support using the spacecraft name, not the company's. While you are at it, also move all Orbital-CRSn to Cygnus-CRSn. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No change needed; those articles are already titled Cygnus CRS missions, that's part of the point. — JFG talk 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose, NASA has been moving away from a government program concept to a commercial resupply concept. This is why the ISS in the Cygnus case is moving to the OA naming for Orbital ATK. They named things for Progress, Soyuz, etc because those are government programs. Now NASA is contracting a company to deliver cargo. NASA calls it SpaceX CRS-xx, SpaceX calls it CRS-xx mission, and the ISS program office calls it SPX-xx. If you are not convinced, let's just wait until commercial crew naming appears and then we can go for consistency. – Baldusi (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I have trouble following your line of thought. I don't see how the fact that a spacecraft is commissioned by a public or private entity should have any influence on the title of its page. All satellite articles are titled after the name of the thing that flies, not the manufacturer's or the LSP. — JFG talk 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
They are not delivering a Dragon, they are delivering cargo to the ISS. Dragon is part of the transport stack. If SpaceX tomorrow was using a different craft, it would still be SpaceX CRS-xx. Besides, that's the name the mission owners call it. – Baldusi (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your point now, thanks. Still, the world names orbiting spacecraft, not their cargo, check the relevant COSPAR IDs: 2012-054A is "Dragon CRS-1", 2013-010A is "Dragon CRS-2", etc. If SpaceX switched to a new craft model "Hydra", each such spacecraft would probably be designated "Hydra CRS-32" and so on. I guess the debate is whether we should choose the mission name (SpaceX CRS-1) or the spacecraft name (Dragon CRS-1) as a page title. I support the spacecraft name for consistency. — JFG talk 06:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists to record data, not to create it. If NASA and SpaceX wish to call the missions SpaceX CRS-n, that's what we should call it. Wikipedia should not be about making things up so it has internal consistency. That's why Categories are for. I remember the disasters made because they wanted to rename Dnepr (the rocket). They went as far as invent a new name: Dnepr-1. Luckily reason arrived and was renamed to Dnepr (rocket). But deleting old links and modifying articles from that contraption took me a while. Let's not get into that. Wikipedia should record reality, no matter how inconsistent it is. – Baldusi (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I claim credit for renaming Dnepr-1 to Dnepr (rocket); glad to see we agree on that, and thanks for your work changing incoming links there. — JFG talk 13:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, The articles are now about a missions, so changing them to be about spacecraft would require many changes not just to the article names. I have only heard the specific spacecraft referred to as CRS-n Dragon rather than the other way around. I think we should wait with articles about the individual spacecraft until they start to get reused. Should we achieve consistency by renaming the Cygnus articles instead? Ulflund (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Another valid point you raise. SpaceX calls their spacecrafts Dragon C1 (the COTS 1), Dragon C2 (COTS 2/3), Dragon C3 (SpaceX CRS-1), etc. They will star reusing them. In which case we can make an article about the spacecraft. But SpaceX CRS-x are resupply missions. If anyone want to make an article about the spacecraft in particular, they should use the Dragon Cxx name. And we don't know what Elon will decide to name them when they introduce Dragon v2. Consistency in naming is not exactly SpaceX forte. Nor should Wikipedia try change that. We should make a clear record of all naming through the project's life, though. – Baldusi (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Baldusi on the additional point, beyond the current question, as well. Time will come when we will no doubt have articles on specific reusable space capsules (where a name like Dragon xyz might be appropriate, depending on what SpaceX names them) and also on individual launch vehicles, just like we do today with notable maritime vehicles or trains or even, in some cases, particular automobiles. N2e (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, the current name is more accurate. SpaceX has a contract to provide a set of services to NASA for each of the various CRS missions. These include both the launch on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle—as the launch service provider for the mission—and also the on-orbit payload (Dragon) operational management to get it to the ISS and do the SpaceX-needed side of getting it in position for berthing. Thus, SpaceX is the main operator here, and it runs the CRS-n mission from launch to capture to (later, post-release) safely moving away from the ISS and into a trajectory for a nominal pinpoint reentry. Article scope, quite rationally, includes all aspects of the contract responsibilities that SpaceX takes on and must perform to. N2e (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawal@Baldusi, Ulflund, and N2e: Thank you for articulating several good reasons to keep the current names. @Rmvandijk and BatteryIncluded: Thank you for supporting my initial move rationale. Given the balance of the arguments emerging from the discussion, I shall withdraw my move request and simply create redirects from Dragon CRS-n to SpaceX CRS-n when they are missing, to facilitate incoming links from articles where that name flows better in the prose or makes more sense in a table. — JFG talk 10:31, 30 August 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
After reading the arguments, I (again) agree with JFG's decision to withdraw the move request and make redirects. Rmvandijk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)