![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 May 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 25, 2016, May 25, 2020, and May 25, 2022. |
Seems like C2 and C3 has been merged into C2 to be launched on October 8th? Can someone confirm that? The Falcon 9 article states that C2 and C3 have been merged into C3. Since there is no C2, should this article be deleted and link to the C3 article? user:mnw2000 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There is substantial information about one of (the major?) factor in delaying approval by NASA of the Dragon C2/C3 mission plan. Seems the "Visiting Vehicles" safety folks at NASA are publicly saying that they have concerns about the two Orbcom satellites that SpaceX intends to carry along as secondary payloads on the mission. Here is a source for that, should someone want to add this dimension to the article prose: ISS managers evaluating SpaceX via safety reviews ahead of debut arrival, 16 Aug 2011 article date. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The article reads "The proposed mission plan, which combines the COTS 2 and 3 flights into a single mission". I think this is incorrectly worded. What has been decided, and what the article should state, is that the objectives of C3 have been merged or combined into C2. The next Falcon9/Dragon flight for NASA will be CRS 1. Assuming C2 succeeds, C3 will have been a canceled mission by SpaceX, although it may still happen by another company assuming NASA names it COTS 3. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 01:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
During Elon Musk's press conference at the national press club he mentioned that due to the possibility of the ISS having to be 'evacuated' due to the Soyouz failure, the COTS Demo 2 will likely happen in January of 2012 as they want to make sure NASA has the right astronauts (who have undergone training with Dragon) at the station when Dragon arrives. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This out from NASA today: Software uploaded to SpaceX avionics box on ISS in preparation for COTS demo flight. Moreover, specifics have been published about the relative positioning for the testing that will constitute the C2 mission, before the C3 mission (berthing with ISS) occurs.
The originally planned Demo 2 & 3 missions have been merged. For the new "Dragon" Combined Demo, "Commanding from ISS" via the CCP will be demonstrated while the spacecraft flies 2.5 km under the ISS.
Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
News that might not be appropriate for the article but is helpful to editors:
Page to watch for delays: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/reports/iss_reports/
Timeline:
03/01/12 - Wet Dress Rehearsal
04/16/12 - Flight Readiness Review followed by press conference
04/22/12 - SpaceX internal readiness review
04/23/12 - SpaceX and NASA will get together, discus flight with one another
04/30/12 - Static fire of the Falcon 9
05/19/12 - Launch attempt 1, launch was automatically aborted at T -.5 seconds when combustion chamber pressure was higher then expected.
05/22/12 - Launch
05/24/12 - Dragon will approach ISS
05/25/12 - Dragon will be grappled by Canadarm2 and berthed to Harmony nadir
05/26/12 - The hatch to Dragon will be opened and the crew will enter the spacecraft
05/31/12 - Dragon will be unberthed, re-enter the atmosphere, splashdown in the Pacific and be recovered.
(Source)--
Craigboy (
talk)
06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It will be the longest amount of time an American spacecraft has visited the ISS (mission duration has been shortened) and it will be the first time since STS-135 that an American spacecraft visited the ISS.--
Craigboy (
talk)
00:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking through NASA's article on the launch, I noticed the launch window is instantaneous. Off the top of my head I don't know if that is in this article or not, but I think it would be worth explaining why the launch window is instantaneous as opposed to the Space Shuttle that had a larger window (several minutes). Wingtipvortex ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Elon Musk just posted in a newsletter the following:
For these pictures to be used, they have to be rights free, public domain. If it is from SpaceX, they are claiming copyright. If it is from NASA, than it most likely is in the public domain.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm by far no expert in Wikipedia Politics, but I would support that this article be featured in the "In the News' section of the Main Page, given that the first commercial flight to the ISS is to be something of high historical significance. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think after we decide on a naming system for the COTS/CRS missions, then this article should be nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles good article status.-- Craigboy ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Since most of this article was written ahead of the mission, and is explaining many of the mission milestones in future-tense, we have to daily update the sections that occurred. I'll try to make these fixes, but I have a hunch that we won't be able to fully fix this issue, until after the mission is over next week. It is a real issue, and thank you goes out to N2e for catching this.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 21:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It is downloadable from NASA here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=144604891 Unfortunately I cannot convert it to a wiki-friendly format, so if someone could, I think it would add a lot to the article. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 00:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that SpaceX and NASA refer to this mission as "commercial," but is it? The only difference between this vehicle and, say, the space shuttle, is the contracting form -- fixed price (mostly) vs. cost-plus. Plenty of fixed price contracts are let in the military and they are not referred to as "commercial." HyperCapitalist ( talk) 02:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a revert war between US and British/Canadian English.
Keep it US English, as this is a SpaceX mission - who are US-based. This isn't the ISS page. Jamsta ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
International collaboration does not automatically mean that this article automatically uses British English. This is an American mission, an American spacecraft, supported by an American space agency. The point about the Candarm is moot, as that is part of the ISS, not the capsule. Furthermore, if you say that there's no berthing without Canada, I'd say there's no spacecraft at all without the US.
The strong national ties provision of the manual of style should thus apply, meaning the article would use American spelling. Even if that was for some reason not true, the article has been established in American English, so the retention clause applies too.
Lastly, why does me being an IP even matter? 138.88.213.95 ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll abide by Hamiltonstone and Jamsta's reasoning and ignore the anonymous ip editors, since they could be sock puppets for all I, or anyone else knows. If you are serious about editing on Wikipedia, get a username.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose that COTS Demo Flight 3 be merged into COTS Demo Flight 2. I think that the content in the Flight 3 article can easily be explained in the context of the Dragon C2+, which in fact, it already is. The COTS 2 article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of COTS 3 will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Abebenjoe ( talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
They are available no here http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/cargo/gallery/gallery-index.html I've uploaded a few, but there are a lot more available. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's become obvious that changes need to be made to Template:Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft. It only has a note for decay, not for landing time or location. -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 22:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Per W. D. Graham's merge, this article now contains both the COTS flights 2 and 3 information. A lot of research went into the name for the CRS SpX-1 article, which is the next mission SpaceX will fly. Our discussion for the naming can be found here. In short, we found that 'Dragon C#' are not the actual mission designations that NASA uses, but rather, that appears to be the name of the Dragon capsule itself. As can be seen in this document, this mission was actually called SpX-D. Given that this was the second SpaceX demo, Cygnus demos have a number, and to create consistency with all the CRS flights, I propose moving this article. We have some options:
I suggest option "C," as it was the second SpaceX demo flight of the CRS program and since it was a combination of 2 and 3, the + is very appropriate. Keep in mind that COTS missions are the demo flights of the CRS program, so by saying it is a demo CRS flight, we imply COTS. We can keep the Dragon C2+ in the article as the name of the vehicle that flew the mission. WingtipvorteX (talk) ∅ 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the ogg files have randomly caused the refs not to work so I'm temporarily removing them. Bug report can be found here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon C2+. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to the capsule from the COTS Demo Flight 2 mission having been put on permanent display in Hawthorne. This seems to be an error.
My understanding was that it's C101 in Hawthorne, and C102 is actually at Kennedy SC following the nationwide tour.
This appears to be backed up in both the [ Dragon] and [ Space Center Visitor Complex] articles.
I don't want to just barge in and start making edits. Can someone please confirm that I'm seeing this correctly? thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizone ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 May 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 25, 2016, May 25, 2020, and May 25, 2022. |
Seems like C2 and C3 has been merged into C2 to be launched on October 8th? Can someone confirm that? The Falcon 9 article states that C2 and C3 have been merged into C3. Since there is no C2, should this article be deleted and link to the C3 article? user:mnw2000 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There is substantial information about one of (the major?) factor in delaying approval by NASA of the Dragon C2/C3 mission plan. Seems the "Visiting Vehicles" safety folks at NASA are publicly saying that they have concerns about the two Orbcom satellites that SpaceX intends to carry along as secondary payloads on the mission. Here is a source for that, should someone want to add this dimension to the article prose: ISS managers evaluating SpaceX via safety reviews ahead of debut arrival, 16 Aug 2011 article date. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The article reads "The proposed mission plan, which combines the COTS 2 and 3 flights into a single mission". I think this is incorrectly worded. What has been decided, and what the article should state, is that the objectives of C3 have been merged or combined into C2. The next Falcon9/Dragon flight for NASA will be CRS 1. Assuming C2 succeeds, C3 will have been a canceled mission by SpaceX, although it may still happen by another company assuming NASA names it COTS 3. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 01:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
During Elon Musk's press conference at the national press club he mentioned that due to the possibility of the ISS having to be 'evacuated' due to the Soyouz failure, the COTS Demo 2 will likely happen in January of 2012 as they want to make sure NASA has the right astronauts (who have undergone training with Dragon) at the station when Dragon arrives. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This out from NASA today: Software uploaded to SpaceX avionics box on ISS in preparation for COTS demo flight. Moreover, specifics have been published about the relative positioning for the testing that will constitute the C2 mission, before the C3 mission (berthing with ISS) occurs.
The originally planned Demo 2 & 3 missions have been merged. For the new "Dragon" Combined Demo, "Commanding from ISS" via the CCP will be demonstrated while the spacecraft flies 2.5 km under the ISS.
Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
News that might not be appropriate for the article but is helpful to editors:
Page to watch for delays: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/reports/iss_reports/
Timeline:
03/01/12 - Wet Dress Rehearsal
04/16/12 - Flight Readiness Review followed by press conference
04/22/12 - SpaceX internal readiness review
04/23/12 - SpaceX and NASA will get together, discus flight with one another
04/30/12 - Static fire of the Falcon 9
05/19/12 - Launch attempt 1, launch was automatically aborted at T -.5 seconds when combustion chamber pressure was higher then expected.
05/22/12 - Launch
05/24/12 - Dragon will approach ISS
05/25/12 - Dragon will be grappled by Canadarm2 and berthed to Harmony nadir
05/26/12 - The hatch to Dragon will be opened and the crew will enter the spacecraft
05/31/12 - Dragon will be unberthed, re-enter the atmosphere, splashdown in the Pacific and be recovered.
(Source)--
Craigboy (
talk)
06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It will be the longest amount of time an American spacecraft has visited the ISS (mission duration has been shortened) and it will be the first time since STS-135 that an American spacecraft visited the ISS.--
Craigboy (
talk)
00:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking through NASA's article on the launch, I noticed the launch window is instantaneous. Off the top of my head I don't know if that is in this article or not, but I think it would be worth explaining why the launch window is instantaneous as opposed to the Space Shuttle that had a larger window (several minutes). Wingtipvortex ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Elon Musk just posted in a newsletter the following:
For these pictures to be used, they have to be rights free, public domain. If it is from SpaceX, they are claiming copyright. If it is from NASA, than it most likely is in the public domain.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm by far no expert in Wikipedia Politics, but I would support that this article be featured in the "In the News' section of the Main Page, given that the first commercial flight to the ISS is to be something of high historical significance. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think after we decide on a naming system for the COTS/CRS missions, then this article should be nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles good article status.-- Craigboy ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Since most of this article was written ahead of the mission, and is explaining many of the mission milestones in future-tense, we have to daily update the sections that occurred. I'll try to make these fixes, but I have a hunch that we won't be able to fully fix this issue, until after the mission is over next week. It is a real issue, and thank you goes out to N2e for catching this.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 21:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It is downloadable from NASA here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=144604891 Unfortunately I cannot convert it to a wiki-friendly format, so if someone could, I think it would add a lot to the article. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 00:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that SpaceX and NASA refer to this mission as "commercial," but is it? The only difference between this vehicle and, say, the space shuttle, is the contracting form -- fixed price (mostly) vs. cost-plus. Plenty of fixed price contracts are let in the military and they are not referred to as "commercial." HyperCapitalist ( talk) 02:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a revert war between US and British/Canadian English.
Keep it US English, as this is a SpaceX mission - who are US-based. This isn't the ISS page. Jamsta ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
International collaboration does not automatically mean that this article automatically uses British English. This is an American mission, an American spacecraft, supported by an American space agency. The point about the Candarm is moot, as that is part of the ISS, not the capsule. Furthermore, if you say that there's no berthing without Canada, I'd say there's no spacecraft at all without the US.
The strong national ties provision of the manual of style should thus apply, meaning the article would use American spelling. Even if that was for some reason not true, the article has been established in American English, so the retention clause applies too.
Lastly, why does me being an IP even matter? 138.88.213.95 ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll abide by Hamiltonstone and Jamsta's reasoning and ignore the anonymous ip editors, since they could be sock puppets for all I, or anyone else knows. If you are serious about editing on Wikipedia, get a username.-- Abebenjoe ( talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose that COTS Demo Flight 3 be merged into COTS Demo Flight 2. I think that the content in the Flight 3 article can easily be explained in the context of the Dragon C2+, which in fact, it already is. The COTS 2 article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of COTS 3 will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Abebenjoe ( talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
They are available no here http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/cargo/gallery/gallery-index.html I've uploaded a few, but there are a lot more available. Wingtipvortex ( talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's become obvious that changes need to be made to Template:Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft. It only has a note for decay, not for landing time or location. -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 22:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Per W. D. Graham's merge, this article now contains both the COTS flights 2 and 3 information. A lot of research went into the name for the CRS SpX-1 article, which is the next mission SpaceX will fly. Our discussion for the naming can be found here. In short, we found that 'Dragon C#' are not the actual mission designations that NASA uses, but rather, that appears to be the name of the Dragon capsule itself. As can be seen in this document, this mission was actually called SpX-D. Given that this was the second SpaceX demo, Cygnus demos have a number, and to create consistency with all the CRS flights, I propose moving this article. We have some options:
I suggest option "C," as it was the second SpaceX demo flight of the CRS program and since it was a combination of 2 and 3, the + is very appropriate. Keep in mind that COTS missions are the demo flights of the CRS program, so by saying it is a demo CRS flight, we imply COTS. We can keep the Dragon C2+ in the article as the name of the vehicle that flew the mission. WingtipvorteX (talk) ∅ 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the ogg files have randomly caused the refs not to work so I'm temporarily removing them. Bug report can be found here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon C2+. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to the capsule from the COTS Demo Flight 2 mission having been put on permanent display in Hawthorne. This seems to be an error.
My understanding was that it's C101 in Hawthorne, and C102 is actually at Kennedy SC following the nationwide tour.
This appears to be backed up in both the [ Dragon] and [ Space Center Visitor Complex] articles.
I don't want to just barge in and start making edits. Can someone please confirm that I'm seeing this correctly? thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizone ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)