Talk:Crew Dragon Endeavour

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by SpaceX working group.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spacex or SpaceX[edit]

Why Spacex Crew Dragon Endeavour? And not SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should've been SpaceX instead of Spacex. It has been corrected now. My fault. Sorry bout that. --AFLBulawan (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2020[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: already moved by User:Bredyhopi (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour → Crew Dragon Endeavour – A la command module Columbia. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. "Crew Dragon" disambiguates enough. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 18:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pointing out articles about Dragon capsules with SpaceX in the title - however again "Crew Dragon" would disambiguate such that SpaceX does not need to be in the article title.

We may need to create SpaceX Dragon C206 or Crew Dragon C206 a redirect to this page. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 19:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --AFLBulawan (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CRS-20 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (see also Space Shuttle Endeavour) --mfb (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation needed[edit]

We have:

Hence, it is unclear whether Endeavour will fly again in future missions.

We don't have a reference that indicates this. In fact the teslarati reference says:

If successful, Crew-2 should follow as soon as mid-2021 and could potentially reuse Crew-1’s Falcon 9 booster and the Demo-2 or Crew-1 Dragon capsule.

So its possible that Endeavour will be used. Just wondering @AFLBulawan: what you meant by "Hence, it is unclear whether Endeavour will fly again in future missions."? Anyways thanks for creating this article. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji: It is possible. Sorry about that, should've phrased that more clearly. By "unclear" I meant that it could possibly be flown again. I did not realize it could imply exactly the opposite haha. What do you think about it though, how should that be phrased? --AFLBulawan (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AFLBulawan: The reason why this Dragon is limited to 119 days was because of the solar panels (on the trunk) spaceflightnow. So, the capsule itself, that part that will fly again, is not limited to 119 days. So I think saying " Days after the successful launch, NASA gave SpaceX approval to reuse flight-proven spacecraft, indicating Endeavour may fly again." may work better, as its correct to what we know right now. I guess the word that confusing was "Hence" - because whether or not the capsule will fly again is not dependent on the 119 day limit they set for this mission. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 23:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if the solar panels are the only thing that's not final yet. It's also possible that SpaceX finds some issue in the returning capsule that makes reuse unfeasible. Too many unknowns. "Potential reuse" is all we can say. --mfb (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a really good point. Sorry I missed that. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question[edit]

Do you think there should be some tag saying that this event is ongoing? I would rather have someone else actually apply the Tag I am known for destroying whole web sites by accidentally hitting delete instead of return hehe :) TimeTravler777777 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It landed now. We can expect a few more updates but it's nothing that will continue to change rapidly for a while. --mfb (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding... I totally agree with you. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Isaias[edit]

SpaceX had identified seven potential landing sites, (three along the east coast of Florida, including one off of Cape Canaveral, two along the west coast of Florida, one south of the Florida panhandle, and one south of Mobile, Alabama).

Would the fact that SpaceX chose the two sites furthest west as primary and alternate due to the expected track of Hurricane Isaias be notable? AmigaClone (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is about the capsule maybe not, however it may be notable to mention it on Crew Demo-2 page. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Artists Conception of Boeing Starliner OFT-2 in docking sequence to Harmony forward port where SpaceX Crew Dragon Crew-2 is relocated to Harmony Zenith port prior to starliner's docking.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]