Talk:Crew Dragon Demo-2/Archive 1

Infobox issue
The crew size is unable to become seen in the published infobox. What's the matter? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The issue is now fixed. OkayKenji (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpX-DM1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening line
, ``The SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft carrying NASA astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley on their way to the International Space Station has safely reached orbit, and the nosecone has been opened."(https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2020/05/30/spacex-demo-2-crew-dragon-reaches-orbit-news-conference-at-630-p-m-edt/)(21:00 BST(DST))

At 4:09 p.m. EDT, the Crew Drago

, I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "NASA designation <> SpaceX designation" in your. Can you clarify? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 09:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NASA calls this mission "SpaceX Demo-2", but SpaceX calls it "Crew Dragon Demo-2". Both are "official" names, so the previous wording was misleading. Sorry if the edit summary wasn't clear enough. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? At best SpaceX calls it the "Crew Demo-1 Mission" in their press kit [1 ], and on the title of their archived live stream of its launch [2 ]. It is additionally referred to in the live stream as "SpaceX Crew Demo-1" at the bottom of the screen as part of the live stream's graphics. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have misremembered from the move discussion. Anyway, the important point about my edit is that the designation "SpaceX Demo-2" is NASA's name for the mission and not, as the previous wording implied, the sole official name. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Patch
Mission patch:


 * Twitter;
 * Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Add a current event marker?
The launch is scheduled for the next 3 hours assuming nothing goes wrong, I would add this myself but I'm not exactly a Wikipedia editor so i don't know if it would be applicable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.250.184.135 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. I added the template. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Launch America"
Launch America redirects here, but there is no mention of that in the article. I think there should be an explanation of the term. 137.226.68.247 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a marketing name. See https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-public-to-be-its-guests-to-celebrate-historic-launch-america/ . If it does not catch on as a common name, I doubt it need explanation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Launch America is the name of Public-Private Partnership scheme between USA and private space companies, not the mission. Erkin Alp Güney 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Crew Dragon on LC39A.jpg

Booster and Capsule
Which Falacon booster and which Dragon capsule were used on this mission? Since both the first stage booster and capsule are reusable, identifiers for both of these would be good to add. We already have articles on individual boosters and capsules, so would be good to point out which were used on this mission -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both Crew Dragon Endeavour and Falcon 9 booster B1058 are now noted in Infobox spaceflight. I'm sure some editors may beat me to adding it to the article prose soon! Haha! –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Backup crew
According to a tweet by NASA in April 2019, the backup crew for this mission consisted of two members, Michael Hopkins and Victor Glover. However, an article by the Atlantic published in March 2019 stated that Kjell Lindgren was a member of the backup crew, which currently is interpreted by this article to mean that he is the only member of the backup crew. Is there a citation I am missing, or are the backup crew assignments unclear? Rainclaw7 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In August 2018 article on crew assignment I see that Michael Hopkins and Victor Glover are assigned to Crew 1, not to DM2. --Base (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both could be true, for example during the Apollo program backup crews flew as prime crews a few missions later. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this goes all the way back to Vostok 1 with Titov flying the second one. --Base (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid timelines
MOS recommends using summary style in prose. Please stop shifting to timelines. That is a horrible writing style we want to avoid from the start. See for example Apollo 11 for an example of a good writing format for this article. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This. Honestly. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That article has over 100k of prose. This article is featured on the main page and is a giant mess.  Keep up the terrible work guys. 2601:602:9200:1310:CD83:9A1C:11EF:1B8 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Using timelines for things like the launch makes sense and makes it easier to read. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 05:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Errors
At Crew Dragon Demo-2. -- NGC 54  ( talk   |  contribs  ) 13:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2020

 * 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: '''Not moved. Clear consensus to keep the name, having had extensive deliberations and a clear previous outcome.''' Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Crew Dragon Demo-2 → SpaceX Demo-2 – See the above discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – we had a pretty substantial discussion about the names of Demo-1 and Demo-2 about a year ago, and it was mostly agreed upon that the "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2" names were, a) sufficiently concise names per Wikipedia policy on concise article titles to identify the mission as a Crew Dragon mission, b) more concise names per Wikipedia policy on precise article titles than "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2" that would allow them to be distinguished from other SpaceX missions labelled as demo or test flights, such as SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1, SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2, and Falcon Heavy test flight, and c) acceptable in lieu of a single most commonly recognisable name for the mission per Wikipedia's policy on commonly recognisable article titles.


 * In the discussion a year ago, put it best when they said that "the Wikipedia article name should reflect what the test is testing". Important to note is that the article for SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 was originally called Dragon C2+; a similar non-requested move discussion from 2012 found an agreement between two editors that "Dragon C2+" was likely not a precise nor concise enough name to distinguish what the mission was; with confusion being expressed as to what "C2+" even meant., the editor who introduced this very move request, eventually made a bold move of the page  to make the article's title more consistent with SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1; a move agreeable per Wikipedia's policy on consistent article titles. In the 2019 discussion,  importantly noted of the names being used for Demo-1 at that time, saying "a quick search of news articles reveals a wide variety of names ("DM-1 mission", "SpaceX's Demo-1 Crew Dragon test flight", "the SpaceX Demo-1 mission", "SpaceX Crew Dragon test launch", "Crew Dragon Demonstration Mission 1", etc.)." In a response to a discussion on this talk page mere days ago, Rosbif alluded that this, for the most part, has not changed with Demo-2, writing that "the media are using countless combinations and permutations of the words "NASA", "SpaceX", "Crew", "Dragon"; "demo" or "demonstration", "mission", or the abbreviation "DM"; and the number "2" or the word "second"! Quite which of the many variants should be counted as the WP:COMMONNAME isn't clear either."


 * While it may be attractive to use two of the names officially used by NASA to refer to these missions, "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2", we are not obligated to use official names per Wikipedia's policy on official names, which allow us to use a different name if such names are not that compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines on how articles should be titled. "SpaceX Demo-1" and "SpaceX Demo-2" are neither concise nor precise enough to be able to distinguish the subjects of their articles, nor do they have any merit to being commonly recognisable names among the swamp of names being used not only by reliable third party sources, but NASA and SpaceX themselves; NASA have used "SpaceX Demo-2",[1 ][2 ][3 ] and "SpaceX Demonstration Mission 2",[3 ][4 ], while SpaceX have used "Crew Demo-2",[5 ][6 ] and never "SpaceX Demo-2". Since "Crew Dragon Demo-1" and "Crew Dragon Demo-2" are some of the names used in reliable third party sources,[7 ][8 ][9 ] and thus do not violate Wikipedia's policy on disambiguation that states not to "use obscure or made-up names", they are the more concise and precise names available to us that would additionally be consistent with SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 and SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 to help distinguish these SpaceX "demo" missions from one another. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the specific change to SpaceX Demo-2. Firstly, although this name is used for concision by NASA in the current context, it is not precise enough in a wider context: SpaceX has previously performed demo missions for cargo Dragon. Secondly, SpaceX itself never refers to the mission this way. More generally, oppose on the basis that nothing significant has changed since the previous RM – and there's little point in rehashing the same arguments this time round! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the 45th Space Wing names this mission Dragon Crew Demo 2. CRS-20 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the SpaxeX YouTube channel calls this mission Crew Demo-2. WikiMaster111 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose  The mission does not just involve Spacex it involves NASA as well. BigRed606 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why the lead calls it "SpaceX Demo-2"? Its because it is the official name of the mission. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with PhilipTerryGraham's well-stated reasons. SJK (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Philip.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.

If you all are reluctant to rename the article because the previous mission is called Crew Dragon Demo-1, why not renaming both as "SpaceX Demo-#" for consistency? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mkay, I have to rewrite the lead section. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

NASA Crew Demo-2
Look at the mission title at the top right, on NASA TV, and you will see: Mission - NASA Crew Demo-2 CRS-20 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're referring to one of Hawthorne's mission control screens, to which I say please come up with a better source, such as a press release or an article posted by NASA or SpaceX bearing the "NASA Crew Demo-2" name. In all likelyhood, SpaceX has suffixed the name of their customer in front of their name for the mission, "Crew Demo-2", which is found on their website, news releases, and on the titles of their broadcasts. "SpaceX Demo-2" is still used frequently in NASA media, so there's no reason to completely remove it from the lead entirely. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is the first time that I see this screen and I have no other references. Sorry. CRS-20 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes sense that NASA clarifies that this is the Demo-2 mission by SpaceX and SpaceX clarifies that this is the Demo-2 mission for NASA. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead section according to the MOS:FIRST and put the alternative names on the Infobox spaceflight and efn. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Backup crew
There's no point in saying "is" once the mission is complete, right?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no point when the mission has taken off, which this one has, so it should change tense. However, this mission is not complete yet, that would occur in 1 to 4 months, depending on how long NASA keeps them up there -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the mission of getting them into space.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Expedition 63
I found these NASA sources 1 and 2 stating that the Endeavour crew are part of the Expedition 63 - not just as visiting crew. Would be the case of updating both articles? I'm asking to see what the community thinks - since it seems to be the most official source stating this until now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The SpaceX live stream just stated that too! Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When the mission was going to be just a week or so long, then this would have been a visiting crew and not part of the Expedition crew. Once the mission was extended, they were categorized as Expedition crewmembers. -- Wizardimps (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Backup crew
Is this correct that there was only a single person? Shouldn't a two-man team have a backup of, well, a two-man team? PS. I read the discussion above plus the source and it is not very clear this he was the only person - it may be that the other name didn't get mentioned for some reason. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The original backup crew for Demo-2 was Glover and Hopkins, but they were later assigned to be the next crew (Crew-1). Lindgren was put in as a backup for the Demo-2 crew in that if either Hurley or Behnken were unable to fly, Lindgren would have substituted for either. Beyond that, though, I don't know what kind of training he had. So yes, there was one backup person for the two-person crew. -- Wizardimps (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That should be added to the article. (the prior backup assignment, and their fate) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Background
In the background for this mission it mentions 'Prior to that, SpaceX had sent twenty cargo missions to the ISS, but never a crewed one.'

SpaceX had by May 30, 2020 actually sent twenty-two uncrewed missions to the ISS, with 21 of them docking. There were twenty Commercial Resupply Services missions (with SpaceX CRS-7 failing to reach orbit). The other two uncrewed missions were SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2, and Crew Dragon Demo-1.

How should this be treated? AmigaClone (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * S'all good, man. The part you quoted said "cargo" missions, not "uncrewed" missions. SpaceX had 19 successful CRS launches that berthed (not docked BTW) to ISS. Their COTS Demo Flight 2 was a cargo ship, making 20. Crew Dragon Demo-1 was not a cargo mission, even though it carried cargo, so it doesn't count. -- Wizardimps (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the capsule named?
We say: "The spaceship used in the launch was named Endeavour, in honor of its namesake Space Shuttle."

It's true that Bob & Doug did say that - but I have two questions and an observation about that:


 * 1) Did they have the right to name it?  They are NASA employees - but the craft doesn't belong to NASA - it's the property of SpaceX.  It's not like previous NASA craft where NASA owned it and could name it as they pleased.
 * 2) What EXACTLY is named?   The "spaceship used in the launch" according to us - but what was "used in the launch" the ENTIRE spaceship - which kinda includes the booster?  Was it just the capsule?  It kinda has to be just the latter because both booster and capsule are likely to be re-used and on the next flight, this capsule could easily be paired with a different booster.
 * 3) Does anyone have ANY other reference to the fact of this naming?  Aside from that small video snippet - I can't find any NASA or SpaceX announcement to that effect.  NASA did not change the call sign from "DM-2" to "Endeavor" following the announcement - and the SpaceX commentators didn't use the "new" name.

I rather suspect that Bob & Doug thought this up together - and nobody else (and notably SpaceX) agreed with it.

My feeling is that we should say something like "The crew named the capsule Endeavor, in honor of its namesake Space Shuttle." to clarify both WHAT was named and on who's authority the name was agreed upon (ie, probably just the crew themselves).

The whole thing seems kinda weird - and a bit awkward! SteveBaker (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's mostly tradition. To answer point 3, Elon Musk, founder and majority shareholder of SpaceX, has used the name in | a tweet and in a video interview, which serves as an endorsement. For point 1, I don't think it's for Wikipedia to consider that conflict. Wikipedia should just go for what NASA/SpaceX and the media, or other reliable sources, go for. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The capsule is named "Endeavour", the booster is not named. During Apollo, the Command and Lunar Modules each had their own names while the Saturn V booster stages did not; similarly, the shuttle's external tank and solid rocket boosters were not named. What is as yet unknown, though is when this capsule gets reused (a new Crew Dragon will be "recycled" into a used Cargo Dragon), will it keep the name or not. Traditionally, SpaceX cargo ships do not have names, nor do Russia's Progress and JAXA's HTV, while ESA's ATV and NG's Cygnus do have unique names.


 * As for your point #1, it seems as if Demo-2 has started a new tradition. We'll see how it's handled in the future, they may want to announce the name before launch or they may choose to wait until it's in orbit to give it a name.
 * -- Wizardimps (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This was announced by NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine during the post launch press conference. Is that official enough ? Also note that Sunita Williams gave a name to a Starliner (Calypso). Hektor (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is the capsule stack (capsule+trunk) that is named "Endeavor", when it is refurbed for cargo launches, it would just be C206 again, which would be attached to a new trunk; we would really need to wait for its second launch, or if it is retired then it really would just be "Endeavor" -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The trunk is literally a shell to protect cargo with solar panels attached, that's why it's called a trunk to begin with. It's not an SM like on Apollo or the Starliner. Metropod (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon.webm

Spacecraft in Infobox spaceflight
C206 is the serial number for Endeavour,  and "Crew Dragon" is the spacecraft class/type, so it doesn't make sense to put in the "Spacecraft type" cell, nor does it make sense to have a "Spacecraft type" cell when we know the exact capsule used in the mission, including its serial and name, which can be displayed instead in the "Spacecraft" cell in full as "Crew Dragon C206 Endeavour". For example, we do not split "Atlantis" and "Space Shuttle" into the "Spacecraft" and "Spacecraft type" cells in articles such as STS-135, we simply put "Space Shuttle Atlantis" in the single "Spacecraft" cell.

–  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 22:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note (a) contains an error, it is not United States Air Force but United States Space Force. CRS-20 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)