![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
"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)
Update: In this link, NASA calls the mission SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight. WingtipvorteX (talk) ∅ 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 (
talk •
contribs) 1:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
Upmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html
Downmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html
-- Craigboy ( talk) 07:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Done -- the move was completed, by
Craigboy, on 6 Oct 2012.
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)
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)
NASA TV link
--
Craigboy (
talk)
15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
This page should not be speedily deleted because it looks like a coherent article to me.
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
"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)
Update: In this link, NASA calls the mission SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight. WingtipvorteX (talk) ∅ 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 (
talk •
contribs) 1:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
Upmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html
Downmass - http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html
-- Craigboy ( talk) 07:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Done -- the move was completed, by
Craigboy, on 6 Oct 2012.
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)
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)
NASA TV link
--
Craigboy (
talk)
15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
This page should not be speedily deleted because it looks like a coherent article to me.
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)
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)