Talk:SpaceX Dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Mid

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Three years versus ten

Ok, these SpaceX guys will do three years what took ten years and three times the money to ESA and JAXA to achieve - so where is the trick ? 193.56.37.1 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISS Common Berthing Mechanism

The opening paragraph uses this term which I thought should be linked, only I cannot find anything else that indicates it is an official term in any of the other articles. I have found:

  • ISS docking compartment which refers to a Russian component attached to the bottom, Earth-facing port of the Zvezda Service Module and which provides docking ports for the Soyuz-TMA and Progress-M spacecraft. It also has two airlocks to accommodate spacewalks by Russian cosmonauts wearing Orlan-M spacesuits.
  • Joint Airlock which refers to a module based on the shuttle docking mechanism and attached to the starboard side of the Unity Module and was designed to be able to host spacewalks with both the American and Russian spacesuits

In any event is the term we are using here ISS Common Berthing Mechanism a real term or do we need to find a better less ambiguous term? Dalf | Talk 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Common Berthing Mechanism" is the official name for docking ports on the US segments of the station, such as on the Unity node, Node 2, Node 3 etc. The "ISS docking compartment" you described is in the Russian segment and quite different docking ports than those in the US segment. The "Joint" airlock (actually now replaced with the "Quest" airlock) was for spacewalks and is also quite different to the CBM's. I added a link to the name in the article for clarity. Subzero788 | Talk 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpaceX and America's Space Prize?

This article states that SpaceX could be eligible to win the America's Space Prize, but on the page for the America's Space Prize, the rules state that a company cannot have accepted government funding for the project and also says clearly that SpaceX is ineligible for having accepted funding from NASA. So which one is right? Guypersonson 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article to "Dragon (spacecraft)"?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. We'd need another discussion to decide what to do with other pages for standardization purposes, but both patterns of disambiguation seem reasonable. There are many pages that don't use parentheticals when the addition of the disambiguating word can be a natural part of a noun phrase. Dekimasuよ! 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this article is named "SpaceX Dragon" vs. "Dragon (spacecraft)"? I ask this after noticing that the Orion craft article is named "Orion (spacecraft)". For consistency it seems like it should be one or the other. Just to add a little confusion, the article for Apollo is named "Apollo spacecraft" which seems even less consistent with article naming conventions. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll note that we also seem to have Progress spacecraft, TKS spacecraft, and Soyuz spacecraft. I'm not sure if we want to rename all of these articles to the (spacecraft) convention, or if we should move this to Dragon spacecraft, and similarly for Orion. — PyTom (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose SpaceX is a commercial firm, so this would be like aircraft, and also SpaceShipOne. Progress, Orion, Apollo, TKS, Soyuz, are all governmental programs. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Current Progress

I would like to propose a section named 'Current Progress'. I reckon that there would be more and more updates in the future and rather than have them here and there, the latest updates shall be updated therein. There had been a major update from SpaceX in their December 07 release.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got not problem with a new section, but I would call it "Development" so it will have some historical context once the system is live. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. We should just keep the section updated when new developments come along rather than have it all over the article.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Launch escape system coverage

The current article doesn't describe any kind of launch escape system for Dragon. Has SpaceX discussed this anywhere? (sdsds - talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)